Hi everyone.
I would just like to make a couple of points about civ 3. I was using the depotism government, and decided to change to monarchy as it would reduce the corruption. Then I suddenly found out I was losing more, due to the increased charge for the unit support. So now I was worse off! I suppose the monarchy government is better suited for cultural victories (?) and such like, with a lesser army. But still I think it would be better if the unit support was the same as depotism (as you have to pay to obtain the monarchy in the first place). I then experimented with the republic, which, as most of you will know, is even dearer for army costs. And I was out of pocket again, this time even more so. So I have stuck with the depotism for now.
One more niggle. To fight the corruption, I have built several buildings to take it down a little, which they do, but then I find the maintenance cost has risen, so once again I am no better off, and the situation is the same as the government one.
I believe this aspect of the game is wrong, giving in one hand and taking from the other. At least we should be able to make a fairly substantial profit, and reasonable progress, as we put a lot of money and time into the governments and buildings.
As a newcomer I may be going wrong somewhere, and the monarchy and republic maybe do have great benefits, and anyone who can shed some light on this would be greatly appreciated.
Besides these two small problems, I do find the game utterly absorbing and well worth the money!
Kev.
I would just like to make a couple of points about civ 3. I was using the depotism government, and decided to change to monarchy as it would reduce the corruption. Then I suddenly found out I was losing more, due to the increased charge for the unit support. So now I was worse off! I suppose the monarchy government is better suited for cultural victories (?) and such like, with a lesser army. But still I think it would be better if the unit support was the same as depotism (as you have to pay to obtain the monarchy in the first place). I then experimented with the republic, which, as most of you will know, is even dearer for army costs. And I was out of pocket again, this time even more so. So I have stuck with the depotism for now.
One more niggle. To fight the corruption, I have built several buildings to take it down a little, which they do, but then I find the maintenance cost has risen, so once again I am no better off, and the situation is the same as the government one.
I believe this aspect of the game is wrong, giving in one hand and taking from the other. At least we should be able to make a fairly substantial profit, and reasonable progress, as we put a lot of money and time into the governments and buildings.
As a newcomer I may be going wrong somewhere, and the monarchy and republic maybe do have great benefits, and anyone who can shed some light on this would be greatly appreciated.
Besides these two small problems, I do find the game utterly absorbing and well worth the money!
Kev.