I have never won Civ III on Monach level.

[GPWinLA]

I have never won this game at Monarch level. I always wind up with what I think is a great, well-developed, large civilization (no matter what civ I play as), and then, while I am struggling to build musketmen as a Republic, all of my neighbors roll up with their riflemen and cavalry and smear me.

I don't get it. There has got to be some trick, some tried-and-true method that everyone else is using.

This most recent game, I stopped expanding with 22 cities, to avoid corruption. I had a right of passage agreement with the Indians, who are my rich, advanced neighbors, and I successfully repulsed the Japanese, Persians, and Babylonians in 3 wars. Then, once again, the riflemen and cavalry appeared while I was trying to build musketmen and upgrade my pikemen.

 

[Aabraxan]

Welcome to CFC, GPWinLA!

It's a little tough to give good advice without seeing a save, so I'd suggest posting one. That way, other players can actually take a look at your game & see what you're doing, or not doing. With that said, there are a few mistakes that crop up pretty regularly in the "New player needs help" threads.

• Not enough workers, soon enough;
• Too many unnecessary buildings;
• Not enough trading;
• Too many defensive units/too few attackers;
• Poor city placement.

There are also a few bits of information that will help other players in assisting you, so I'm going to go ahead and ask now:

• What version are you playing?
• What are your game settings (landform, age, barbs, etc.)?
• What Victory Condition (VC) are your aiming for?

Let me also suggest a visit to the Civ III War Academy. There are some great articles that should help your game.

 

[vmxa]

I agree with those point, maybe the trading one could be skipped as you can win with zero trades. They do however help you, if done properly.

You could also start a game in the stories thread with saves and pix and some report as to what you are trying to accomplish. You can get feedback as you go along and ot invest days, before you discover problems.

 

[GPWinLA]

I am running Civ III for Mac, 1.21g.

I am playing as the Zulu, it is 1020 AD. Notice the green Japanese cavalry at the right of the picture.

I thought that I did a good job of grabbing just the right amount of contiguous territory, with lots of resources and good terrain.

 

[lucashp]

mac player

 

[Optional]

I have never won this game at Monarch level.

I've uploaded your save, and it says Emperor? And you did Ok, because:

I did a good job of grabbing just the right amount of contiguous territory, with lots of resources and good terrain.

You're in a spot of trouble now, I see that. I think you can easily become a much better player by just improving your awareness on a couple of things.
In this save, in my opinion, your basic issues are:
* Being behind in tech.
* Having too many defensive units (too few attacking ones).

I can't really know for sure how you ended up being behind in tech, but what you would normally do have a decent tech pace is:
* Research as horizontally as possible on the tech tree. Then use those techs to trade for the ones that the AI has researched.
* Check regularly what the AI has researched, so that you don't miss trade opportunities.
The Zulu's are not known for their research speed, but with a decent size empire like you've got here, and republic as your government, you should at least be able to keep up.

Then your military: too many defensive units. The thing is: often attacking units give you better defense, because they give you the possibility to attack incoming units on your own turn. Especially along your coastline defensive units are almost completely useless. What are you going to do if an enemy galley drops off a few Medieval Infantry? With Knights you can brush them away, Musketmen can only stand and watch.
You do need defensive units in your border towns that can be hit by enemy Cavalry in one turn, coming out of the fog of war. But your mix here isn't quite right, and makes you vulnerable.

I saw you let the governor manage your citizens. If you want to become a better player you should do it yourself. The governor does wasteful things. Proper micro management is a bit of a chore, but required on the higher levels.

Your city placement seems fine to me, but your cities are not used in the most effective way. You're not specializing properly. What I saw is that you had cities without a food bonus with granaries, and cities with a food bonus that had no granaries.
Cities that have a food bonus are better at producing growth; they're better at producing workers and settlers, and a granary improves that quality even more. Cities that don't have a food bonus you're likely to use for unit production. Then you would build a barracks here, and no granary.
I saw some towns (Intombe, Umtata, Isandhlawa) that were producing units, but had no barracks. Barracks give your units an extra hitpoint, making them stronger, and the chance to create leaders gets increased significantly. Well, it's mainly attacking units that will generate leaders. This is another point for attacking units. I also saw a town with a barracks (Mpondo) that was making a cannon. Artillery doesn't get an extra hitpoint, so they don't profit from being built in a town with a barracks. Artillery you would normally build in towns without barracks.

Ulundi and Zimbabwe had a colosseum. Colosseums are very expensive for what they give. If you're not going for a cultural win then the shields are better invested in something else. I believe both towns had a barracks as well. If the barracks were there earlier, you should have mainly built units there. Use the lux slider to keep your towns from rioting, or try to capture more luxuries.

So there's room for improvement, but I don't think it would take you too much to move up from here.

Edit: I forgot something; you said you didn't expand any further because of corruption. That should never keep you from expanding. Yeah, you're corruption percentage goes up as you grow bigger, but those extra towns are still helping you!

 

[vmxa]

I am running Civ III for Mac, 1.21g.

I am not certain of it, but I thought a patch came out for Mac at the 1.29F level? Was it called 1.21g? I mention it, because most only have 1.29f version.

SeedBeast should give the correct version an dlevle of the game. I like to use it, as it can load nearly any save.

As Optional said, you must always keep expanding. You can take some time off, to allow war issues or trades or deals to mature, but in the main keep adding land.

Corruption is a bit more of an issue in vanilla as specialist give one 1 gold or beaker.

 

[GPWinLA]

Thanks to all of you for your kind assistance.

What is the general policy for improvements? I mean, do you ordinarily build a temple, library, aqueduct, courthouse, marketplace, in every city?

Also, I normally try to connect all my cities by roads, from the very beginning of the game. I notice that the AI frequently has no connecting roads. How does it move resources?

I get the feeling that I am wasting turns and shields improving my civ in every way possible, when that is not what I should be doing.

BTW, I went back to the 800's AD, just after the last war, and started building musketmen and knights instead of courthouses, aqueducts, and libraries. Everything went fine, until I changed, in 1020, to building culture. Once again, in 1040, the Japanese attacked my eastern border with tons of cavalry and riflemen, and took two cities instantly. I resigned, again. I was just too far behind in tech.

 

[Greyhawk1]

Civ 3 is heavy on micromanagement. Sometimes with a little bit of worked tile juggling you can get vital units that little bit earlier. If you can make a city build something with no wasted shields on the last turn (by turning a worked tile from shields to commerce for instance, you could build the unit/building and maybe get a few extra GP that turn.

I play at Warlord but I have noticed if you do a little micromanagement like that it can work wonders. At higher levels I imagine it starts to become vital as the AI gets insane advantages over the player at those levels.

 

[vmxa]

What is the general policy for improvements? I mean, do you ordinarily build a temple, library, aqueduct, courthouse, marketplace, in every city?

Also, I normally try to connect all my cities by roads, from the very beginning of the game. I notice that the AI frequently has no connecting roads. How does it move resources?

I get the feeling that I am wasting turns and shields improving my civ in every way possible, when that is not what I should be doing.

BTW, I went back to the 800's AD, just after the last war, and started building musketmen and knights instead of courthouses, aqueducts, and libraries. Everything went fine, until I changed, in 1020, to building culture. Once again, in 1040, the Japanese attacked my eastern border with tons of cavalry and riflemen, and took two cities instantly. I resigned, again. I was just too far behind in tech.

I think you answered the question in your post. You were run over when making structures every where. You backed up and desist from that and got past the the point where it fell apart.

That answers the question. The easy way to look at it is to evaluate what your empire needs and what each town needs. If they match up, then that is the correct build.

IOW you cannot really make good progress in all games at all levels with the concept that I learned a new structure, so lets put one up now every where.

It may well turn out that when you learn Lit, you have no towns that should build a lib right now. Some that could and other that should wait some and others that should never have one.

How big is the place, how big will it get and how soon. How corrupt is it? If it is never going to net more than 1 beaker, the only reason to put up a lib is to get the culture. Do you you want that culture in that town?

Every structure has a purpose and a cost to build and maintain. So determine, if it makes sense. An example, if you are not going to make units in a town, no need to build a barracks, unless it is going to be a conflict site. If it could not make the current unit builds in a reasonable time, don't.

 

[Optional]

Just to come back to the corruption bit; you have indeed quite some corruption here, while there are methods to reduce it.
You're playing Vanilla (that's how we call the original Civ III version) and the corruption was quite bad there. I'm playing Conquests, where the corruption model is quite different, but from these forums I understand that a lot of Vanilla players have found benefit from Ring City Placement. This is an article that explains it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=57026

Furthermore, and perhaps even more important, you can build the Forbidden Palace. This will make a huuuuge difference against corruption. You know your palace creates a core of low corruption? Well, the Forbidden Palace does something similar; it creates a second core, making your empire much more productive. The Forbidden Palace is a must build; you can simply not do without.

You asked about buildings; I think I would struggle to write things down comprehensively, but you could make a start by reading Aabraxan's article on multiplier buildings. Aabraxan is the first guy who answered your post and the link to the article is in his signature. It'll brush you up on Libraries and stuff.

What I saw in your save was that you had a lot of irrigation. Irrigation is good, but also your barracks towns had nearly only irrigation. Probably you haven't built only units there, but also settlers and workers. Lack of specialization means you've been wasteful. Barracks towns need a lot of mines, so you can make a high military production there. Building settlers and workers you should concentrate as much as possible in granary towns, that you've specialized in growth.

 

[rysingsun]

i only looked at the screenshot, not the save, but i will post what i observe:

1) seems like most of your workers are out roading hills and cutting down jungles in corrupt territory while your capital has many unworked tiles. this leaves production and commerce low in the cities that really count.

2) since you claim you are about to get overrun by cavalry and rifles, can you explain why you find it worthwhile to start libraries courthouses and aquaducts in corrupt towns that will take 40 or more turns to complete?

3) defensive units don't win games. they just prolong a loss by making the ai do more work to conquer you. without lots of offensive units you cannot retake anything you've lost, so your empire can only get smaller, never bigger.

edit> a discussion on the philosophy of structures:

there are two philosophies i would like to compare. which one would describe you?

1) i discover a tech which allows me to build a structure. i say to myself "cool structure! i want to build it! where shall i build it? in this city? in that city? i have to build it somewhere ... ok i'll switch this unit to this structure and this settler to this structure too and this unit also ...

2) i notice that soon my capital will hit size 6 and won't be able to grow. i think to myself "past games teach me that it is normal to have a size 12 capital. what must i build to get it there? hmmm ... an aquaduct! hmm, i hate to switch away from building a unit. hmmm ... so i really need that aqua? hmmm ... well ... reluctantly i will build an aquaduct because i really really need it. ok! one aquaduct coming up! can't wait till i can go back to building knights though!"

i would wager you are a type 1. strive to be a type 2.

 

[nerovats]

Just from picture:
mine grass, irrigate plains is good rule of thumb
Don't build workers in cities over size 6, takes long to grow citizen back
No temples or caths, get luxes by trading or force
No need to have units in all your cities.
Build lot of attackers only few defenders AI won't attack as soon if they consider you strong
Then use your army to grab luxes/resources. Looks like you didn't conquer a single city, even though there are some luxes close to you borders.

 

[LowEndUserII]

All of the advice from the more experienced players is excellent.

However I would consider the following based on what Vmxa & Zerksees preaches :

1:An early war ( depending on the map location in any Game ) to secure defensible borders so you don`t have to defend on more then 2 fronts and if possible get Iron/Horses. I really doubt you can win without those in the long Game.

2. Cripple the nearest Civ early on. The Indians would have been, and still are, a good target here, using an Archer Stack supported by Spears if that`s all you have. Archers are cheap & fast to build killers up to and even past the Middle Ages. Even taking or razing just 1-2 AI cities and capturing 1-2 AI workers very early will cripple them for the whole Game.

Perhaps look at Zerk`s games here, especially his Emperors Training Game, which has excellent exchanges with Vmxa & other lurkers on tactics.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4550062#post4550062

 

[Spoonwood]

Most of what VMXA, Optional, and Aabraxan have said seems on point. What victory condition do you have in mind GPWinLA? What buildings you want and when will vary somewhat with desired victory condition. I could probably spell out why you would want every single building and wonder in the game, but you need to coordinate building improvements and/or wonders with your desired victory condition to play well.

No need to have units in all your cities.

I don't agree. I'd recommed having at least one unit in every city. If you start playing Deity and sometimes even Demi-God leaving a town open (after the end of the ancient ages about) comes as basically asking the AI to take that city from you. Or at least, that's my guess since I try not to leave towns completely undefended. This doesn't mean I have anything more than a warrior in some towns though.

No temples or caths, get luxes by trading or force

That seems true for this map, but on some maps you'll almost surely want temples and cathedrals. Also, with luxes by trading or force you need marketplaces for this work out well.

[1:An early war ( depending on the map location in any Game ) to secure defensible borders so you don`t have to defend on more then 2 fronts and if possible get Iron/Horses. I really doubt you can win without those in the long Game.]

You can win on Deity without such a war. Really, you can win on Deity without any wars. See here for something very close http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281173. You can also win on demi-god with just 5 cities with just one attack for a GA. Some of the top hall of fame games (the ones I've seen write-ups for) in terms of score at Sid also didn't fight all that much until military tradition. Check Moonsinger's and SirPleb's games.

In my experience building more attackers than defenders even seems the better strategy if playing with just one city and you want to play peacefully.

 

[nerovats]

My tips were general guidelines.
Attackers are valued higher by the AI, with 10 attackers they cosidder you stronger then with 10 defenders.
Sometimes you need temples, but luxes are way more effective, especially with markets. Can also use lux slider, as a temple could also be 2 swords. 15 cities without a temple would then give 30 swords, which should easily get you a lux.
Leaving cities open also works great for baiting the AI. I usually hardly build any defenders even on deity, and don't garrison all cities, just some near the border if the AI could take them in their initial attack. For the rest I use fast attackers strategically located so I can get enough of them anywhere on my border.
Best thing I like about civ is there is no best trategy. To many VC's for that. Also what works great for deity, will probably not be the best for monarch let alone chieftain. Also pangea will play different form 80% archipello.

 

[vmxa]

I think what one can do as an experience player that is comfortable at all levels and what one can do still trying to beat monarch are vastly different. So i would not point to games where someone did this or that at Deity. That cannot be done by all.

Having units in every town is pointless at Monarch, unless you are in a form of government that can use MP's. Most will be in Republic and nothing is gained. Put units where they are needed.

I will ignore temples as that is a function of your game plan, but cath are not justified unless going for a culture win. The point to players struggling with Monarch is they are building too much crap.

For those with the skills and knowledge, build what you want. Otherwise we need to consul them to use care.

Again we are giving advise to people that are not having success at Monarch. Deity and Sid players do not need advice.

 

[Spoonwood]

Good point about considering your audienced VMXA. I haven't really left towns completely undefended beyond the ReX phase at any level. I thought the AIs would act a little more aggressively than that at Monarch. I like nerovats idea of using undefended towns within your empire as "bait" for the AIs.

 

[Desertsnow]

You've got too much irrigation and not enough mining. Irrigation is good, but you'll want more mines (usually best done in grassland tiles), for productivity.

On the other hand, very remote cities (which have little chance of becoming productive) should be mostly irrigated, and turned into specialist farms. A specialist farm is a city that produces just enough food to maintain population, with any other citizens becoming scientists or tax collectors.

You should not be intimidated from expanding as far as you can. If the city is hopelessly corrupt, turn it into one of those specialist farms. See if you can rush a settler or two from Isipezi or New Zimbabwe and squeeze in some more cities in the space between Indus and Yangchow while you still can, and maybe grab the gems. Also, establish some cities in the empty land around New Hlobane, especially for the silks and the fish. You will need to train a few more workers for these cities, but it should be worth it.

You can use more workers in general. Industrial tribes can get away with building fewer workers, but not Zulu.

You have several cities building temples or cathedrals. Unless you're aiming for a cultural victory, you should not need so many. If you need culture, build libraries. If you need happiness, acquire more luxury resources or adjust your luxury slider up. If you do build temples, build them in your frontier towns in danger of culture flip.

Edo is usually a Japanese city. Did you acquire it by capture or culture flip? It's a good thing either way, but if it was the only city taken in the war then you must have been struggling a little. Your military should have just enough defensive units to defend your cities and provide some MP, with the rest being offensive units and artillery. If a city is in danger of attack, bring out the extra offensive units and attack the attackers before they can endanger your city.

Your biggest mistake, I think, is the land management issue. Do build more mines in your core. Your second biggest mistake is failing to expand when you have the opportunity. Do not hesitate to spread out as far as you can. Your third biggest mistake is the offense to defense ratio.

 

[anaxagoras]

...secure defensible borders so you don`t have to defend on more then 2 fronts

I'd just like to second this piece of advice. You have a tremendously long front in this map, having developed east and west on a horizontal map. That makes your defensive task very difficult. Those long lakes should give you the ability to shorten your interior lines and make for short, defensible fronts, but you haven't used your terrain well. You are right next to India, between the two lakes, for example. Get them out of there. You have a lot of units in the east, but you face two possible opponents there. If you ally with Japan against India, you can take that middle ground while distracting Japan from attackin you and getting them to fill in so you face only one opponent there. Once India is reduced (and after your 20-turn alliance is over), ally with India and at least one or two other powers against Japan. Use the various AI Civs against one another.

And don't build a lot of muskets, unless you just have no other choice. Knights cost a lot more, but are much more valuable. And since you face cavalry, you don't really want muskets, anyway. Muskets won't stand up to attacking cavalry, and cavarly can just ride past your strongpoints. You need to counter-punch against them. Cavalry defend relatively poorly, so concede ground if you have to, and then move in with knights after they have spent themselves. Really, though, if they are attacking with cavalry you need to get Military Tradition for yourself. If you can't work out a peaceful trade, then beat it out of someone.

And I also second the advice about defense along the coast. Use a reaction force of a couple of knights (cavalry when you get them) to defend against amphibious invasions. You can defend five or six cities with just two or three knights (pretty much your entire coast with cavalry). Just wait for the AI to land, then swoop down and squash the invaders. If you have five or six individual defenders, you are using twice as much unit support, but defending less effectively, since your defenders just have to wait to be attacked (which also generates WW, by the way; counter-attacking does not). Meanwhile the tiny AI force can pillage your valuable improvements.