LotR discussions
- Thread starter Arathorn
- Start date
T-hawk
Transcend
Heh, I see you updated your avatar, Arathorn, I was wondering if it was time for that 
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,063
That's it? No more interest than that? Hmph.
Filling games has been starting to get tough recently. I am not use to multiple days to fill a LK game, and my AWE game almost didn't start.
====================
Not a sign up - still no desire to try sid. Passive AW is to brutal as I suspect resources will kill you.
Filling games has been starting to get tough recently. I am not use to multiple days to fill a LK game, and my AWE game almost didn't start.
====================
Not a sign up - still no desire to try sid. Passive AW is to brutal as I suspect resources will kill you.
Coffee
Cdn Expat
Not a sign up - I'd add science to the resource problem. In PTW I was able to research at 4 turns on emperor by the late industrial age. The best I can do in conquests is 8 turns and the scientific civs are racing away it. Not necessarily a bug but you might want to tune the bombers down.
Arizona_Steve
King
Another thought. Passive AW could be even more interesting (and possibly more winnable) if we set the aggression level to maximum. This will cause lots of wars between the rival civs, and would hopefully give us some opportunities to expand our empire if and when cities are razed near our borders.
I'm really not worried about science much for a passive AW. With the power of armies to pillage, it's not too hard to slow down the enemy civs -- even on the far continent. Yes, tech is a bit slower because you don't get two cores from the FP, but Communism helps with that significantly! And while you can't speed yourself up too far too easily, it's not hard to slow down the AI, which is just as good.
As for resources, well, yeah, they can be kind of a pain. But the C3C AI spaces its cities much further apart than the PTW one did, and you can muscle a city into locations in the enemy core to get a desperately-needed resource (army/settler pairs!). You can even do it for luxuries.
High AI aggression would make it easier, true. If we went Monarch difficulty, I mean lean in that direction. Regeant can be enough of a pain for PAW (I think) but I don't think we'd need the help of too many intra-AI wars.
I'd love to do PAW...But it needs a couple more committed souls (pun intended).
Arathorn
As for resources, well, yeah, they can be kind of a pain. But the C3C AI spaces its cities much further apart than the PTW one did, and you can muscle a city into locations in the enemy core to get a desperately-needed resource (army/settler pairs!). You can even do it for luxuries.
High AI aggression would make it easier, true. If we went Monarch difficulty, I mean lean in that direction. Regeant can be enough of a pain for PAW (I think) but I don't think we'd need the help of too many intra-AI wars.
I'd love to do PAW...But it needs a couple more committed souls (pun intended).
Arathorn
Kylearan
compound eye
Hi,
I loved your original passive aggression Epic, Arathorn, but I'm not sure this concept will carry over to C3C so well. The C3C AIs take a lot more care to put enough units into their cities to protect them against culture flips. Has anyone tried the original concept in C3C? Especially the beginning might turn put problematic, if the player won't get enough cities in the land-grab phase. By the way, I guess recapturing lost cities won't be allowed as well?
But still, the concept is interesting. All the player's aggressive settlements will be in immediate striking range of AIs units, so lots of defensive units will be needed, more than usual.
I'm not sure what Charis has planned about the Age of Discovery Conquest or if he just got lost in MoO and WoW, so... if, at a later stage of the game, 5 turns per player if needed would be allowed, I'd like to join if you'll have me.
-Kylearan
I loved your original passive aggression Epic, Arathorn, but I'm not sure this concept will carry over to C3C so well. The C3C AIs take a lot more care to put enough units into their cities to protect them against culture flips. Has anyone tried the original concept in C3C? Especially the beginning might turn put problematic, if the player won't get enough cities in the land-grab phase. By the way, I guess recapturing lost cities won't be allowed as well?
But still, the concept is interesting. All the player's aggressive settlements will be in immediate striking range of AIs units, so lots of defensive units will be needed, more than usual.
I'm not sure what Charis has planned about the Age of Discovery Conquest or if he just got lost in MoO and WoW, so... if, at a later stage of the game, 5 turns per player if needed would be allowed, I'd like to join if you'll have me.
-Kylearan
"LotR13 Schizo SGers" will start soon, hopefully tonight. We'll go with 4 if needed and see if a 5th will join after it's underway.
Roster:
Arathorn
Kylerean
T-hawk
Arizona_Steve
What patch is everyone using? I've not seen a need yet to go away from 1.15, but I'm happy with 1.22 (or whatever it is), if that's what the general consensus is.
Regarding flips, I've been experimenting a bit with PAW (started it late, though, so it doesn't really count) and my other "tweaks" to a hoped-for PAW game (civ-name, city names, leader names, etc.) and I've gotten some flips. The AI will garrison flip-risks very heavily during peace but only approximately normally during wartime. Let me tell you, though, losing a border city really sucks! And I'm not kidding about settler-army pairs. It's about the only way to form a city.
We will be led by Thunderfall. Our civ is the Succession Gamers. Cities are named after participants in the LotR series of SGs. We are religious and militaristic, starting with The Wheel and Ceremonial Burial. Our UU is the samurai, a 4/4/2 available with chivalry. Any resemblance to an existing civ is purely in your imagination *cough, cough*! No lethal land bombard for bombers. I'm thinking continents, very landy.
We'll start at ten turns per player, but less is pretty much always acceptable. Late-game turns will take a fair bit longer, so going down to 5 is always an option.
Opinions/thoughts on difficulty level before I start it up tonight? Or on anything else?
Arathorn
Roster:
Arathorn
Kylerean
T-hawk
Arizona_Steve
What patch is everyone using? I've not seen a need yet to go away from 1.15, but I'm happy with 1.22 (or whatever it is), if that's what the general consensus is.
Regarding flips, I've been experimenting a bit with PAW (started it late, though, so it doesn't really count) and my other "tweaks" to a hoped-for PAW game (civ-name, city names, leader names, etc.) and I've gotten some flips. The AI will garrison flip-risks very heavily during peace but only approximately normally during wartime. Let me tell you, though, losing a border city really sucks! And I'm not kidding about settler-army pairs. It's about the only way to form a city.
We will be led by Thunderfall. Our civ is the Succession Gamers. Cities are named after participants in the LotR series of SGs. We are religious and militaristic, starting with The Wheel and Ceremonial Burial. Our UU is the samurai, a 4/4/2 available with chivalry. Any resemblance to an existing civ is purely in your imagination *cough, cough*! No lethal land bombard for bombers. I'm thinking continents, very landy.
We'll start at ten turns per player, but less is pretty much always acceptable. Late-game turns will take a fair bit longer, so going down to 5 is always an option.
Opinions/thoughts on difficulty level before I start it up tonight? Or on anything else?
Arathorn
Kylearan
compound eye
I'm still using patch 1.15, and would like to leave it that way since the RB Epics are using this version as well. If the team decides to use a different patch, I'll be forced to look into how to use two different versions at once...
Regarding difficulty, I would be ready to try this on monarch, although it will be a lot harder than normal AW. I guess the beginning will be about the same, but because we will expand *a lot* slower than usual, it will probably become very difficult from the knight era on, so I won't have objections to play this on regent.
Bottom line: As long as we don't try this on emperor or above, I'll play whatever level the rest wants to play.
-Kylearan
Regarding difficulty, I would be ready to try this on monarch, although it will be a lot harder than normal AW. I guess the beginning will be about the same, but because we will expand *a lot* slower than usual, it will probably become very difficult from the knight era on, so I won't have objections to play this on regent.
Bottom line: As long as we don't try this on emperor or above, I'll play whatever level the rest wants to play.
-Kylearan
I'd like to play the Schizo game, one of the AWE games is at the stage of dotting the t's and crossing the i's. 
I'm on v.1.15, and am willing to play whatever level Arathorn thinks is proper. I'd prefer not to switch versions, since my other SG's are on 1.15.
I'm on v.1.15, and am willing to play whatever level Arathorn thinks is proper. I'd prefer not to switch versions, since my other SG's are on 1.15.
T_McC, you're in.
Looking like sticking with patch 1.15 is going to work. I think T-hawk's got both up and running. Arizona_Steve, that gonna work for you?
@Lee: Well, I don't recall what cities are where in the order, but I hope you're not banished to the tundra!
Arathorn
Looking like sticking with patch 1.15 is going to work. I think T-hawk's got both up and running. Arizona_Steve, that gonna work for you?
@Lee: Well, I don't recall what cities are where in the order, but I hope you're not banished to the tundra!
Arathorn
T-hawk
Transcend
I'd recommend not naming cities after active participants in this game. "Arathorn builds a cathedral" would be a very ambiguous statement...
Can we get a decision (from Charis I guess - I'll PM him) on what patch version the next Conquests scenario is going to run? That's pretty much the driving force for selecting a patch for other games with RBC players.
Difficulty - let's rock on Monarch.
I'd say to put the aggression slider one notch up. Mostly what we want to avoid is a continent that we're not in contact with staying at peace with themselves and running away in tech.
Can we get a decision (from Charis I guess - I'll PM him) on what patch version the next Conquests scenario is going to run? That's pretty much the driving force for selecting a patch for other games with RBC players.
Difficulty - let's rock on Monarch.
I'd say to put the aggression slider one notch up. Mostly what we want to avoid is a continent that we're not in contact with staying at peace with themselves and running away in tech.Arizona_Steve
King
I'm running 1.22 for my solo games right now, but can easily go back to 1.15.
Is there any way to install two copies of Civ III, with different versions?
Is there any way to install two copies of Civ III, with different versions?
Yes, you can have two different versions running at once. It's not actually that hard. Just install them in different places and patch them differently.
The hard/interesting part is finding the 1.15 patch if you don't still have it on your system.
Arathorn
The hard/interesting part is finding the 1.15 patch if you don't still have it on your system.
Arathorn
Arizona_Steve
King
No worries there. Due to slow dial-up, I frequently dump all my downloaded files to CD-ROMs. I'm pretty certain that 1.15 is there somewhere.
Aggie
Deity
For 1.15 you can also visit the patches section of CFC
Kylearan
compound eye
Oooh, reports could be ambigious, yes...
"Charis flips away!" (Is he playing MoO now?)
"Arathorn has built a settler." (As can be seen in his avatar...)
"T-Hawk riots!" (Has someone mis-managed his carefully set-up worker farm?)
