Newbie Questions 2 - post them in THIS thread please!

bbaws and bambspeedy;


I was wrong about the former palace providing anti-corruption benifits to your civ. I just carried out an experiment proving the inaccuracy of this. (if anyone desires a detailed report, send me a PM and I will provide it) I still believe that palace moving is a good strategy even though the former palace gives no benfeit. (its still nice to look at in the arrial view though) A good placement of an FP and skillful moves of your palace can give your empire a great benifeit in production and help lower corruption. I dont usually try to build a palace with a leader as it is unusual for me to have one available, so I just move it to an area suffering through some corruption, pick a city target, get down a courthouse and Police station, then follow with factory then build the palace, This procedure does take either time or resources (usually some of both) but it is worth it in the long run. Also yes the WLTKD is a definate corruption reducer, and may have been part of the reduced corruption I was seeing (as well as an exceptionally well placed FP)
 
I only use Palace moving to reduce corruption and to center my capitol in the empire. Many times I will build only one side around a capital (it's near a body of water and thus cannot be centerd) and that helps. Also if Forbidden Palace and Capital are too close to each other, then that as well.
 
I guess I qualify for a newbie question. In the Civ III Info Center (an excellent article, BTW), it says that in Monarchy, the cities, towns, contribute to units, whereas they do not in Republic. I had noticed a huge drop in gpt when I switched to Republic. Republic reduces corruption somewhat, but thats not worth the gpt drop. I think I'm missing something. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by kojimanard
I guess I qualify for a newbie question. In the Civ III Info Center (an excellent article, BTW), it says that in Monarchy, the cities, towns, contribute to units, whereas they do not in Republic. I had noticed a huge drop in gpt when I switched to Republic. Republic reduces corruption somewhat, but thats not worth the gpt drop. I think I'm missing something. Thanks.

No, you aren't missing something. In Monarchy, a certain number of units per city is support-free. In Repulblic, you have to pay for all of them.

So: if you have many units and your cities make little money, you will loose money per turn. If you have few units, you may actually benefit more from the reduced corruption and waste than you have to spen on military.

Remember: Republic also has no military police - this may mean more entertainers or higher luxury rate - and that means less money, too!
 
Originally posted by kojimanard
I guess I qualify for a newbie question. In the Civ III Info Center (an excellent article, BTW), it says that in Monarchy, the cities, towns, contribute to units, whereas they do not in Republic. I had noticed a huge drop in gpt when I switched to Republic. Republic reduces corruption somewhat, but thats not worth the gpt drop. I think I'm missing something. Thanks.
I too find that often my gpt will drop when switching to republic or democracy (the two govs that support no free units), especially in the early years. However not only is corruption less in republic, each terrain square already producing at least one produces one extra. This can also balance out the unit cost.
 
If a spearman is fortified on open ground he would have a defense of 2 + 10% of 2 + 25% of 2 which add up to 2.7. So my question is, does that 2.7 get rounded up to 3 or does the combat thing actually use decimals to calculate the outcome?
 
If I change, in the editor, the maximum number of cities I can have regarding corruption, will that change the number of cities I need before I can build the FP? What is the ratio?

In the editor, the base number is 32 on huge and 24 or 16 on standard (I forget which).

Example I change from 32 to 150 - when should I be able to build the FP?

Thanks!
 
Sorry to bother everybody, but I would like to ask if signing a Trade Embargo prevents your rival's resources from passing through your trade network, and will you be prevented from using his network as well.

I am in a situation were Persia is using my harbors to transfer his saltpeter, in order to invade my 'friends' the French. I don't want to declare war on Persia, as they are stronger then me, but I don't want them to destroy the French either, since he would likely turn on *me* next... Also, I have a trade going on with the French I do not want to break.

I am trading my way up towards Military Tradition as fast as I can, and plan to sign a Military Alliance vs Persia with the French once I have 9~12 Calvary ready -- but that is ten or more turns away, and I want the French to remain militarily significant until then. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance!
 
if you put your FB in the middle of a group of cities that produces only 1 shield/gold, will the surrounding cities be treated like they're right next to my palace? or will it only effect that one city because I've already exceeded my max city #?
 
The forbidden Palace makes it so the optimal number of cities is doubled, so corruption due to # of cities will be less. And yes, this would also act like a second capital, so the nearby cities would have corruption like they were next to your palace. The forbidden palace in the middle of a bunch of 1-shield cities sounds like a perfect place for it.
 
Originally posted by Jerucondis
Sorry to bother everybody, but I would like to ask if signing a Trade Embargo prevents your rival's resources from passing through your trade network, and will you be prevented from using his network as well.

I am in a situation were Persia is using my harbors to transfer his saltpeter, in order to invade my 'friends' the French. I don't want to declare war on Persia, as they are stronger then me, but I don't want them to destroy the French either, since he would likely turn on *me* next... Also, I have a trade going on with the French I do not want to break.

I am trading my way up towards Military Tradition as fast as I can, and plan to sign a Military Alliance vs Persia with the French once I have 9~12 Calvary ready -- but that is ten or more turns away, and I want the French to remain militarily significant until then. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

It stops land trade but doesn't do so w/ sea trade. If you get France to sign the Trade Embargo then Persia can't trade w/ you or France. That'll deal a blow w/ that smart-pants Xerses.

Breaking trade deals isn't a huge deal - you just won't get anymore gpt unless you're good friends w/ other civs. So unless you have a lot to lose, go get 'em!

I suffered dearly with building Calvary. I put it up on a mountain and still it got killed by Horsmen. I was fortunante to have Marines; otherwise, I would have been defeated.
 
Well, I cannot sign a TE (Trade Embargo) with the French since they don't have Nationalism yet. I would not be worrying otherwise, as cavalry cannot crack riflemen-defended cities without heavy artillary support -- something the AI never knows to do. I plan to sign with the Greeks, who are on a different continent, and who are my most important trade partners.

However, I would like to ask if signing a TE against Persia will stop *me* from using Xerses' trade routes, as my trade must pass through Persia to reach the French. This will not stop me from declaring war on Persia once I have built up my cavalry since the trade with the French will have expired by then (12 turns left), but I do not want to anger the French, my future allies, unduly.

Thanks for your reply!
 
If you don't want Persia to declare war on you, a TE isn't always the best idea, they will get angry that you are disrupting their trade...
 
Jerucondis:

Cavalry v. Rifleman is doable, costly but still able to be sucessful. Against infantry is when cavalry charges become suicide. And yes, your trade with France will be disrupted if you proceed with the TE against Persia if the trade has to go through Persia. As Yzman said you don't want to anger the Persians or tip them off that they are a target! The best way to help france out is to either give them Lump sum cash (no gpt!!! in case france falls, you do not want to destroy your rep. or technology if you feel that they will still be valuable allies after dealing with the Persians.)
 
Cavalry vs. infantry is only doable with excessive amounts of Arty - and that means you have to outproduce the other guy in infantry to protect the Arty.... :(
 
Back again with another dumb newbie question (or two)

last night I discovered the delights of artillary even if it was only catapults. It seems that I can't kill defenders by knocking the crap out of them - seems as though I can only take them down to 1 hp left. Am I correct?

Second - the whole point of the excecise was to reduce the borders around a couple of cities so I could get to some resources that were near by without kiling off the civ entirely. But even though I reduced the pop count for 6 to 1 and destroyed things like barracks etc, the borders didn't shrink. Did I do something wrong?

And finally, if the dumb AI civs won't build roads to their borders, why do I have to declare war on them just to get my workers in to build the roads right to their front door for all the goodies I want to sell? Don't want an RoP because the little sods are soon crawling all over my place creating havoc. Any tips?
 
why i can't see any goody hut anymore? is it only for expansionist civs ? or they took it away faster than others? I play France
 
Originally posted by warmonger
last night I discovered the delights of artillary even if it was only catapults. It seems that I can't kill defenders by knocking the crap out of them - seems as though I can only take them down to 1 hp left. Am I correct?
Yup. Bombardment is non-lethal by default. You use it to break your enemy down to 1 HP, which you then destroy with regular forces.

The option to make bombardment lethal was added in one of the most recent patches.

Second - the whole point of the excecise was to reduce the borders around a couple of cities so I could get to some resources that were near by without kiling off the civ entirely. But even though I reduced the pop count for 6 to 1 and destroyed things like barracks etc, the borders didn't shrink. Did I do something wrong?
Borders are not based on population, or even on what improvements have been built, but rather on the level of culture the city has. Destroying a culture building does not remove the culture already attained. If it has expanded its borders at all, the only way to "shrink" them is to take or destroy the city.

The other option is to rush culture buildings in your own neighboring city, and hope you attain enough culture to "push" the borders back.

And finally, if the dumb AI civs won't build roads to their borders, why do I have to declare war on them just to get my workers in to build the roads right to their front door for all the goodies I want to sell? Don't want an RoP because the little sods are soon crawling all over my place creating havoc. Any tips?
I don't have any tips on this one. I usually just wait until the idiots build the necessary roads, or harbors. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom