Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
future tech is simply Firaxis way of saying you ain't supposed to get here anyways
Newbie Questions 2 - post them in THIS thread please!
- Thread starter Lt. 'Killer' M.
- Start date
future tech is simply Firaxis way of saying you ain't supposed to get here anyways
Not really a newbie question, but I hope somebody can help me out here. Or let me know where else I can post this.
The only thing that really bothers me is the fact that as a new unit is available why do the outdated ones remain in the Q? Example, why in the year 2000 would I want to build a warrior? It just makes it longer to scroll the the Q. Is there any kind of patch or something that could solve this?
The only thing that really bothers me is the fact that as a new unit is available why do the outdated ones remain in the Q? Example, why in the year 2000 would I want to build a warrior? It just makes it longer to scroll the the Q. Is there any kind of patch or something that could solve this?
There are different upgrade paths that the units follow, such as chariot->horseman->knight->and so on. The queue should contain the newest unit in each path that can be built in that city. For example the queue in one city may contain warriors, while swordsman in another if some cities have iron and others don't. But warriors in 2000? I have no idea why that would be the case. I don't ever remember seeing that, not even when my game was unpatched. Just in case, though, you may want to download version 1.29f from the official Civ3 website.
Mad Bomber
Commander
Killer M:
When did future techs start giving 5 pts per tech? Heck,if that is so it might be worth researching! I get less that 0.1 per future tech researched and I just cut my research to zero, and use the money to improve cities to increase my population. Ok, I think I get it now, you are refering to the total of all future tech researched (for like 20 + future techs)
When did future techs start giving 5 pts per tech? Heck,if that is so it might be worth researching! I get less that 0.1 per future tech researched and I just cut my research to zero, and use the money to improve cities to increase my population. Ok, I think I get it now, you are refering to the total of all future tech researched (for like 20 + future techs)
I thought it was in Civ 2 where future techs each added 5 points to your total score. In Civ 3 if it does add 5 points, would that be 5 points only for every turn you have that tech, therefore not really increasing your "real" score (average score of all turns) by too much? Or could it be even less significant, only increasing the score by 5 points for just the turn that you get the tech?
Lieutenant_Qc
Chieftain
sorry I've already posted that question in another thread but can't find it...
and maybe someone else has already asked It but anyway I'd just like to know ***why can people may prefer republic over democracy??*** both give more commerce but under democracy your workers work faster and you get less corruption...
in this case how can u prefer republic?
and maybe someone else has already asked It but anyway I'd just like to know ***why can people may prefer republic over democracy??*** both give more commerce but under democracy your workers work faster and you get less corruption...
in this case how can u prefer republic?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Nix- Longbowman and swordsmen don't ugrade to anything so that is why they remain in the build queue. Some mods have longbowman and swordsmen upgradeable to riflemen and this eliminates these from the build queue when you get nationalism.
Lieutenant_QC - Republic has less WW (war weariness). The difference in corruption between republic and democracy isn't very much at all (10% or less in my experiences). So if you need to bump the luxury rate up 10% or higher because you are a democracy, than you would need to in a republic, you just lost all the corruption benefit of democracy. If you have entertainers because of WW that you wouldn't need under a republic, then the democracy is even more worse off, except for worker speed. But I usually have most of my productive regions fully developed by the time I get democracy, that the extra worker speed isn't too important.
If you are non-religious, then the anarchy time isn't worth it to keep going from Democracy to communism or monarchy during war, then back to democracy during peace. You need to stay in democracy for a very long time to actually gain back all the lost production/commerce you lost while having 4-8 turns of anarchy.
If you are religious, or you know you will stay at peace for a long time, or all by yourself on an island/continent, then by all means go to democracy.
Lieutenant_QC - Republic has less WW (war weariness). The difference in corruption between republic and democracy isn't very much at all (10% or less in my experiences). So if you need to bump the luxury rate up 10% or higher because you are a democracy, than you would need to in a republic, you just lost all the corruption benefit of democracy. If you have entertainers because of WW that you wouldn't need under a republic, then the democracy is even more worse off, except for worker speed. But I usually have most of my productive regions fully developed by the time I get democracy, that the extra worker speed isn't too important.
If you are non-religious, then the anarchy time isn't worth it to keep going from Democracy to communism or monarchy during war, then back to democracy during peace. You need to stay in democracy for a very long time to actually gain back all the lost production/commerce you lost while having 4-8 turns of anarchy.
If you are religious, or you know you will stay at peace for a long time, or all by yourself on an island/continent, then by all means go to democracy.
Lieutenant_Qc
Chieftain
ok so in long peace time it would be better anyway to be a democracy, republic being better only in war time (in which case comm. and monarchy would be better if youre going for a long war)
but if we say : 10% corruption bonus from demo= 10% higher happiness slider to equalize republic's WW,
demo stills better, no? cuz they still get the worker bonus (which may be useful in war to road/railroad behind your forces or simply in front of them to give your military a mobility advantage)
correct me if im wrong?
Evincar
Iron works is a legend!!
The problem is, you never know when an AI will backstab you (In fact, sometimes you know they will do it in 5 or less turns, you only wonder who will begin and how many will join againts you, but that's another different thing
)So, if you feel "safe", that is, none can attack you and cause you noticeable casualties, nor keep troops in your borders for a long time, and you don't plan a conquest war, Democracy is better. However, if you are in an unstable world, where wars declared often, treaties are used as WC paper and so on, I feel safer in Republic. You lose some money and your workers are lazier, but if someone decides to declare war on you, you can stand quite a lot of turns. Demos on the other hand often fall as soon as they see an armed guy stay in their borders for 2 turns!!. To sum up:
Republic: Less productivity, but resistant to war.
Demo: More productivity, but if you get in a war, you are in trouble.
Be aware though that WW acts weirdly, and you can never tell how much it will hurt you
but it is always A LOT worse in demo,
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
What the hell is with the governors wanting to build obselete units? I've had to deal with every darn city in my civ because I built just one Privateer - now they're asking me all over the place for Privateers.
I need to know what the dead-end units are - it would help me a lot. I keep on building stuff like Privateers, Paratroopers, and all that can't be upgraded and are useless...help would be apperciated.
I need to know what the dead-end units are - it would help me a lot. I keep on building stuff like Privateers, Paratroopers, and all that can't be upgraded and are useless...help would be apperciated.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Units that never upgrade, but are useless when you have researched all the techs and have all available resources:
Swordsman
Longbowman
Privateers (unless the AI still has some galley around that you can pick off )
Cavalry
Marines and Paratroopers (but they are useful in some situations)
Helicoptors (only useful if you actually use paratroopers)
Frigate
Ironclad
Destroyer
Submarine (because of Nuclear subs)
Bomber (because of Stealth bombers)
This does not include UU's like Immortals, cossaks, etc.
Swordsman
Longbowman
Privateers (unless the AI still has some galley around that you can pick off
)Cavalry
Marines and Paratroopers (but they are useful in some situations)
Helicoptors (only useful if you actually use paratroopers)
Frigate
Ironclad
Destroyer
Submarine (because of Nuclear subs)
Bomber (because of Stealth bombers)
This does not include UU's like Immortals, cossaks, etc.
TO sum up: the WW of democracy can be so severe that it will require up to 50% or more on the luxury slider, sometimes within just a handful of turns. On Republic, it takes a lot longer (generally) to reach such a level. So if you think you may have wars that last more than 6-12 turns, Republic will probably work out better with fewer citites going into unrest and more income going toward cash and science. This is particularly true if you have already fought a war with an opponent you expect to fight again soon. In this case, WW will occur much sooner and much stronger.
If, however, you don't see any looming wars, democracy is a better long term alternative as it gives added worker production (especially useful if not industrial) and less corruption.
There are no hard and fast rules, but you will need to exercise your judgement. Other factors that would influence decision: current needs, relgious or not, etc.
If, however, you don't see any looming wars, democracy is a better long term alternative as it gives added worker production (especially useful if not industrial) and less corruption.
There are no hard and fast rules, but you will need to exercise your judgement. Other factors that would influence decision: current needs, relgious or not, etc.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
lower war weariness, lower risk of government breakdown.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
governors suck - period. never use them. NEVER!
as for dead end: check the civilopedia. There, is say upgrades to: unitname if the unit can upgrade.
King_Lewis
Warlord
Thanks Killer
King_Lewis
Warlord
In Civ3Edit how do you get the Minimap up? It was open when I first opened Civ3Edit but I closed it and Im afraid I cant find it again. Stupid Question...but please help
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
'M'
I've only played about 10 games and up to now have been scared off using anything other than Monarchy during a war (I haven't tried Communism yet !).
So, if Rep. can be effectively used for wars lasting more than 6-12 turns, what is the max ? ie. roughly how many turns would the war have to last before it was better being under another, more WW resistant government type (eg. Monarchy).
billindenver
King
The only answer to this is 'It depends'. First, it depends on the war.
I've had wars last 20 turns or more under Democracy, but if you don't attack and they don't attack the population stays pretty happy.
I've also had wars when my entire population went NUTS after 1 turn of war because war had only recently been ended, and the AI's ganged up and took 2 cities from me on the first turn of their attack.
It depends on how many luxuries you have, how many of your cities have temples/cathedrals/colloseums/police stations, how many happiness Wonders you have, etc.
I usually play in Democracy ASAP. It can really kill you if you are not a religious civ and start having WW problems.
My advice is to try a religious civ like Japan or India, then try out all the govs and see what happens. Since they don't have anarchy, changing between govts is painless.
