Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Turner]

Before you can have a custom title (the Chieftain under your name) you must be here for 30 days (got that) and have at least 30 posts (need about 18 more).

Atchison, huh? I'm just down the road from you.

 

[sercer88]

Well, how about I get another post.

How close to Atchison are you?

 

[Turner]

I'm in Lenexa right now.

 

[Tone]

I disagree. I believe it's always in my best interest to cripple the AI economically as much as I can.

That's fine but I still don't agree with you. Just to make it clear, I'm not saying never do it; I'm just saying that there can be exceptions. Taking it to the extreme of higher levels, people have come unstuck at Sid level due to the vast number of units. Examples of masses of longbows taking down cities defended by infantry can be cited. Getting a bit closer to the example, moving up a level gives a player an AI much stronger than (s)he is used to. Greater free unit support and a greater production level means that the player new to the next level might be caught by surprise by an AI attack. High gpt deals seem to happen at Monarch around the time that 'builders' have large numbers of cities constructing universities and banks plus sometimes a number of wonders. At the very least they should be aware that the AI is stronger and thus less likely to honour the deal and so if you are pretty weak militarily, (which can happen with less experienced players pre-factories) you need to think carefully about what you are doing and at the very least use some of that cash to invest in a strong military.

Just for the record, not that it probably applies in the posters situation just at the moment, another situation where it doesn't always pay to cripple the AI is when you are going for fast research. Get to Monarch level and the AI can sometimes be used to help research some of the techs to enable you to get a quicker Diplo or SS win. They will not be able to do this if they have not got the cash and are having to disband units/libraries/markets etc. If you want to research as quickly as possible to aim for an award in a GOTM or a fastest finish HOF game then you will be wise to allow a couple of 'friends' to help you along the research path. You cannot reduce your own research time below 4 turns/tech but a couple of strong AIs will get certain techs for you. Cripple them and you'll have to discover those techs for yourself, thus putting back your eventual victory date.

 

[Aabraxan]

Just a quick question on anyone's opinion: What is your favorite government (war or peace)? And, does the change of Republic from vanilla to C3C make it a better or worse government?

By the way, what does FWIW, and short-rushing mean?

I'm going to work backwards here: short-rushing is going through a series of build switches to finish a build in one turn at the lowest cost. Because of the way the "gold for shields exchange rate" is calculated, this can save some gold. For example, if I want a settler and have invested zero shields, it costs 240 gold to rush one. Alternatively, I can set the build to worker, which costs 80 gold to rush, then switch to a settler and finish the rush for an additional 80, for a total of 160 gold. Make sense?

Governments: I'd suggest heading down into General Discussions and browsing or searching the threads. This is a debate that crops up from time to time.

As I've never played vanilla, I can't answer the Vanilla Republic vs. C3C Republic question.

 

[thetrooper]

Just for the record, not that it probably applies in the posters situation just at the moment, another situation where it doesn't always pay to cripple the AI is when you are going for fast research. Get to Monarch level and the AI can sometimes be used to help research some of the techs to enable you to get a quicker Diplo or SS win.

In some of my monarch games I let the AI almost be at tech parity with me. Just for the case of faster overall tech pace.

 

[gmaharriet]

I'm going to work backwards here: short-rushing is going through a series of build switches to finish a build in one turn at the lowest cost. Because of the way the "gold for shields exchange rate" is calculated, this can save some gold. For example, if I want a settler and have invested zero shields, it costs 240 gold to rush one. Alternatively, I can set the build to worker, which costs 80 gold to rush, then switch to a settler and finish the rush for an additional 80, for a total of 160 gold. Make sense?

Just a small addition to Aabraxan's very nice explanation. If there are zero shields in the bin when you go to rush something, you will pay 8 gold for each shield. If there is already 1 or more shields in the bin, the remaining ones will only cost 4 gold each. So, as in his example, the worker is rushed at 8g/per, and then the remaining 20 shields are rushed at 4g/per. And this can all be done in a single turn.

An alternate way to save gold in rushing...if you have a bit more time...is to wait one turn for even a single shield to go in the bin (corrupt town?), and then cash-rush the remaining shields at 4g/per. But the definition of "short-rushing" is, of course, rushing one smaller build and then switching to the larger one...even if you don't complete the larger one that turn and only shorten its build turns.

 

[ettevroc28]

For what it's worth, you forgot to tell him what FWIW means.

 

[thetrooper]

@Moderators: Maybe we should have all the common acronyms stickied?

 

[Tone]

I'm sorry. I ran out of time when making my last post and left some things unfinished because I had to go to work. I see that the questions asked of me by sercer88 have been dealt with. Thanks guys. One other thing I wanted to say was although I disagreed with one point on Turner's post, I couldn't agree more with the last comment. i.e.

Economic warfare in Civ3 is probably the most underrated aspect of the game. But I believe it's also the most useful.

Most of my wins are down to this. My only difference with Turner is that I sometimes play with minor allies in this war.

 

[Tone]

An alternate way to save gold in rushing...if you have a bit more time...is to wait one turn for even a single shield to go in the bin (corrupt town?), and then cash-rush the remaining shields at 4g/per.

Oh, I thought that this was short rushing. OK, well if short-rushing isn't what I thought, the following is an example of what I meant:

Eg. If I have a town producing 10spt and I'm building knights there. I let it start on the knight but after 1 turn I temporarily switch to a musket to rush an additional 50 shields and then switch back to a knight to let it complete the build on the second turn. This costs 200g and two turns. If I have less money available (or if the sims don't work out quite so neatly), I leave the build for a few turns. I don't rush the first part because you pay double and all those 40 golds add up and I also try to use of many of the shields as possible from the final turn's production.

Has this technique got a name?

 

[Aabraxan]

Oh, I thought that this was short rushing. OK, well if short-rushing isn't what I thought, the following is an example of what I meant:

Eg. If I have a town producing 10spt and I'm building knights there. I let it start on the knight but after 1 turn I temporarily switch to a musket to rush an additional 50 shields and then switch back to a knight to let it complete the build on the second turn. This costs 200g and two turns. If I have less money available (or if the sims don't work out quite so neatly), I leave the build for a few turns. I don't rush the first part because you pay double and all those 40 golds add up and I also try to use of many of the shields as possible from the final turn's production.

Has this technique got a name?

I don't know about naming it, but I have a question about it, of that's OK. Why start on the knight on the first turn? I've heard it described as you have put it before (start on Build A (large), build a turn, switch to Build B (smaller), rush, switch back to Build A), but I don't understand why you have to start on Build A. Why not start Build B, wait a turn, rush, then just switch to Build A? In your example, why not start on the market from the beginning? Does it make a difference in shields or in gold spent?

 

[Tone]

Well I cannot speak for others but I sometimes lose track of what I want to build or don't always have the cash to rush all builds. If I'd started the example above with a musket build and then not rushed, I'd have ended up with a musket that I didn't want. This is particularly true when something diverts my attention, such as a sneak attack.

There is no penalty apart from that caused by my forgetfulness which is why I start with want I want to build. You can get the same result by switching only after the rush.

 

[GRAEMIKE]

Just discovered this game (and site) and like both! Lots of good tips here. While using diplomacy via sword, I got a leader, took him to town, clicked build army - now what?! How do I get units in the army?

Mike

 

[Aabraxan]

Just discovered this game (and site) and like both! Lots of good tips here. While using diplomacy via sword, I got a leader, took him to town, clicked build army - now what?! How do I get units in the army?

Mike

Put the military units that you want in the army in the same tile as the army and hit the "Load" button. The Load button has a picture that looks kind of like a bucket with an arrow going up and over the edge of the bucket into it.

 

[Tone]

Welcome to CFC GRAEMIKE.

Get your army and some units to a town, select each unit and use the load button that appears on the unit commands buttons (or whatever they are called). Choose your units wisely as units in an army cannot be upgraded and cannot be taken back out of the army.

Edit: crosspost!

 

[sercer88]

... you need to think carefully about what you are doing and at the very least use some of that cash to invest in a strong military.

That makes sense, but, I never know when to stop! Is losing 20gpt too much? 40gpt? 80gpt (in later games)? I eventually find myself with (as I feel) too much gold being spent on units. Then I disband my extra units so I'm not losing as much (and then I do my own sort of "short-rushing" by disbanding units to put some shields in an empty bin.) Then the question I ask myself is: Where those x number of turns where I was losing 40gpt to units worth it? I think that they aren't, so I never again in that game am losing too much to units, if any at all (unless I'm in Dem.) That leads to a fairly weak army, but, as I mentioned before, I usually play regent. I am also usually in the tech lead (sometimes MANY techs in the lead) so I don't need as many units.

Also, someone please tell me what FWIW means.

 

[Aabraxan]

Also, someone please tell me what FWIW means.

For What It's Worth

 

[Mirc]

For What It's Woorth. Has been answered before by someone else though. Edit: Has been answered by two people before actually!

What do you mean by "While using diplomacy via sword"?

Usually, a good way to keep unit support under control is keeping mostly only offensive units. Defensive units are not very useful, especially if you are the leader. If you are not, you should consider having defenders in the important far away cities or those which are close to an enemy you are at war with. But usually, an offender is better even in this situation.


Edit: Crosspost......

 

[TimBentley]

The best way to reduce unit support costs is to lose units while increasing the number of units you can support if applicable (if your culture is decent not needing settlers is nice) and your income (as well as your production).