Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Norton II]

In Civ4, artillery has this property.

In Civ3, collateral damage is what I would call the destruction of pop/improvements by bombers, while I'm trying to bomb units.
Or the destruction of tile improvements/my own units near a nuke blast I launched myself.

But its not a concept in the game itself as far as I know.

It's a game concept:

An attack by a unit with the "Collateral Damage" capability can potentially damage improvements in the attacked square during the attack, representing damage to improvements, local structures, or residents due to combat (but not necessarily due to bombardment).

No unit in the normal game is listed as having that ability, but the marauder, pillager, and warlord units in "Fall of Rome" and the berserk in "Middle Ages" have it. When attacking a unit in a city, they can destroy improvements at the same time.

 

[EMan]

In Civ4, artillery has this property...

Civ 3, too. IIRC, Artillery can reduce the population of a city and also destroy city improvements.

...I like cavalry because they rarely lose, and a redlined cavalry is brand new again in a few turns. Also the 3 move speed means they can advance, retreat, and rarely take the heat. This means their low defense is ok.

You're in good company!!

Check out Moonsinger's HOF #1 Highest-scoring game in the HOF: Sid level, 60% H2O Archipelago, 8 AI's, DL of 4562, Mayans. For offensive units, she had 285 Cavalry (admittedly in armies) and many captured AI artillery in the final position (2050AD).........but not much else. This was a very difficult game to win.

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=869

(The file is too big to be uploaded to CFC!)

...I can't believe I forgot about swordsmen...

It would NOT be the End Of The World if you had!

 

[btfx]

Wow guys, lots of answers and fast. I can't believe I forgot about swordsmen. Yes, I suppose they do make good conquerors, I feel very silly.
I suppose the reason I hate the AI's archer wars is that they go nowhere. In cavalry wars, the AIs have roads, and generally have either 1 or 2 stacks of doom. This means that whichever stack gets to attack will destroy the other. This equals a decisive war, with a clear winner. Archer wars is basically hundreds of archers traveling out-of stack, and with no defense. Lots of scattered encounters, and each AI wins about 50% of these. Such a war leads nowhere, and that's why I call them stupid. I suppose the fact that they are fought with such futility by the AI has lead me to believe that it's the archer's fault. And every time I saw the process repeat (two well-off AIs struggle, get nowhere, and find themselves terribly behind), I was less and less inclined to try archers myself.
I will now.

Actually I'm almost at metallurgy, so, maybe next game.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . Archer wars is basically hundreds of archers traveling out-of stack, and with no defense. Lots of scattered encounters, and each AI wins about 50% of these. Such a war leads nowhere, and that's why I call them stupid. I suppose the fact that they are fought with such futility by the AI has lead me to believe that it's the archer's fault. . . .

That's the key. An archer rush by a human player can be a different matter entirely.

 

[sercer88]

I agree with Aabraxan here. Obviously human players who know what they're doing a hundreds of times better at waging war at any time in the game better than the AI. The key is that the AI doesn't make any SOD. And, of course, sending out single archers to attack a city is never a good idea.

 

[Abegweit]

It still remains that horses and swords are better if you have the requisite resources. Archers are a last resort.

 

[EMan]

It still remains that horses and swords are better if you have the requisite resources. Archers are a last resort.

Agreed..........and if you don't have horses........GET 'EM!

 

[btfx]

The problem I have with horses, is that if you consider the defense bonus a spearman gets from terrain (at least 10% I believe), I will lose more than I win. I prefer the contrary. Since cavalry have 3 moves, the enemy is forced to constantly struggle with the 5 attack rating. Not fun for them, also I lose few cavalry, meaning it will only be a few turns until they can attack again. Also, more elite cavalry means more armies and wonders.
The same goes for swordsmen. 3 attack means they can take a spearman, 2 defense means they can put up a good fight when counter attacked.

I guess they key here is survival rate, I find it very important, maybe it's not.

Also I guess you can disable culture-flipping for the game, do most of you have it enabled?

 

[Abegweit]

The problem I have with horses, is that if you consider the defense bonus a spearman gets from terrain (at least 10% I believe), I will lose more than I win. I prefer the contrary. Since cavalry have 3 moves, the enemy is forced to constantly struggle with the 5 attack rating. Not fun for them, also I lose few cavalry, meaning it will only be a few turns until they can attack again. Also, more elite cavalry means more armies and wonders.
The same goes for swordsmen. 3 attack means they can take a spearman, 2 defense means they can put up a good fight when counter attacked.

Your attackers should always be veterans. Early in the game the AI will only have regulars. A vet sword against a spear fortified on grass will win about 50% of the time. For a horse, it's about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 (win/lose/retreat). This means that your loses will be about the same in both cases but you will need more horses to do the job, especially since a few catapults can do wonders to help a sword-based attack. On the flip side, the horse moves faster letting you take the war to the enemy.

I guess they key here is survival rate, I find it very important, maybe it's not.

Gaining cities and hurting the enemy is more important than survival rate. Expansion is what the game is all about. At the higher levels, you will lose if you wait until cavalry for war. The AI will out-tech you and out-expand you. The survival rate of cavalry against riflemen and infantry is not great, which is what you will be facing if you wait.

Also I guess you can disable culture-flipping for the game, do most of you have it enabled?

I regard that as close to cheating. It's not acceptable in competitive games around here.

 

[MAS]

Civ 3, too. IIRC, Artillery can reduce the population of a city and also destroy city improvements.

Not the same.
In Civ4 The artillery can damage multiple units at the same time, while also reducing the defense bonus from a city's culture. This actively helps you in combat (and thats why Abegweit said the word was miss-used in Civ4)
In Civ3 there is just a chance the artillery misses the units and damages something in the city instead. (and in C3C, only bombers have this, artillery will aways first damage units until all units are red-lined) For you, this does almost nothing more than a regular "miss" chance.

The problem I have with horses, is that if you consider the defense bonus a spearman gets from terrain (at least 10% I believe), I will lose more than I win.

The horseman has a retreat chance, this will lower his loss rate. It will also lower his win chance a bit, as when he retreats, he is not winning any round either, but this can be compensated by concentrating more units on a single target.
And there is basically no reason to not build veteran horseman with barracks. The extra HP increases the chances for you greatly.

Also I guess you can disable culture-flipping for the game, do most of you have it enabled?

I do not have culture-flipping disabled. It was a part of the game from the start, but Firaxes added the ability to disable it in a patch, because many people complained about this feature.
I personally think these complaints are similar to the complaints about spearman winning from a tank.
But its your game, set it up any way you like.

I regard that as close to cheating. It's not acceptable in competitive games around here.

I think thats a bit to harsh. If you know how to deal with flip chances, its not much more than a small annoyance. Choosing an island map at game creation is a far bigger "cheat" in that it provides much more advantage to the human compared to the AI.

 

[Abegweit]

I think thats a bit to harsh.

Matter of opinion, I suppose but personally I see no difference between this and turning on random seed, then re-loading. Sure the options menu supports it but it fundamentally is wrong if the game is to be played properly. This being said, it obviously is true if you cheat in a single-player game you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. I fully agree when you say, "its your game, set it up any way you like". In any case, btfx was asking how we play, not proposing doing it.

Choosing an island map at game creation is a far bigger "cheat" in that it provides much more advantage to the human compared to the AI.

Beating SID with Theo on arch is kinda gamey, isn't it?

 

[Deranged Maniac]

I've just started to get into Civ III, and I like to take it nice and easy.. I keep hearing about this space race, and I'm never able to get to it because it's building up all the other skills and stuff. Is there a way to prolong the "mandatory retirement"? I find myself getting to the retirement in a mere hour, which sucks. I want to be able to build my whole city. Is there a way to just avoid the "mandatory retirement" altogether? instead just have an end on where you can build things.. yeah. anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Sashie VII]

Welcome to CFC, DM

For starters, you could just click "Lemme play just a few more turns.." option.

 

[Deranged Maniac]

It took me a while just to get the hang of the game! I want to build and build and so on, rather than fight everyone and be the only one in existance!!

Anyway, every time I click that option it just goes to the main screen. Is this a tech error?

ETA: It gives me the game results first, then the main screen

 

[btfx]

Gotcha guys, I forgot about the horse's retreat ability. That does help a bit. And the veteran advantage, I generally don't build any non-vets other than early defenders (when needed), and emergency drafted conscripts.

On a funny point, my legionary was ambushed after walking right up to a giant stack of gallic swordsmen. Thanks for the golden age Brennus! It's funny to think that a stack of those guys is approaching my territory. Too bad I have cavalry by now.

I had a good question, but I forgot it...

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . I find myself getting to the retirement in a mere hour, . . .

What are your game settings? A variety of things could at least prolong the game. Larger maps, higher difficulty, more opponents, etc.

 

[btfx]

I had a good question, but I forgot it...

Blargh! How do you advance to a new age? In the science adviser screen some of the "endings" of an age have a little icon in the corner. What is the significance of these? I know in the industrial age, fulfilling the one and only such tech takes you to the next age. What if there are two such techs? Three?

 

[Aabraxan]

You complete all required techs. The tech icons that have the little "circle with a slash" symbol are optional techs and not required to advance.

 

[btfx]

Aceman, according to your story "The Golden Empire" if you do something evil, only the AIs you have contact with will find out about it. Is this true? If so, it changes everything. If you scout a lot, you will get the advantage of trading tech with them, if you keep to yourself, you can slap around some of the other civs without serious consequences. This seems less advantageous. Is there any case where it is not?

 

[btfx]

You complete all required techs. The tech icons that have the little "circle with a slash" symbol are optional techs and not required to advance.

RAWR! I have literally been doing the opposite of what I should have been.