Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, you can build the required improvement on any resource inside your cultural borders to get access to it...

Expanding on Ginger_Ale's post, alternatively (in the Beyond The Sword expansion) building a fort on the resource will do an equally good job of giving you access to a resource. Although admittedly it is not a good choice when the resource is inside your city radius (since forts don't give the food/hammer/commerce bonus that the "normal" improvement does).

 

[dalamb]

Expanding on Lord_Parkin's post: a fort on a resource has the one advantage that it's easier to protect that resource if you're being invaded by pillagers. So if you're playing "always war" and "raging barbarians" a fort on a strategic resource (like iron) on a hill beside an un-pillagable river might be a good way to make sure you never lose access. Under these circumstances some people build a city right on top of the resource; you lose a lot of production but don't risk losing the resource entirely.

 

[a4phantom]

Can you have a fort and productivity improvement on the same tile? For example, can I build a fort and a mine on my iron or a fort and a farm on my corn? I thought you couldn't have both.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Can you have a fort and productivity improvement on the same tile? For example, can I build a fort and a mine on my iron or a fort and a farm on my corn? I thought you couldn't have both.

No, you can't, and that's why you need to make a choice between the defensive bonus of the fort, and the food/production/commerce of the regular improvement.

 

[a4phantom]

No, you can't, and that's why you need to make a choice between the defensive bonus of the fort, and the food/production/commerce of the regular improvement.

Oh. In that case the fort seems like it would rarely be the better choice, unless you have absolutely no use for the resource. I thought people were talking about protecting their empire's supplies of iron and horses, etc.

 

[dalamb]

Like I said, fort on a resource instead of mine etc. can make sense if you expect a lot of potentiant pillagers. I suspect you'd only do it if the fort were outside any of your current cities' BFCs and you couldn't plant a new city soon. If you make a fort then later build a city you can mine over top of the fort (which destroys the fort).

 

[a4phantom]

Like I said, fort on a resource instead of mine etc. can make sense if you expect a lot of potentiant pillagers. I suspect you'd only do it if the fort were outside any of your current cities' BFCs and you couldn't plant a new city soon. If you make a fort then later build a city you can mine over top of the fort (which destroys the fort).

Then I don't understand what the fort, on a resource, outside your BFC, is accomplishing.

 

[JujuLautre]

In BTS, a fort on a ressource acts as a fort but at the same time as the improvement needed for that ressource. So a fort on bananas will give you access to bananas as soon as you have calendar.

 

[a4phantom]

In BTS, a fort on a ressource acts as a fort but at the same time as the improvement needed for that ressource. So a fort on bananas will give you access to bananas as soon as you have calendar.

Oh wow. Well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Why don't you people tell me these things! Throw me a friggin' bone here.

So the fort on the bananas would harvest the bananas for my empire, but not add the food bonus for working that tile?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Oh wow. Well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Why don't you people tell me these things! Throw me a friggin' bone here.

So the fort on the bananas would harvest the bananas for my empire, but not add the food bonus for working that tile?

Maybe you should reread Lord Parkins post 8803. It would save us all some time.

Expanding on Ginger_Ale's post, alternatively (in the Beyond The Sword expansion) building a fort on the resource will do an equally good job of giving you access to a resource. Although admittedly it is not a good choice when the resource is inside your city radius (since forts don't give the food/hammer/commerce bonus that the "normal" improvement does).

 

[a4phantom]

Maybe you should reread Lord Parkins post 8803. It would save us all some time.

Oh. I totally missed that post. Thanks guys.

 

[JujuLautre]

So the fort on the bananas would harvest the bananas for my empire, but not add the food bonus for working that tile?

Well, if you work this tile, lets say on a grassland without jungle, you will get the normal output for this tile: 3 food here.

 

[DavidGr]

Hey folks, a newbie here so bear with me please. In all of the other games you could turn on and off the various victory conditions, so why not this one? I would love to turn off the Space Race victory, but I haven't found any way to do it. Am I missing something?

Thanks

 

[Wenla]

Hey folks, a newbie here so bear with me please. In all of the other games you could turn on and off the various victory conditions, so why not this one? I would love to turn off the Space Race victory, but I haven't found any way to do it. Am I missing something?

You can select used victory conditions at least when you start custom game.

Wenla

 

[Lord Parkin]

Just in case the above isn't quite clear enough, you need to select "Custom Game" in the Single Player menu, instead of "Play Now!", in order to be able to customize options such as the victory conditions. (You'll also find many more customizable options available too.)

 

[a4phantom]

Does the difficulty of getting experience for siege weapons in BTS significantly bump up the strength of Spain? If I remember correctly the Spanish UB is a castle that adds EXP to siege.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Does the difficulty of getting experience for siege weapons in BTS significantly bump up the strength of Spain? If I remember correctly the Spanish UB is a castle that adds EXP to siege.

I think that in civilisation (IV), the various traits, unique buildings and unique units don't make that much of a difference. I've played strategy games where you can create your own race (mostly space 4X games like MoO II) and in such games, the starting picks make a huge difference. This is not the case in civilisation (IV). The various bonuses are more fun and add some replay value and atmosphere to the game. They do make a difference but are not game defining. This is probably a good thing since it is a history based game.

That being said, I guess this unique building bonus can be used very nicely if you go for the building early and make some 10-20 siege units for a war at that moment or for future wars. The building offers +5 xp to siege units and that is quite a lot. If you can get siege units to city raider III without dying, then they will not die often attacking cities (after the defence bonus has been bombed away) and you can get through a war without many casualties. It's not that hard to get city raider III siege units with this building. You'll get 8xp from the barracks (3xp) and the citadel (5xp) which leaves you 2 xp short of city raider III. A few victorious fights or a settled great instructor in your main unit production city will give you 10 xp, city raider III siege units. You could also run one of the xp boosting civics to get the final 2 xp needed for city raider III siege units.

In BTS, you only get 1 xp for a victorious retreating siege unit and thus it can be hard to get city raider III siege units without a lot of xp boosting elements added to the constructing cities.

 

[a4phantom]

Thanks RJ, that's what I was thinking regarding Citadels and Siege armies, that the new difficulty of acquiring siege experience in the field would make the training exp. more valuable.

I still play MOO2. I remember being very excited for MOO3 in 2002 but then they kept pushing it back and when it came out everyone said it was a nightmare.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Thanks RJ, that's what I was thinking regarding Citadels and Siege armies, that the new difficulty of acquiring siege experience in the field would make the training exp. more valuable.

I still play MOO2. I remember being very excited for MOO3 in 2002 but then they kept pushing it back and when it came out everyone said it was a nightmare.

I've never played MOO3 either. From what I've heard, it was hard to manage certain aspects of the game because they automated too much and certain game controlling elements were deeply hidden in sub menus. It was a design decision to try and limit micromanagement, but either they implemented it badly or they went too far with it. But as I said, I've never played it, this is just hearsay.

MOO2 is a good game, but the AI in that game is pretty poor, especially concerning designing capable combat ships. I've also played it a lot, but now consider it a game that is fairly easy to beat even at the highest difficulty level.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I've never played MOO3 either. From what I've heard, it was hard to manage certain aspects of the game because they automated too much and certain game controlling elements were deeply hidden in sub menus. It was a design decision to try and limit micromanagement, but either they implemented it badly or they went too far with it. But as I said, I've never played it, this is just hearsay.

MOO2 is a good game, but the AI in that game is pretty poor, especially concerning designing capable combat ships. I've also played it a lot, but now consider it a game that is fairly easy to beat even at the highest difficulty level.

MOO3 is actually the only one of the series that I have played - perhaps that's why I was put off. Maybe I should try one of the other ones and see if I like it better.

Anyway, I'm digressing a bit...