Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[walletta]

I believe that I've found the answer. It's directly under Culture in the Game Concepts section of the civilopedia.
You're correct. It doubles every 1,000 years.

There's also the tourist attraction attribute to wonders that adds additional commerce. The amount starts after year 1000 at +2. After 500 more years it reaches +4. It will eventually get to +14 at the year 2501. This can all be found under Tourist Attraction in the civilopedia.

I hope that this helps your understanding

Thank you. It does.

 

[justanick]

Good evening everybody.
The first time I played CIV III was about 10 years ago. I remember from that time something about being able to start in different ages. It might have been AoE, but I remember it as CIV. Is it possible to start in any of the 4 ages?

There is no such option by default.

Something that can be achieved at some ease is to create scenerios that make you start in the medieval age with feudalism as your government or even in the industrial age with democracy as your government. Naturally the modern age is also possible, but that would be high inadvisable. When you start in the middle ages your initial research will be very slow because you donnot yet have an empire to met the tech costs of the middle ages. If you start in the industrial age it is even worse, but it is still manageable because you will still be able to build relative cheap units. If you start in the modern age you will lack that option and it will take you ages till you will be able to build units at reasonable peace. Also it might take you 100 to 150 turns till you can research techs in less than 50 turns. So that is not so good. When starting in the industrial age it is much less extreme. Starting in the medieval age can be rather reasonable. You start advanced enough but not too advanced either.

 

[Takhisis]

I'd recommend simply downlaoding and playing scenarios if you want to play age-specific games, SoysauceJoe.

 

[Lanzelot]

I remember from that time something about being able to start in different ages. It might have been AoE, but I remember it as CIV. Is it possible to start in any of the 4 ages?

Not in Civ3. It is possible only in Civ4 and Civ5.
However, in Civ3 there are different "Scenarios", like Rise of Rome, the time of the Crusades, the Napoleonic times. Perhaps you mean those?

 

[SoysauceJoe]

There is no such option by default.

Something that can be achieved at some ease is to create scenerios that make you start in the medieval age with feudalism as your government or even in the industrial age with democracy as your government. Naturally the modern age is also possible, but that would be high inadvisable. When you start in the middle ages your initial research will be very slow because you donnot yet have an empire to met the tech costs of the middle ages. If you start in the industrial age it is even worse, but it is still manageable because you will still be able to build relative cheap units. If you start in the modern age you will lack that option and it will take you ages till you will be able to build units at reasonable peace. Also it might take you 100 to 150 turns till you can research techs in less than 50 turns. So that is not so good. When starting in the industrial age it is much less extreme. Starting in the medieval age can be rather reasonable. You start advanced enough but not too advanced either.

Thank you. It must have been AoE which had that option. I could always play very small games with 3 or less civs and reach Modern Era relatively quickly. Currently I'm on a huge map with the max amount of civs. The intent is total world killing spree.

 

[Buttercup]

Weirdly enough, it's the really exciting sounding mass killing sprees that are, in reality, the most boring way to play a game in Civ 3 Huge. Taking out the first two or three feels great and rewarding, but then you just have to think, oh boy, just gotta do that exact same thing another 6 times and I can start another game... For killing sprees I wouldn't bother going over Standard size maps where going over 33% of the landmass doesn't still leave you a marathon of tedium.

 

[Lord AJ]

Does infuriating the AI by demanding cities help make an AI declare war on you (for war happiness) when asked to leave territory?

 

[Takhisis]

It does worsen relations but I don't know by how much. The fact that AI stands for ‘Artificial Idiot’ should be a clue. Sometime the AI just decides to hate you no matter what you do.

E.g. I was playing TAM and the Lydoi declared war on Troy, quickly sweeping them into the sea, and then sending a huge pile of broadswordsmen and chariots to take a small Trojan settlement in Elam/Iran. Then… I set up a barrier of troops so that they couldn't pass to take the last Trojan settlement in the Arabian peninsula… and they decided to declare war on me instead and take one city. Less than ten turns later I had destroyed their huge spread-out stacks of troops and recovered my city. Then, after signing a peace, they refused to let their remaining troops be evicted. Cue another massacre of Lydoi. :shakehead:

 

[justanick]

It does worsen relations but I don't know by how much.

As the process can be repeated indefinitely it can worsen the relations indefinitely. That should not be the problem.

As for the question at hand i donnot know the answer. I assume there are sitiuations where it does not help because AI fears your military too much. Disbanding your military in order to appear weak should do a much much better job at provoking a war than worsening the relations.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, the AI's gauging of other players' military might is imprudent at best.

My TAM game continues (as Assyria) and now a huuuge stack (30? 40?) of Camel Riders have crossed the desert all the way from Tamazigh lands into mine (i.e. they're at the Sinai border). No matter how good the relationship between us is they'll attack anytime in the next 2-3 turns (I've tested it). The AI simply fails to realise that a stack of 4.7.1. Phalanxes can whip down their 8.2.3 Camel Riders, especially if these are alone in enemy territory and the defenders can move around on Railroads Imperial Roads.

 

[walletta]

Well, the AI's gauging of other players' military might is imprudent at best.

My TAM game continues (as Assyria) and now a huuuge stack (30? 40?) of Camel Riders have crossed the desert all the way from Tamazigh lands into mine (i.e. they're at the Sinai border). No matter how good the relationship between us is they'll attack anytime in the next 2-3 turns (I've tested it). The AI simply fails to realise that a stack of 4.7.1. Phalanxes can whip down their 8.2.3 Camel Riders, especially if these are alone in enemy territory and the defenders can move around on Railroads Imperial Roads.

As a continental map specialist, I'm often up against an opponent from across the water beside whom my military is derided as weak, but it turns out most of the difference lies in the enemy's humongous navy which it hasn't a clue how to use. The AI's naval play must be the worst thing about it, which prompts an idea for a thread ...

 

[Takhisis]

Well, the way in which the Viking AI is persuaded to attack Britain in Plotinus' The Rood and the Dragon is easy: they're given a huge stack of immobile 999.999 units, and there's resources required for a building (which is actually unbuildable because it requires an unobtainable tech) scattered around the British archipelago. The British will always be ‘weaker’ than the Norse and Danes, who will attack continually.

 

[Lord AJ]

As for the question at hand i donnot know the answer. I assume there are sitiuations where it does not help because AI fears your military too much. Disbanding your military in order to appear weak should do a much much better job at provoking a war than worsening the relations.

At present, my advisor tells me that my military is average compared to the AI in reference.

 

[justanick]

At such mediocre strenght i would expect that relations have the biggest impact. If you are really weak AI might attack you no matter the relations and if you are really strong AI would not risk a war. But so far i have seen no proof that relations have any effect on the "leave or declare war" outcome. It might be worth to investigate if relation have any effect on the probability for AI declare war on 1. its own initiative and 2. in case of "leave or declare war". Those are likely 2 seperate calculations. One problem is that there is a lot of interference. So the best attempt would be the use a savegame with a given situation and reload it a few hundred times prior to worsened relations and another few hundred times with worsened relations. Obviously the random seed must not be preserved.

 

[Alcoron]

Greetings! I would like to share an observation of mine and ask whether it is correct. When I enter a perpetual cycle of wars because of military alliances against me, it seems I can stay at democracy forever unless I invade the enemy. At some point I launch and invasion of a neighbouring civ, take as much cities as I can and then, when war wariness becomes too high, make peace with that civ only and continue the other wars - the war wariness disappears. After several turns, it seems I can repeat the same strategy with another civ (or the same, if they are unwise enough to declare war), take several towns, make peace and so on. Is that correct and can I continue a perpetual war at democracy if I plan invasions only against enemies, with which I can make peace after 2-3 turns? Also, if I bombard distant enemies with ships (not aircraft), will this eventually lead to war wariness?

And another question - if the AI asks for an audience for peace/deal and I simply dismiss them, does this affect their attitude?

 

[justanick]

Is that correct and can I continue a perpetual war at democracy if I plan invasions only against enemies, with which I can make peace after 2-3 turns?

That can be done. Details depend on the details of your warfare. If things go really well for the AI it might get you into serios war weariness after one turn. If you are very careful about war waerniess you might be able to hold out more than 20 turns without significant war weariness.

Also be aware that 2 or 3 turns of war might be slightly too short for AI to grant you an audience.

Also, if I bombard distant enemies with ships (not aircraft), will this eventually lead to war wariness?

It will not even cause WW when you use aircrafts. Losing them however would cause WW points. See for details here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=61628

And another question - if the AI asks for an audience for peace/deal and I simply dismiss them, does this affect their attitude?

I doubt it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=44999

 

[templar_x]

But so far i have seen no proof that relations have any effect on the "leave or declare war" outcome.

You serious? Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
I believe it is quite common knowledge that making "insulting" demands and thus worsening relations is the #1-way to make the AI declare on you in a LoD...

Or don´t you call that "relations"?

t_x

 

[Alcoron]

Also be aware that 2 or 3 turns of war might be slightly too short for AI to grant you an audience.

Thank you very much for the quick response. I am aware of that and launch the invasion only after I have checked whether the AI will acknowledge my envoy.

That can be done. Details depend on the details of your warfare. If things go really well for the AI it might get you into serios war weariness after one turn. If you are very careful about war waerniess you might be able to hold out more than 20 turns without significant war weariness.

In the game I play now I have two neighbours I am at war with,China and the Celts. I attacked China, took two cities and then 26% of my population wanted to "give a chance to peace", which I did. After that, all ww disappeared and in 5-6 turns the Chinese again declared war. I waited for several turns until they were willing to sign peace, attacked once again and overran most of their empire in 3 turns. Only then did again 26% of my citizens become unhappy. I made peace and the ww immediately disappeared.

Now, the question is if I invade the Celts in the same manner, will the ww points start mounting as if I had never invaded China, or I will have more trouble this time?

PS: In my wars I generally have few casualties because I use artillery extensively both in attack and defence.

 

[justanick]

But so far i have seen no proof that relations have any effect on the "leave or declare war" outcome.

You serious?

Yes. So far i have seen no hard proof, just something one could call rumours.

Now, the question is if I invade the Celts in the same manner, will the ww points start mounting as if I had never invaded China, or I will have more trouble this time?

wwp are calculated seperatly for each enemy. So your war with china does not matter.

What can matter are wwp from prior wars againt the celts. It takes about 10 turns to loose 50% wwp during peace. So if you do declare war frequently that might become relevant. If however war is declared onto you, than you get a strong one time reduction in wwp.

 

[Takhisis]

Oh, about AI granting you an audience: sometimes it depends on how strong you and your enemy are, relative to the other. In the game I mentioned above the Lydoi kept saying no until I suddenly decided on an all-out attack that wiped out four fifths of their expeditionary force, after that (in the same turn) they agreed to hold some peace talks.