Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[waarzawa]

Please excuse my double-take at your post, but how on earth did you end up playing a Civilisation game if you hate micro-management?

Isn't that like training to be pilot and then saying "I like driving the thing but I hate the whole up in the air aspect"...

Let's just say that when you have like 30 cities, micro-management can become tedious. That's just my feeling

I'm just thinking a larger map might generally have more resources available, to either obtain myself or to trade for. Is scarcity something that changes with difficulty level?

From my limited experience, I feel the larger the map is the better the chances to have a bit of all ressources

 

[tjs282]

I'm just thinking a larger map might generally have more resources available, to either obtain myself or to trade for.

Yes. Well, sort of.

On a randomly generated map, the number of strategic and lux resources is based (roughly?) on number of Civs on the map at game-start. So playing on Huge map with only 1 opponent will make resources just as scarce as on a Tiny map with only 1 opponent.

But if you habitually play with maximum opponents (as I do), then since smaller (epic-game) maps have a lower (max.) number of Civs, any pRNG-ed fudge-factor involved in the calculation of the actual number of resource-tiles to be placed, will likely have a proportionally greater 'scarce-ifying' effect on a small map than it would on larger maps.

Is scarcity something that changes with difficulty level?

No.

 

[Buttercup]

Let's just say that when you have like 30 cities, micro-management can become tedious. That's just my feeling

The quantity of cities is generally irrelevant to the quantity of micro-management. This is due to Civ III's Corruption mechanic which always forces you to focus on your core cities whether you have 10 cities or 200. The further out a city is from your capital, the less micro-management is required as the game won't let you do anything with it anyway. Just make it either permanently produce workers/settlers or alternatively leave it to produce a Courthouse for 80 turns and then forget about it. If it rebels for one turn, it's no biggy, just convert one dude to an entertainer and forget about it again.

The increased micro-management of larger maps is almost purely to do with the number of troops you need to make and the time it takes to move each one individually around the map each turn. Which, if you're going for a non-violent victory, makes all this aspect mostly irrelevant, assuming your map allows you an easy way to defend huge stacks of AI moron assaults, either via chokepoints or via ocean barriers.

The only drawback to having a large number of cities with regards to 'increased hassle' beyond combat is the fact that it makes you have to scroll around the map each and every turn, which, if you're ploughing through the turns quite quickly, can cause intense nausea, similar to sea sickness, which is probably more the reason you don't like a large number of cities, but refer to it as micro-management because you haven't been made aware of what the problem actually is yet. And this a problem with all computer games, the limitation of The Screen.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

But if you habitually play with maximum opponents (as I do)....

I do, also. I know it's possible to play with fewer than maximum, but it seems to me the point of a larger map is more - more land area, and more opponents.

... then since smaller (epic-game) maps have a lower (max.) number of Civs, any pRNG-ed fudge-factor involved in the calculation of the actual number of resource-tiles to be placed, will likely have a proportionally greater 'scarce-ifying' effect on a small map than it would on larger maps.

Ok, this confused me. Maybe it's because I'm on my first cup of coffee.

 

[tjs282]

Ok, this confused me. Maybe it's because I'm on my first cup of coffee.

Sorry!

What I mean is, there's a minimum number (i.e. 1) of any specific resource that has to be on any map, in order for all victory conditions (including the Space-race) to be available.

On a Tiny map, even with all 3 opponents enabled at game start, the total number of any given resource (based on the total number of civs) is going to be a lot closer to that minimum n=1, than it would be on a Huge map with all 15 opponents enabled.

So any pseudo-random variation in the number of that resource spawned — e.g. Uranium, which is already relatively scarce (= low "Appearance Ratio", as set in the Editor) — will have a proportionally greater effect on a Tiny map than a Huge one.

I think.

(There's a thread about it somewhere, comparing resource scarcity in PtW to Conquests)

 

[EMan]

The quantity of cities is generally irrelevant to the quantity of micro-management....

Yes, this may well be true if you're just trying to beat the AI.

However, if you're trying to get the Highest Score or Fastest Victory against what other humans have achieved (e.g in the Civ 3 Hall Of Fame), or to set a Personal Record, every city is vital.
I am playing a Huge Map with 8 AI Opponents (minimum for HOF eligibility) at Emperor Level. Polishing off 7 AIs with nothing more powerful than Cavalry (and a few "gifted" Leader-created Armies) was the easy part! Squeezing out every Point for an HOF Histographic (Score) Victory, managing & relocating up to 511 cities (leaving the remaining AI with 1 city on "Life Support") is severe Micromanagement for which I use a Spreadsheet to tell me which turn to perform action on which city.

So, yes, if I was doing the same on a Tiny map, the amount of micromanagement would be way less.

Histographic Victory: As an example of what cities on the Coastline (they can score more than inland cities because of the Sea squares) may need to produce (not necessarily in order), after they have been placed optimally:
Granary/Harbor/Temple/Aqueduct/Marketplace/Hospital/Cathedral/Colosseum/Courthouse/Police Station/Commercial Dock/Mass Transit System and usually workers and settlers along the way.

 

[Samson]

Yes, this may well be true if you're just trying to beat the AI.

However, if you're trying to get the Highest Score or Fastest Victory against what other humans have achieved (e.g in the Civ 3 Hall Of Fame), or to set a Personal Record, every city is vital.
I am playing a Huge Map with 8 AI Opponents (minimum for HOF eligibility) at Emperor Level. Polishing off 7 AIs with nothing more powerful than Cavalry (and a few "gifted" Leader-created Armies) was the easy part! Squeezing out every Point for an HOF Histographic (Score) Victory, managing & relocating up to 511 cities (leaving the remaining AI with 1 city on "Life Support") is severe Micromanagement for which I use a Spreadsheet to tell me which turn to perform action on which city.

So, yes, if I was doing the same on a Tiny map, the amount of micromanagement would be way less.

Histographic Victory: As an example of what cities on the Coastline (they can score more than inland cities because of the Sea squares) may need to produce (not necessarily in order), after they have been placed optimally:
Granary/Harbor/Temple/Aqueduct/Marketplace/Hospital/Cathedral/Colosseum/Courthouse/Police Station/Commercial Dock/Mass Transit System and usually workers and settlers along the way.

I guess you do not choose that competition if you do not enjoy a certain amount of micromanagement

 

[Buttercup]

To be fair, it wouldn't be the Civfanatics forum if every single opinion and fact wasn't made contrary by some extremely specific individual scenario-type situation. I'm amazed they didn't start going on about Communism or Commercial Civs with a well placed Forbidden Palace in a Democracy, but I'll take someone going for a Historiographic high score, whatever the F that is

 

[EMan]

...a Historiographic high score, whatever the F that is

It simply means that the Civilization with the highest score at 2050AD wins the game. Hopefully it would be you and not the AI!

 

[Takhisis]

WeirdoJoker, you should drink tea instead.

Please excuse my double-take at your post, but how on earth did you end up playing a Civilisation game if you hate micro-management?

Isn't that like training to be pilot and then saying "I like driving the thing but I hate the whole up in the air aspect"...

Let's just say that when you have like 30 cities, micro-management can become tedious. That's just my feeling

Hey, there's always the one-city challenge.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

WeirdoJoker, you should drink tea instead.

I've been drinking coffee for 40 years & never got the habit.

 

[Aabraxan]

Let's just say that when you have like 30 cities, micro-management can become tedious....

It can, but it doesn't have to. I usually play standard, continents and manage .... oh, .... maybe 75-100 cities on my own continent. That's a guess. I'd have to go in and take a count in my current game to see what it really is. Anyway, I only really micromanage my core and maybe 2 or 3 'rings' of cities. Everything else becomes a specialist farm. And I don't really micro them hard like some players do. Micro in the early game is important, but once you get the empire (and farms) up and running, you can 'tune' a lot of them so that they have zero growth and then just let them run. Putting them on workers or settlers works well, but does mean that you have to go back in now and again and adjust them. Putting them on cannons or whatnot just lets them tick right along without much attention.

 

[waarzawa]

Hey, there's always the one-city challenge.

Ahah ! Did you try it too ? : )
I guess what I like on a small scale is to deal with the bone mechanics of the game
Again, each decision, battle is more striking, significant...
Who knows maybe I will enjoy playing on huge maps someday when I'll get more refined ; )

The further out a city is from your capital, the less micro-management is required as the game won't let you do anything with it anyway

The kind of situation I’d rather avoid cause I find it pointless

 

[Buttercup]

The kind of situation I’d rather avoid cause I find it pointless

Yes, that would be a more correct description.

 

[Takhisis]

I've been drinking coffee for 40 years & never got the habit.

Exactly. Stick to tea instead, it's classier and tastier.

Ahah ! Did you try it too ? : )

I've always dreamed of having a one-city scenario. There are AI-controlled empires; a human player chooses one of the unique civs. No new cities can be built; no cities can be destroyed (pre-placed ultra-artillery and/or heavy units, say, a 300/300 immobile city defender with a gazillion HP). It's probably what WeaselOp/@WildWeazel would call ramblings of a madman.

I guess what I like on a small scale is to deal with the bone mechanics of the game
Again, each decision, battle is more striking, significant...
Who knows maybe I will enjoy playing on huge maps someday when I'll get more refined ; )

It's a pity that I didn't document my Arctic Babylonian cultural victory. A small island at the far end of a chain of islands that sprang out from near the end of a Pangaea. No oil, iron or gunpowder.
It requires an orderly, victory-minded devil and very careful planning to win such a game.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Exactly. Stick to tea instead, it's classier and tastier.

Eh ... depends on the tea. I like double-bergamot Earl Grey, which is as strong as coffee. (Plus, my cold brew removes most of the acidity.)

Fortunately, I don't drink enough of it at night to be up all night playing C3C.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't drink enough of it at night to be up all night playing C3C.

What are you grinning at?

 

[WeirdoJoker]

What are you grinning at?

Because I've actually done that ... caffeine-induced insomnia leads to playing C3C all night.

 

[WildWeazel]

Huh what? Where am I? Take me back to C&C!

 

[Takhisis]

Because I've actually done that ... caffeine-induced insomnia leads to playing C3C all night.

It is the only way in which you should legally be allowed to drink coffee.

Huh what? Where am I? Take me back to C&C!

Hullo! Nice of you to drop by!