Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[WeirdoJoker]

Maybe you overlooked this...?

More like didn't remember (though now I do). I had forgotten the worker/production mismatch.

Also, based on what I've seen of your games (specifically that Mongolian Pangaea Regent (or Monarch?) game that @CKS and I both played out a while back)....

Looked up my spreadsheet ... my only attempt at Mongols was at Regent on a Small map.*

* Incidentally, I have stopped using Tiny maps & have added Large maps to my rotation, though only one Large map so far.

 

[justanick]

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to using "accelerated production"?

Not using AP seems to be the standard. So not using AP increases comparability with other players and how well their advice can fit your situation.

 

[Jivilov]

Hmmmm, actually, no.

Temples do enable Cathedrals which are overpowered with the Sistine Chapel (all in all, seven faces two rushes away).

So what happens if settlements don't have Temples or Cathedrals? Do they get the extra Happy Faces in that case? Reason I ask is 'cuz after capturing SC it seemed even Cities and Towns without either one experienced significant increases in Happy Citizens. Thanks.

 

[Takhisis]

I would like to point out that this should not be a big surprise. New barbarian camps only spawn close to civilized settlements and as far as i can tell only on the same landmass as those civilized settlements.

If there are 2 continents and only one contains civilizations, then no barbarian camps will spawn on the other continent. But once the first settlers arrive in the new world and found a settlement things change.

Indeed, this is so! I played another game over the weekend (13 hours in 2 days… to help pass the Covid vaccine side-effects ) and managed to settle an island which had Iron and enough space for either two competing cities on either end or one large one in the centre. Later it turned out to also have Tin. No barbarians even if in the neighbouring pangæea-like continent all six players were too busy putting down barbarian rebellions to actually fight one another.

So what happens if settlements don't have Temples or Cathedrals? Do they get the extra Happy Faces in that case? Reason I ask is 'cuz after capturing SC it seemed even Cities and Towns without either one experienced significant increases in Happy Citizens. Thanks.

Could you give more details? What happened? Perhaps you captured more than one wonder there.

 

[justanick]

So what happens if settlements don't have Temples or Cathedrals? Do they get the extra Happy Faces in that case? Reason I ask is 'cuz after capturing SC it seemed even Cities and Towns without either one experienced significant increases in Happy Citizens. Thanks.

It is simple: There are no content faces from the Sistine Chapel, only the combination of Sistine Chapel and cathedrals will work.

So likely something else changed. A significant increase in happy citizens would indicate more luxury goods or a better situation regarding war weariness.

Edit: Or you simply conquered Bach instead of SC.

 

[Jivilov]

OK thanks. Appreciate the quick replies. No, didn't get Bach's. Musta been a couple more Luxes (now have seven) appropriated from Pachacuti and Bismarck (hate that backstabber!) and of course all first/second core cities have Markets. As per Lanzelot's advice it's better to use the Lux slider rather than religious buildings to manage Happiness.. In the current game it's now on zero from a high of 20% much of the time. Cheers!

 

[Takhisis]

The better situation regarding war weariness is certainly a possibility. I was playing as the Vikings in a democracy yesterday, fortifying the isthmus border against the Egyptians (barricades really pay for themselves) and when I had some Crusaders fortifying the hills on the very border (I was building out from the isthmus city of Elephantine) a small stack of Knights and Medieval infantry attacked the two Crusaders and killed them. This immediately gave my cities a boost of support for the government in the face of this aggression, and then the subsequent victorious campaign (Berserk-laden ships, two three-berserker armies, advancing columns of infantry, cavalry and 20× artillery against pikemen and knights as the best defenders except for IIRC three Riflemen) kept my population's acceptance of the war to a record high!

(also, eliminating one perennial enemy who had already attacked me without provocation once contributed to winning the diplomatic victory)

 

[Jivilov]

when I had some Crusaders fortifying the hills on the very border (I was building out from the isthmus city of Elephantine) a small stack of Knights and Medieval infantry attacked the two Crusaders and killed them. This immediately gave my cities a boost of support for the government in the face of this aggression, and then the subsequent victorious campaign (Berserk-laden ships, two three-berserker armies, advancing columns of infantry, cavalry and 20× artillery against pikemen and knights as the best defenders except for IIRC three Riflemen) kept my population's acceptance of the war to a record high!

(also, eliminating one perennial enemy who had already attacked me without provocation once contributed to winning the diplomatic victory)

Nothing like War Happiness helping to prosecute a long war. In a current game Cleo attacked Honest Abe after his researchers discovered Motorized Transport. There were stacks of Cavs and Infantry, the latter 30 units high in some cases since Egypt had hardly fought any wars. Used Artillery, three Cav Armies and single Cav units to whittle them down before Tanks starting coming off their production lines. It took maybe half a dozen turns to do that as armor showed up to speed the process before prosecuting a counter-offensive.Fortunately had an MP pact with Hannibal to absorb some of the punishment (he's still Furious though since for the greater good of humankind Amerika was obliged to take several border settlements to gain access to Pachacuti, who in turn shared a border with Egypt).

Slogging through Cleo's Metros was a time-consuming process. Even with Pentagon Tank Armies (now have 5) and over 30 Artillery it requires careful preparation---Cav Armies are useless for this while single Tanks don't cut it against defenders with effective strength of 22 with bonuses. Took over 30 turns before finally taking Thebes (defended by 10 Infantry plus Arty) with two more Metros to go. At this point WW has only reached 26% despite also taking on backward Hiawatha with whom Abe in a senior moment forgot to make an alliance before Cleo did. Wish me luck!

 

[Takhisis]

This must have been a different Cleopatra. It was a popular name back in the day.

The one that faced me even had the odd outdated war chariot that got creamed trying to retake a city that an unescorted transport full of berserks and infantry had just taken… the war even game me a military leader (my third) who promptly rushed the Forbidden Palace in freshly-taken Thebes. After the war I ended up with control over four each of iron, rubber and coal as well as a couple of oils… needless to say, at least one of each AI civ needed to borrow a resources off somebody else and I wasn't giving them any. Doling luxuries out to them helped with the diplo victory.

 

[justanick]

The better situation regarding war weariness is certainly a possibility. I was playing as the Vikings in a democracy yesterday, fortifying the isthmus border against the Egyptians (barricades really pay for themselves) and when I had some Crusaders fortifying the hills on the very border (I was building out from the isthmus city of Elephantine) a small stack of Knights and Medieval infantry attacked the two Crusaders and killed them. This immediately gave my cities a boost of support for the government in the face of this aggression,

Had you gained this support by a declaration of war or were you at war already? "This" seems to imply that it was units being attacked that gave the benefit for you, while the article to war weariness suggests the opposite.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-does-war-weariness-work.61628/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/a-new-civ3-investigation-needed-war-weariness.53114/

 

[tjs282]

Had you gained this support by a declaration of war or were you at war already? "This" seems to imply that it was units being attacked that gave the benefit for you, while the article to war weariness suggests the opposite.

No, the way I read it, Takh wasn't (yet!) at war with Cleo when she (sneak-)attacked his Crusaders.

So even though he lost those 2 units, those +4 WW-points(?) would be far outweighed by the initial –30 WW-points he got from being the "victim" of her declaration — and then his Mighty Viking armies tore through Cowardly Egypt with minimal losses, so his citizens remained War-Happy for the entire war.

 

[justanick]

+4 WW-points(?)

With 100% defence bonus from barricades the number can go up a lot:

This explains why defending at chokepoints or landing sites always seems to crank up weariness to such a large degree. I remember one particular instance where I fended off ~100 obsolete attack units in one turn at a chokepoint with minimal losses, but ended up with a fully weary Republic by the next turn.

 

[r16]

ahha , another Al cheat against human player who honestly massacres Al armies from prepared positions .... but still good to learn about . So , if ı sacrifice a single unit before the main operation of landing , do ı get hit less ?

 

[Takhisis]

Basically, in an earlier (a thousand years or more earlier) war Cleopatra had attacked me and ended up losing two major isthmi, one which led to the northern sea and another which led to an inner (freshwater) sea that I shared with the Celts in our treble-border area.

So, in order to keep the peace (I was right in the bend of a U-shaped continent) I decided to barricade every single tile using my crusaders; this time around, Cleopatra used her roads to send a few knights out, killed my two crusaders who were fortiying the hills prior to the workers sweeping in to build roads and barricades (they were busy on the other side of the isthmus walling off the Celts, who were engaged in an arms race with me) and yes, I got war weariness from losing two units but also patriotic spirit from the outrage rose. Note that blasting eight knights with artillery and losing exactly two units throughout the rest of the war while never again fighting on home soil did work out in terms of war weariness.

Especially because the war ended up being quite short. Conquering all 12 remaining Egyptian cities must have taken 20 turns or so.

 

[justanick]

ahha , another Al cheat against human player who honestly massacres Al armies from prepared positions .... but still good to learn about . So , if ı sacrifice a single unit before the main operation of landing , do ı get hit less ?

How should that be of any use?

If you mean to sacrifice a single unit, possibly an outdated artillery unit or so, to make them declare war and thereby have war happiness on your side, then yes, that might help. But if during the main operation of landing you are attacked a hundred times, you will get maximum war weariness, of course.

 

[r16]

was meant as a question of landing one on turn one . It dies , so the mass on the second turn would damage me less . Thanks for the clarification that it wouldn't work , considering it is my favourite play , maximum defensive advantages always sought .

 

[Samson]

What are the rules for triggering a MPP? I thought it was attacking a unit in the territory of a member, but I I think I triggered it when the territory of a member expanded over my units, without a combat, BICBW.

 

[tjs282]

I thought it was attacking a unit in the territory of a member, but I I think I triggered it when the territory of a member expanded over my units,

If you were already at war with the MPP-member(?) but had not yet triggered their MPP-allies to DoW you, your "passive invasion" of the MPP-member's territory might have been enough?

Or possibly it's actually a combination of separate checks, with an 'AND' function between them, e.g. "Has units in MPP-member's territory" AND "Initiates an attack (or bombardment, including auto-bombardment) on (any) enemy unit"? So if you had units on their turf (due to a border-expansion) and e.g. (auto?)bombed a unit, or sank a ship in your/neutral territory, that would still count as an MPP trigger.

There's certainly some non-intuitive/ wonky AND-checks for other functions, e.g. for buildings, the "Required resource must be in town radius" criterion is independent of the "Required resource = X" criterion.

Real-life modding example: To nerf the Horseman-/Knight-/Cav-rush tactic, I was/am trying to make a mod which requires Horse-based units to be "bred" (i.e. autoproduced) and then upgraded, rather than being buildable -- so I modded in a cheap "Paddock" improvement that "Requires Horses (in town radius)", and is required to build further Horse-breeding improvements.

But in-game -- and contrary to my expectation -- I found that if I controlled two Horse-tiles, one roaded but the other not, provided that the town near the unhooked Horse-tile had a road all the way back to the hooked one, I was able to build a Paddock next to both Horse-tiles.

BICBW

Wot is this I don't even

 

[Samson]

If you were already at war with the MPP-member(?) but had not yet triggered their MPP-allies to DoW you, your "passive invasion" of the MPP-member's territory might have been enough?

Or possibly it's actually a combination of separate checks, with an 'AND' function between them, e.g. "Has units in MPP-member's territory" AND "Initiates an attack (or bombardment, including auto-bombardment) on (any) enemy unit"? So if you had units on their turf (due to a border-expansion) and e.g. (auto?)bombed a unit, or sank a ship in your/neutral territory, that would still count as an MPP trigger.

There's certainly some non-intuitive/ wonky AND-checks for other functions, e.g. for buildings, the "Required resource must be in town radius" criterion is independent of the "Required resource = X" criterion.

Real-life modding example: To nerf the Horseman-/Knight-/Cav-rush tactic, I was/am trying to make a mod which requires Horse-based units to be "bred" (i.e. autoproduced) and then upgraded, rather than being buildable -- so I modded in a cheap "Paddock" improvement that "Requires Horses (in town radius)", and is required to build further Horse-breeding improvements.

But in-game -- and contrary to my expectation -- I found that if I controlled two Horse-tiles, one roaded but the other not, provided that the town near the unhooked Horse-tile had a road all the way back to the hooked one, I was able to build a Paddock next to both Horse-tiles.Wot is this I don't even

It sounds like the AND function may have been at fault, in that I killed units they sent into my territory, AND had units in their territory.

You horse paddock thing sounds like the the resource based buildings in the Age of Discovery conquest, in that you only need one fur roaded to be able to build trapper camps in any city that has a fur in the Big Fat Cross and within borders.

BICBW = but I could be wrong. I thought that one is older than the internet.

 

[r16]

you kill units in your or a neutral's territory , no issues . Firing artillery or attacking your enemy in its own territory engages mutual defence . It must be that the units were in hostile territory during the inter turn . Ironworks in epic game tends to be a long way off and to prevent the iron ore running out , ı will never road it or build mines on it , ı really love the possibility of using distant resources for buildings .