Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Samson]

Mobilisation is something you have to switch to deliberately -- and as soon as you do, any non-military builds in progress are forced to switch to a military build -- but it ends automatically when your current state of peace/war changes.

So you could mobilise while still at peace, use that period to build up for the war, then DoW, and go back to normal builds.

Is this true? I thought the mobilisation ended when you either make peace or kill a civ, not when you declared war.

 

[tjs282]

AFAIK, yes: if you're at peace when you mobilise, a DoW will end the mobilisation.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

This just occurred to me: is there a way to destroy an AI Civ's Apollo Program (i.e., the Spaceship as constructed thus far)? I'm falling behind a bit here, and every turn counts.

 

[tjs282]

You have to capture the town containing your opponent's Apollo to prevent them from starting to build parts, but (if I'm remembering @Lanzelot's article correctly?) this will not stop them from completing any parts already in progress. You will have to capture their capital to destroy the parts they've already finished building.

If you're lucky, they've also built Apollo in their capital, so you only have to capture that one town. If not, you'll have to do some "Investigate City" (Diplomat) missions until you locate their Apollo Program town.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

If not, you'll have to do some "Investigate City" (Diplomat) missions until you locate their Apollo Program town.

Now that you mention it, is there a distinction between "investigate city" by diplomats and by spies? I see that function available for both but have never tried it with the latter.

 

[Samson]

Now that you mention it, is there a distinction between "investigate city" by diplomats and by spies? I see that function available for both but have never tried it with the latter.

I think the difference is that the spy mission works while you are at war.

 

[kaskavel]

Just downloaded civassist. Is there any particular tricky catch I need to know so as not to waste time while exploring it?

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Start location issues:

Started a new game as Rome - Small/Pangaea - and ended up on a small island, so I just abandoned that game before I got too much into it. (Always had bad luck as Rome, anyway.)

Re-started as Scandinavia - Small/Archipelago - and found my Settler on a tobacco patch. Is there any disadvantage to starting on such a bonus tile?

 

[tjs282]

No.

It's really only Food-Bonus tiles -- and specifically those which will give you >2 fpt (or >3 fpt if Agri), between leaving Despotism and learning Steam Power -- that you should ideally avoid Settling on.

 

[kaskavel]

Also, we usualy try to avoid bonus grasslands. Settling on a normal grasslland offers one shield. Settling on a bonus grassland offers again one shield until the city grows at size 7, at which point you get the extra shield. So you miss the extra shield for some time, unless you are full of bonus grasslands and you do not need to use another one. But yes, the food is much more important. Settling on the wheat in your case for example, means losing 2 extra food for the rest of the game. It is a painful decision if such a bonus is at the corner of the land...

 

[tjs282]

Also, we usualy try to avoid bonus grasslands.

This is much more situational though.

For example, in that screenie, if WJ Settles in place on the Tobacco, sure, he'll then have 2 BGs to work -- but his capital also won't ever be able to use the Wheat we can see on the other side of the lake. Conversely, if he moves his Settler NE onto that BG tile (while his Worker begins mining and roading the Tobacco), the Wheat will become available to use 10T after Trondheim is founded. Given that "food is power" in Civ3, sacrificing 1 shield in the short term to gain 2 food for the rest of the game seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Looking at his position on the minimap, moving north would also place his capital that little bit further from the Tundra regions that are (for sure!) just out of sight to the south.

 

[kaskavel]

This is much more situational though.

For example, in that screenie, if WJ Settles in place on the Tobacco, sure, he'll then have 2 BGs to work -- but his capital also won't ever be able to use the Wheat we can see on the other side of the lake. Conversely, if he moves his Settler NE onto that BG tile (while his Worker begins mining and roading the Tobacco), the Wheat will become available to use 10T after Trondheim is founded. Given that "food is power" in Civ3, sacrificing 1 shield in the short term to gain 2 food for the rest of the game seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Looking at his position on the minimap, moving north would also place his capital that little bit further from the Tundra regions that are (for sure!) just out of sight to the south.

Yes, no objection here of course, thus my soft tone ("usualy, try to avoid") I am just adding up the info because we mentioned food and commerce but not shiields.
I also wonder if the position north of the settler may turn out to be an excellent exploiter of sea squares and where/if the worker is going to move first. It is not an obvious start anyway, to me at least.

 

[Samson]

AFAIK, yes: if you're at peace when you mobilise, a DoW will end the mobilisation.

FYI, I tested this in the Japan scenario and declaring war does not end mobilisation.

 

[tjs282]

FYI, I tested this in the Japan scenario and declaring war does not end mobilisation.

I'm puzzled: which Japan scenario are you talking about?

Because (though it has admittedly been a while since I last played it) I wasn't aware that the Sengoku Conquest ever even allowed Mobilisation at any point -- and the WWII Pacific Conquest already starts with all participants in a Locked War, so (re)declaring on your programmed opponent(s) wouldn't actually change your war/peace status.

 

[Samson]

I'm puzzled: which Japan scenario are you talking about?

Because (though it has admittedly been a while since I last played it) I wasn't aware that the Sengoku Conquest ever even allowed Mobilisation at any point -- and the WWII Pacific Conquest already starts with all participants in a Locked War, so (re)declaring on your programmed opponent(s) wouldn't actually change your war/peace status.

I mean the Sengoku Conquest, I just did not want to try and spell it You get mobilisation at Feudalism, that is why I tried that.

 

[Civinator]

The decisive point for the end of a mobilization is when the mobilzed civ is signing a peace treaty. This is also written in the civilopedia:

This is also true, if a civ has several wars at the same time and signs a peace treaty with one civ, but stays in war with the other civs. With signing that peace treaty, the status of mobilization is gone for that civ, even if it is in continuing wars with other civs. To regain the status of mobilization, it must mobilize again.

 

[Samson]

The decisive point for the end of a mobilzation is when the mobilzed civ is signing a peace treaty. This is also written in the civilopedia:

View attachment 726374

This is also true, if a civ has several wars at the same time and signs a peace treaty with one civ, but stays in war with the other civs. With signing that peace treaty, the status of mobilization is gone for that civ, even if it is in continuing wars with other civs. To regain the status of mobilization, it must mobilze again.

It does not say there, but defeating a civ also ends mobilisation.

 

[Civinator]

It does not say there, but defeating a civ also ends mobilisation.

Yes, that´s true. To defeat a civ is the optimal way to have eternal peace with that civ - until the next game.
Edit: The end of mobilzation by annexion is mentioned in the German Civ 3 Wikipedia: https://www.civ-wiki.de/wiki/Mobilisierung_(Civ3)

 

[Samson]

Yes, that´s true. To defeat a civ is the optimal way to have eternal peace with that civ - until the next game.
Edit: The end of mobilzation by annexion is mentioned in the German Civ 3 Wikipedia: https://www.civ-wiki.de/wiki/Mobilisierung_(Civ3)

That also has the additional units that the production does not apply to, but not the ones the English refers to:

> This bonus ... does not apply to the production of transport ships, bombers, artillery units, and troop units .

 

[WeirdoJoker]

This is much more situational though.

For example, in that screenie, if WJ Settles in place on the Tobacco, sure, he'll then have 2 BGs to work -- but his capital also won't ever be able to use the Wheat we can see on the other side of the lake. Conversely, if he moves his Settler NE onto that BG tile (while his Worker begins mining and roading the Tobacco), the Wheat will become available to use 10T after Trondheim is founded. Given that "food is power" in Civ3, sacrificing 1 shield in the short term to gain 2 food for the rest of the game seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Looking at his position on the minimap, moving north would also place his capital that little bit further from the Tundra regions that are (for sure!) just out of sight to the south.

Hm. So probably the best move is to move one square to found Trondheim, then get another worker asap to road & develop the wheat so it kicks in asap. I was originally thinking I'd just get my next town to capture the wheat, but I suppose it would be better in the capital.