I just experienced the same in the current GOTM198!
Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
Hey, all. I got a million questions about how this game works. I think I got most of them answered skimming the thread and a few other forum threads but here are a few I'm still wondering:
1. Sometimes when I’m clicking through my units, all of my “automatic actions” will happen (multi-turn moves and worker actions), especially if I’ve been telling some units to “wait.” Other times there’s no way to make them happen until I pass the turn. This often results in roads getting built, so you really want it to happen before moving some units. Is there a way to trigger this reliably?
2. After a military alliance has lasted at least 20 turns, do you get penalized for just making peace, or do you have to manually cancel the deal before suing for peace?
3. As far as I can tell there’s no way to sell a hospital, regardless of city population, even if you have Shakespeare’s theater in the same city. Is this the case?
1. Sometimes when I’m clicking through my units, all of my “automatic actions” will happen (multi-turn moves and worker actions), especially if I’ve been telling some units to “wait.” Other times there’s no way to make them happen until I pass the turn. This often results in roads getting built, so you really want it to happen before moving some units. Is there a way to trigger this reliably?
2. After a military alliance has lasted at least 20 turns, do you get penalized for just making peace, or do you have to manually cancel the deal before suing for peace?
3. As far as I can tell there’s no way to sell a hospital, regardless of city population, even if you have Shakespeare’s theater in the same city. Is this the case?
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
1. The facetious answer to this question is "Yes -- by not automating your Workers!" In practice, if you insist on automating e.g. road-building, and you want to have that happen before you move your other units, then no other units should be set to automove across as-yet-unroaded terrain, and/or you will just need to spam the "W" key until all automoves have completed. And if any given job isn't finishing when you expected it to, it might just be that you should have added more Worker-power to that pile in the first place...
2. If there's no longer a turn-count shown against the MA in your 'Active deals' window, then you should be OK to make peace with the mutual foe without getting penalised, but I will usually (try and remember to) cancel the MA first anyway, just to be on the safe side.
3. Yes, that's correct. In the unpatched game, you can't sell any improvement which has the "Enables Settlement Size 2 [ or "3"]" ability (set in the Editor; also applies to Aqueducts). The ability to sell these buildings was definitely put on the C3X wish-list recently, but I can't remember if @Flintlock figured out how to implement it yet.
Last edited:
Here is an example. This is a screenshot of a game I'm playing right now. As you can plainly see, all of my units have moved for the turn, which is why it's prompting me to end the turn. There is no other unit I can just "spam W" on unless I want to wake up a fortified unit to do it (this appears not to do anything). The worker in this screenshot has 1 turn left to clear the jungle but refuses to clear it until the interturn. If I had a Chasqui scout that I needed to move through the area, this would cost me movement.
I'm wondering what the internal logic is separating moves that complete mid-turn and ones that complete in the interturn. Spamming W may have a connection to it but it's not a foolproof answer.
Attachments
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I have more than once seen the game prompt me to End Turn while I still have (non-automoving, non-fortified/-sentried) units with move-points remaining. Stack-moving will also occasionally/randomly leave 1-2 active units behind on the origin-tile. I'm not sure what causes these problems, but they are usually correctable (if tedious).
Regarding your lazy(?) Worker, Worker-moves already in progress are usually processed (right after the interturn?), before you're prompted to move anything manually. So if that guy is still reporting 1 turn to go, his job won't be finished until the beginning of the next turn.
Regarding your lazy(?) Worker, Worker-moves already in progress are usually processed (right after the interturn?), before you're prompted to move anything manually. So if that guy is still reporting 1 turn to go, his job won't be finished until the beginning of the next turn.
Last edited:
The worker actions are a bit tricky indeed. Lets see an example.
You want to build a road that demands 6 worker turns.
If you use 6 workers, then all those workers will do their job, the road will be completed and the workers will be ready to act again next round (their movement is now 0/1)
If you use 3 workers, things play out a little differently. The workers take their first turn and keep working, that is OK. Next round, you would expect those workers to finish the road and be left there with zero movement points left-just like in the previous example. This is not what happens though. The workers keep working, the road will be completed during the interturn and the workers will be available again next round.
This may confuse and give the impression that some time has been lost. It hasnt. The road gets completed at the beginning of the interturn instead of getting completed during the previous round, but this does not have significant impact because
1. In both cases the workers are ready for use next round
2. In both cases the road/mine/irrigation/railroad effect IS GATHERED, because finishing worker actions is the first thing to occur during the interturn. It may confuse you about when a project is to be finished, when a city is going to grow or when a tech is going to be researched, but there is no loss of food, shields or commerce.
3. The ONLY thing, as far as I understand, that harms you is what you describe here. You cannot use the road for transpoting units. Most of the times, we do not care about that. If a road is important to be finished during the turn due to war purposes or settler movement, we need to plan it carefuly earlier.
For this reason, we have the following weird effect. A roaded tile needs 6 workers to be railroaded. 3 workers go there and spend one round railroading. Cool. Next round, half the job is done and the 3 workers are still railroading. You can send 3 new workers there (using the existing roads), make them build railroad, the railroad is completed on the spot (like it would have been if you had used 6 workers from the start) and the 3 previous workers are immediately released from the job and are ready to move. Since you have used 3 workers and released 3 other workers, it may give the impression that you somehow won 3 worker turns, because the railroad is finished but this is not true. The only thing you gained was usage of the railroad for that round for other units.
From the above, it is very tempting to reach the conclusion that using the full number of workers needed is superior and convenient. You always know that the city growth rate/production time required/research of tech is accurate and do not need to calculate the extra boost coming from the finish of the worker actions at the beginning of the interturn. Plus, in the cases of roads, those roads can be used immediately during that turn. This is a wrong conclusion and I would really hope that this will not be the first thing you learn in the forums here. The superior strategy is to always send one worker in unroaded tiles to finish the road (or a mine/irrigation followed by a road by the same worker) unless something very weird and specific is going on at the moment that includes that tile. That is because moving a worker into an unroaded tile wastes a turn (if this does not immediately strike as easy to understand, we can explain it in more detail). So, later in the game, when you have hundreds of workers, it is convenient to move multiple of them through roads in order to irrigate something during the same turn (and so, be able to handle city screens more easily), but not while the tiles are still unroaded.
I have the suspicion that some strong players sometimes send more than 1 worker to clear jungle/wertlands, but I have not confirmed it. I guess releasing a grassland tile in 12 or 18 turns instead of 36 is something worth considering losing 1-2 worker turns....but stay away from this logic in all other cases please.
You want to build a road that demands 6 worker turns.
If you use 6 workers, then all those workers will do their job, the road will be completed and the workers will be ready to act again next round (their movement is now 0/1)
If you use 3 workers, things play out a little differently. The workers take their first turn and keep working, that is OK. Next round, you would expect those workers to finish the road and be left there with zero movement points left-just like in the previous example. This is not what happens though. The workers keep working, the road will be completed during the interturn and the workers will be available again next round.
This may confuse and give the impression that some time has been lost. It hasnt. The road gets completed at the beginning of the interturn instead of getting completed during the previous round, but this does not have significant impact because
1. In both cases the workers are ready for use next round
2. In both cases the road/mine/irrigation/railroad effect IS GATHERED, because finishing worker actions is the first thing to occur during the interturn. It may confuse you about when a project is to be finished, when a city is going to grow or when a tech is going to be researched, but there is no loss of food, shields or commerce.
3. The ONLY thing, as far as I understand, that harms you is what you describe here. You cannot use the road for transpoting units. Most of the times, we do not care about that. If a road is important to be finished during the turn due to war purposes or settler movement, we need to plan it carefuly earlier.
For this reason, we have the following weird effect. A roaded tile needs 6 workers to be railroaded. 3 workers go there and spend one round railroading. Cool. Next round, half the job is done and the 3 workers are still railroading. You can send 3 new workers there (using the existing roads), make them build railroad, the railroad is completed on the spot (like it would have been if you had used 6 workers from the start) and the 3 previous workers are immediately released from the job and are ready to move. Since you have used 3 workers and released 3 other workers, it may give the impression that you somehow won 3 worker turns, because the railroad is finished but this is not true. The only thing you gained was usage of the railroad for that round for other units.
From the above, it is very tempting to reach the conclusion that using the full number of workers needed is superior and convenient. You always know that the city growth rate/production time required/research of tech is accurate and do not need to calculate the extra boost coming from the finish of the worker actions at the beginning of the interturn. Plus, in the cases of roads, those roads can be used immediately during that turn. This is a wrong conclusion and I would really hope that this will not be the first thing you learn in the forums here. The superior strategy is to always send one worker in unroaded tiles to finish the road (or a mine/irrigation followed by a road by the same worker) unless something very weird and specific is going on at the moment that includes that tile. That is because moving a worker into an unroaded tile wastes a turn (if this does not immediately strike as easy to understand, we can explain it in more detail). So, later in the game, when you have hundreds of workers, it is convenient to move multiple of them through roads in order to irrigate something during the same turn (and so, be able to handle city screens more easily), but not while the tiles are still unroaded.
I have the suspicion that some strong players sometimes send more than 1 worker to clear jungle/wertlands, but I have not confirmed it. I guess releasing a grassland tile in 12 or 18 turns instead of 36 is something worth considering losing 1-2 worker turns....but stay away from this logic in all other cases please.
This. Emphasis on "already in progress"
For the same reason, you have another weird effect that confuses the inexperienced player. A railroad needs 6 worker turns. 2 workers work for one round. Next round, the player checks on the workers and gets a "needs 2 turns to finish the railroad". This is correct, since 2 out of the 6 needed actions have been implemented. The player wants to know how many workers he needs to bring in in order to finish the railroad on the spot. He thinks that since 4 more worker actions are needed and 2 workers are already there digging, he needs 2 more. He brings the first one and before clicking he sees "build railroad 2 turns". Correct, he clicks the button. He brings in the second one and sees "build railroad 1 turn". Correct. He clicks the button, but the railroad is not completed. Why? The player gets confused and does not know how many more he needs to bring in. In this example 2 of the workers are acting "already in progress"-as tjs282 is saying-and 2 of them are acting for the first round. The player needs to bring 2 more workers to finish the railroad. The railroad will be finished and the 2 original "already in progress" will be released. 4 workers will remain on the tile without movement points. Ironicaly, this replacement of the 2 original workers cannot happen if the player does not have 2 available workers-this may cause some trouble some times.
4. Forest shields: I know you can only get the +10 chop bonus from each tile once per game. But what if you don’t get them the first time? What if the first chop is in radius of a city building a wonder, or in no city radius at all? Followup: If a square is within two city’s radii, does it go to the one lower in the index? What if that one’s building a wonder/wealth and the other one isn’t?
5. A few questions about war weariness. For instance, do noncombat units (arti/workers) being in enemy territory or being lost count towards it? Do *cruise missiles* being lost count towards it? That would be weird. Also: MapStat says that a full army counts as 3/4 units for purposes of pacification (in other words, the loaded units but not the army itself). Is the same true for enemy territory WW penalties?
6. It’s incredibly rare (I’ve played this game for 20 years and it’s happened double digits), but the AIs sometimes build embassies in my capital. However, with the exception of the MPP+ROP combination offer after nationalism, they never ask for rites of passage. It’s not a trust thing, or even a value thing; a lot of the times if I propose a ROP with an AI they’ll agree to pay me GPT for the privilege. But they never propose it, even when moving hundreds of units through my territory. They all have ROPs with each other. Is it me? Do I smell?
5. A few questions about war weariness. For instance, do noncombat units (arti/workers) being in enemy territory or being lost count towards it? Do *cruise missiles* being lost count towards it? That would be weird. Also: MapStat says that a full army counts as 3/4 units for purposes of pacification (in other words, the loaded units but not the army itself). Is the same true for enemy territory WW penalties?
6. It’s incredibly rare (I’ve played this game for 20 years and it’s happened double digits), but the AIs sometimes build embassies in my capital. However, with the exception of the MPP+ROP combination offer after nationalism, they never ask for rites of passage. It’s not a trust thing, or even a value thing; a lot of the times if I propose a ROP with an AI they’ll agree to pay me GPT for the privilege. But they never propose it, even when moving hundreds of units through my territory. They all have ROPs with each other. Is it me? Do I smell?
If you donnot get it the first time, you donnot ever get it.
Those cities that are blocked by wealth etc. donnot get the shields, in that case the other city can get it.
If multiple cities are valid, then counting from the chopped tile a city at 9,6,3,2,1,4,7,8,8-9,9-9,9-6,6-3,3-3,3-2,2-1,1-1,1-4,4-7,7-7,7-8 qualify in that order. So that is clockwise starting at 9 and after the inner circle is checked the outer circle starts at 8-9 and is also checked clockwise.
Wald roden (Civ3) – CivWiki
Yes, therefore i doubt it very much. Cruise missiles seem perfect for democracies to avoid war weariness.
It is not that rare if it has the money for it. Depending on details having the money for it can be rare.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
4) If there's no valid destination for the chop-shields, then they're wasted. The chop-shields will go to the first valid destination-city found on the 20 tiles surrounding the Forest-tile (similar to a city's BFC). The tile-check starts on one of the tiles north of the Forest (1NE IIRC — but don't quote me!) and moves clockwise around the inner 8 tiles first. If no valid destination is encountered, the search expands to the outer 12 tiles, starting on the tile NNE of the Forest, and again moving clockwise. Any towns on that spiral which are building Wonders (Great or Small), or the Palace, or Wealth, are considered invalid destinations, and ignored; depending on what builds you already have queued (both near the Forest, and across your wider empire), you may be able to use this to manipulate where the chop-shields will go.
5) Any unit which is attacked (regardless of whether the attack is successful) will increase WW-score. Losing units (killed or captured) will also increase WW. So even if having your (A/D = 0/0) Bombard-units, Workers or Scouts on enemy territory does not in itself increase your WW, losing them certainly will.
6) To build Embassies, the AI needs spare money. At lower levels (up to Regent/Monarch) their economic ineptitude means that they rarely have that cash to splash. However, once diplomatic relations have been established, the AI-Civs in my games (mostly at DG these days) do frequently offer RoPs — albeit usually in conjunction with Military Alliances. But I have often found that even if I take the MA off the table, the RoP will still be accepted (and frankly, letting a neighbour to my east walk freely through my land to fight a neighbour to my west, has always seemed like a pretty good deal to me!)
5) Any unit which is attacked (regardless of whether the attack is successful) will increase WW-score. Losing units (killed or captured) will also increase WW. So even if having your (A/D = 0/0) Bombard-units, Workers or Scouts on enemy territory does not in itself increase your WW, losing them certainly will.
6) To build Embassies, the AI needs spare money. At lower levels (up to Regent/Monarch) their economic ineptitude means that they rarely have that cash to splash. However, once diplomatic relations have been established, the AI-Civs in my games (mostly at DG these days) do frequently offer RoPs — albeit usually in conjunction with Military Alliances. But I have often found that even if I take the MA off the table, the RoP will still be accepted (and frankly, letting a neighbour to my east walk freely through my land to fight a neighbour to my west, has always seemed like a pretty good deal to me!)
No, they seem to always have RoPs with each other to me also. I think I saw say that they did elsewhere also.
When you have more territory than an AI, yes, an RoP can make for a nice way of getting a little more gold from the AIs. However, they last 20 turns. And if you declare war, you broke that per-turn deal. Consequently, I don't advise signing an RoP unless you don't plan to declare war on an AI in the next 20 turns. If you do plan on declaring on an AI within the next 20 turns, then don't sign an RoP. If you will have an AI declare war on you in the next 20 turns, then an RoP can be alright. However, even if you have a huge lead in power and military to the AI and play on least aggressive, if they have 2 units in your territory, say from walking a settler/unit pair across your territory to get somewhere else, then if you make enough outrageous demands (like cities) and get them furious enough, then if you tell them to "leave or declare", they will declare war on you. And whoever gets a war declaration gets war happiness without a reputation hit. But, that's not possible, since you can't tell them to leave or declare war, with a Right of Passage.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,139
too much counting ! If you are cutting down the forest , there are multiple cities in range and you want the shields to go where you need them , do the palace , any great or small wonders available in the other cities until the tile is cleared and return to usual programming .
always playing at Monarch , the AIs regularly establishes embassies at my capital ; ruining the map . Will discover their country when ı invade the place ! As already said right of passage offers tend to come with offers of alliance but ı have encountered stand alone right of passage proposals . Which ı will generally refuse because they tend to end up in surprise attacks by the 7th turn or thereabouts .
always playing at Monarch , the AIs regularly establishes embassies at my capital ; ruining the map . Will discover their country when ı invade the place ! As already said right of passage offers tend to come with offers of alliance but ı have encountered stand alone right of passage proposals . Which ı will generally refuse because they tend to end up in surprise attacks by the 7th turn or thereabouts .
Early in my games, as my galleys make their way along the coast, I will try to get ROP so that I can get all the way around the landmass.
By the Middle Ages, I cancel nearly all of the ROPs with civs on my land mass. If I'm playing a Continents map, I might agree to ROP with civs on the *other* land mass, for exploration.
I've been burned by ROP-accelerated invasions by neighbors who suddenly become aggressive.
By the Middle Ages, I cancel nearly all of the ROPs with civs on my land mass. If I'm playing a Continents map, I might agree to ROP with civs on the *other* land mass, for exploration.
I've been burned by ROP-accelerated invasions by neighbors who suddenly become aggressive.
WeirdoJoker
King
Playing Emperor/Small/Archipelago (though actually a couple decent-sized continents) as Vikings. Took out the last of the Byzantines, and going after Germany next (F3 says "strong military" and it's not as spread out as the other three). Is it better to DoW the opponent, or make an unreasonable demand on F4 and goad them into DoW against me (and would that even work)?
It works if they have had one unit in your territory for two consecutive turns. Even if you have a massive lead in power. All war declarations give the nation declared on war happiness. So, ceteris paribus, it works out better for the AIs to declare on you than conversely.
WeirdoJoker
King
Is there an inherent value in playing a larger map - e.g., Standard versus Small? My current game is on a Small map (6 civs including my Vikings) and am wondering if I shouldn't have played a Standard map instead. Lots of Bonus tiles on the map overall, but not much in the way of Luxes. (Resources are light, too, but enough to get what I need from somewhere or other.) The lack of Luxes has been annoying, not to mention having nothing to trade but 1 extra Spices, such that I'm in the Industrial Age and way behind on tech while I gear up for an overseas war against Germany (again). If I can win enough battles before Germany gets Panzers, I might be able to salvage the game, but having basically nothing to trade to keep up on tech has been a killer.
Score can be higher.
Fergei
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Messages
- 408
I may be wrong, but I believe luxury occurrence is set to 0, which means it is entirely randomised. I like this as it varies the experience from game to game, but you could change settings to make occurence rates a defined number / ratio, as is the case with resouces.
To answer the question, map size will not change anything if luxury occurrence is randomised AND the ratio of number of Civs to number of land tiles remains the same. The other way to increase luxury occurrence rate (on average) is to increase the number of Civs on each map size. So instead of 6 Civs on your small map, make it 7 or 8. But the increased number of luxuries is effectively cancelled out by an increased number of Civs.
As I often post, I find the game more enjoyable with around 30-40% more Civs per map size, zero AI bonus starting units, reduced domination win conditions and playing one difficulty level higher than normal. On average this raises the total number of luxuries on the map. Same for resources.
Last point: as luxuries do not spawn on land masses with no starting Civ, it may be harder to acquire luxuries peacefully (or aggressively) on Archipelago maps. That is, if there 10 land masses and your one is luxury scarce, it will take a horrible amphibious war to increase your control of luxuries. Whereas a land war on continent or pangea may be easier in order to acheive the goal.
To answer the question, map size will not change anything if luxury occurrence is randomised AND the ratio of number of Civs to number of land tiles remains the same. The other way to increase luxury occurrence rate (on average) is to increase the number of Civs on each map size. So instead of 6 Civs on your small map, make it 7 or 8. But the increased number of luxuries is effectively cancelled out by an increased number of Civs.
As I often post, I find the game more enjoyable with around 30-40% more Civs per map size, zero AI bonus starting units, reduced domination win conditions and playing one difficulty level higher than normal. On average this raises the total number of luxuries on the map. Same for resources.
Last point: as luxuries do not spawn on land masses with no starting Civ, it may be harder to acquire luxuries peacefully (or aggressively) on Archipelago maps. That is, if there 10 land masses and your one is luxury scarce, it will take a horrible amphibious war to increase your control of luxuries. Whereas a land war on continent or pangea may be easier in order to acheive the goal.
More like the other way around. Smaller maps allow you to play more games in your lifetime. We are all going to die eventually.
The impact of that should be somewhat limited. So i am not convinced that this a (meaningful) disadvantage. But it does of course change things up a little.
Southern_Man
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 26
If anybody ai is running negative gpt and disbanding units every turn, what is the logic or considerations for which units get poofed?
My observation is that they disband units away from their home territory more often, and also that they probably have some sort of rating for unit value that plays in, but idk how that all ties together
My observation is that they disband units away from their home territory more often, and also that they probably have some sort of rating for unit value that plays in, but idk how that all ties together
