Rise and Rule for Civ3:Conquests

[Landmonitor]

Keshiks + 1.04 Feudal Monarchy. My vote for military games.

What the changes to Feudal Monarchy for 1.04? Also, are you allowing battleships to carry cruise missiles? This wouldn't be a huge advantage, but would add some realism, particularly since you differentiate between battleships and dreadnaughts. I won't be playing any Civ until later in July but I hope my next game is a 1.04 RaR (maybe with some additional units causing craters!-- could you let me know which units will cause craters in the next installment?).

Also, shouldn't cruisers be available a little earlier, I don't think Iron Frigates were involved in WW1, and there were destroyers before there were WW2 submarines and battleships... In short, its seems weird that the second level of Battleships are available when there are still wooden corvettes and iron frigates representing state-of-the-art light and medium warships!

Keep up the good work!

 

[Salamandre]

Can someone please upload the resources.pcx? I messed mine when trying to get icons.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

What the changes to Feudal Monarchy for 1.04? Also, are you allowing battleships to carry cruise missiles? This wouldn't be a huge advantage, but would add some realism, particularly since you differentiate between battleships and dreadnaughts. I won't be playing any Civ until later in July but I hope my next game is a 1.04 RaR (maybe with some additional units causing craters!-- could you let me know which units will cause craters in the next installment?).

Also, shouldn't cruisers be available a little earlier, I don't think Iron Frigates were involved in WW1, and there were destroyers before there were WW2 submarines and battleships... In short, its seems weird that the second level of Battleships are available when there are still wooden corvettes and iron frigates representing state-of-the-art light and medium warships!

Keep up the good work!

Actually, I think a total of 2 Battleships ever carried Cruise Missiles .
For me, Iron Frigates simply represent all those pre-Dreadnaught cruisers; you know, long range, mixed armament, size from 2000 to 15000t. And advanced battleships were around when destroyers were still merely bigger torpedoboats; so that's not too far off.

Craters are in.
The only change to FM is the TSI - that one gets fundamentally stronger (+50% production, +50 taxes, CH; 140sp, but AGR/MIL/REL). That small change makes FM are really good choice with a Civ with one of those traits and limited growth.

@Salamandre:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/resources.zip

(Mods: Those are the RAR resources, not the Firaxis file.)

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

@Doc:

I believe I read somewhere that your solution to balancing the Republic was to increase the unit support cost from 1 to 2. Well I decided to try this out and I still find the Republic to be overpowered. I'm sorry but a strong economic government with above-average military support is still hard to compete with. Could you perhaps consider other ideas to use also?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I really tested all Govs (yes, I even used Theocracy) en detail. And I can tell you that Republic isn't as strong as you believe. No cash-rushing, no useful gov-specific improvement and ugly corruption. I for one will always prefer either Democracy (mostly peace), or wait for FM (war) or even AbsMon (AW).

Republic already is the weakest available Gov in my eyes with 2gpt support - no need to weaken it even more. It really is the only Gov I will NEVER pick voluntarily (of course, if I for some strange reason happen to get the tech when still in Chiefdom...).

 

[Zorn]

Speaking of bad governments, what is the point of theocracy?
It seems to be chiefdom with a slightly better cap - it`s worse than monarchy.
Unless you play a "Sacrife for 25K" variant, it`s terrible.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Very few cities. As in "lost 10 out of 15 cities, and struggle to survive due to lack of unit support and income".
Otherwise, the Sacrifice Theme is boosted substantially in 1.04; so for culture victories, it is indeed a viable choice. Even for 50k.

 

[Zorn]

But if I am struggling for survival, lost cities and have troubles to support military - isn`t high war weariness a little counterproductive?

 

[Landmonitor]

Actually, I think a total of 2 Battleships ever carried Cruise Missiles .

I never thought of that, but by the time cruise missiles were a widely used weapon, I think most battleships were decomissioned (not sure when they stopped being used but I'd guess it wasn't long after WW2 ended), but in most Civ games, I don't decommission my battleships! Anyway, its not important.

What is the TSI (for feudal monarchy)? Is that a wonder? The only feudal monarchy specific thing I can remember is the manor, which was production and tax, I think.

 

[ltccone]

Are the captured worker icons ("slaves") that C3C uses going to be used in 1.04? It would seem to make sense to me. It sure makes it easier to tell your own workers from the captured ones.

 

[WhimpyCiv]

Doc T,

I really tested all Govs (yes, I even used Theocracy) en detail. And I can tell you that Republic isn't as strong as you believe. No cash-rushing, no useful gov-specific improvement and ugly corruption. I for one will always prefer either Democracy (mostly peace), or wait for FM (war) or even AbsMon (AW).

Interesting. I find the trade bonus of the Republic its most useful feature, which is why I usually switch to it as early as possible. I've avoided Democracy entirely; what makes it so attractive to you? Perhaps I've misjudged it.

I agree with you about AbsMon; that's one of my favorite govs. FM, again, I've avoided; what good points can you point out to it? I think I might need to rethink my political game ...

-- WC


Republic already is the weakest available Gov in my eyes with 2gpt support - no need to weaken it even more. It really is the only Gov I will NEVER pick voluntarily (of course, if I for some strange reason happen to get the tech when still in Chiefdom...).[/QUOTE]

 

[Boris Badinov]

@Landmonitor:
US last decommisioned their battle ships around 1992. They were used in Korea, Viet Nam, Lebonon and Persian Gulf #1.

As for enabling the transport of Cruise Missles on BB's... Open the editor and compare the Cruiser and Battleship entries and find the missing 'FLAG'. Can't tell you which flag it is as I'm not at the PC that has CIV3 on it. Of course remember to back up the BIQ file before messing with it.

 

[sanabas]

Interesting. I find the trade bonus of the Republic its most useful feature, which is why I usually switch to it as early as possible. I've avoided Democracy entirely; what makes it so attractive to you? Perhaps I've misjudged it.

Demo has the trade bonus too, and also offers cash-rush, less corruption and better gov-specific things to build. I'm trying to think of a situation I'd take Republic over Demo, but I can't come up with any. Maybe if I was warring heavily, and the slightly lower WW might offset the other losses Republic has, but if I'm playing a game like that, I'm usually avoiding both Republic & Democracy.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Demo and Rep have the same corruption (rampant = Despotism). It's just that you can deal with that easier in Demo, by rushing a CH/ Counsellor were needed.
The 70 vs 80% rate cap also matters: While you will have 10% lux and either research or taxes anyway, the 70% often enough are noticable.

I'm trying to think of a situation I'd take Republic over Demo, but I can't come up with any.

I see us agreeing 100% about this.

 

[bonscott]

I've never done Demo in a RaR game. I stick with Republic. Why?
Demo has MUCH less troop support and High WW. Deal breakers in my opinion but then I usually have a medium to large size army and Demo kills me.

And this may be what usually keeps be out of Const. Monarchy because it's troop support is much lower. I have gone CM a couple times though and the WW is very manageable with the special buildings and wonders you can build but I don't see much benefit because of the high support costs.

When I've gone to Abs. Monarchy before the loss of the trade bonus isn't made up by the lower corruption.

Fed Republic has terrible troup support but pretty low corruption but I still find it better with the trade bonus.

Thus in just about every RaR game I've ever played I pretty much stay in Republic the whole game.

Maybe it's just my style of play? I don't know...

Note these are 1.03 governments.

 

[Turner]

I'm kinda the same way. This game, I went to Rep and stayed out of Demo. Seemed the unit support was a better deal, even with the trade bonus for Demo.

But I love Const. Monarchy. My current game, I have high unit support, but I also have so much commerce coming in that I can handle the high unit costs associated with CM. I like Absolute Monarchy too, but seem to go CM when I have a choice. Of course, playing a religious civ helps a lot.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Seems like we did a good job with Government balancing - there is not *one* favorite GOv like in unmodded .

I really cannot understand how someone could play RaR without extensive cash-rushing. But to each their own.

 

[rhialto]

Playing rar, I tebnd to switch to republic asap, and hold onto that until I can get const. monarchy, which I think is the single best governemnt bar none.

The game engine allows for either 1 or 2 trade arrows per tile (barring special effects such as rivers and resources). This is such a fundamental difference that it really defines the governments more than any other single aspect except possibly war weariness. (Aside: In all my suggestions for civ4 gov engines, I have suggested that this be changed to a multiplier on the total rather than a per-tile effect, to avoid such a stark split).

With const monarchy, once you start buildin the anti-WW improvements, you have all but eliminated WW forever, giving you both of the fundamental governemnt bonuses.

 

[madviking]

Just Wondering, is 1.04pb still the lastest version?

 

[bonscott]

I like CM as well but unless I'm religious I feel I can't afford the long anarchy at the stage of the game I'm usually at. Either way I still win...usually.

Seems like we did a good job with Government balancing - there is not *one* favorite GOv like in unmodded .

I really cannot understand how someone could play RaR without extensive cash-rushing. But to each their own.

I've never been a big cash rush player myself. In fact I *love* pop rush for newly take cities. Take size 10 city, start starving, as soon as it's no longer rioting pop rush shrine, next turn or two pop rush monument, next turn or two pop rush courthouse/forge/library/etc and within 5-7turns you've got a large unhappy city just waiting to flip down to size one and plenty of your culture building in it. If I had to cash rush that I'd have to wait more turns to starve it down to reduce the flip chances. But that's my style anyway. I kinda like commie sometimes just for the population reducer effect when taking a city.