[C3C] The Nine Conquests

To my big surprise, my capital grows to size 13?! Hmm, I checked it in the editor: none of the improvements in that city (palace, granary, archive, marketplace, barracks) allows city level 3, and level 2 has the usual limit of 12 citizens?! Anyone any explanation for this?
This "Settlements grow to Size 3 without a Hospital" feature also confused me the first time I played Sengoku, but there is nothing in the .biq to indicate how this happens, so I only have an untested hypothesis as to how it works.

I believe that if a .biq includes 3 settlement sizes which can be attained before all BFC tiles are worked, but no building which specifically "Allows Size3", then once Size2 has been achieved, towns simply grow on to Size3 without impediment. That is, it's the presence of a "Size3 building" which tells the game to enforce the (Size2, Pop12) population-cap.

You do still get the Size3 population-pollution, though.
 
it might not be so easy to get their Daimyo in a town well-protected by lots and lots of Spearmen (defense 3) -- unless they upgraded it and it is now top of the stack...
Just as a side note since you already won the game, King-units (which I'm pretty sure the various versions of Daimyo are) will defend last, regardless of their stats compared to the other units in the stack. So you'd need to work your way through all other defenders before killing the king.
 
This "Settlements grow to Size 3 without a Hospital" feature also confused me the first time I played Sengoku, but there is nothing in the .biq to indicate how this happens, so I only have an untested hypothesis as to how it works.

I believe that if a .biq includes 3 settlement sizes which can be attained before all BFC tiles are worked, but no building which specifically "Allows Size3", then once Size2 has been achieved, towns simply grow on to Size3 without impediment. That is, it's the presence of a "Size3 building" which tells the game to enforce the (Size2, Pop12) population-cap.

You do still get the Size3 population-pollution, though.

I think there's one or two other scenarios that work the same way.
 
King-units (which I'm pretty sure the various versions of Daimyo are) will defend last, regardless of their stats compared to the other units in the stack.
That's good to know. And it explains, why the regular 1/1/1 Ashigaru was still top of the stack in Sendai... (I completely forgot that even the level-1 Shogun would have defense 2, so would be stronger than the Ashigaru...)

Meanwhile I have posted a game plan for the Napoleon game! Vive la France!
 
Just as a side note since you already won the game, King-units (which I'm pretty sure the various versions of Daimyo are) will defend last, regardless of their stats compared to the other units in the stack. So you'd need to work your way through all other defenders before killing the king.
Or send a unit with Sneak Attack capabilities.
 
Very impressive how quickly you won Sengoku. I only have a couple Diplomatic wins in that Conquest, mostly just Domination wins.
Looking forward to French dominance! Vive La France! I have played this Conquest many many times, as every civ (even Sweden for the lulz). I have witnessed AI players razing cities with VP point locations on them, particularly in Italy/Kingdom of Naples, then having a hard time reinforcing their defenses of the ruined location. No idea if this happens in Deity but just something I wanted to share.
 
I have witnessed AI players razing cities with VP point locations on them, particularly in Italy/Kingdom of Naples, then having a hard time reinforcing their defenses of the ruined location. No idea if this happens in Deity but just something I wanted to share.
That was also something I was afraid of in this scenario, because settlers cannot be built. An AI on the rampage and razing lots of cities, might make the Domination win quite difficult. Or even worse: losing a core city and then not being able to replace it... :(
Is there any evidence about what induces an AI to raze a captured city? If it is too far away and there's no hope of defending it? Or if the flip risk is too high?

BTW: first update of Napoleon is published.
 
That is my fav of the bunch.
Mine as well. And the Napoleonic Era was always one of my favorite topics in History. Read a bunch of books about it and watched lots of documentations. A quite detailed and historically acurate "biopic" of Napoleon was shot by German TV as 4-part series in 2002 and is now available on youtube. Link to first part:

(Or was it the BBC?! I found German, English and French versions, so probably an international effort...)
 
High foreign Cultural value seems to be the main driver of the AI going raze-happy (also in the epic game). Whenever I've played this Conquest specifically, Venice always seems to get razed by the AI.
 
Two Armies and a couple of Cavs take Warsaw. For some strange reason, the people here are Austrian?! So the Russians must have taken it early on in their war with Austria, and I haven't even noticed... But this looks to me like a slight historical inaccuracy to me: wasn't the area of Warsaw Russian during the Napoleonic time? It is true that Austria occupied parts of Poland at that time, due to the Three Polish Partitions 1772-95, but that was further south. Ok, Wikipedia still knows what I have forgotten from my school days... Warsaw was in fact part of the piece that went to Prussia. So in either case, it is wrong in this scenario...!

I can only assume they wanted to represent the territories Austria got in the third partition and that was the best idea they could come up with? Or maybe it was a balance thing?

It's not like the scenario is a super-big stickler for sticking to the real geography of 1800-ish. The obvious one is that Germany and Italy weren't really unified at the time, but there's some other minor borders being a little off or cities not quite being in the right place (Mostar, for instance, is well inland of the coast), and one other glaring weirdness is Russia having control of Helsinki at the start, when it would have been part of Sweden at the time, and Russia didn't conquer Finland until 1809.
 
I think the designers of the scenario had to make a few compromises. If they had tried to create a "historically accurate" map, they would have ended up with as many small nations as in the Sengoku scenario... It looks like they just concentrated on the main players at that time, and then added the smaller nations to one or the other major player for balancing purposes. E.g. the territory of Bavaria has been added to Austria here...

Anyway, game is finished. I failed to reach domination, so it became yet another win on VPs... :(
 
Another great victory for Lanzelot! I assume there is no question which civ to pick for WW2 Pacific, surely Japan is the only option?
 
WWII Pacific is the scenario I have the least experience with... Why Japan? Isn't the US the strongest faction in this scenario, both in weapons as well as in production capacity?
But after I had France in the Napoleon scenario, I might be game for a more difficult challenge... I remember my last attempt was with the Common Wealth a few decades ago..., but I can't remember, whether I even finished that one, as it was dragging on very slowly...
Perhaps China might be an option, or would this be hopeless on Deity?
 
I'm new to the Forum but have been lurking for some time.

A significant problem with some of the conquest scenarios is CivIII's inability to handle economic growth well enough. In the Napoleonic scenario France is stronger than Britain although Britain had a 40% bigger GDP (despite its smaller population). In the Pacific War scenario, the USA is limited to its west coast cities which cannot of themselves produce the torrent of stuff that actually flowed into the pacific war during 1943 and especially 1944. Thus the US is by no means the power it should be in the scenario.
 
the USA is limited to its west coast cities which cannot of themselves produce the torrent of stuff that actually flowed into the pacific war during 1943 and especially 1944. Thus the US is by no means the power it should be in the scenario.
Welcome to Civfanatics!
(And I'm honored that my little story here got your very first post... :))

I think the scenario designers made that decision to include only the US west coast for two reasons:
  • for game balance... ;)
  • and to mimic the historic circumstances that the US at the same time had to fight the Axis Powers in Europe, and Roosevelt had agreed with Churchill to take care of "Germany first". So supposedly the main production of the US flowed into the operations in Northern Africa, Sicily, Italy and finally D-Day.
    However, I think that despite the slogan "Germany first", the US poured more resources into the Pacific war than into the European theater, simply because in the Pacific they mainly had to fight on their own (ok, China fought a major portion of the Japanese forces from 1937-1945 and Great Britain/Common Wealth provided a little bit of support from Burma, Singapore and Australia), while in Europe the US got a huge help from the Soviet Union, Great Britain, Common Wealth, as well as Polish and French volunteer corps. (Compared to the Soviet effort, the US effort is probably minuscule, but even if we consider only D-Day and the western front, the portion of Britain + Canada probably equals the US effort?! I would really like to see some numbers here, but I think in terms of naval power and air forces for the D-Day preparation, the British effort was bigger than the US effort, and in terms of ground forces for D-Day, British-Canadian effort was probably not less than the US effort.)
 
Top Bottom