I've just started playing the Civ 3. I've tried using the Romans got spanked tried the Japanese and got beat. I chose them because I like to be able to defend myself in a war i.e. militaristic.. Now I'm trying the Iroqois who aren't militaristic and I've won two minor wars with them already. Anyone know why I'm doing much better with an Expansionist Religious civ than with a militaristic civ when I'm the one who goes to war most often. I've fought the Aztecs and the Russians. Tookover a city from the Russians and they asked for peace. Took two cities from the Aztecs and they wanted peace. The other Civs started the wars not me.
Weird
- Thread starter JRush18
- Start date
Welcome to CFC, JRush18!
The militaristic trait doesn't have any effect on whether you win or lose battles. It affects promotions, the cost of some improvements, and the chance of generating Military Great Leaders. I only play C3C, but I think that the Iros have the same unique unit in vanilla. The Mounted Warrior may be the reason that you're doing better. It's a very powerful unit.
The militaristic trait doesn't have any effect on whether you win or lose battles. It affects promotions, the cost of some improvements, and the chance of generating Military Great Leaders. I only play C3C, but I think that the Iros have the same unique unit in vanilla. The Mounted Warrior may be the reason that you're doing better. It's a very powerful unit.
I've done most of my fighting with swordsman and archers because my territory is COMPLETELY surrounded by mountains and jungles.
Iroq are expansionist and religious in C3. This means they have scouts and can hit those huts for some tech/gold/settlers/warriors the good stuff.
The UU's are the same in C3 and C3C, but the traits are not. I would expect though that the biggest difference would be starting locations.
Rome is so strong that players will use them in Always War games. You should do quite well in the AA with Rome or Iroq in either C3 or C3C.
The UU's are the same in C3 and C3C, but the traits are not. I would expect though that the biggest difference would be starting locations.
Rome is so strong that players will use them in Always War games. You should do quite well in the AA with Rome or Iroq in either C3 or C3C.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Without having the save to look it is hard to say why Rome did not do better. Just because Rome is MIL doesn't make it fight any better or win more battles. MIL means that the chances of an MGL are better (1 in 12 vs. 1 in 16). That leads to more Armies which in turn creates a stronger military.
Being MIL does not change the combat odds in any way, nor affect terrain bonuses.
The strength of Rome is the Legionary, their Unique Unit, which fights like a normal Sword (attack of 3) but defends like a Pike (defense of 3) instead of a normal Sword (defense 2). It is much harder to kill than a Greek Sword or Indian Sword. To build the Legionary, you must have learned the tech Iron Working and be connected to an Iron resource. It isn't enough for it to be inside your borders; it also needs a road from the Iron to your capital.
Another possible reason, harder to explain, is that you expected something of the MIL trait, played that way, only to find out that what you expected wasn't the way it works. You may have expected to win more battles, and thus engaged in more battles (and at poorer odds), than what you have done with the Iroquois. Since you know that the Iroquois are not MIL, you have been more careful in how you battle, where you battle and what units you use. As a result, you've won more battles, had less losses and been more successful than Rome was.
But all this is speculation and guess work. A save from that game would help a lot.
The Roman and Japanese games will be easy. I have two computers. One is connected to the internet and isn't. I played Rome and Japan on the connected one and the Iroqouis on the unconnected one. I don't have a flash drive so the Iroqouis game is gonna have to wait.
I spoke to soon. I was just rushed by the Russians, the Aztecs, and the Americans. Me and another Civ had just got Feudal. My troops were spread out in stacks of twos and threes to stop the barbarians. They were caught and slaughtered. The americans appeared with six galleys and cut my empire in parts. I was knocked down to four cities then three, then two, and finally my capital. I have learned a very valuable lesson don't let my troops get spread thin.
I screwed up big time.
I screwed up big time.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
This thread, [URL="http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301319']C3C Korea Regent- Any way to salvage this?[/URL] might be what you need to read. In it a player posted saves from their game, told of the issues they faced and asked for help. It is not the only thread like it, not by any means. But it was the first one I found.
The saves are still attached to the post. I would suggest downloading them, take a look around at how the game was played, and then read and study the suggestions posted back by people here at the forum.
I would also suggest browing through some of the completed Succesion Games and see how they placed their initial cities. If you plan on a lot of wars, find an Alway War (AW) Succession Game. Those games feature a lot of warfare with a lot of AI at one time, since the idea is No peace with No body at No time. Diplomacy is easy, but every tech has to be self-researched. City placement is critical, as is preserving units.
At the risk of overkill, here is a very short list of things to avoid.
Generally, do not do these four things.
Don't automate workers. Sure, it is extra work, but you can easily make better decisions about what tasks your workers should be doing than the AI. The AI will waste tons of worker turns moving them around the empire. Turns they are moving is turns they are not improving anything.
Don't build your cities too far apart. While some folks debate this issue, it is better defensively to build your cities within walking distance of each other. That means no more than two road tiles, so that Spears and Archers can walk from one city to another in one turn. Sure, every city has 21 tiles to work. But until you can build Hospitals, the largest any city can be is 12. So, try to keep your cities to a City-space-space-City pattern.
Don't build everything. If you are going to war you don't need Temples to expand your borders. After all, the purpose of war is to capture their cities and make them yours. Your core cities won't need courthouses, your furtherest cities won't benefit from them, so don't build them everywhere. Libaries and probably barracks should be in all your core cities, along with markets. But a city that is 50 tiles from the capital (generally) has no need of any improvement.
Don't build Wonders. Let the AI build them and you capture them. Much cheaper
Don't trade Luxuries, Resources or GPT too early. If you have only one trade route to a trading partner and you are supplying them with a Luxury, Resource or Gold Per Turn, and if an unfriendly AI (unfriendly to you or your trading partner, like Barbarians) happens to block that path at the end of a turn, you are held accountable for not being able to keep your part of the agreement. In turn, this makes it more expensive, if not impossible, to supply Luxuries, Resources or Gold to the AI for the rest of the game. The AI will still sell them to you, but you lose the abilty to sell them to the AI.
The saves are still attached to the post. I would suggest downloading them, take a look around at how the game was played, and then read and study the suggestions posted back by people here at the forum.
I would also suggest browing through some of the completed Succesion Games and see how they placed their initial cities. If you plan on a lot of wars, find an Alway War (AW) Succession Game. Those games feature a lot of warfare with a lot of AI at one time, since the idea is No peace with No body at No time. Diplomacy is easy, but every tech has to be self-researched. City placement is critical, as is preserving units.
At the risk of overkill, here is a very short list of things to avoid.
Generally, do not do these four things.
Don't automate workers. Sure, it is extra work, but you can easily make better decisions about what tasks your workers should be doing than the AI. The AI will waste tons of worker turns moving them around the empire. Turns they are moving is turns they are not improving anything.
Don't build your cities too far apart. While some folks debate this issue, it is better defensively to build your cities within walking distance of each other. That means no more than two road tiles, so that Spears and Archers can walk from one city to another in one turn. Sure, every city has 21 tiles to work. But until you can build Hospitals, the largest any city can be is 12. So, try to keep your cities to a City-space-space-City pattern.
Don't build everything. If you are going to war you don't need Temples to expand your borders. After all, the purpose of war is to capture their cities and make them yours. Your core cities won't need courthouses, your furtherest cities won't benefit from them, so don't build them everywhere. Libaries and probably barracks should be in all your core cities, along with markets. But a city that is 50 tiles from the capital (generally) has no need of any improvement.
Don't build Wonders. Let the AI build them and you capture them. Much cheaper
Don't trade Luxuries, Resources or GPT too early. If you have only one trade route to a trading partner and you are supplying them with a Luxury, Resource or Gold Per Turn, and if an unfriendly AI (unfriendly to you or your trading partner, like Barbarians) happens to block that path at the end of a turn, you are held accountable for not being able to keep your part of the agreement. In turn, this makes it more expensive, if not impossible, to supply Luxuries, Resources or Gold to the AI for the rest of the game. The AI will still sell them to you, but you lose the abilty to sell them to the AI.
Bowsling
Deity
And feudalism is almost always a bad idea, unless you have either a very small military or a smallish military and a lot of towns instead of cities. Move down a difficulty level if it's too hard, and if you're getting beaten on chieftain, look at a few War Academy articles and through the strategy and tips forum to help improve your play. Also, my last bit of advice is to get conquests. You'll like it, promised.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
I'll still hold by my strategy of building giving my first few cities more space and then building them closer together as I expand. This allows the core cities (which are the most efficient cities) to have their full production potential, or almost their full potential, while still having the frontier cities close enough to move military units around if it is necessary to do so.
Another thing: Don't have Mutual Protection Pacts in effect at the same time that you have any kind resource trade or other per-turn deal going. It may not be your fault, but you will lose face if obligated to declare war on the trade partner by the MPP just as much as at any other time.
Thank you for all of the tips. I have now played at least once with all Civs on Vanilla and been defeated on each one. I'm trying the Romans again and amazingly I'm doing much better now. I think I may have learned from at least some of my mistakes. I am currently boxed in on that game with the Greeks to my North and the Egyptians to my South. I am preparing an attack on the Egyptians to gain a little breathing room for my cities. It'll be ready next turn. I'm doing tons better.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
Egyptians are, if I'm not mistaken, the generally recommended civ for a beginner, but on the other hand you should try them all.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
You may want to uncheck the box that says 'Culturally linked starting locations'. When this is checked, your starting neighbors will always be the same for that civ.
In other words, with that box checked, when you play Rome you will always have Egypt, Carthage and Greece start next to you. When that box is unchecked, it could be China, Maya or France.
In other words, with that box checked, when you play Rome you will always have Egypt, Carthage and Greece start next to you. When that box is unchecked, it could be China, Maya or France.
Really, thanks for that info I wondered why all the Civs from that region were near me.
Similar threads
