Where Wilson and Emrich Got It Wrong

[Valen]

First of all, let me say that "Rome on 640K a Day" is probably the most valuable Civ reference you can have on your bookshelf. That said, there are still a few facts that they simply got wrong.

To begin with, in another thread we are venting about what wonders we love to hate. At this point, I feel the need to come to the rescue of Darwin's Voyage.

According to "Rome on 640K a Day", Darwin's gives you whatever bulbs remain on the advance you are researching plus one more advance. It goes on to caution you about losing too many bulbs on that first advance.
This advice is not necessary. The Civilopedia is more accurate when it says you get "two immediate Civilization Advances". When you build Darwin, the bulbs in your research box are not touched.

This behavior is easy to test. Simply build Darwin's Voyage in the last city on your city roster. After city check, look at your research box. If the book were correct, you would expect the box to be empty. In reality, you can run the city check twice - once without Darwin's and once with. Either way, the research box will look the same at the beginning of the next turn.

 

[krille]

Just to clarify a few things, your last built city is not necessarily your last city in your "city rooster". For example, if you start out as white in an 8 player game (Barbarians + 7 Civilizations), your first city (if built on your first turn) will be 0. Your next city will most likely be city 7 (for this example we're playing at Chieftain to make things simpler). However, if for your third city you construct the Settler in City 0 and this causes the city to disband (going from 1 pop -> 0 pop) and you found a new city (using this settler on the same turn, for simplicity), this new city will become your new first city, not your last city. So unless you've been paying careful attention to all cities (including all AI cities) throughout the game, you probably won't know which city is your "last" (the city with the highest city instance ID).

I do think the [F1] Domestic Advisor sorts them correctly for you, but I haven't actually verified it and I'm just saying you should be careful.

 

[Valen]

I use [F1] so much I simply take it for granted. So to clarify my first post, when I refer to city roster, I mean the [F1] display. It is sorted in the order cities are processed in the city check. Same is true for [F4] and [F5]. Krille is quite correct in pointing out that this is often not the build order.

Now back on topic. Besides rushing to the defense of Darwin following the "be inflammatory" thread, I really intended this to be a list of "Rome on 640K" errata.

Wilson and Emrich could hardly be faulted for reporting that Copermicus' Observatory expires with the discovery of automobile. After all, the Civ manual and Civilopedia say the same thing. It has been repeated many times before, but for the completeness of this topic, I'll say it again. Copernicus never expires.

I repeat my kudos to Wilson and Emrich. This book is the best single Civ1 resource I have seen. This entire forum is built on subtleties that they did not mention, but for actual errors, I can think of only two (already mentioned).

Unless anyone else has found others...

 

[stwils]

Wilson and Emrich's book is Civ 1's Bible. Nothing else has come close to it.

And there is no such book of this statue for Civ2, Civ3, or Civ4.

I think it shows that Wilson and Emrich were interested in the real basics of Sid Meier's game and not just gloss/ graphics/ more and more of things that really do not matter - when you love the core game - Civ 1.

I have TWO copies, that's how much I love it.

stwils

 

[stwils]

[/Quote This entire forum is built on subtleties that they did not mention, [/Quote


What do you mean?

stwils

 

[Valen]

What do you mean?

stwils

I was trying to limit the discussion to actual errors rather than "omissions". I guess that door is open now.

At the time, I was thinking of how I had first seen the ship sentry trick described on this forum - not mentioned in the book. When I saw that, I was compelled to dig my Civ game out of the archives.

Besides cheats, the forum has discussions of things like the pollution bug which may well have been undiscovered in '92. In a nutshell, the game is full of subtleties that we fanatics have uncovered over the years. Hail Sid!

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I guess that this thread is a very good excuse for reading the Book one more time. Besides all the valuable information about the game, it is worth a whole year of History classes and it is written with a wonderful sense of humour.

 

[Blinking Joy]

...the pollution bug which may well have been undiscovered in '92...

What is "the pollution bug"...? Is it the fact that, in LATE civs (like, 4000ad and up, with tons of future techs), cities that show no pollution somehow pollute for no reason?

 

[void]

What is "the pollution bug"...?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=251335

 

[Valen]

Glancing through the FAQ jogged my memory. There is another little known fact that is reported incorrectly in the book.
Throughout the community of Civ players, it is common knowledge that when the defender of stacked units (not is a city or fortress) loses a battle, the whole stack is destroyed. That's what the book says. The Manual and Civilopedia agree. So does the FAQ.
But this is not quite what happens. In any single battle, the most units you can lose is 8. Since the loss of 8 units is likely to be unacceptable, this is more a curiosity than useful information, but this thread exists to set the record straight. Years ago, in another thread, I saw screenshot proof that this also extends to nuclear war. The thread author first sent a diplomat into an enemy city to reveal 11 defenders. After probably reloading and sending the diplomat in after a nuclear strike, the city had 3 defenders.
This doesn't affect my strategy any - I still don't stack defenders in the open, but it's interesting to know.

 

[Valen]

Has anyone else noticed this?
The book and the manual state that barracks cost:
0 gp upkeep first generation
1 gp upkeep second generation
2 gp upkeep third generation

In my current game, I am seeing 2, 3 and 4 gp upkeep for barracks.

Is this because I triggered something playing TWAYF, or is this another obstacle that the game throws at you when you play Emperor?

The screenshots show the F5 display for 1st generation and 3rd generatoin barracks.

 

[Urtica dioica]

There's a file called READ.ME in my Civ directory. I don't know whether it's official, but I think it is, so everyone should have it.

Under the section "NEW in Version 3.0", it says:

28. The maintainence [sic] cost of Barracks has been changed to 1/2/3 coins at the Prince and King difficulty levels, and 2/3/4 coins at the Emperor level.

 

[Valen]

READ.ME is official. I've even read it once upon a time, but I'd forgotten the barracks note.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Glancing through the FAQ jogged my memory. There is another little known fact that is reported incorrectly in the book.
Throughout the community of Civ players, it is common knowledge that when the defender of stacked units (not is a city or fortress) loses a battle, the whole stack is destroyed. That's what the book says. The Manual and Civilopedia agree. So does the FAQ.
But this is not quite what happens. In any single battle, the most units you can lose is 8. Since the loss of 8 units is likely to be unacceptable, this is more a curiosity than useful information, but this thread exists to set the record straight. Years ago, in another thread, I saw screenshot proof that this also extends to nuclear war. The thread author first sent a diplomat into an enemy city to reveal 11 defenders. After probably reloading and sending the diplomat in after a nuclear strike, the city had 3 defenders.
This doesn't affect my strategy any - I still don't stack defenders in the open, but it's interesting to know.

This is true, I remember being attacked with probably around a dozen riflemen in my city, and there were still some left after being nuked.

 

[Whelkman]

I'll tell you where they got it wrong: copy editing. This book is a rough read. It's no surprise, however: the book was published by Prima, after all.