Blackcat, you may find the game more interesting, if it was set to std settings. I would suggest playing on std sizes first. Use the default number of civs (8).
If you must play on huge, use the default of 16 civs. Playing at Regent or better and see how things turn out. Regent is the level that AI and the Human have the same cost.
The game is boring if you have no challenge and nothing to look forward to, other than easy street.
If you need to post a save, use the std save. IOW save the game and use that file. The autosave is many times larger than the regular save.
Yours was over 2 megs for the 4000BC. Something was wrong with it as it would not load with either tool. That means it is not even a case of patch levels.
Well, I experiment a bit - currently I'm on a huge, small islands and 16 civs - still, I have every wonder except SoZ (seems like when you are scandi, then ivory is far far away).
I'm a bit curious about your problems with loading - I'm playing C3C verion 1.00 according to the program. The attached is a std save - could I ask you to try to load it to see if you can run it ? There isn't much fun left in it if you don't fancy a nice little conquest campaign
No go, CivAssitII said please verify that your version of Civ/PTW/C3C is patch to the current version.
I guess they are not able to load unpatched version. I would suggest you get the 1.22 patch and apply it. I can no longer remember the changes in the various patches, but few will be able to look at any save that is not patched.
Dammit
I have a small collection of interesting starts that can't be used if I upgrade. Well, guess that I just have to make a new collection
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Make your first one a pangea with normal opponents.
Edit :Originally posted by BlackCat
Dammit
I have a small collection of interesting starts that can't be used if I upgrade. Well, guess that I just have to make a new collectionon me for not say thanks for the trouble. And that should have been the edit button not the quote
I currently have Civ 3 Jewel Pack, and Civ 3 Golden Edition and none of them seem to have the Editor. Does the Civ3 complete have the Editor or where can I find it.
I do not have the jewel ir the complete versions. I do think that complete has the Conquest editor.
I would expect the install would put an icon for the editor in the start menu under Atari.
If not look for an editor in the directory. It will have edit as part of the name. Something like Civ3edit.exe or Civ3ConquestsEdit.exe
Complete does indeed have the editor that us old CIV 3 players have come to know and love..
But like the origional editor; you cant access it through the game interface. You have to go into the program files (open up 2k folder in all programs and you will see the sub folder for the editor then double click on the executable) I would expect that it would be the same for Jewel and gold editions as well.
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Thank's for the reply. I have always wondered about the Civ3 editor because it seems like something cool to work with.
I've been thinking if you take down a forest or jungle and sence coal and rubber can appear on the squares will that effect if the resource will appear there after you have taken the forest or jungle down.
My understanding is that when a map is generated the resources are placed. If you cut the forest or jungle or clear a swamp, it will not affect the appearance of the resource.
It is not clear about later, when a resource is exhausted, if it will apear on a tile that once had a jungle or not. This is not a significant issue, so I do not know.
My understanding is the same as vxma1's as regards initial resource placement.
However, I thought that if a resource depleted somewhere, it could not reappear on a tile that no longer has the required terrain.
It really isnt an issue because the one resource that is dependent upon jungle is never exhausted and thus never disappears.
So no, go ahead and chop away, it wont matter at least until your citizens start to get skin cancer and sunburn because of your woeful disregard to the environment..
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
I now have won my first Civ 3 game. It was a interesting save though. I won it by the hightest score because I did not know what victory to choose, though it was on Chieftin, but I don't care. Now on my recent save I'm on warlord and warlord is not to much different than the other.
There are two things that I found helpfull in the warlord and that may be able to help you get a feeling for a new difficulty.
[list=1][/list=1] The first one is having lots of workers because you will be able to work the land faster, and produce more on a small scale.
[list=2][/list=2] Second one is turning off the civ specialities to level the playing field as they say. I think this item may help on higher difficultys
P.S. Sorry if I did the list wrong my first one.
I find that making alot of workers and irrigateing, mining/or roading all of the spuares in and a little bit around your area to be very helpful.
For one is increase production, food, gold and movement of all units in the area. I think it can help if you have a negative income to even it out rather than disbanding one of your units. Also when it get to past railroads a worker is not too much use, I don't think other than with new citys.
Yes, you should definitely aim to road & mine/irrigate every square you intend to work.
Workers' usefulness don't quite end once you railroad your civ. They're still going to be needed for pollution cleanup once you get factories, coal plants, and hospitals. Otherwise you'll start losing tiles to pollution. That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. Joining them to cities that have built hospitals can be a good use, since growing size 13+ cities via food can be a costly endeavor.
Bearing in mind, of course, that slaves are free.Originally posted by Kloreep
. . . . That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. . . .
Once you get flight you can also use workers to make airfields and Radar Towers (Advanced flight) or to make fortifications (very useful in the infantry/artillery era and holding onto a resource colony)Originally posted by Kloreep
Yes, you should definitely aim to road & mine/irrigate every square you intend to work.
Workers' usefulness don't quite end once you railroad your civ. They're still going to be needed for pollution cleanup once you get factories, coal plants, and hospitals. Otherwise you'll start losing tiles to pollution. That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. Joining them to cities that have built hospitals can be a good use, since growing size 13+ cities via food can be a costly endeavor.
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
From Play one of my other save I've notice that if you do not have knights and you are at war with another civ and you build swordsman and archers they can be very help full in combating those Knights.
Spearmen were help full to a decree but I rather like working with swordsmen than the other. Not that I'm saying spearmen are not useful, in alot of cases they can be of help like protecting your citys or a many of other things.
Now horsemen were of better help but not too much. For me I like to have at least some difference of units in attacking the another civ but I don't do it offten because I stink at it.
I'm just now experimenting with attacking the enemy.
A 2.1.2 horseman isn't good to send against a 4.3.2 Knight unless it's down to one remaining hitpoint.
I'm a chicken so I wait for a while before starting wars. First when I have at least three army groups consisting of 6 artys, 10 attackers and four defenders/occupation units, I start.
It might seem to be an awfull lot of units, but I have a couple of reasons to wait so long :
* don't attack before there is a reasonable chance to beat the opponent.
* when attacking with archers and swordsmen you are sure to loose units and have other severely damaged. You don't want to hold back your invasion while you wait for replacements/repair.
* attacking several places diverts the enemys forces and reduces their production capacity fast.
* it reduces their cultural influence and that makes it easier to go for the next targets.
* it gives the opponent time to build roads so your armies can move faster in your newly conquered land.
* it gives the opponent time to reach monarcy/republic and have cities having cultural growth. This might not make much sense, and if you just razes the newly conquered cities, it doesn't matter. If you want to keep them, you don't want them to hurry production by sacrificing citicens. The point is that a city you take will at least loose 1 citizen, so if there are only one, then the city will be destroyed. Though, if it has had a culture pop, it will survive even with one.
The exception to the above is if there are other civs in the neighbourhood - then I build at least 15 archers. It may too seem like a lot, but it can easily cost 2-3 archers to knock out a single spearman (but that is probably not news for you
Well, that's my two cents - hope it makes sense (and not being shot down too hard by the experts)
War timing is largely dependent on style - though the wrong style can be treated harshly in a particular situation. When it comes down to it, you can succeed with warmongering or without. (Though it gets harder to go without as you go up levels... at some point you at least have to claim yourself a large enough empire for your civ to have all the cities that it can maintain at a reasonable corruption level.)
Don't knock ancient warfare, though. It can be done; and a mix of spears, swords, horsemen and catapults can be turned into a very successful ancient era campaign. (If you "rush" an enemy - attacking very early - even Archers can be used to an advantage.) Warring early can mean a lot of time to sit back in peace later in the game; if you eliminate a neighbor, you can greatly increase your territory, and decrease the need to fight later on. Of course, waiting means more time to build up your civ, which means you can ultimately field a better army...
Each wave of units that arrives in the tech tree usually offers ways for you to fight a good campaign. You generally have your Attacker, your Defender, and your Bombarder. In the Medieval Era you get an interesting choice between two different attackers; both are useful, but you'll probably want at least some Knights, since they're just so strong at everything. Pikemen & Longbowmen can be used in concert wherever you can afford to forgo the Knight's speed.
About the only time I'd say that attacking can't be done very well is when Infantry arrive in the Industrial; it becomes very hard to win on the attack. Before that, Riflemen end Cavalry's Golden Age runnig down Musketmen, but it is still possible to take Riflemen out with Cavalry - you're just faced with a greater need to use Cannons to soften them up. Of course, I'm sure someone will now reply that with the proper application of Cavalry or Infantry armies, you can fight successful wars mid-Industrial.
Ultimately, it's up to when you're ready to commit. You'll probably find the biggest success building big Stacks of Doom like Black Cat suggests. You want to have plenty of defenders covering your attackers & bombarders. (This applies even if your standard defense unit is no better than your standard attack unit, because defenders are cheaper. Spears and Swords both have 2 defense, but the spearman only costs 20 shields vs. 30 for the sword, so use them to cover your swords so that your valuable 3-attack swords can't be damaged or killed on the attack. Ditto even more so 30 shields for a Pikeman vs. the whopping 70 for a Knight!) Having devoted defending units gives you bombardment units much-needed protection, and keeps your attackers safe and fresh for when you're ready to go on the offensive.
Once you have your Stack of Doom, find the quickest/safest route to your target city and attack. Chances are the enemy units will be dug in and may even have better odds in a straight, even-HP fight; that's why you need bombarders to better your odds.
Last edited by Kloreep; June 30, 2007 at 20:05.
"Stacks of Doom"
I forgot to mention an important issue - your fleet. It of course depends on your environment, but if you have acces to water, then your fleet will be crucial to your war(mongering).
A fleet, or rather several fleets, is nessecary if there is much water. One thing is that they make you able to hit on long distance in an invasion - another thing is that you can hit way above the actual front - f.ex. to attack the city that controls your enemys iron source.
A little trick - you can save several turns on your army movement by let your armies load into a fleet in a city because they stil have the ability to unload after fleet movement - Especially the Scandinavs can do nasty things early. If you have the Beserks, well
Edit: the las trick of course demands that you landed the army on a roaded tile.
Last edited by BlackCat; June 30, 2007 at 22:06.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My thoughts on Wealth
First of all I'm a beginner so bare with me.
I've played a decent amout of civ games to know that for me wealth is a good thing. On alot of the games I find myself having no money because I either have too many units or city's are producing too many improvements. I've also seen that alot of people think that wealth is some what of a waste of time or you could be producing something better but for me sence I'am a beginner It's is a help.
I think one of the reasons is I never have money in the beginning years in connection to wealth is because I like to be researching something, manking gold and improving my citys at the same time. I tried not producing wealth it did not work because I was having hard time knowing just what to build. Also it is just one way I can get gold.
P.S I rate getting techs fast as a high priority because you can get more powerful units, and better things to help you to produce.
One last things I don't really have a set strategy or I just go into the game kinda with out thinking or just to learn how to do things and/or learn more about the game.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are putting towns on wealth prior to late industrial, you are doing something wrong for the most part.
Expansion and having more towns will generate more income than setting some to wealth will. If you expand fast & large enough, the totally corrupt cities can become specialist farms. In those areas, irrigate everything and support as many specialists as you can. Use whichever specialists you need at the moment to achieve your goals.
Then you've already identified the problem. If you have too many improvements, well, you shouldn't have built them in the first place. Instead, you should have built units. Generally, units are a better investment. If you have too many units, go take some territory. Then put down more towns.Originally posted by Civ_4 On alot of the games I find myself having no money because I either have too many units or city's are producing too many improvements.
Wealth isn't a complete waste of time, but it's close. As vmxa1 pointed out, you should be long into the game before you're building it.Originally posted by Civ_4 I've also seen that alot of people think that wealth is some what of a waste of time or you could be producing something better but for me sence I'am a beginner It's is a help.
If you expand rapidly in the early game, you can plant enough towns that you don't need to produce wealth to stay afloat (economically).Originally posted by Civ_4 I think one of the reasons is I never have money in the beginning years in connection to wealth is because I like to be researching something, manking gold and improving my citys at the same time. I tried not producing wealth it did not work because I was having hard time knowing just what to build. Also it is just one way I can get gold.
P.S I rate getting techs fast as a high priority because you can get more powerful units, and better things to help you to produce.
Don't build improvements just because you can. For example, I rarely build temples. I only build them when flips are a risk, or there's a resource nearby that I could not claim otherwise. At 60 shields (is that right?), that's 3 horsemen that I could have built. Multiply that across just 5 towns and we're talking about 15 horsemen! At my difficulty level (Monarch), that's enough to wreck an AI.
Think of your empire as being divided into 3 areas: (1) the core; (2) the semi-core; and (3) the hinterlands. Generally, the core gets the most improvements of the 3 areas (though not necessarily most of the available improvements). The semi core gets somewhat fewer improvements, depending on what's justifiable. The hinterlands get lots of irrigation and specialists -- no improvements.
Then find a strategy. Pick one victory condition and shoot for it. One of the pieces of advice that I was given when I first started was that I should play a game and do the following: (1) Do not build any Great Wonders. (2) For improvements, build only barracks. (3) Then build only settlers, workers and military units.Originally posted by Civ_4 One last things I don't really have a set strategy or I just go into the game kinda with out thinking or just to learn how to do things and/or learn more about the game.
I played a game like that and was surprised at how fast a conquest victory can progress under those rules.
@Civ_4 : I'm a bit confused by your claim of being hogged up in unit and maintenance early in the game.
I do build 3-4 warriors as the first for scouting and hut popping, but unless I find opponents close, I don't build anything else than warrior/settlers until saturation and a worker in every new city.
Shortly (using scandi as example) :
Main base pops 3-4 scouts. Reseach pottery. When scouts are finished so should potterry, so build granery - then 3-4 pairs of warrior/settlers. When they are finished, you have a core of at least four bases. While building those you have at least researched BW and CB - maybe popped some from huts, so now you prepare Trondheim for wonder building by making two warriors and a temple. After that, well, build wonders.
What to do in other cities highly depends on what you scouts find. If you are alone, well, new warrior/settlers are the recipe until saturation. If not, dedicate two for war by building Baracks and archers, and the others for warriors/settlers.
No matter what a new base is supposed for, start with a worker and if it's a settlerbuilder, a granery. Chop wood for hurry if available. (note: if the base can't grow quickly enough to build a worker, then build a warrior or a currach - the first can escort a settler, the latter scout).
I'm a bit curious about your problems, so could I persuade you to try the attached start and post a save when you run out of money (yeah, I HAVE upgraded so it's a 1.22) ?
Btw. talking about scandinavs, here are a bit that may be a little off topic, but we are going against Belfast yet again
http://www.havhingsten.dk/index.php?id=277&L=1
Sorry Blackcat I do not have Conguest yet!
I only have the Civ 3 Jewel Case "no expansion" and Civ 3 Golden edition.
So if you want me to try a save of yours than please post a save for the Regular Civ 3 or the Civ 3 with PTW.
Thank You.
Instead of me messing things up, could you post a game of yours where you are running out of money and if possible the start ?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Here is a save that I recently have played. I'm having a little of a hard time but not to much. This save is the only one I have played that is the closest to the beginning.
P.S. I've figured out some more good tricks and maybe I need alot more help on money on this save than I think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks