Greetings Apolytoners,
I'm a long-time intermittent lurker here, having first stumbled across 'poly back in (I think) 1998. Never posted, never contributed, never got involved, primarily because Civ is the kind of game that Eats Your Life.
But now, in an effort to avoid productive work, and to have my life eaten, I figured I'd introduce myself and write a few random notes.
First of all, Conquests rocks, bugs and all. A good update to Civ takes the same underlying mechanics and makes you rethink everything. I skipped PTW (perhaps I shouldn't have) so there's lots of new stuff here for me.
I am a bit miffed, however, at the developers not releasing a list of rules changes. The changes in this thing are huge and not releasing them smacks of fear that the community will find some unanticipated exploited and void the whole game.
No claims to being an expert, by the way. I play on Regent, generally. Pre-Conquests, I was recently having immense trouble with playing the Americans and switched down to level 2--and still wasn't happy with my results. And I've played plenty on level 1. (I don't any more because I have a seven year old friend who can win pretty regularly on it. And for those who argue that the leap between Monarch and Emporer is too much, he and I both agree the jump between Chieftan and Warlord is too much. )
Generally, I play all random settings at a difficulty level, and when I find that I'm beating it too easily, I push the difficulty up one. If I find a combination that "beats me", I'll restart several times to see if I can win on that start. If I can't, I'll lower the difficulty and concentrate on that combo (as with Americans, and prior to that Babylon, which I was more successful at).
In older Civs, I "turtled". In most strategy games I "boom". What I like about Civ 3 in particular is that it makes me change my playstyle. It can hurt, but it challenges and improves me.
I recently rolled a 3BYO standard map, Mongols--the antithesis of my playing style--and it was like a whole new game. I scored Temple of Artemis, which works so well with raiding Keshiks, it's scary. (I played this pre-patch, so it wiped out all my pre-built Temples--with the new patch it doesn't!) Keshiks may not be uber-troops, but they retained a fair amount of use into modern times on this mountainous map.
Fascism is weird. Attack all you want, your people don't care. Corruption was out-of-control, but it seems to be in Conquests, in general--about 1/3rd total production. I couldn't stay in Fascism, though, because Democracy made for dramatic production increase--well worth the government change.
The FP: I wish it worked the way it used to, but I'd settle for it working in some explicable fashion. I patched the above Mongol game and my corruption didn't seem to change at all, except to be redistributed in a fashion I couldn't fathom.
I'm currently playing a (randomly selected) 3B tiny sorta-island map as (randomly selected) Russians and victory seems assured (late middle-ages and I've driven the Incans and the Mayans off my continent and to tiny islands. (Hey, the Mayans started it, and after I'd wiped them out and captured Zeus, Artemis, and finished the Knights Templar, it seemed silly to stop fighting. Plus, war weariness loses a lot of its edge when you're capturing the Oracle, the Hanging Gardens, and Leo's from those snooty Incans). It's now down to whether I load up some galleys full of Cossacks to attack the Americans on their own turf, or turtle up and rush for refining so I can figure out where the oil is. Since I tend to hate naval stuff in Civ, I'll probably go into hiding for now.
Again, the cool thing here is that I'm playing entirely "against type". Civ 3 dares you to be inflexible.
Also, this is the first game I've played in quite a few months where I've turned off the "manage city moods". I'm shocked at how poor the governors are at placing workers. I really don't understand: given a square that produces 1 food and 1 shield, and another that gives 2 food, 2 shields and 2 commerce, why would the governor ever pick the former?
I do get disorder now. The only way I can think of to prevent it is to end every turn by going through each city and double-clicking on it to see if the governor puts up any extra entertainers.
Along those same lines, I read a combat-type strategy that said that using the governors to manage moods was more efficient than using the luxury slider. I think Aeson here made the point that the luxury slider encourages workers whereas entertainers produce nothing. (This is something I think should be documented: if you have one troublesome city, boosting luxuries for your whole civ might be wasteful; but at what point do entertainers become more wasteful?)
Since there's no water on my island, I've sidestepped the issue of mining-vs-irrigation. Everything's a mine, though I suppose that will/should change after electricity.
I notice that one of the requirements for higher level play is to turn off governor/worker automation completely--something I'm not sure I'm willing to do yet--but is there some point at which the experts go for the automation? I mean, at the point where my workers had developed everything that was currently being worked on, should I have just added them back in to the city? (I tend to keep workers forever: There's nothing cooler than improving cities you've just captured.)
OK, enough rambling. Just "Hi" and what do you think?
I'm a long-time intermittent lurker here, having first stumbled across 'poly back in (I think) 1998. Never posted, never contributed, never got involved, primarily because Civ is the kind of game that Eats Your Life.
But now, in an effort to avoid productive work, and to have my life eaten, I figured I'd introduce myself and write a few random notes.
First of all, Conquests rocks, bugs and all. A good update to Civ takes the same underlying mechanics and makes you rethink everything. I skipped PTW (perhaps I shouldn't have) so there's lots of new stuff here for me.
I am a bit miffed, however, at the developers not releasing a list of rules changes. The changes in this thing are huge and not releasing them smacks of fear that the community will find some unanticipated exploited and void the whole game.
No claims to being an expert, by the way. I play on Regent, generally. Pre-Conquests, I was recently having immense trouble with playing the Americans and switched down to level 2--and still wasn't happy with my results. And I've played plenty on level 1. (I don't any more because I have a seven year old friend who can win pretty regularly on it. And for those who argue that the leap between Monarch and Emporer is too much, he and I both agree the jump between Chieftan and Warlord is too much. )
Generally, I play all random settings at a difficulty level, and when I find that I'm beating it too easily, I push the difficulty up one. If I find a combination that "beats me", I'll restart several times to see if I can win on that start. If I can't, I'll lower the difficulty and concentrate on that combo (as with Americans, and prior to that Babylon, which I was more successful at).
In older Civs, I "turtled". In most strategy games I "boom". What I like about Civ 3 in particular is that it makes me change my playstyle. It can hurt, but it challenges and improves me.
I recently rolled a 3BYO standard map, Mongols--the antithesis of my playing style--and it was like a whole new game. I scored Temple of Artemis, which works so well with raiding Keshiks, it's scary. (I played this pre-patch, so it wiped out all my pre-built Temples--with the new patch it doesn't!) Keshiks may not be uber-troops, but they retained a fair amount of use into modern times on this mountainous map.
Fascism is weird. Attack all you want, your people don't care. Corruption was out-of-control, but it seems to be in Conquests, in general--about 1/3rd total production. I couldn't stay in Fascism, though, because Democracy made for dramatic production increase--well worth the government change.
The FP: I wish it worked the way it used to, but I'd settle for it working in some explicable fashion. I patched the above Mongol game and my corruption didn't seem to change at all, except to be redistributed in a fashion I couldn't fathom.
I'm currently playing a (randomly selected) 3B tiny sorta-island map as (randomly selected) Russians and victory seems assured (late middle-ages and I've driven the Incans and the Mayans off my continent and to tiny islands. (Hey, the Mayans started it, and after I'd wiped them out and captured Zeus, Artemis, and finished the Knights Templar, it seemed silly to stop fighting. Plus, war weariness loses a lot of its edge when you're capturing the Oracle, the Hanging Gardens, and Leo's from those snooty Incans). It's now down to whether I load up some galleys full of Cossacks to attack the Americans on their own turf, or turtle up and rush for refining so I can figure out where the oil is. Since I tend to hate naval stuff in Civ, I'll probably go into hiding for now.
Again, the cool thing here is that I'm playing entirely "against type". Civ 3 dares you to be inflexible.
Also, this is the first game I've played in quite a few months where I've turned off the "manage city moods". I'm shocked at how poor the governors are at placing workers. I really don't understand: given a square that produces 1 food and 1 shield, and another that gives 2 food, 2 shields and 2 commerce, why would the governor ever pick the former?
I do get disorder now. The only way I can think of to prevent it is to end every turn by going through each city and double-clicking on it to see if the governor puts up any extra entertainers.
Along those same lines, I read a combat-type strategy that said that using the governors to manage moods was more efficient than using the luxury slider. I think Aeson here made the point that the luxury slider encourages workers whereas entertainers produce nothing. (This is something I think should be documented: if you have one troublesome city, boosting luxuries for your whole civ might be wasteful; but at what point do entertainers become more wasteful?)
Since there's no water on my island, I've sidestepped the issue of mining-vs-irrigation. Everything's a mine, though I suppose that will/should change after electricity.
I notice that one of the requirements for higher level play is to turn off governor/worker automation completely--something I'm not sure I'm willing to do yet--but is there some point at which the experts go for the automation? I mean, at the point where my workers had developed everything that was currently being worked on, should I have just added them back in to the city? (I tend to keep workers forever: There's nothing cooler than improving cities you've just captured.)
OK, enough rambling. Just "Hi" and what do you think?
Comment