ICP & Bonus Squares

[joncnunn]

This is true, but the AI will pick future resources in the barren lands before the bare land with no resources.

But it often messes up by founding a city on a food bonus.

Originally posted by Geronimo

In my current game it appears that the AI also places cities on such barren spots when there is simply no other unused spaces remaining in the game. I now think the AI is designed to plant cities until absolutely no location of any sort whatsoever remains in which to place one.

[joncnunn]

Originally posted by Geronimo
so hills are good choices for city sites in civ3?

Avoid founding on a hills + wine. Much more productive to plant next to it and mine that hill + wine tile.

Otherwise:

If it will result in being able to form an irrigation chain across the hills when otherwise impossible, yes!

If the general area has a large food shortfall, yes.

If the general area has a large food surplus, no.

If the city is on an outer choke point, good spot for defenseive reasons alone.

[Arrian]

Good basic rules of thumb about settling on hills, joncunn.

In general, I don't often found on hills because I want as much production as I can get. If you found on a hill, you trade 2 shields for 1 food (city tile = 2f, 1s. Mined hill = 1f, 3s). At least once you're out of despotism. Despotism carries a tile penalty. One of the things Despotism "eats" is the 3rd shield from mined hills. For this reason, it's best to leave hill mining for later in the game, and concentrate on the flat lands first (also because it's much faster).

aksully, you asked about trait combos. You're playing C3C, v1.22, which is good because that's what I know best.

The answer, however, is "it depends."

I generally find that militaristic and industrious are not all that great anymore (they were among my top choices in CivIII/PTW), and I hardly ever use them. Part of that is I deliberately broke myself of using Industrious back in PTW, so that I could succeed without it. Now I'm quite comfortable using the slow workers of non-industrious civs (I've learned a lot about granaries and such, and now typically generate a horde of workers). As for Militaristic... it can still be strong if you intend to use it (this was the case before as well - if you're intend to fight early on, Mil is valueable). If you're a builder and want to turtle until the mid to late game... I'd pass on Mil.

Some of the traits are more dependant on map settings than others. Expansionist, for instance, can be extremely powerful on large maps with lots of land (pangea especially), and merely so-so on smaller maps w/less land (and/or archipelago). Now Aeson can come in to tell you all about how it's a fantastic trait... and he's RIGHT, if you learn to use it the way he does. Many of us don't, and that's a style choice as much as anything else.

Agricultural ranges from "ok" to "it's the new Industrious!" (which means it's the best trait, hands down). It's "ok" when you get a non-freshwater start and cannot find lots of freshwater nearby. That being said, such a start is not exactly to die for with any trait combo. If you *do* get a freshwater start, and have lots of other freshwater city sites available... yowza, it rocks. It also kicks ass if you have a desert part of your empire, because irrigated desert is 2f, 1s (equivalent of plains) for Ag civs. There is also the 1/2 cost aqueduct, which is a nice mid-game boost.

So it's hard to go very wrong with Ag. So, then, what to put with it?

Well, my personal favs are Religious and Commercial, but a strong argument can be made for Seafaring.

Both Comm and Sea provide the Alphabet as a starting tech, which is great for the philo beeline (free tech). Both also tend to provide extra money for research (commerce bonus for all towns with Com, plus lower empire-wide corruption, vs. commerce bonus for all coastal towns with Sea). Seafaring is good for exploration with curraghs & galleys, and can result in very early contact with all the civs in the world, even playing on continents maps. This in turn results in a favorable trading position, and hopefully a tech lead. Com's advantage is difficult to quantify because it's a creeping bonus... slightly lower corruption empire-wide (via a bigger "OCN"). I hate corruption... or rather I enjoy defeating it, so Com is the trait for me. This is, however, at least as much stylistic as it is strategic.

Religious is nice for two reasons: cheap temples & cathedrals to keep your people happy, and 1-turn anarchy. Anarchy sucks - every turn in anarchy is a near-total loss ("near-total" because you can typically change a citizen or three into scientists to eek out a few beakers during anarchy). If you are not religious, you will spend 4-8 (?) turns in anarchy per government switch. Even if you only switch once, that's 3-7 turns wasted compared to a religious civ, although it should be noted that if you switch early (I do - I go right for Republic), your empire is typically small enough to make 7-8 turns of anarchy highly unlikely.

Scientific is ok, but honestly I think commerical ends up being as good or better for science (more money to research with, better starting tech for trades and philo beeline). There is the SGL generation bonus (5% chance of SGL if first to a tech, as opposed to 3% for non-Sci civs) to think about, of course. It's not a bad trait.

So, since you say you're playing Monarch and are getting hemmed in... definitely work with Ag, since that will boost early expansion most times. Sea and Com will both help with tech, in slightly different ways I'll grant you, so I'd pick on of those as the other choice. Which leaves you with the Iroquois (my overall fav) and the Dutch (many people's choice for strongest civ). Both provide strong UUs - one offensive (my preference), one defensive.

-Arrian

[aksully]

Arrian,

I really appreciate the time to answer the question! Sid needs to hire you onto his team! How did you get so knowledgeable about the game? I'm making it a point this weekend to reread my manuals and references. I've obviously missed some stuff that is crucial to the beginning of the game which sets the whole tone of things.

When you have some time I'd enjoy reading your thoughts on tech development strategy.

Sully

[aksully]

Looking at your post again I see some new insights into traits I might have been overlooking. I may have underestimated the impact of commercial and ag and overestimated scientific and industrious a tad.

I like religious but it tends to go into a golden age a little quicker than I'd prefer but one turn anarchy is a huge factor in my limited experience.

I can see that ag at the onset seems to offer a nice boost in getting things going at no cost. Time to look at those civs with it!

I tend to favor WWII to modern warfare type games but have become addicted to Civ III Conquests. I really enjoyed the War in the Pacific Conquest. But the real deal for me now is starting from scratch and see if I can survive the early ages. It hasn't always worked out that I do! But I'm taking some notes as I go to learn and to avoid the pitfalls. It is very much like a chess game being played on multiple levels!

Sully

[Geronimo]

I suppose statue of liberty was removed so as to not make the religious bonuses totally superfluous?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I suppose statue of liberty was removed so as to not make the religious UU totally superfluous?

I assume you mean the Religious short-Anarchy ability. No, there's no Statue of Liberty, meaning that there's no way of minimzing Anarchy duration other than picking a Religious civ.

[Theseus]

That's a very good quick summary of traits by Arrian... it is a much debated subject, to be sure.

While you can't really go much wrong with his advice, I'd suggest that the *synergism* of traits and UUs is often overlooked.

For instance, I've lately been obsessed with the Vikings, and it has struck me how well put together this civilization is: SEA, which brings not only Alphabet (Philo gambit and also a step toward Mapmaking), but also a starting ability to build 3-move Curraughs (insanely great exploration and early contact... nothing else like it in the game, in fact), and MIL, providing a starting ability to build Archers, as well as half-priced Harbors for a coastal empire, and half-priced Barracks for a militarily oriented strategy.

Those ALL, of course, come together in the form of Galleys and Berserks, and in known civs and coastlines. Synergy indeed!

[gunkulator]

Status of Liberty was overpowered in Civ2. Not for the 1 turn anarchy, but because it allowed you to switch to governments that you hadn't even discovered yet! In practice this meant Fundamentalism which was just so mind-numbingly overpowered that it was typically banned from multiplayer and never appeared in any decent scenario. The 1 turn anarchy turned out to be unnecessary anyway due to the discovery of something called the "odeo year", named for the discoverer. It allowed you to have a 0 turn anarchy! You can do a search on it if you're interested.

Eiffel Tower is gone too. Bet you don't miss that one! Seriously though, repairing a damaged reputation with a wonder could actually be useful in Civ3.

[aksully]

Theseus,
Glad you brought that up. I've read some of your thoughts posted on the site here. It seems you like that Archer Rush. Have you considered the Mayans with their UU?

What are your preferences for Civ Attributes considering UU's?

I have only tried the Americans once primarily because of their UU which seems to me to be useless?

Sully

[joncnunn]

Avid Archer Rushers would hate the Mayan UU because:

1. A UU trigures the GA, and that's extremely early
2. The JT costs 50% more than an Archer
3. The JT does not have a zero range bombard.

--------
Really it's the more peaceful players that like the JT. For Barb-Farming.

Americans traights are powerful enough to make up for a modern era UU. You just need to get your GA via wonder building. Build either the Great Wall or Hanging Gardens in the late ancient era /early middle ages so that the completion of Coperacus trigures it. (IMHO, waiting for Hoover Dam is rather late)
And the F-15 is not unless. Just don't build bombers and only build fighters as air units. Upgrade them all to F-15s and use for both offense and defense. [The F-15 is just as good at bombing as the standard bomber]

[Modo44]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Really it's the more peaceful players that like the JT. For Barb-Farming.

Not so much for Barb-Farming, more for the benefit of fast Workers and fast growth. The Maya can really explode in the early REX, more than any other civ, save for an extremely lucky Expansionist.

As to the F-15 being just as good as a Bomber, I have to disagree. It has half the bombing power, which makes it a crap bomber for most purposes. Yes, they can damage ships, and possible take out weakened units, but they don't seem to do much against cities, or improvements - my main use for Bombers.

[aksully]

I agree with you Joncnunn about the JT triggering an Early Golden Age. I tried experimenting with the Mayans last night. I thought that the JT would be more advantageious than an archer. Definitely like the Enslave ability to gain more "free" workers. But I did have the 2nd combat my JT have trigger a GE..not to cool in Despotism

But I still think the advantages for the F-15 come at a too later time than I'd like for a UU. Like Mondo..I like the striking power of the bomber.

Curious...do you more experienced players let the governors do your city management for you or do you prefer to do it yourself? I'm a micro-manager by nature myself.

Would also like your thoughts on tech tree strategy.
Thanks!
Sully

[joncnunn]

AI City governor is extremely inefficent in too many situations that I really can't delegate any city over to it.

1. Happiness
2. Which specalist to use
3. Tiles shared between cities
4. Corruption
5. Worker / Settler Factories

[joncnunn]

Tech tree stategy is too long, I get logged out and lose an entire post when trying to replay to that topic.