Allowable Practices

[cavebear]

Sorry, I thought you said it was "Word". My computer does recocognize the file extention. But thanks for trying anyway.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by cavebear
Sorry, I thought you said it was "Word". My computer does recocognize the file extention. But thanks for trying anyway.

Technically, it is WordPad. Were you unable to view it??

Monk

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by cavebear
Sorry, I thought you said it was "Word". My computer does recocognize the file extention. But thanks for trying anyway.

It opened fine with IE. Word should recognise an rtf (rich text file) extension, but you may have to change from the default where it looks for a .doc extension.

I recognised a few of the components (which I keep in separate documents rather than gathered together in one place). I haven't got the hang of tech gifting. I suspect I mean I tend to forget it and I lack the courage to try it. A bit like leaving cities un-guarded whch I still find difficult.

RJM at Sleeper's

[cavebear]

Well, tried again and it opened in Word just fine! Thanks for the file; I will be looking it over later. A quick scan shows some stuff I don't know much about, so it will definitely be helpful.

I suspect the problem was the .php extension and the way I first tried to open the file.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by cavebear
Well, tried again and it opened in Word just fine! Thanks for the file; I will be looking it over later. A quick scan shows some stuff I don't know much about, so it will definitely be helpful.

I suspect the problem was the .php extension and the way I first tried to open the file.

Great!! I hope you find it helpful. Some of it may be bare bones, and therefore, not completely clear. If so, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Agree. Those .php add-ons drive me nuts. They disappeared when I subscribed to A-Plus, however, and, I don't miss them. Not even a little.

Monk

[cavebear]

.php is not my favorite thing either. It seems to give me problems.

Does anyone have a list of odd unit characteristics, like ships that don't cause unhappiness out of port or units that don't use up shields? I know I learn about those kinds of things from time to time, but I always forget by the next game.

[Sparrowhawk]

I don't have a list, but to answer your two examples...

The ships that don't cause unhappiness out of port are the Galleon (available with Magnetism) and the Transport (available with Industrialization).

Units which don't require shield support are Diplomats (which arn't available in this game), Spies, Caravans and Freight. I believe everything else requires support with the exception of Fanatics under a Fundamentalist Government (but I am not sure this is an all-inclusive list and stand to be corrected).

[Bloody Monk]

One of the characteristics of those units that were mentioned by Sparrowhawk is that they have attack value = zero. But, that is not universal as settlers, explorers, and engineers, from that class, do have shield support.

Two units afield in Republic and one in Democracy cause happiness problems. A fortress within three clicks of a city square (ours) is treated like a city. Representative gov'ts are skewed against roaming war making units, it would seem.

Monk

[cavebear]

Sparrowhawk - That is exactly what I was looking for. If anyone else has other examples of execeptions to the general rules of units (or anything else) I would be glad to hear of it..

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

A fortress within three clicks of a city square (ours) is treated like a city.

What does that mean? I understand the words but not the consequences. I understand clicks but not the "treated like".

[Sparrowhawk]

Units create unhappiness when out of cities in Republic or Democracy. The exception that Bloody Monk refers to is that if these units are located in a fortress within three squares of one of our cities the fortress is "treated like a city" meaning the units inside said fortress do not cause unhappiness.

[Bloody Monk]

Sparrowhawk said in part...

meaning (that) the units inside said fortress do not cause unhappiness.

This exception allows you to have "defense in depth" on strategic points around your cities. Because the AI seldom misses taking its shots at a fortress, it avoids the problem that can come if you let the AI attack the city square, namely, the loss of population points if one of the defenders, in the city, loses.

It is a good idea, badly implemented by the AI; and explains why there are so many forts around AI cities.

Monk

[cavebear]

Oh, got it. I knew about units out of the city in Rep Govts, but I didn't connect that to Fortresses.. Thank you for the clarification.

And I was thinking there was some attacking land or sea unit that didn't cause unhappiness out of the city. I guess not. Well, that simplifies things, 0 attack is no unhappiness.

[MrWhereItsAt]

/me is carefully taking notes, but sees with satisfaction he at least knew one or two of these things

Hey! That .rtf is terrific! Exactly the sort of thing I was doing for a while with Civ3 from the Strategy forum (you would not BELIEVE the equations in parts of that - for corruption and city flipping chances, for example).

Did you do that a while ago, BM?

[Bloody Monk]

"Did you do that a while ago, BM?"

Started some years ago. It keeps growing as I find things, usually in the older threads. I find it very helpful to have the salient points handy in this form as opposed to keeping track of many bookmarks. Glad you find it useful.

Monk