Required Reading for Civ players...

[bongo]

Or any games involving human opponents.

Knowledge of the rules(or the game mechanics if you like) is of course vital, without it you will be roadkill. If you also know how your enemy will react then victory is certain. I feel that the knowledge about how the AI works has reached the level where it is indeed an exploit.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Reading and Civ

I find that after I've been playing civ, for, oh, I dunno, 4 hours or so, I start to feel really bad about myself. I mean, good lord. I should be doing SOMETHING with my life. Haven't I seen these little units march across the screen before? I'm a youn man. I should be writing music, or traveling the world, or hitting on women, or cleaning my apartment, or something. Instead, I'm playing Civ.

So I stop. I turn to literature, typically a book like "The Power Broker" or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or "Guns, Germs and Steel". I find that after playing so much Civ, I can only read about the unabased pursuit of power, and its disastarous effects on both the world and the individual psyche.

After reading about power-hungry mortals for an hour or two, I find I'm in the mood for Civ again. And then I can play, gleeful in the knowledge that I'm not actually causing the world immense suffering, but rather, conquering fake cities, subjugating fake lands, etc.

[GodKing]

The MOO 1 strat guide was amazing. It disected teh game, gave numerious tables, and all sorts of good advise. Real advise. I have yet to find a strat guild since then that even compares.

[David Murray]

I once read an inspirational book, the name of whose author sadly I cannot recall. It said, "The best way to win a war is to have lots of soldiers."

I can directly attribute it to my success with Civ3.

[infoscott]

The Finer Points to Required Reading

-- The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli --

I read this book in the last three months, after years of Civ2 play and about twelve months of Civ3 play. Before the book I had little clue and little concern over civ reputation, other than the obvious bit of not razing captured cities. After the book I understood much better the importance of reputation in avoiding unnecessary warfare and getting better terms in trade negotiation. My style used to be builder augmented with warfare, now I play mostly Machiavellian until the novelty wears off. My experience with Joan graduated from flirtation to infatuation.

-- The Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi --

I read this book seventeen years ago. When I remember its principles, it makes me a better player of the Samarai and Swordsmen units, especially in emphasis on getting them to Elite status

-- The Art of War, Sun Tzu --

I read it about once every few years. Several points have made me a better Civ3 player:

* Use of spies. Civ3 no longer has Diplomats/Spies, but it does have Scouts/Explorers. These units are spies in the traditional sense quite apart from the Espionage screen. I have also used a Chariot located on a hill top to spy on troop movements in an enemy territory, long after the unit was obsoleted. I now use submarines routinely as spies on naval troop movements

* Use of terrain. So many players use military rushes that they neglect or ignore the effects of terrain. How often do players use the river defense bonus or the fort bonus or the city on a hill bonus? How often to players force the enemy into bad terrain and deny them good terrain? How many times do players use terrain to hide units from the enemy's visibility? I use to leverage terrain advantage to the max while playing Civ2-Deity and am using it more and more as I progress up the difficulty tree in Civ3.

* Disguising weakness/hiding strength. When I first get a new decisive unit, such as knight, cavalry, or tank, I immediately park it near a border so my neighbors know I have the unit and will be afraid. It doesn't matter whether I have enough military to back up the "claim". Likewise sometimes I'll upgrade warriors to swordsmen to appear stronger in the power charts even if those units are nowhere near battle front, just to avoid war

During the Ancient Age I'll often bulk up on defensive units and hold back on offensive, while improving city and fort defenses. This encourages the more aggresive civs to wage war on me because I'm showing up weak on the strength charts. At the same time I might carry a large cash surplus. While doing this I'll keep a stockpile chariots and warriors. When the aggressor gets tempted by a quick plunder I'll quickly upgrade to swordsmen and horseman but let him dash his forces first on my built up defenses.

-- Epilogue --

I think too often the people that dismiss Sun Tzu haven't spent the necessary time studying his principles and applying them in their chosen scenarios.

[Theseus]

I read a LOT... science fiction, thrillers, military history, general history, business stuff... and I often try to apply what I read to Civ3.

In addition to the books mentioned in previous posts (ALL of which I highly recommend), I'd suggest the Dorsai series by Gordon Dickson. An excellent intersection of the broad sweep of human events and things military.

[MysteryMan]

This is quoted, just cut and pasted, you all seem to know how to get exerpts, but I don't.
--->
* Use of spies...... I now use submarines routinely as spies on naval troop movements
--->
That's the only thing I build them for, especially since I have never seen a sub win a fight (except an AI sub once). This could be because I usually only use a navy on the higher levels.
--->
* Use of terrain. So many players use military rushes that they neglect or ignore the effects of terrain. How often do players use the river defense bonus or the fort bonus or the city on a hill bonus? How often to players force the enemy into bad terrain and deny them good terrain? How many times do players use terrain to hide units from the enemy's visibility? I use to leverage terrain advantage to the max while playing Civ2-Deity and am using it more and more as I progress up the difficulty tree in Civ3.
--->
I would get my butt handed to me every game if I didn't do that. I'd sure need to build a LOT of units (even at the best case....) Also, I wouldn't really feel like I was winning the game if all I did was build endless units accordig to someone else's formula. I'd rather paint a wall just to watch it dry...
--->
* Disguising weakness/hiding strength. When I first get a new decisive unit, such as knight, cavalry, or tank, I immediately park it near a border so my neighbors know I have the unit and will be afraid. It doesn't matter whether I have enough military to back up the "claim". Likewise sometimes I'll upgrade warriors to swordsmen to appear stronger in the power charts even if those units are nowhere near battle front, just to avoid war
---->
Very creative. I don't know how well this works against the AI, but most of us would fall for that ploy the first time we encountered it...

I never meant to suggest reading novels for specific tactics (ie: in this situation, build this unit and build lots of them). No one writes books about Civ III tactics. While most of my TACTICS do not come from such books (they come either from this place or wherever our ideas come from) all of my STRATEGIES do.

It is a shame that so many people skim and forget The Art of War. Actually, it is also a shame that less and less people read. If there was EVER an important idea ANYWHERE in history, someone wrote it down. It sure is a hell of a lot easier to read the explanations than it is to re-invent the wheel every time something new comes up...

[Theseus]

MM, this took me forever to figure out... at the top right of each post, there is a "Reply with Quote" button. (I know...)

'Guns, Germs, and Steel' should be required reading for all Civ players.

Matter o' fact, I'm gonna finish the Ludlum I'm on (which sorta sucks), and re-read Mr. Diamond.

And, for the heathens out there, my strategy in AU105 (I think that's the right one... Son of SVC... Rome on a northern isle) was directly derived from the aforementioned Dorsai books.

[vmxa1]

MysteryMan you have two good ways to go:
1) like Theseus said use the reply with quotes
2) I use copy and past and put quotes around their stuf.
I like the reply wiht quotes and the drop the quote commands. This leave the quoted persons name and I then slap quotes around the part I part to respond to and break out each part.
Now you get to reply to each point and show it as quoted.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Theseus
'Guns, Germs, and Steel' should be required reading for all Civ players.

This is a top-notch book, and might give one an excellent idea for some MODs as well.

I'd like to HIGHLY recommend "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. This should be required reading, period. This is the history of YHWH/God/Allah, written by a former nun and master theologian. It is inspring and critical, and gives a good sense of the flow of human consciousness over the years, from the "4000 BC" era until "Cultural Victory" time if you catch my drift. It's full of detail but quite easy to read.