Tweet
Hello everyone,
I just started playing Civ 3 a few weeks ago (I never played Civ 1 or 2 but heard how good they were). I usually play a Conquests LAN game with my roommate and some computers opponents where the only victory option is conquest (elimate everyone). We've gotten to point where we are sure we'll beat the Warlord AI so we're going to play our next game on Regent for a challenge, but in my single player test games I'm finding Regent to be much harder.
I have a lot of trouble with the early game. I guess I always did, but on Warlord I never noticed because the computers were bad and left me and my weak starting position alone. So here are a few questions:
-City Placement: People say cities should be 3 to 6 tiles apart. Is that from city center to city center? Mine are always more like 8 or 9 because invariably, land goes from good to terrible to good again in an 8 space gradient. That is, all the land 3 to 6 tiles away would be terrible for a city center, but 2 or 3 more spaces away and it would give much better tiles. This seems to happen almost every time. I suppose I could build two cities, but then I'd have a bunch of worthless ones. There's no harm in that I suppose...is that what people do?
-The computer expands very aggressively and I can never keep up with it. I usually make 4 warriors to look around instead of building a granary, then settlers. The reason being that I want to find the best possible city sites in all directions so I can focus on expanding to good places later. I can't decide if this is a mistake or not. Sure, it puts me behind, but seeing the map early so you'll know where iron and horses are (and finding luxuries) seems very important too.
-No matter how hard I try to balance expansion, millitary and city improvement, my culture is always way ahead of theirs and their power is way ahead of mine. I think it's because I usually optimize the amount of good tiles a city will have by examining what it will have once it expands, so I build temples early to get those tiles. The computer seems to wait on temple building for a long time. I also do it to keep people happy. Is it preferred to just use garrisoning instead of temples?
-The more I play the game, the more I think it is just luck of who gets what land. That can't be right, I must not being playing right for all situations.
Also, does anyone else think the expansionist trait is a bit unbalancing? You can get *so much* technology from goody huts and see where the strategic resources and luxuries are right from the start. My roommate was expansionist and made it to the middle ages while I was only halfway through the ancient era, and was running research at 80% continously!
I just started playing Civ 3 a few weeks ago (I never played Civ 1 or 2 but heard how good they were). I usually play a Conquests LAN game with my roommate and some computers opponents where the only victory option is conquest (elimate everyone). We've gotten to point where we are sure we'll beat the Warlord AI so we're going to play our next game on Regent for a challenge, but in my single player test games I'm finding Regent to be much harder.
I have a lot of trouble with the early game. I guess I always did, but on Warlord I never noticed because the computers were bad and left me and my weak starting position alone. So here are a few questions:
-City Placement: People say cities should be 3 to 6 tiles apart. Is that from city center to city center? Mine are always more like 8 or 9 because invariably, land goes from good to terrible to good again in an 8 space gradient. That is, all the land 3 to 6 tiles away would be terrible for a city center, but 2 or 3 more spaces away and it would give much better tiles. This seems to happen almost every time. I suppose I could build two cities, but then I'd have a bunch of worthless ones. There's no harm in that I suppose...is that what people do?
-The computer expands very aggressively and I can never keep up with it. I usually make 4 warriors to look around instead of building a granary, then settlers. The reason being that I want to find the best possible city sites in all directions so I can focus on expanding to good places later. I can't decide if this is a mistake or not. Sure, it puts me behind, but seeing the map early so you'll know where iron and horses are (and finding luxuries) seems very important too.
-No matter how hard I try to balance expansion, millitary and city improvement, my culture is always way ahead of theirs and their power is way ahead of mine. I think it's because I usually optimize the amount of good tiles a city will have by examining what it will have once it expands, so I build temples early to get those tiles. The computer seems to wait on temple building for a long time. I also do it to keep people happy. Is it preferred to just use garrisoning instead of temples?
-The more I play the game, the more I think it is just luck of who gets what land. That can't be right, I must not being playing right for all situations.
Also, does anyone else think the expansionist trait is a bit unbalancing? You can get *so much* technology from goody huts and see where the strategic resources and luxuries are right from the start. My roommate was expansionist and made it to the middle ages while I was only halfway through the ancient era, and was running research at 80% continously!
Comment