20-01-2005 01:08									#1
	ICP & Bonus Squares Full PM-box? Change here!

Hi, New here and wanted to ask for some advice. First, is it desirable to start your first city on a bonus square like wheat, cattle, wine, etc if it is within 2 squares of your starting point? Or just "plop" down and build a road?

Second, I've just been browsing thru the weath of info here. It is incredible if not overwhelming! Seems like at the Monarch and above levels I am being constantly outpaced by the AI. I guess it has to do with my build order. I like to get a granary in early but then I'm behind the curve and the neighboring Civs have me hemmed in. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Sully

	20-01-2005 01:22									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Don't settle a city on a bonus tile unless doing it gets you benifits that outweigh the loss of that tile. The city tile almost always is 2 food, 1 shield (I say almost always because I think building on an iron source will result in 2f, 2s for the city tile). So avoid settling on cows, wheat, etc.

It's mainly the food bonus tiles you want to avoid settling on. I think building on a commerce bonus tile (say... dyes) preserves the bonus commerce (and of course immediately hooks up the dyes to your city).

As for the rest... yeah, read up on the "Must Read" threads. If you're still having trouble and want advice, the best method tends to be posting some saves (4000bc save, and then one later on, like around the BC/AD changeover, when everyone has to get a new watch). Then others can have a look at what you're doing/not doing and offer specific advice.

-Arrian

	20-01-2005 02:30									#3
	Put an end to popups!

You get 2 food in the city square regardless of the city location. Bonus food is lost, if you put a city on that tile. Also, you don't get any additional production from settling on a Bonus Grassland tile. So you don't want to put cities there, unless there's no other option.

Commerce bonuses are carried over to the city square.

Hills with a bonus Shield resource (like Iron, Coal) will give you +1 Shield for the city. Hills without a bonus resource will give you +1 Shield once the city hits size 7. I don't know if this increases for metros (size 13+). Basically, cities on those tiles lose you some Shields.


And yes, read the basic threads.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=59216

	20-01-2005 02:39									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Hey Arrian, Thanks for the reply! I wondered if you placed the city on a resource if you would lose it or not. Now I know. I've started reading the stuff here and I see that you are well-respected. In your experiences..what combination of traits (industrious, scientific, etc have you found that helps to keep up with the AI that obviously gets some "help" on its own?

And is there a kind of standard build order of units that you try to follow in the first 10 turns?

Appreciate the feedback! And I'll check out the thread.
Sully

	20-01-2005 03:36									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

aksully you did not mention what version you are playing. Some concepts are less effective in Conquest, than in Civ3 or PTW.

Also I would suggest that starting at Monarch level may not be good choice. It is where the AI starts to get extra support and other bonus items.

Also it plays a bit harder in C3C than in vanilla due to a number of changes such as corruption and resource allocation, not to mention more wonders in the early game.

If you based your selection on having played Civ2, forget that experience other than for amusement.

I would say a std build order does not really exist, unless the game parameters are always the same. Look at some of the AU games that show details on the first few turns. That may be useful.

	20-01-2005 04:14									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Arrian ... like around the BC/AD changeover... -Arrian

Had to re-set my watch!!

Welcome aboard, akscully!!!

	20-01-2005 04:19									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

ouch. I wish I'd noticed the lost food bonuses a long time back. I think I've managed to delete at least a half dozen food bonuses so far by settling the city right on top of them.

So to make it perfectly clear, food bonuses are completely lost by a city on them.

bonuses to trade are unaffected by having a city on them

bonuses to gold (gold = 'shields' in civ3 right?) are lost when a city is placed on them.

Is that correct?

	20-01-2005 04:36									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Right-click on a tile to see how many of each it produces.


Trade = Gold (divided into Taxes/Science/Luxuries). This is not lost, when a city is ontop of it. Luxuries, and some other resources, provide trade bonuses.

Production = Shields. Most of those lost, when a city is put ontop of the tile.

Food = ...err... Food. This is lost if a city is put ontop of the tile. The city square will always produce 2 Food, regardless of terrain.

	20-01-2005 04:41									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Gold = trade, Geronimo. Other than that, and the fact that shield bonus resources give you +1 shield, and so aren't completely lost, you're right.

All other things being equal, you want to put your city on the lowest food site possible. Consider settling on a desert tile. You've just turned a no food tile into a two food tile.

	20-01-2005 04:54									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

so hills are good choices for city sites in civ3?

	20-01-2005 04:58									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Are mountains the only type of terrain in which it is not possible to found a city? I remember trying to found a city on a mountain because it was the only square available to cover at least 12 squares of the 21 square opening due to a lake wrapping around most of the site, but when I got my settler on the mountain the option to build could not be made to appear there. i had to settle much further out and split the territroy between two poorly placed cities.

OTOH i've since seen cities founded on tundra, and desert and apparently *everything* except for mountains.

	20-01-2005 05:17									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Are mountains the only type of terrain in which it is not possible to found a city? I remember trying to found a city on a mountain because it was the only square available to cover at least 12 squares of the 21 square opening due to a lake wrapping around most of the site, but when I got my settler on the mountain the option to build could not be made to appear there. i had to settle much further out and split the territroy between two poorly placed cities. OTOH i've since seen cities founded on tundra, and desert and apparently *everything* except for mountains.

AFIR you can't build cities in marsh tiles either, under normal rules. Many players have suggested flagging other terrain as "no city build" types to preven the AI from building cities in apparently bizarre spots like in teh middle of a tundra. Whenever I see an AI city in tundra or desert, it tells me that oil or some other strategic resource is going to show up in that area later in the game, as the AI knows where these will be even if it hasn't yet gotten the tech to discover them.

As Solomwi says, if I have a desert tile in the midst of otherwise good terrain, that's where I'll put my city.

	20-01-2005 06:00									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks Theseus! ANd I'm playing Conquests v 1.22.
Probably by the time I get the build order down at Monarch and above down...Civ 4 will be released!

Sully

PS I really enjoy playing the War in the Pacific Conquest.

	20-01-2005 06:03									#14
	Suffering from ads?

Hey Patcon....nice comment...I hadn't thought of the AI knowing what the human doesn't. Was wondering why it was placing those cities on those "barren" spots. Me thinks I need to send some "guys" over there to investigate!

Sully

	20-01-2005 06:10									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by aksully Hey Patcon....nice comment...I hadn't thought of the AI knowing what the human doesn't. Was wondering why it was placing those cities on those "barren" spots. Me thinks I need to send some "guys" over there to investigate! Sully

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.

	20-01-2005 20:41									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

quote: 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.

	20-01-2005 20:46									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

	20-01-2005 21:48									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	20-01-2005 22:47									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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

	20-01-2005 22:58									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	20-01-2005 23:09									#21
	Suffering from ads?

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

Last edited by Geronimo on 21-01-2005 at 01:53

	20-01-2005 23:17									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	20-01-2005 23:48									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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!

	20-01-2005 23:52									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	21-01-2005 00:32									#25
	Put an end to popups!

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

	21-01-2005 00:45									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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]

	21-01-2005 00:52									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	21-01-2005 01:10									#28
	Support Apolyton

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

	21-01-2005 01:28									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	21-01-2005 01:29									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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