 |
| |
|
|
Encomium
|
|
I don't know if this is a bug, even more AI stupidity, or just Sid's weird view of reality.
Whatever, here is what happened.
I have a mine, road, and garrisoned fortress near my border. The Aztecs move up another of those DAMN LAND-GRABBING SETTLERS again (extremely irritating) and build a town. Eventually, the border flips in that area, and now MY improvements and spearmen are in Aztec territory.
This happened even though I led the Aztecs in overall score.
I am then told "your recent movements of troops. . ." may cause a war for which YOU will be blamed. Or some such garbage.
I will NOT leave MY improvements, and even though I am militarily superior to the Aztecs they provoke the war (while blaming me). They of course start losing the war quickly - but their STUPID AI advisor is extremely stubborn, almost suicidal. I had to wipe them out.
Five hundred years later I cross an ocean. . . and the Egyptians, who never heard of the extinct Aztecs, won't trade with me "because of the deal you broke with the Aztecs"!! That's a deal the Egyptians never should have even knew of, nor cared about.
Culture Flipping borders are as big a CROCK as culture flipping cities (with their vanishing garrisons). And the AI advisor is an idiot. Beyond that, expecting someone to abandon their own improvements because for some reason known only to Sid a border flipped is ASININE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RO
|
|
Ramløse, Denmark
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
When you get a tech advance the advance is implemented after you have gone through all the city build queue prompts. It would heave been much more efficient if it had been the other way around.
As it is, I have to remember going back to all the relevant cities to add that much awaited unit or improvement to the build queue after the tech advance has been implemented. I would save a good deal of time by being allowed to do it the first time through.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
I have multiple CD-ROM drives on my computer just like anyone else who has a new computer does.
I would like it if I could run Civ3 with the CD-ROM in any of my CD drives. Riven works this way. It would really help if Civ3 would too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barefootbadass
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RO
When you get a tech advance the advance is implemented after you have gone through all the city build queue prompts. It would heave been much more efficient if it had been the other way around.
|
The only thing I have seen that would cause this is if the tech revealed a new resource and the units available with the tech needed that resource, the problem would be that the game hasn't calculated that the resource is there if you happened to have one connected. My solution is to go pillage one useless square of road in my empire which forces the game to recalculate the resource requirements for all your cities.
This is a bug. Your trade network should be recalculated when you get an advance that reveals the location of a resource automatically.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barefootbadass
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Encomium
I don't know if this is a bug, even more AI stupidity, or just Sid's weird view of reality.
I have a mine, road, and garrisoned fortress near my border. The Aztecs move up another of those DAMN LAND-GRABBING SETTLERS again (extremely irritating) and build a town. Eventually, the border flips in that area, and now MY improvements and spearmen are in Aztec territory.
I will NOT leave MY improvements, and even though I am militarily superior to the Aztecs they provoke the war (while blaming me). They of course start losing the war quickly - but their STUPID AI advisor is extremely stubborn, almost suicidal. I had to wipe them out.
Culture Flipping borders are as big a CROCK as culture flipping cities (with their vanishing garrisons). And the AI advisor is an idiot. Beyond that, expecting someone to abandon their own improvements because for some reason known only to Sid a border flipped is ASININE. |
No bugs, its how the game works. If you don't want that to happen work on your culture more or expand so that area wasn't the border. Also, I never build fortresses until my borders are fairly stable.
Your point about culture flipping borders being a crock is silly because that is the whole point of culture borders. It is an abstract way to represent 'inluence'. Obviously a new city could steal some influence(at least momentarily, if you would build some more cultural improvements you could push them back, or build another city and start pumping cultural improvements if that border city is already really high in culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Golden Bear
|
 |
Oregon
Feb 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
I gotta say, I like the corruption and culture (-flipping) aspects of the game. They make the game unique, they make sense, leave 'em be.
Changes that I care about:
- Moving stacks instead of individual units - please!
- Let us see "red faces" for unhappiness on the F1 summary screen so that we can address issues before they come up and so that we do not have to sweep around later!
- A "goto city" (g key) command a la AC would be a lot handier than what is currently installed.
- Fix the Indian Elephant.
- Personal brainstorm (-fa_t?): let me write some notes that time activate so that I remember to do things at 10 or 20 turns (or 100!) in the future.
Another culture flipping note... now that we have been told the fundamentals of how the process works, I find that I can pretty well predict, and generally avoid, the problem. "Fan-shaped" advances work better than focused thrusts for adopting territory. If there is a lone exposed city out in the middle of enemy country with high culture surrounding it, I gut the city, starve it down, ruin ALL improvements and let it revert. It is a sadistic sort of fun, but it works for me.
OTOH, the end of the game sucks. Warfare is not fun - too many units, too slow.
Oh well, no more blah blah blah.
GB
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Romothecus
|
|
In a game, I destroyed all Roman cities. However, the Romans had a settler aboard a caravel. I sank the caravel, destroying the Romans, which instantly crashed the game. It tried to several times over, and the same thing happened. Also, this caravel carrying the nearly-extinct Romans never moves, it sits in the same square forever.
It's impossible to end the war with the Romans because I can't contact them; they keep refusing my envoys. Thus, my democracy is doomed because of the War Weariness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Encomium
|
|
Culture Flipping doesn't get more ridiculous than this.
I led all as the Iroquois, but Greece Declared War with no warning (or apparent reason) anyway even though they had been "Polite" for centuries and we had just concluded a trade deal.
I crushed them. None too smart by their AI.
914 to 538 is the score, Iroquois to Greeks, and that difference is rapidly increasing owing to my military victory twelve turns earlier.
I have eighteen cities, and the Greeks just two. My Culture is very high, likely five times that of the Greeks. Sparta has a temple and library, plus the usual useless large garrison. My Military could swat the Greeks like a fly.
So what happens? Sparta flips, turns Greek, and the garrison vanishes. "Imagine"!!
No, I can't imagine. IT IS EFFING ABSURD.
So now I go to war, raze Sparta, but even the Indians will hate me as a "warmonger".
Another game ruined.
Obviously, Culture Flipping is determined ONLY by the PROXIMITY of one civ's laborers to their capital city, and no doubt some randomizing factor. It is truly a joke. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vetcrusader
|
|
There is a trade connection bug. The Chinese (at war) built a city on my roads, effectively disrupting trade routes between two parts of my empire. I attacked the city, which was automatically destroyed since it had no culture. Now the intervening territory between two cities is all roads which belong to no country. I have checked to make sure fog of war is not hiding anything; the roads are in place, and there is no enemy territory on any of the roads. But the game does not register that there is a trade connection between the towns. Somehow the fact that there used to be a Chinese city there makes it not register as a trade connection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aachoo
|
|
Alexandria, Virginia
Feb 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
Jeff,
I installed the second version of the patch immediatley after installing Civ III, so have never played the game w/o the patch or using the first version of the patch.
I have replayed one game several times, restarting from different points to experiment with strategy, etc. In the current version of this game, as in prior versions of the game, I completely destroy a civ, Russia. In the current version of this game, after destroying the last Russian city, I notice that there are still Russian naval units milling about and cities are reverting to Russia in culture flips. But there is no Russian capital in the city location dialog box, I have no embassy with Russia, and the embassy dialog box does not list Russia. When I recapture the flipped cities, Russian naval units are still on the map, I can access Russian leader to discuss trade, etc. but there are no Russian cities listed in city location dialog box. Can a civ have no capital, no cities? Looks like a bug to me.
Geoff
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Romothecus
|
|
Dude, I already posted this bug... its because one or more of the ships is carrying a settler of dead civ. But if you sink that ship, it'll crash the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Aachoo
Jeff,
I installed the second version of the patch immediatley after installing Civ III, so have never played the game w/o the patch or using the first version of the patch.
I have replayed one game several times, restarting from different points to experiment with strategy, etc. In the current version of this game, as in prior versions of the game, I completely destroy a civ, Russia. In the current version of this game, after destroying the last Russian city, I notice that there are still Russian naval units milling about and cities are reverting to Russia in culture flips. But there is no Russian capital in the city location dialog box, I have no embassy with Russia, and the embassy dialog box does not list Russia. When I recapture the flipped cities, Russian naval units are still on the map, I can access Russian leader to discuss trade, etc. but there are no Russian cities listed in city location dialog box. Can a civ have no capital, no cities? Looks like a bug to me.
Geoff |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KoenigMkII
|
|
St. Helier, Jersey, United Kingdom
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I have an issue with CIV III's handling of the War weariness effect under the Democracy government type:
I am playing v1.16f on a huge world with 12 starting civs. (system: 500MHz PIII, 384MB Ram., Windows 2000)
Larger worlds can have more AI's; more AI's meen it is possible to be at war with a larger number simultaneously.
Each separate war seems to cause its own quota of war weariness if the gamer has a Democratic or Republic gov.
So if you are attacked by distant AI civs you're government will be forced to regress to Monarchy or Communism, and no amount of luxeries/or luxury setting can prevent a plague of unhappy citizens.
If this was a response to a democracy attempting aggressive war, it would be fully justified in gaming terms. But a democracy falling beause it is attacked, fighting a defensive war, and wins every battle??
It is exasperating to be forced to change your government type, with no production or science for 7 turns, in a completely unrealistic way by long-distance DOW's from the AI's.
Democracy is unplayable with a large number of AI rivals, it feels totally unrealistic to spend the last 25% of the game turns in Monarchy. See below for an expansion on this topic.
----------------------------------------------
let me pick a colorful historical example :-)
Pearl Harbour: Japan attacks US fleet: US Democracy unites against external agression and fights a victorious total war against Japan.
Now at what stage during this war did the US cities start to burn down in Riots?? At what stage did a workers insurrrection occur? What year did America invite the King of England back to run her war for her? :-)
-------------------------------------------
A few thoughts on how to address this:
Perhaps a more sensible restriction on Democracies would be to ban them from raising captured enemy cities to the ground under all circumstances [exception: using nukes in retaliation]
If thats done, then defensive war war-weariness can be removed completely - agressive war war-weariness can remain as it is, since that is realistic and it would make the gameplay more fun.
Again, first use of Nuclear weapons should cause unhappiness in the home cites. But if the AI starts a nuclear war, then the gamer should be allowed full and total freedom in nuclear targeting, if he/she is just retaliating.
-------------------------------------------
New Government type needed?
The alternative is to allow a Democarcy/Republic to switch to a Facist government (As Republic but with 3 Mil units as Military police, 30% science penalty, full mobilisation restrctions [no civilian improvments], all moral restrictions removed, perhaps with a special 10 turn time penalty to change back to Democracy.
With Facism, it the science penalty could grow with time, as long term restrictions on freedom of expression will allways slow science down. It would also discourage use of Facism except as a last resort.
A special punishment for use of the Facism gov type could be a reduction in your score, and a skull and cross-bones icon blinking accusingly on one of the last, victory, screens...
All of the above is just IMHO of course :-)
Last edited by KoenigMkII on 10-02-2002 at 11:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KoenigMkII
|
|
St. Helier, Jersey, United Kingdom
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
My second major issue is with the dreaded corruption in Civ III:
The level of corruption experienced by a democratic government is largely irrelevent (in the real world) to capital location.- In Civ III the location of the capital /Forbidden city are absolutely crucial, even in the higher goverments.
This is a near perfect model for a Despotism/Monarchy/Communism, sort of OK for republic (but corruption should still be less intense for republic), but an absurd one for a high tech democracy.
On a huge map, corruption is not controllable once a democracy is a fifth of the land area of the map - the peripheral cities are horribly crippled. But a lot depends on the shape of the Civ's territory - its the distance from Cap. /F.C. factor that kills your production.
Since the location of vital resources is not known until you have the tech to see them on the map, axis of previous expansion may leave a gamer with extremely poorly placed capital and F.C. for future desired expansion -its not enough to build a colony/isolated city near enough to a vital resource, its a sitting duck for the AI's naval-heavy strategy. Once the Harbour allowing access to a distant resource is destroyed- zap, no coal/oil/iron etc.
To protect your vital resorces securely only defence in depth will do. This meens ideally a ring of productive cities with strong garrisons. Because of the illogical (IMHO) "curruption is a function of distance from capital" in Civ III for a Democratic government, you can easily find yourself building totally crippled cities, and forced to buy cultural city improvements at high cost to prevent flipping/AI infiltration.
All of the above problems still apply with all the anti-corruption city improvements taken in account. Democracy dosn't help, indeed democracy is the biggest symptom that the corruption/waste schema is not working in Civ III for the late game.
On a huge map, corruption/waste cannot be fixed by the gamer, its just a total fun killer for the last 25% of the game turns. The special resources are a great idea - but we need to expand to use them.
Some folks using standard size maps are claiming that the corruption in 1.16f is not that bad/manageable. I wonder if the scale factor that adjusts corruption for the larger maps has some kind of problem with it??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaXX
|
|
the game should report an error if you try to start two copies
popup a little messagebox and just say "Civ is already running"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaXX
|
|
Ok currently this glitch is causing me some pretty harsh gloom and doom.....
i have a 2 movement point tank, take it and assault a square with a single enemy unit. if i vanquish it, i roll over it and can attack another square.
if i do the same exact thing, except assault a square with multiple units in it.... if i win combat victory, that's it. my turn is over for that tank. but wait i thought i have two movement points and i can attack multiple times??? so why the harsh penalty for attacking a square that contains multiple units??? i'm not talking about assaulting a city here, i'm talking about combat on the open terrain of the fertile steppe.
so now i run my tanks around my railroad networks looking to assault squares with just 1 unit in them so i can do multiple attacks... lame workaround... the enemy can bring a stack of 8 knights *KNIGHTS* at me, i need to respond with *8* tanks!! ugh
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaXX
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
I wasn't running two copies, I switched Bic files then started again. |
my post was unrelated to yours
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaXX
|
|
There should be an option under "Show units over cities" that allows "Show units over boats"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaXX
|
|
when using GoTo with my galley's, the course computation fails often when dealing with gaps of the maximum range. i'm on an archipellago with lots of 3-space gaps, the ship range is 3, skipping from island to island in some areas requires you to have the full movement points allowed... it appears the logic in place doesn't know the technique of going to that location, pausing a turn to have full movement points, then fjording the gap.
this shouldn't be too hard to code as i am able to fjord these gaps quite easily using my primitive monkey brain logic
Last edited by DaXX on 13-02-2002 at 04:11
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2002 08:36
Attachment: 
|
