 |
|  |
 |
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
When I started with civ3, I was happy that at least the science city was still there, but it seemed not as strong than in Civ1/2.
(If someone has still missed the concept: build possibly colossus, copernicus, isaac etc. in a city with potential good commerce, usually your capital, develop this city, library university etc. and you get plenty of tech)
- In civ1/2 the science wonders worked exponential, now cumulative. In Civ2 I normally made more than half of my tech of my SC.
- The SC was excellent for caravans, you could make all your cities rich, by trading with SC. Also you got much cash from caravans from the SC itself to other civs.
- The SC was the only city you really needed to develop, other cities just building caravans, settlers and wonders - nearly zero maintenance
- science specialists in SC gave about 20 tech beakers in late game, growing beyond 20 was useful.
- highway is gone, you can't substitute colossus
That were my thoughts after first games, but I couldn't kick the habit. I tried, but next game on monarch I couldn't get a single early wonder - but colossus! (No AI cap on coast - lucky me). And SC was really useful that game, because I couldn't spread like in regent game before. Advantages in Civ 3:
- Colossus on higher levels more likely to get than other early wonders
- SC usually your capital or near - little corruption makes the wonders more powerful, the smaller the map, the more important
- chance for good starting position, there is usually a luxury nearby (hopefully near coast)
- if you head for single cultural victory, you gotta build your capital, why not make the SC
When I look at this points, it seems pretty obvious that the SC was more powerful in the predecessors, but still okay, not that overwhelming advantage anymore.
Am I the only one still using it or is it still common?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
barefootbadass
|
|
SC is better in civ 3 than civ 2. In civ 2 you only needed colossus to make more from your caravans and with caravans you could get 1 tech a turn even in fundamentalism with minimal science and WLTKD(to boost trade to the level of democracy). In civ 3 you don't have caravans so it is actually useful, for the tech, and for the culture.
Colossus is the only wonder I build myself in early ancient without a leader(which means the second leader), I start others, but usually to switch to later ones or to switch to my FP or heroic epic if I run out of wonders. This is on emperor, haven't played deity yet. Colossus is very easy to get, and the science wonders make it even sweeter.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mengo76
|
 |
Nashua, NH, USA
Nov 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
The Science City strategy has definitley been "balanced" (or "nerfed", if you're one of those whiny ppl... ). Mainly because the science wonders are additive and not mulitplicative (i.e. 2 of them triple science output, not quadruple), and because beakers from scientist specialists are not affected by wonders or even libraries.
It still does make sense to put all the science wonders in one city, if that city is the one with the most commerce (after corruption). But sometimes you may build Copernicus in your capital because it's the best place, but then another city becomes better (e.g. if it builds the Forbidden Palace), so that would become a better location for Newton.
And as for the scientist specialists, useless of course. And so are the taxmen for that matter. So if you're not looking for the population to drive up your score, it makes a lot of sense to mine all your terrain, just irrigate enough to keep your city at size 20.
Because of the lesser power of a Science City, you need to develop your research throughout your empire. And the culture you'll get is an added bonus. Use a scientific civ if you think it's too expensive to build uni's in all your cities, it helps (although not with maintenance )
|
|
|  |
 |
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
All science is based on your total commerce, so since the Colossus adds commerce, it also boosts science.
Many things in CivIII make its version of a SSC quite weaker than the CivII counterpart. In CivIII, with all science improvements and wonders, total beakers at 100% science peaks out at around the 300 level, even with a favorable city site. A comparable city in CivII would put out 4 to 5 times as many beakers.
Why are CivIII SSC's so much weaker? Lack of superhighways is a factor, as is the lack of extra commerce from trade routes and the roads and railroads based upon them. The science improvements and wonders are weaker, too. For example, a city producing 100 beakers in CivII will add another 100 after Copernicus is built, effectively doubling the effect of libraries and universities. Not so in CivIII, since the doubling effect of the wonder is only used on total commerce (which is the base beaker rate from which extra beakers from improvements and wonders are calculated) instead of total beakers.
As mentioned above, other CivIII design features weaken the effect of a SSC even more, such as the 4 turn cap on research rates and a more competitive AI.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
"I think the science city concept in Civ 3 is weaker than it was in Civ 2. " Quasar 1011
"SC is better in civ 3 than civ 2. " barefootbadass
That's very interesting, how opinions vary and everybody seems to use a different style.
To planetfall: kithrup is right, colossus is not "+1 gold" but +1 Commerce which is divided in tax, lux and science. In Civ3 a SC has the tech output like 3-4 normal "good" cities.
I think it varys on map and empire size a lot, the fewer cities, the more the SC pays off. Last game on large map, I had only 20% beakers in average from my SC, less than 10% in modern age, because I had a lot of well-developed cities. During that game I had to decide to build either magellan or Isaac's in my SC and built Isaac's which proved a big mistake later. I was in tech lead anyway, but had to do a lot of naval warfare.
Also your playing style plays an important role, if you like tech-buying/-brokering, the SC may be useless, but I like achieve a huge lead in tech.
Next game I chose a smaller map, because late game is just too tedious. Emperor, and again, only wonder I was able to get is Colossus, so I will stick to it...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
quote: Originally posted by planetfall
Interesting, the only effect I had noticed from sci specialists is a slight increase in "score". This means it doesn't make any sense to have sci specialists in SC |
every specialist adds +1 to either tax, science or lux (look at editor)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Unregistered
|
|
It's still worth it to try to max out science in general, but I'd say that the ability to build a SSC has been severely curtailed in civIII. Not to say that you shouldn't try, just that there seems to be less incentive to try to build all the science wonders in one high-commerce city.
I also of the opinion that the science & tax specialists are pretty much crap. Just having the citizen working a tile will usually generate at least two gold, that's double what either of these two specialists will do. I mean, really, what's the point of them? Is it mean to be a general comment on the worthiness of these types in general? I can see it for the taxman, but for the scientist? The entertainers are well worth it though.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
planetfall, sorry, when it was a bit misleading for you.
commerce = total gold, science, lux.
e. g.: feudalism costs 28. That's a number modified by the things you wrote. let's say feudalism costs 300 "beakers". Yes, these beakers are shown in F1 screen. Your civ produces 50 beakers/turn = you need 6 turns. The more beakers, the better, that's why SC gives you an advantage.
4-turn cap: You don't produce 50 but 150 beakers per turn = 2 turns, but that's not possible, every advance needs at least 4 turns to complete, so you can make your tax rate higher (= less beakers), and discover still in 4 turns.
SC is so good, because a city with already high commerce (Colossus, hopefully river or something) is maxed out for beakers with Science wonders like copernicus- that gives an enormous boost.
English is not my native language and maybe I explained it bad, so feel free to ask again.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
barefootbadass
|
|
One thing to add to the note about the science wonders and improvements being additive on the base beaker count it that the only thing that makes it better than placing them in separate cities is having them all in the city with the most commerce(after corruption). Since colossus can only be in one city that is the ideal place to put the science wonders and the only reason to put them all in that city. Seti program can and should go in a different city if another one has more commerce by then, which is very possible since colossus has expired.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
planetfall,
Beakers are based on commerce, and after being totaled for all cities, they are used in the formula to determine how many turns it takes to learn a tech. Here is an example of how beakers are calculated for one city:
Suppose a city is producing a total of 50 commerce. Without any science improvements and wonders, this translatres into a potential of 50 beakers to be used for research, depending on the science percentage selected on the Domestic Adivisor screen. If science were set to 50% in this city, the total beakers would be 25, half of the 50 beaker potential. Now suppose this city also has a library. Libraries increase science by 50%, so for this city a library could produce up to 25 more beakers. With science set at 100%, this city would put out 75 beakers with a library. Suppose Copernicus were built, too. It would add another 50 beakers to the total, giving 125 beakers for the city with 100% science, 50 coming from commerce, 25 coming from the library and the last 50 coming from the wonder. Of course the beaker contribution for lower science settings would be 12.5 beakers less for each 10% drop.
In CivII, the beaker calculations were cumulative. The city described above would be putting out 150 beakers at 100% science with a library and Copernicus, and adding just a university would boost this total to 200, whereas adding one in CivIII would have given a total of only 150 beakers.
(Edited to correct the comment added at the end about universities, which in either game are just additive)
Last edited by solo on 02-02-2002 at 21:39
|
|
|  |
 |
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
I got a message noting one part of my previous post may contain an error, so will insert the jist of it here:
In the last CivII example where a university was added it was suggested that with a base of 50 beakers, a library and university added 50% each to contribute 50 beakers, and that the new total of 100 was doubled by Copernicus for a total of 200, rather than 225.
If true, this would make the library and university beaker contributions additive, with only Copernicus being cumulative, in that example. It's been awhile since playing CivII, so my apologies to any misled by the possible error above.
You are welcome, planetfall, and Axis & Allies used to be my favorite until discovering the Civ series. Have fun learning!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Platypus
|
|
Lexington MA, USA
Nov 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
Planetfall: Absolutely no insult is intended here, but I would recommend against spending too much time perfecting your play on the chieftan level. I fear that you may develop playing habits that make it very difficult to move up to higher levels, since the AI has some serious handicaps at chieftan.
Here's a chart showing how many citizens start out content in each city, what the AI build/advance rate is relative to you, and the bonus you get in barbian combat.
Chieftan: 4 citizens, 200% build/advance rate, 400% barbarian combat bonus
Warlord: 3 citizens, 120% build/advance rate, 200% barbarian combat bonus
Regent: 2 citizens, 100% build/advance rate, 100% barbarian combat bonus
Monarch: 2 citizens, 90% build/advance rate, 50% barbarian combat bonus
Emperor: 1 citizen, 80% build/advance rate, 25% barbarian combat bonus
Deity: 1 citizen, 60% build/advance rate, 0% barbarian combat bonus
This means that it takes AI twice at much effort to build or research anything (compared to you) at the chieftan level. At warload, the AI has to put in 20% more effort than you.
(Some other things change with difficulty, too: Corruption increases with difficulty. The lower the difficulty the more likely you'll get a reward from a goodie hut. Opponents are more leient during negotiations at lower levels. Opponents are less aggressive and less likely to break agreements at lower levels.)
I'd recommend getting one solid win at chieftan, and then moving up to the warlord level. I think that playing at a level where your production abilities are at least moderately close to that of the AI, and thus forcing you to use your human intelligence to beat the AI, will result in more enjoyment for you with the game.
If you have difficulty when moving up a level, take a look at what the AI players are doing differently from you (e.g. founding new cities at a much faster rate during the expansion phase of the game, or creating effective alliances during times of war) and then review the appropriate thread in the strategy forum (or start a new one ), and you should quickly be able to solve the problem and enjoy the new level.
It's true that there are a *lot* of things to learn in Civ, but I think that by reading and using the advice in this forum, you should be able to both play and excel at higher levels, and probably have more fun.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|