 |
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simpleton
I think the games ok and I will play it more but I'm too busy(...)
It all depends on my wife. |
Studying, playing Civ and having a wife? You got to respect that... I only try to combine working, studying and Civ... hard enough as it is 
Just one remark to this discussion: as a builder, getting used to ancient warfare is hard in CivIII. However, coming from previous versions it can be fun to stay a builder, which might be a bit difficult at first, but still can be done. Just try to understand the aspect of culture in its smaller details, and everything will work out fine.
Yesterday, I won an emperor game without battling any other civ once, with a space victory. Got 7 or 8 cities flipping to me, so was only second in land area, but still it was nice to try to avoid all war, maintaining a comfortable lead through industrial and modern times. If only it was possible to build ancient wonders without great leaders, I wouldn't ever need to fight a war.
Oh, and having a moderate army in comparison to the warmonger AIs helps a lot in keeping the peace, but paying tribute is also a (bitter) solution. Just make sure the AIs never stay annoyed for more then a few turns, and surprise attacks are never a problem, even if you are military weak.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simpleton
|
 |
Edmonton, Canada
Nov 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Studying, playing Civ and having a wife? You got to respect that... I only try to combine working, studying and Civ... hard enough as it is
|
Actually, she's pretty good about things but this weekend I promised her we'd do something together (movie, dinner, whatever). I'm actually looking forward to it. 
quote:
Yesterday, I won an emperor game without battling any other civ once, with a space victory. Got 7 or 8 cities flipping to me, so was only second in land area, but still it was nice to try to avoid all war, maintaining a comfortable lead through industrial and modern times. If only it was possible to build ancient wonders without great leaders, I wouldn't ever need to fight a war.
DeepO |
I think part of the problem with my strategy is I prefer to play a non-aggressive style. I build a small army and concentrate on culture and tech. It seems more difficult to play this way in Civ3 which is ok. It's a different game right? Hence, different strategies are needed.
I'm actually pretty cool with sucking at Civ3 for now but I will take all the advice people have given and try it. It can't hurt right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simpleton
I think part of the problem with my strategy is I prefer to play a non-aggressive style. I build a small army and concentrate on culture and tech. It seems more difficult to play this way in Civ3 which is ok. It's a different game right? Hence, different strategies are needed.
|
It surely is a different game when you want to keep military conflict to a minimum. You have to be very diplomatic, a big change from CivII where diplomacy was dead once you got the upperhand. Further, it is much easier to do it with certain civs, at certain map settings, I can't imagine playing a peace-game with the Japanese on a tiny map... although it has to be possible. Big continents, with Egypt, Persia, Greece or the Babs are, IMHO, the best to start with. Panganea is also fine, but if you 're unlucky to start with several war-civs in your neighbourhood you have to prepare for war.
Even if I plan in front how I'm going to play, a lot depends on the situation. In the game described above I could avoid all battles because I had the lower third of a big continent, while two other civs were battling for the upper part. I kept them polite, and they kept battling each other. When I saw one of the two was winning too much (keep explorers watching the front-line!) I gave the other some advantage, which could be an extra tech, some money, or a resource/luxury. I didn't go for a diplomatic victory, but I'm sure I was able to, as everybody was always nice to me (and I to them).
The current game, I'm even harder trying to experiment with peaceful victory, and conquest through culture flipping. I play the Babs, with the Zulu as immediate neighbor, the Persians beside them. Those two battle constantly, and whenever I see one of their cities razed, I immediately drop down a city on the available space -- even if it is just one tile of free space surrounded by foreign territory. I got some 7 city flips so far (1000AD), and it looks like there are another 20 or so cities which have a chance of flipping to me. Not one of my cities is in any danger of flipping, so as long as they'll keep friendly, I'll only grow. And I'm the largest already.
I couldn't avoid all conflict, though. Once I discovered another continent, I placed a city next to a free wine. Almost immediately, one of the Russian cities next to it flipped, which a little later turned out to contain a saltpeter source. I was amazed with the easy gaining of two key resources (cost: one settler and two spearmen), but so were the Germans. They declared war (even if they were polite), I got the Russians and English fighting them, and lost one spearman in the first attackwave. After sueing for peace (got 3 techs and an island city from the Germans, even if I only destroyed 2 or 3 attackers), The Russians attacked me. So I took one city with iron, and got the Germans and English to war for me.
As a result, everybody is battling each other, and all are relatively good mannered to me, as I didn't do much damage to them. Meanwhile, I'm building my infrastructure, and I'll either get a cultural, or a space race victory without any problem. I'm already 4 techs in front, before going to the modern age...
One last advice: my army is always just as big as I need them to be, but I always keep a quite large force of obsolete units running around. Plus the moment I got a new unit I build it and parade it in full view of every civ in my neighborhood. I try to fool the AI that I have a large force of modern units, when I have a large force of warriors and just one modern unit. I don't know whether the AI reasons like this, but it does keep them happy
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Radiation Zero
|
|
Canada
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
Hmmm... looks like a big war with Aztec is inevitable.
Anyone want to give me some tips on how I should run this campaign?
 Attachment: bismarck of the germans, 2000 ad.zip
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Personally, I am not telling Luke anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
I might miss a common expression, but who's Luke?
If you mean that you try to hide your military strength, of course that is the right thing to do when you want to attack someone. In that case, I'll try to keep my modern, offensive units far from borders, so the enemy doesn't know I got it. However, when you want to avoid attacks, showing off is better, no?
DeepO |
hi ,
yes and no , example , you only have a small army , no problem , but you can use it to is max abilities if you can move them around fast , when all you city's are linked be railroad , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
Of course, always keep a small, mobile force at hand, even when you want to stay peaceful. And, fortify units at places that prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in one turn from outside your borders, that's another obvious thing to do.
But in a peaceful game, I don't upgrade all my defensive units to the best around, in fact I only upgrade when I'm in a desperate situation (or want to go to war). Those warriors have the same effect...
In the game I finished last night (babs, nearly peaceful except a few skirmishes with Russians and Germans) over a third of my troops at the end of the game where warriors, and another third were spearman. I did build some 40 tanks, as I wasn't sure whether I wanted some action in the last turns, or not. Those peacegames can become boring...
So I finished diplomatic, with >6500 points on emperor (huge, 9(10?) civs, continents, 1605AD). It wasn't my best score, but for me it was a decent score, without major wars.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Of course, always keep a small, mobile force at hand, even when you want to stay peaceful. And, fortify units at places that prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in one turn from outside your borders, that's another obvious thing to do.
But in a peaceful game, I don't upgrade all my defensive units to the best around, in fact I only upgrade when I'm in a desperate situation (or want to go to war). Those warriors have the same effect...
In the game I finished last night (babs, nearly peaceful except a few skirmishes with Russians and Germans) over a third of my troops at the end of the game where warriors, and another third were spearman. I did build some 40 tanks, as I wasn't sure whether I wanted some action in the last turns, or not. Those peacegames can become boring...
So I finished diplomatic, with >6500 points on emperor (huge, 9(10?) civs, continents, 1605AD). It wasn't my best score, but for me it was a decent score, without major wars.
DeepO |
hi ,
modernisation , ....
and old units lose a battle anyway , well okay , most of the time , so when you disband them in a city , its nice to get the shields , ...
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
Am I the only one who keeps ancient troops un-upgraded? strange...
Of course, when I go to war in the ancient period, all warriors are upgraded to swordmen, but what would be the point if you don't plan on war? It only costs lots of money.
About disbanding obsolete units in newly conquered cities: I did that for a while. But, it doesn't net you much (2 shields for a warrior), and those obsolete units could be better spent on repressing resistors and fooling the AI you have a huge army. The only units I disband are captured catapults when I have cannons, and artillery when I have lots of bombers. They are of no use anyway, so avoid paying for them all those turns.
Of course, I only keep warriors when my army is weak to the largest military civ, once you get more units there is no need for them anymore. That's the time I'm disbanding core city defenders as well, or move them to the borders.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Why? If you don't use a unit, why pay for it? Especially when you can keep them as a reserve, and build new units when needed. How many times do you encounter a time in which all your core cities have built all improvements, and have nothing better to do then to build units? Setting them to wealth hardly is the best choice: you generate for every 40 shields 10 golds, while upgrading a unit costs 40(or 20 with Leo) per 10 shields... you loose 160 shields on wealth per gained 10 shields on a unit... hardly favorable odds.
I agree completely that there are situations where upgrading is a must, but why would it need to be a strict rule?
DeepO |
hi ,
many times , ......
anyway , old units are not word to keep , ..
okay , one or two , for sentimental value maybe , but that is it , ..
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2002 13:41
|