 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
I managed to play a few more turns last night. I got Education from the GL, and then started work on Music Theory (Bachs, then a beeline for Cav... that's the plan).
The Zulu broke their alliance with me and made peace with Japan, and had the insufferable GALL to be "annoyed" at ME afterward! I paid them off (free luxury for 20 turns - the same luxury I had been paying them to fight the Japanese) to be "polite" until I get around to greasing them. That allowed me to make peace with Japan too (for which I got paid). America allied with the Mongols against Japan shortly thereafter. So right now, I'm fighting the Mongols, who are fighting the Japanese, with the help of America. Got it? 
Three Mongol cities have fallen, and a fourth will fall shortly. Casualties have been moderate. I did lose my northern expeditionary force (several med inf, a pikeman, 2 knights, 3 catapults), though. I marched through America to take a shot at the Mongol iron city, and lost to a horde of Keshiks. I took a couple with me, but my 3 defense units (pikeman, knights) got slaughtered despite being up on hills & having bombard support. Just a bad run of luck to make up for that lucky 2nd leader, I guess.
A very odd thing happened in 900 AD, though
I finally said "screw it" and built the FP just south of Thebes so I could rush the Palace in Berlin. On the 900 AD turn I switched the city in question over to the FP (at a 73 shield loss from the palace - I was saving shields for Bachs) and also switched Berlin to the palace & used my leader to rush it. The next turn, the turn counter on Berlin read "99 Turns" for the palace!
There is only one thing I can think of right now: during the 900AD turn, I captured a Mongol city. I know that the cost of the palace varies based on # of cities you have. Could it be that that # is only calculated at the beginning of each turn, and that the city I captured boosted my palace from 800 shields to 900?
Anyway, I consider that a bug, and will be going back to the 900AD turn. I'll just wait one more turn to rush the palace. I figure that should work.
-Arrian
p.s. PTW 1.14, btw.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
Sorry. I've been really swamped in real life, and haven't had any time to coordinate my impressions of the huge map experience, and barely any time to even keep up with the threads.
|
No worries, I still have a NIC follow-up to write (I'll do one, I swear)!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
Well, I reloaded back 2 turns and managed to fix the palace rush thing. So as of 900AD, Berlin is my capitol. I played up to 1020AD.
The Great Mongolian War continues. Casualties are mounting. I've sustained ~25% losses to my Knight force (down to 40 from 53), though the completion of my universities in the south means I will start getting reinforcements again. I have cut the Mongol horse supply, too, which ought to help. The battle for Karakorum was bloody, but now I have the Pyramids. I also sent a second strike force through America at Mongolia's iron city (though I then noticed it is only 1 of their 2 irons) and this time took it (and got my catapults back). The Mongols and I now have gunpowder, but luckily they do not have saltpeter (well, they did, unconnected, but I own that city now ). The Americans have one unconnected saltpeter, and thanks to my RoP (renewed), they will not connect it anytime soon. I have a med inf. standing on it.
Leader #3 became insta-Bachs. I made the switch to Monarchy, and am still managing reasonable research. Currently researching Chemistry, due in a few turns. I may detour briefly for Astronomy and then go back to my Cavalry beeline... or not. We'll see.
I'm a little frustrated that the war is taking so long. I think that's a function of the map size. I looked at my 50 knights and thought I could take the Mongols & Americans down with relative ease and speed, only to discover that on a Huge map, 50 knights aren't nearly as impressive as they would be on a standard.
Current plan: mop up the Mongols while working on getting Cavalry (easier said than done). Hit America with Cavalry. Then, depending on what I've got left, hit either Zululand or Japan. Meanwhile, build up former Germany as best I can (courthouses being built everywhere even though I don't need them now b/c of current palace placement. When I move the palace north into America, though, those ch's will come in handy).
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Speaking of the reload... do you guys think I encountered a bug worth of report?
|
I think Firaxis is probably aware of it -- it has been around for some time (as vulture points out). It is pretty surprising the first time it happens until you figure out that the palace cost depends on the number of cities, the leader just fills the current shield box, and the shield box can grow if you subsequently capture or found more cities.
Think of it as a consistent principle: rush-buying, whether by leader, pop, or cash, fills the current shield box. You can see the principle operate as well in "short-rushing" situations -- i.e., you really need a harbor immediately and are prepared to rush it, but you have no shields in the box and no units available for disband -- rush a worker at 80 gold (the 2x penalty for no shields), then switch the production to harbor and rush the remaining 70 shields for 280 -- the short-rush saves 280 shields over a straight rush. I consider the short-rush a personal exploit (I don't do it) but many others think its perfectly appropriate.
The leader - palace - "more turns needed" situation is just plain annoying, and unless playing in some sort of competition where the rules bar it, I wouldn't complain about someone reloading in that situation.
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Nor Me,
Things have been far too peaceful. Sssssoooon, my ppppreciousssssss. Soon we shall have 75 Knights. And then they will pay. Nasty, tricksey, false AI!
-Arrian the mad |
Three civs for Emperor Aeson to win
Seven for King Dominae for his hall of fame
Nine for Warlord Theseus for him to spin
One for the dark Lord in his current game
In the land of Firaxis where mad Arrian lies
One civ to play them all, one civ to war them,
One civ to master them and in conquest slay them
in the land of Firaxis where mad Arrian lies.
"The war for AU207 has ended. The war for Civ 3 has just begun." MS
|
|
| |
|
|
|
badams52
|
 |
near the magic kingdom
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Catt, is there a thread you know of off-hand that explains rushing principles better?
I knew how to "work it" in Civ2, but I sort of forgot, and never have done much thinking about it in Civ3. |
Yahweh,
Don't know of a thread for working it, but the basic principals are easy.
I believe Catt gave you the best example for a pure rush when buying without using units. Same as civ 2. With no shields, the buyout is at it's highest. A worker has the least shields to buy thus only 80 gold. After that, all othet improvements price drops around 50% (so a factory starting at 1800 would drop to ~900 after rushing a worker first).
I don't know if a cascading rush is cheaper, i.e. rush worker, switch to settler, rush settler, switch to harbor, rush harbor, etc. But that would be easy for you to test out.
In civ (the original) I remember that military units cost more to rush than an equivalent shield costing city improvement. So if you wanted a tank, you'd rush a city improvement with equal value than switch to tank (which is why the 1/2 shield reduction for switching in civ 2 happened). Don't know if they changed this in civ 3 or not.
As you may recall from our earlier discussion, it's always cheaper to disband units if you have them.
Another favorite of mine is to disband one unit, then rush. The disbanded unit takes the edge off the full shield buy and leaves a cheaper cost for the rush.
Maybe others can fill in the other exploits/cheaper ways to rush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by badams52
If this isn't what happened to Arrian, then disregard my post. If instead he captured cities after rushing the capitol, then that's just how the game is supposed to work in regards to rushing. |
If that's how it's supposed to work, it's a case of poor design. Standard operating procedure, especially in the age of railroads, is to use a leader practically the moment he appears if you have a good use for him so you can get another leader later the same turn. With the current design, you have to choose from (1) delay using the leader, probably sacrificing some chance to get another one, (2) take a chance of essentially wasting the leader if he ends up not finishing the palace after all, or (3) go through a lot of pain counting cities and finding about the (undocumented) palace cost structure in order to find out whether you can rush the palace in mid-turn safely given your conquest plans for later in the turn. None of those options is particularly attractive.
Basically, the current cost structure offers a clear benefit only to extreme micromanagers (and then only in rare cases) while placing the vast majority of more casual players very much at risk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
badams52
|
|
near the magic kingdom
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If that's how it's supposed to work, it's a case of poor design. Standard operating procedure, especially in the age of railroads, is to use a leader practically the moment he appears if you have a good use for him so you can get another leader later the same turn. With the current design, you have to choose from (1) delay using the leader, probably sacrificing some chance to get another one, (2) take a chance of essentially wasting the leader if he ends up not finishing the palace after all *snip*. |
Good point, hadn't thought of that aspect of it. But usually when I have a leader in waiting to build something (such as a wonder that I don't have the tech for yet, or the leader is in transit), then I change my warfare style. The elite* and veterans attack while the elites just rest and wait. And maybe I'll net some more eiltes in the process. So while (1) is a vaild complaint, I don't think the delay of warring for 1 turn produces much of a problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by badams52
I don't know if a cascading rush is cheaper, i.e. rush worker, switch to settler, rush settler, switch to harbor, rush harbor, etc. But that would be easy for you to test out. |
I'm not sure anymore if it was Civ 2 or SMAC (I think Civ2) but there it matter, in Civ3 it doesn't. In Civ2, the cost was doubled if you didn't had half of the shields yet, so if you need a large rush, you could rush several buildings which all had more then half of the shields present, and get from a worker to a factory at slightly over half the cost.
In Civ3, cost depends on having shields in the box or not, meaning that a cascaded rush is not needed for a "short rush": you just rush a worker first, and get to a factory immediately after that if you want to.
Further comments on rushing in Civ3: whatever shields you would gain in the turn you complete the building are lost. You also don't receive any excess gold. So, the most efficient use of cash is if you rush a slightly less expensive building a few turns before the target would complete, and get the last part the normal way by collecting shields.
This also works best to offset small differences in cost: if you have 12 shields left on a horseman you're producing, in a city which generates 5 shields, you can rush a spear for 8 gold (2 shields), and finish the horse in 2 turns, instead of 3. Doing so, you use a bit of cash to gain 3 shields that would otherwise be lost, so those 8 gold are in reality worth 5 shields instead of the 2 you pay for. A lot of micromanaging, but worth it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
I managed to play some more yesterday.
I'm now up to 1310AD. The Mongols have 2 island cities left, and I've started in on the Americans. I have ~65 Cavalry.
The problem now is that Japan finally started to beat the Americans. They've taken some cities, razed others, and I've seen THREE seperate 3xSamurai armies. And they have musketmen. Fighting them is going to be nasty. I expect heavy casualties. However, once I'm done with them, I won't need much of an army. Just enough to flatten Zululand, and *maybe* Scandanavia (pathetic island nation to the SW, horribly behind in tech).
I've met the rest of the world (or rather they met somebody on my continent and I got introduced), and managed to trade metallurgy for banking, economics, navigation, printing press, several hundred gold and ~100gpt. I used a leader to snag Smith's (I built Copernicus straight-up). So things are going pretty well.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Spoiler Alert
Yes, I know this is the spoilers thread, but if you haven't fought the Vikings yet and you think you probably will, the tale below could spoil a surprise. (For those playing the 1.29 version, the Vikings are the "lonesome" civ in the PtW version.)
---
My war with the Vikings was one of the craziest I've ever fought. I'd recently started building tanks, and the Vikings were still just about halfway through the medieval era, with most of their medieval techs being on the top part of the tree. (My trades of technology for incense, sometimes directly and on one occasion throwing in gold and then selling additional techs the same turn to get my gold back, had done them a huge amount of good since I'd discovered them mired in the ancient era.) So all I had to do was land a few elite cavalry and tanks with infantry to protect the landings and they'd collapse very quickly, right? Wrong.
My initial landings went fine, capturing two cities in the north and two in the south fairly quickly (using forces from four transports). But then huge swarms of horsemen, archers, spearmen, and even a few chariots started coming after me. I've seen stacks of doom before, but never one so primative.
Fortunately, the AI was completely incompetent in its use of those units. First the counterattackers moved in on Birka in south central Scandanavia, but then I reinforced that city and took Trondheim in the north, and the Viking troops turned around and headed north where I'd spread my defenses thinner. The completely stupid thing was that the troops moved past some tanks sitting on a hill out in the open, causing damage to a great many units before they could even attempt an attack.
I got in additional tanks for reinforcements, chewed through the uninjured units of the stack and some of the injured ones, and got a lot of promotions. Lots of units ended up in the city the Vikings had planned to attack, so they turned their units around and left my city radius! That gave my tanks another turn to chew up the slow-mover survivors.
The AI's next attempt to mount an offensive was back in the south, but it had lost the chance to get the weight of numbers necessary to stand a chance against superior technology. Wounded tanks in the north healed and additional reinforcements landed, shifting the balance very heavily in my favor. The total war only took about nine or ten turns, but it was a lot tougher than I ever would have expected against such a primitive opponent. If I'd gone in with no offensive units stronger than cavalry the way I'd originally thought I probably would, I could have been in serious trouble. Even as it was, war weariness was starting to become a problem (partly because I was a Democracy, although I did have Universal Suffrage to help out). Huge maps definitely make for higher unit counts, probably because corruption is so much lower that even when civs don't control more territory than they would on a standard map, they get a lot more wealth and production out of it.
The war did have its good side, though. About eight leaders appeared, helping me rush SETI, the Internet, Longevity (since the AIs took forever to research Sanitation for me), and the Intelligence Agency, as well as founding a few armies. And in addition to the ones that had generated leaders, a little over twenty-five other tanks also achieved elite status.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
I definitely plan a similar invasion, Nathan. I'll bring a few more units than you did, I bet.
Currently, I'm up to 1420, and I'm fighting a vicious war against Japan. I do not know (nor to I wish to know) how many Cavalry I lost killing their 3 Samurai armies. Suffice it to say it's a big number. Japanese resistance, however, is weakening. I've taken six cities, most of which were formerly American, and am poised to strike into the Japanese homeland.
Mongolia, Germany and America have ceased to exist.
I'm still running a Monarchy, but that isn't hurting me much. I sucked it up and sold Steam Power to Korea (the only strong AI civ out there) for a staggering amount of GPT. Add in a couple of luxury sales and I'm milking their economy dry.
My Palace is finally where I wanted it all along. I'll try to provide some screenshots tonight.
The only minor irritation (besides the time it takes to conquer civs on a huge map) was the French grabbing Magellan's. Other than that, it's smooth sailing. 
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Dominae, my situation in this game is not at all atypical for standard-map games. I have ample power to conquer the other continent with MAs; Japan fell to me in one turn and Mongolia in two (only because terrain slowed me down), and even the most advanced civs on the other continent are no stronger than they were. But as is often the case in standard-map games, I don't want to go to the trouble. The biggest difference is that a 100K cultural victory is so much easier on a huge map; Firaxis really should have scaled that requirement to map size. On a standard map, I'd have to either take my chances on a diplomatic victory (definitely risky unless I'd identify number two and start a world war against them) or wait for the space race.
I do think huge maps make warmongering a bit trickier. The rival civs are bigger, and the enemy unit counts can be pretty amazing. On a standard map, I almost certainly would have taken out the Japanese and Mongols with cavalry given the same technological advantage, but as it was, they had enough units that I didn't even dare try for Japan and I only took a bite out of Mongolia.
Still, I'll agree that it's probably harder for killer AIs to evolve on a huge map, because AIs have to swallow twice as many other AIs to control the same percentage of the world on a 16-civ huge map as on an 8-civ standard map. AIs simply aren't geared for the level of aggression that requires, in my experience (admittedly, not much of it on huge maps).
As for how good or bad huge maps are compared with standard maps for an essentially pure peaceful builder strategy, I wouldn't know. When the right opportunity arises, I always seem to be taken over by the dark side.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, my situation in this game is not at all atypical for standard-map games. |
I think the difference is that, had Babylon not been located where they were, you could achieved the same with little to no "sweat". In smaller maps, the AI will declare war on you and is usually close enough to actually gets its units into good position. This means that it actually threatens you. On Huge maps, I imagine you can "sit back" until you've got an advantage.
I'm just extrapolating this from the AARs, by the way.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2003 13:58
|