CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
Johnny Rico
This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
(a pushover in Civ2) the computer cheats in battle. (I am also
suspicious about how the other civs start Wonders after me and finish
them before me! - so AI might get production bonuses at this level too
- please dont quote the manual - i know what it says) Anyway battles
seem to go Much easier for the AI (i.e. his veteran cavalry beat my
fortified elite riflemen behind walls 2for2 in some city; in the
meatime my vet/elite cavalry dies like flies against lesser units of
his) Thsi happened throughout history, enemy horsemen being rather
vicious for their stats.
3. I captured 4 Indian cities. He is in awe of my culture, so i rushed
some cultural constructions in thos captured cities. to protect them
from deposing my rule. I had to reload a few times cause i lost cities
to revolts. Sure enough my cultural boundaries expanded with
temple/lib/cath/univ in each of those cities and i strted builing
armies. And just as i started expecting that I would capture some
culturally inferior cities. But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
the cultural buildings were already built (actually bought). To add
insult to injury i lose enough elite units to get my ass kicked!
4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
built 12 normal cities and everything after that is a useless waste of
map space? Besides this makes the game just damn awful - you cant
expand any because f it. Makes the game static and stale as all hell.
Let mekeep bitching:
5. Took me 2 technological epochs to sail around the world (huge
world). When i left i had just invented the Caravel tech. So i build
one and having the Lighthouse i fugured i'd go around the world to see
if i get anything for it. My caravel came back when i had jet planes,
tanks and battleships.
6. A.I. Expansion. No matter how hard i expand you cannot out-do the
AI at this game. They build their 2nd cities faster, third, etc. By
their 10th you have 5-8.by their 15th you have Heres the more
ridiculous crap: in my present game i attacked the Chinese, English
and Aztecs in the Very early game (with archers.) it worked like a
cham because for the most part they only had warrors. Well guess what:
i didnt know any of them out because they were building cities faster
than i could take them. In mdieval times i wiped the Aztecs out but
some more time later i discovered the other two having nicely
reestablished themselves on the opposite side of the continent.
7. Wonder waste. If you lose the race to building a wonder by 1-2
turns there is a tremendous shield waste. This is even more BS since
you cant really hurrry it by disbanding units or cutting forest (like
with normal buildings) Also usage of leaders is too unrealistically
efficient: no single man can do THAT well at building a WOW.
8. Pre Destiny. I was shocked when this happened: lost a battle,
loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
situation and you cannot do anyhting to prevent it anymore other than
replying the last several rounds.
9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
fact that this never really happened in history: Kosovo didnt want to
join Albania, the Basques dont wanna join France, and should Kashmir
join Pakistan no way would this NOT have a hell of an adverse effect
on India! The cities switching sides is ... well just quirky no matter
how much it works to my advantage.
sIGH. I was hoping that bitchin about it would make me feel better but
the game still frustrats my ass - so mych for all that anticipation...
Please do answer me if you know how to prevent the stupid revolts in
conquered cities.
JR
Morten Wennevik
: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
: This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
: wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
: 1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
: worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
: reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
: should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
: WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
I noticed that conquered cities have a nasty tendensy to revolt and
no matter what I do will turn against me and convert to their mother
nation, but I haven't had much trouble with my own cities getting
war weariness since I tend to play the initial despotism to the end.
: 2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
: (a pushover in Civ2) the computer cheats in battle. (I am also
: suspicious about how the other civs start Wonders after me and finish
: them before me! - so AI might get production bonuses at this level too
: - please dont quote the manual - i know what it says) Anyway battles
: seem to go Much easier for the AI (i.e. his veteran cavalry beat my
: fortified elite riflemen behind walls 2for2 in some city; in the
: meatime my vet/elite cavalry dies like flies against lesser units of
: his) Thsi happened throughout history, enemy horsemen being rather
: vicious for their stats.
There is some strange things about battle. One one way they seem to be
so random that a warrior 1.1 can beat my rifleman (6.3 ?), but the
randomness is also fixed! reloading the game makes no difference
the battle is determined long before the actual fight. I had 5 riflemen
dying for a elephant thingy in exactly the same way for each reload of
savegame.
: 3. I captured 4 Indian cities. He is in awe of my culture, so i rushed
: some cultural constructions in thos captured cities. to protect them
: from deposing my rule. I had to reload a few times cause i lost cities
: to revolts. Sure enough my cultural boundaries expanded with
: temple/lib/cath/univ in each of those cities and i strted builing
: armies. And just as i started expecting that I would capture some
: culturally inferior cities. But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
: captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
: the cultural buildings were already built (actually bought). To add
: insult to injury i lose enough elite units to get my ass kicked!
Have no idea, the revolt is also determined several years prior to
happening, and putting loads of soldiers in it, making them happy and
whatnot has NO EFFECT.
: 4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
: Let mekeep bitching:
Yeah, as mentioned earlier, things are determined years (at least one)
before actually happening. This is a nasty thing indeed.
: 9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
: good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
: fact that this never really happened in history: Kosovo didnt want to
: join Albania, the Basques dont wanna join France, and should Kashmir
: join Pakistan no way would this NOT have a hell of an adverse effect
: on India! The cities switching sides is ... well just quirky no matter
: how much it works to my advantage.
: sIGH. I was hoping that bitchin about it would make me feel better but
: the game still frustrats my ass - so mych for all that anticipation...
: Please do answer me if you know how to prevent the stupid revolts in
: conquered cities.
: JR
I think the thing to do is the have massive millitary force present until
the resistance have been quelled. They still seem to revolt when you
"hurt their mother nation" though.
Andrew Gillett
> loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
> battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
> situation and you cannot do anyhting to prevent it anymore other than
> replying the last several rounds.
Reloading the game after losing a battle so you can try it again isn't isn't
"sorta cheating", it's "cheating". Some people in previous Civ games would
win the game by saving the game before every battle, and always reloading if
they lost. This cheat has been eliminated in Civ 3.
4phun
Please stop this type of Civ 3 post.
Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
Learn to read the unit's CURRENT stats correctly!
The little window at the bottom right only shows the basic values of the
unit. The last number is the unit's maximum health or power. It does not
indicate the current health status of the unit. Right click on the squares
where your units are located and read the pop up windows correctly. The
first number is the unit's health status and if it gets down to one there is
little chance that your super duper powerful unit is going to survive the
next battle.
That is how you may find your 'elite units are dying'.
Civ3 4phun TIP
You can right click on enemy squares to see the health of each potential
attacking unit during your turn.
Any unit who is attacked and who wins a pitched battle may actually have his
health go up a notch even if it isn't his turn, which makes him all that
much harder to kill off in the next battle.
Now knowing that you can right click and using the shift key left click on
each unit you want to activate. Go down the list for the units on that
square and pick the healthy powerful ones to strike out with.
Civ3 4phun TIP
Take a conscript (drafted citizen) and have him attack a unit that is health
status of one. He will probably win and in doing so will advance from
conscript (2) to regular (3). Take a veteran and he may advance to elite
without losing any health points in that turn.
--
Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
"Morten Wennevik" <mp...@alfred.uib.no> wrote in message
news:a13vg1$i6b$3...@toralf.uib.no...
>
> : 2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
>: Anyway battles
henri Arsenault
<Johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
> worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
> reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
> should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
> WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
>
first of all, it depends on your government type (you can't wage an
extended war with democracy for example); second, if your cities grow
faster than your ability to keep your people happy (via cathedrals,
resourceds, wonders etc), you are going to always be on the verge of a
revolt.
> 2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
> (a pushover in Civ2) the computer cheats in battle.
The computer does not cheat in battles at any level. But there is a chance
for any unit to beat any other unit. Don't forget to take into account
bonuses for veteran and elite as well as terrain bonuses and for
fortifications. If your kickass unit is attacking an enemy elite unit
fortified in a city in a mountain, fergitaboutit, you are gonna git your
ass kicked. Check out the combat bonuses, the computer has no advantages
over you in combat. It is generally not possible to take a well-defended
city straight off; it is usually necessary to reduce its strength by
destroying surrounding improvements, especially food-producing squares (to
starve them) and shield-producing squares (to prevent production of
additional units).
>
> 3. [snip] But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
> captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
> the cultural buildings were already built (actually bought). To add
> insult to injury i lose enough elite units to get my ass kicked!
City revolts depend on a nmber of factors, the main one being the ratio of
"foreign" citizens to yours. If you capture a city with more than 1 or 2
of original citizens remaining, expect a revolt unless you take steps (see
below). At the higher levels, the city is amost sure to revolt with any
number of citizens remaining unless steps are taken.
>
> 4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
> built 12 normal cities and everything after that is a useless waste of
> map space? Besides this makes the game just damn awful - you cant
> expand any because f it. Makes the game static and stale as all hell.
>
The number of cities required for high corruption can easily be changed
with the editor if you think it is too high. In my current game, I control
all of North and south america, with my capital and forbiddend palace in
the US, and even cities on the southern tip of south america are
contributing a bit. Note that corruption is less bad with democracy and
MUCH less bad with communism.Consider moving your palace as your empire
expands.
> 6. A.I. Expansion. No matter how hard i expand you cannot out-do the
> AI at this game.
You CAN outbuild them, but it is not easy, since the AI builds very
aggressively and are very good at trading. Maybe you should practice at an
easier level. Also note that building too aggressively at the expense of
development can leave one vulnerable to attacks (depends on the size of
the map, the level of difficulty, who your neighbors are and the kinds of
barbarians that is chosen). On the other hand, doing things like building
wonders too early can fatally slow down one's progress. Finding the best
strategy is not easy, but generally one can't expand too faxt for the firt
two or three cities, and one should not build any wonders until having at
least five or six fairly healthy cities.
>
> 8. Pre Destiny. I was shocked when this happened: lost a battle,
> loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
> battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
> situation and you cannot do anyhting to prevent it anymore other than
> replying the last several rounds.
>
yes, this cheating method has been eliminated. This is supposed to be a feature.
> 9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
> good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
> fact that this never really happened in history:
>
No one claimed that Civ is a realistic simulation of History. Try Europa
Universalis for a better approximation.
>
> Please do answer me if you know how to prevent the stupid revolts in
> conquered cities.
If you want to avoid revolts, always reduce the population of a conquered
city, preferably before you conquer it (by starvation and attrition). If a
conquered city has a remaining population of more than two, consider
reducing it by rushing improvements with governments that use citizens, or
build settlers or workers (rush-build if you have the cash) with those
that require cash instead. Keep some of your own workers (ones with YOUR
nationality) ready to add to the city as soon as you conquer it to dilute
the foreign population ratio. Garrison the city with military units, but
not all government types allow garrisons to affect happiness and the
number is limited. The probability of revolt depends very much on the
ratio of cultural power, captured cities are not going to convert to your
civ if their original nation has a much higher culture. I have kept
captured cities with as many as six foreign citizens remaining with no
revolts, but don't count on this at the higher levels.
henri
abc
> Grrr...
> Please stop this type of Civ 3 post.
> Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
>
> Learn to read the unit's CURRENT stats correctly!
[snip tips]
Already know all that, but one thing I have been wondering is if my units
are penalised if attacked more than once during an opponents turn, and if
enemy units are similarly penalised if I attack the same enemy unit repeated
during the same turn. For example, 2 swordsmen attacking a city with one
fortified musketman, with the musketman killing the first swordsman to
attack. Is the musketman now penalised if attacked for a second time in the
same turn, ie the swordsman receives a benefit of some sort other than the
musketman now being injured & having fewer hit points? It's just that on
many occasions it seems like once a unit receives a second attack during the
same turn it will die much easier than otherwise. Can't seem to find any
info on it in the manual.
Bryan J. Maloney
> What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
>
> This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
> wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
>
> 1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
> worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
> reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
> should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
> WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
I play as a Republic or Democracy and haven't noticed any such problems
even when in a war that went on so long that all military alliances
expired three times. Maybe you're just an incompetent player.
> 2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
> (a pushover in Civ2) the computer cheats in battle. (I am also
> suspicious about how the other civs start Wonders after me and finish
> them before me! - so AI might get production bonuses at this level too
It doesn't. You're just incompetent.
> culturally inferior cities. But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
> captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
Don't spend the entire game in warfare.
> 4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
What civilization in the real world has existed NON-STOP since 4000BC?
What civilization in the real world has been led by Abraham Lincoln
since 4000BC? What civilization in the real world NEVER underwent
fission and linguistic division since 4000BC?
> 6. A.I. Expansion. No matter how hard i expand you cannot out-do the
> AI at this game. They build their 2nd cities faster, third, etc. By
I've done it.
> 7. Wonder waste. If you lose the race to building a wonder by 1-2
> turns there is a tremendous shield waste. This is even more BS since
> you cant really hurrry it by disbanding units or cutting forest (like
Wah wah wah, listen to the incompetent fool whine. I laugh at your
incompetence.
> with normal buildings) Also usage of leaders is too unrealistically
> efficient: no single man can do THAT well at building a WOW.
And leaders cannot live for centuries, either. Furthermore, there are
NO units of "warriors" running around in the USA as part of the regular
army right now. And the USA did not exist in 4000BC.
> 8. Pre Destiny. I was shocked when this happened: lost a battle,
> loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
> battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
Wah wah wah, listen to the incompetent CHEATER whine! You are so stupid
it's giving me the giggles.
> 9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
> good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
> fact that this never really happened in history: Kosovo didnt want to
The USA didn't exist in 4000BC.
England did not exist in 4000BC.
Rome did not exist in 4000BC.
The Persians and the Babylonians did not exist at the same time.
Mao Zhedong did not exist in 4000BC.
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Bryan J. Maloney
<a...@abc.com> wrote:
> "4phun" <no-...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
> > Grrr...
> > Please stop this type of Civ 3 post.
> > Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
> >
> > Learn to read the unit's CURRENT stats correctly!
>
> [snip tips]
>
> Already know all that, but one thing I have been wondering is if my units
> are penalised if attacked more than once during an opponents turn, and if
> enemy units are similarly penalised if I attack the same enemy unit
> repeated
> during the same turn. For example, 2 swordsmen attacking a city with one
> fortified musketman, with the musketman killing the first swordsman to
Am I the only person who uses artillery-type units to soften up cities
before assaulting them???
Christoph Nahr
>Already know all that, but one thing I have been wondering is if my units
>are penalised if attacked more than once during an opponents turn, and if
>enemy units are similarly penalised if I attack the same enemy unit repeated
>during the same turn.
No... it's really purely random, nothing else. Units are only
"penalised", if you want to call it that, by possibly having fewer
remaining hitpoints after the first attack. But a unit might get
promoted if it wins a battle, and then it will have one extra HP.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
James Barker
it, then fill it up with prebuilt workers of your own. The high ratio of
yours to his will really help. But I gave the game away for many of the
reasons you list. I like Empire Earth a lot better but I come from a
wargaming background.
abc
units
> > are penalised if attacked more than once during an opponents turn, and
if
> > enemy units are similarly penalised if I attack the same enemy unit
> > repeated
> > during the same turn. For example, 2 swordsmen attacking a city with one
> > fortified musketman, with the musketman killing the first swordsman to
> Am I the only person who uses artillery-type units to soften up cities
> before assaulting them???
Well, 2 swordsmen attacking a musketman ON GRASSLAND then. It was only an
example ffs.
And no, you aren't.
Jeffery S. Jones
wrote:
>What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
Do you think conquest is supposed to be easy?
Truly, the revolts are a hazard but one which can be dealt with. In
Civ2, if you took a city it turned 100% loyal to you. In Civ3, this
doesn't happen. The people remain loyal to their original culture,
and if they have a chance they'll rebel. That sort of thing happens
in real history, you know.
>This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
>wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
Conquest requires different strategies than Civ2. But it certainly
is possible to do so. You just have to cope with the increase
difficulty compared to Civ2.
As it is, conquest is *still* the easiest way to gain the lead in
the game. But it isn't the cakewalk that it was in Civ2.
>1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
>worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
>reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
>should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
>WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
If war didn't have serious penalties, you wouldn't change
governments to something less effective for research. And once a war
starts, no matter who started the thing, it sure can turn into a war
of aggression. If you really want to fight a limited defensive war
you can, and ask for peace after a few turns.
The civil unrest effect is much less limiting for war, with less
micromanagement requirements, than Civ2's unhappiness per military
unit away from home.
>2. Winning battles is absolutely RIDICULOUSLY hard. At Warlord level
>(a pushover in Civ2) the computer cheats in battle. (I am also
>suspicious about how the other civs start Wonders after me and finish
>them before me! - so AI might get production bonuses at this level too
>- please dont quote the manual - i know what it says) Anyway battles
>seem to go Much easier for the AI (i.e. his veteran cavalry beat my
>fortified elite riflemen behind walls 2for2 in some city; in the
>meatime my vet/elite cavalry dies like flies against lesser units of
>his) Thsi happened throughout history, enemy horsemen being rather
>vicious for their stats.
No cheating that I know of for combat. The difficulty levels *are*
increased, and Chieftain is about as hard say as Prince in Civ2 (not
exactly, once you learn the new rules you can do better).
Warlord gets a production penalty. When I investigate AI cities I
can see that it needs more shields than I do to build things.
While some people have claimed strings of lucky wins for the AI, not
everyone has. It may be that you don't understand the combat system,
the terrain modifiers, or statistics. I've seen some lucky kills by
the AI, but I've got some of my own. Swordsmen killing riflemen on
hills, cavalry smashing mech infantry, etc. There is a chance that
*any* unit will kill any other unit. Better units have better odds,
but the odds aren't as good for more advanced units as in Civ2 (a
balance feature).
>3. I captured 4 Indian cities. He is in awe of my culture, so i rushed
>some cultural constructions in thos captured cities. to protect them
>from deposing my rule. I had to reload a few times cause i lost cities
>to revolts. Sure enough my cultural boundaries expanded with
>temple/lib/cath/univ in each of those cities and i strted builing
>armies. And just as i started expecting that I would capture some
>culturally inferior cities. But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
>captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
>the cultural buildings were already built (actually bought). To add
>insult to injury i lose enough elite units to get my ass kicked!
Take out the entire Indian civilization, or make peace with them and
give them gifts to make them happy with you. If you are still at war,
the Indian citizens are going to dislike you a lot! They'll consider
their culture superior to yours (multiplying the odds of defection).
Don't put elite units into cities which aren't 100% loyal. If there
are citizens of your enemy present, you can try sticking your own
workers into the city to change the ratio of loyal/disloyal folks, but
there is always a risk that the foreigners will vote to rejoin their
original nation.
>4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
>built 12 normal cities and everything after that is a useless waste of
>map space? Besides this makes the game just damn awful - you cant
>expand any because f it. Makes the game static and stale as all hell.
Not useless -- you can get production out of them, in workers if
nothing else. They do produce culture too, secure resources, and make
bases for your military. But with forbidden palace and a lot of
courthouses and police stations, you can probably double the useful
cities.
Turning to Communism also increases this (1.16f patch). It will cut
into the production of your core cities, but if you want a huge empire
the lower corruption in other cities can make up for it.
You can expand as much as you need to in order to win. Grab your
fair share of the world, then live within its limits for production,
and you still should be able to max tech research, and have plenty of
military production.
Without the limits, any empire which conquers and expands will
quickly dominate the world. That is too easy a way to win.
>Let mekeep bitching:
>
>5. Took me 2 technological epochs to sail around the world (huge
>world). When i left i had just invented the Caravel tech. So i build
>one and having the Lighthouse i fugured i'd go around the world to see
>if i get anything for it. My caravel came back when i had jet planes,
>tanks and battleships.
Always been true in all versions of Civ. If you really dislike how
slow naval units move, you can up the movement rates (that worked in
Civ2 as well).
>6. A.I. Expansion. No matter how hard i expand you cannot out-do the
>AI at this game. They build their 2nd cities faster, third, etc. By
>their 10th you have 5-8.by their 15th you have Heres the more
>ridiculous crap: in my present game i attacked the Chinese, English
>and Aztecs in the Very early game (with archers.) it worked like a
>cham because for the most part they only had warrors. Well guess what:
>i didnt know any of them out because they were building cities faster
>than i could take them. In mdieval times i wiped the Aztecs out but
>some more time later i discovered the other two having nicely
>reestablished themselves on the opposite side of the continent.
The AI is smart about expansion and compulsive. It may rush-build
settlers -- you can do it too. If your city is size 5, you can make a
settler in one turn. It is going to shrink anyway, so why not speed
it up? Size 6 cities with plenty of food turn out settlers really
fast, as they regrow rapidly.
I tend not to expand as the AI because I prefer to build culture and
wonders early. I catch up later, and usually end up ahead (barring
bad luck or bad wars) by the AD era. But it most definitely *is*
possible to keep up with the AI's expansion if you go for settlers as
your main builds.
>7. Wonder waste. If you lose the race to building a wonder by 1-2
>turns there is a tremendous shield waste. This is even more BS since
>you cant really hurrry it by disbanding units or cutting forest (like
>with normal buildings) Also usage of leaders is too unrealistically
>efficient: no single man can do THAT well at building a WOW.
You need to plan ahead. First, try to start the wonder before you
get the tech. Build something else which will take a while and
changeover. Make several wonders in several cities.
Use your embassy or spies to keep track of the other city's
production. Try to max your wonder building cities' production --
use workers to make them grow, use mines to increase shields rather
than irrigate for food, unless you need the food in order to support
the max population.
Wonders are supposed to be difficult to build. But leaders are not
common, and using them to speed up wonders -- or other builds -- is a
valuable tool. Besides, real world leaders *have* inspired great
works. Don't think of it as an industrial increase, think of it as
finding a way to do the job at much lower cost (with lots of
non-government contributions to make up the difference).
>8. Pre Destiny. I was shocked when this happened: lost a battle,
>loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
>battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
>situation and you cannot do anyhting to prevent it anymore other than
>replying the last several rounds.
It is cheating, so they made reloads use the same random numbers
each time. Why should you be able to win any fight with the AI by
reloading until you win? That *is* cheating!
>9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
>good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
>fact that this never really happened in history: Kosovo didnt want to
>join Albania, the Basques dont wanna join France, and should Kashmir
>join Pakistan no way would this NOT have a hell of an adverse effect
>on India! The cities switching sides is ... well just quirky no matter
>how much it works to my advantage.
It isn't perfectly realistic but it is a much better approximation
of borders and nationality than Civ2 had. For a game, it works well.
Besides, cities *did* change sides in Civ1 and Civ2. Was it quirky
then?
>sIGH. I was hoping that bitchin about it would make me feel better but
>the game still frustrats my ass - so mych for all that anticipation...
>
>Please do answer me if you know how to prevent the stupid revolts in
>conquered cities.
#1 method is to eliminate the foreign civ entirely. Its citizens
will no longer wish to rejoin their government when it doesn't exist.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Task Force Games* <http://www.task-force-games.com>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
*Graphic Reflections and Websites* <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/>
Hank
Yes, but with the random seed issue in the current version there's no
way to see if the AI cheats ... :-)
H
R. Cohen
> : What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
>
> : This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
> : wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
>
> : 1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
> : worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
> : reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
> : should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
> : WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
>
> I noticed that conquered cities have a nasty tendensy to revolt and
> no matter what I do will turn against me and convert to their mother
> nation, but I haven't had much trouble with my own cities getting
> war weariness since I tend to play the initial despotism to the end.
>
>
> There is some strange things about battle. One one way they seem to be
> so random that a warrior 1.1 can beat my rifleman (6.3 ?), but the
> randomness is also fixed! reloading the game makes no difference
> the battle is determined long before the actual fight. I had 5 riflemen
> dying for a elephant thingy in exactly the same way for each reload of
> savegame.
>
Quite simply the random number generated for combat is now saved in
the save file so reloading makes no difference. What you need to do
is reload and try another battle which will cause a new random number
to get generated... That's the way around that behavior. It's
actually interesting when you reload now, because you can play it like
a chess game. Since many of the battles are pre-determined at that
point, you can replay and see what a different course of action at a
certain point yields. It's sort of interesting.
> : 3. I captured 4 Indian cities. He is in awe of my culture, so i rushed
> : some cultural constructions in thos captured cities. to protect them
> : from deposing my rule. I had to reload a few times cause i lost cities
> : to revolts. Sure enough my cultural boundaries expanded with
> : temple/lib/cath/univ in each of those cities and i strted builing
> : armies. And just as i started expecting that I would capture some
> : culturally inferior cities. But bang outta the blue i lose one of my 4
> : captured cities to revolt. WTF is a man to do to prevent this - all
> : the cultural buildings were already built (actually bought). To add
> : insult to injury i lose enough elite units to get my ass kicked!
>
Much of this has to do with the culture near the target city. There
are several strategies mentioned elsewhere which will help you keep
cites under control. Don't forget courthouses in your list of
building to complete. It will help with defection as well. All these
suggestions will help a great deal, although there are some
circumstances where it just doesn't seem to matter. I wonder in those
cases if the city is being "paid" to defect opposing cities propogada
and spy component. Does anyone know if you're aware when your city is
paid to defect??
>
> : 4. Corruption. This is just ridiculous: What civ in the real world
> : built 12 normal cities and everything after that is a useless waste of
> : map space? Besides this makes the game just damn awful - you cant
> : expand any because f it. Makes the game static and stale as all hell.
>
The Forbidden Palace is a key wonder to help with that... It really
helps. Courthouses do help as well.
> : Let mekeep bitching:
>
> : 5. Took me 2 technological epochs to sail around the world (huge
> : world). When i left i had just invented the Caravel tech. So i build
> : one and having the Lighthouse i fugured i'd go around the world to see
> : if i get anything for it. My caravel came back when i had jet planes,
> : tanks and battleships.
>
> : 6. A.I. Expansion. No matter how hard i expand you cannot out-do the
> : AI at this game. They build their 2nd cities faster, third, etc. By
> : their 10th you have 5-8.by their 15th you have Heres the more
> : ridiculous crap: in my present game i attacked the Chinese, English
> : and Aztecs in the Very early game (with archers.) it worked like a
> : cham because for the most part they only had warrors. Well guess what:
> : i didnt know any of them out because they were building cities faster
> : than i could take them. In mdieval times i wiped the Aztecs out but
> : some more time later i discovered the other two having nicely
> : reestablished themselves on the opposite side of the continent.
>
That's not true, you can take out cities and civs, but they are much
better at surviving then they used to be. I've taken to attacking
their settler units before they get started. It helps get you extra
workers too.
> : 7. Wonder waste. If you lose the race to building a wonder by 1-2
> : turns there is a tremendous shield waste. This is even more BS since
> : you cant really hurrry it by disbanding units or cutting forest (like
> : with normal buildings) Also usage of leaders is too unrealistically
> : efficient: no single man can do THAT well at building a WOW.
>
Previously it was just too easy to manipulate the game to build a
wonder. Now it's just harder. Leaders are rare enough that can't
rely on them to build that wonder for you. The time frame is over a
few years BTW.
> : 8. Pre Destiny. I was shocked when this happened: lost a battle,
> : loaded game to try again (i know i know... sorta cheating), and the
> : battle went THE SAME EXACT WAY. Sorta sucks to know that you are in a
> : situation and you cannot do anyhting to prevent it anymore other than
> : replying the last several rounds.
>
See above...
> Yeah, as mentioned earlier, things are determined years (at least one)
> before actually happening. This is a nasty thing indeed.
>
> : 9. Cultural expansion. It was sorts cool in the beginning and was a
> : good susbstitute for real civ borders, but then i thought a bout the
> : fact that this never really happened in history: Kosovo didnt want to
> : join Albania, the Basques dont wanna join France, and should Kashmir
> : join Pakistan no way would this NOT have a hell of an adverse effect
> : on India! The cities switching sides is ... well just quirky no matter
> : how much it works to my advantage.
>
>
> : sIGH. I was hoping that bitchin about it would make me feel better but
> : the game still frustrats my ass - so mych for all that anticipation...
>
> : Please do answer me if you know how to prevent the stupid revolts in
> : conquered cities.
> : JR
>
> I think the thing to do is the have massive millitary force present until
> the resistance have been quelled. They still seem to revolt when you
> "hurt their mother nation" though.
Absolutely. That helps right away. But be aware, it's not uncommon
for cities to defect onces the dust has settled.
R. Cohen
Not at all. It's a great technique. Infantry and artillery together
are great. It's the only way to "really" capture cities when riflemen
and infantry are dominant and air power and tanks haven't appeared
yet. In fact, if I'm the first to get infantry and artillery early
enough, I often go on a little military binge if I can.
R. Cohen
Here's a collalary to that tip. Using bombers and artillary will
really enable you to attack stronger units with lesser units. It's
the best way for your destroyer to knock out a battleship for example
and it allows the possibility that your left over swordsmen might even
be successful against entrenched infantry/riflemen.
Here's another "tip/cheat". You can use your bombers and 1 destroyer
combination to take out a battleship/transport combo steaming your
way. Use your bombers to attack the battleship down to one hit point.
DON'T attack the transport now. Since it has 3-4 hit points over the
battleship's 1, the transport will become the preferred defender.
When the destroyer attacks, it will be against the transport, not the
battleship. Transports rarely, rarely win those encounters. This
works just great!
Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
No, there is no bonus other than possible damage done by the first
unit.
--
ICQ #:8105495
email:kee...@lycosmail.com
http://members.rogers.com/keepershaven/
"Once that first bullet goes past your head --
politics go right out the window."
J.S.
"Johnny Rico" <Johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpfa3ugt47bjqb52h...@4ax.com...
> What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
>
> This is the 3rd game in the row that i just give up bacause im fucking
> wasting my time conquering. I really see no more point to this game:
>
> 1. Waging war in Civ 3 is a pain. It is so hard that its almost not
> worth it. Revolts in your own cities get worse and worse in any
> reasonable form of govmt. ( I dunno maybe this civil unrest bullshit
> should be implemented only during warrs of aggression i.e. Nam not
> WWII) But this matter is minor compared to others.
>
Best way seems to be this: Have 4-5 (or more depending on size I guess)
workers of you own (no captured ones) ready to go when you conquer the city.
Once you own the town, have the workers join the city and voila a majority
of the populace are your citizens and not captured ones. Rush building a
temple and library or a marketplace helps as well. I've found its best to
almost level a city and then capture it.
J.S.
Dreifels
"4phun" <no-...@yahoogroups.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:u3b6rkm...@corp.supernews.com...
> Grrr...
> Please stop this type of Civ 3 post.
> Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
>
> Learn to read the unit's CURRENT stats correctly!
you're thinking all are idiots and can't read and you're the only who can?
4phun
in the combat of a stack. Which brings us to another observed point about
artillery and bombers. If you are attacking units in the open and drive the
health point of each one down to one you may not attack with artillery or
an aircraft.
Civ 3 4phun TIP - Watch OUT FOR COMBAT BONUS SITUATIONS
When you can't get a crosshair on a certain square back off a second and
right click on that square and look at the health status of all units that
are remaining on it. If they are all down to one the AI will not let you
inflict any more 'ranging damage' so this is the time for a close attack
with a stack of ground units.
Don't forget that any defending unit has an COMBAT BONUS ADVANTAGE due to
several rules.
1 Terrain - hills and mountains help defense
2 The larger the city the bigger the defense bonus
3 if the attacker is coming from across a river their is an additional
defense bonus
You want to hit them with a unit that may overcome that defense advantage if
possible. Also here is another tip. Move all your attacking units to a
mountain or a hill next to a city. This gives them a bonus and makes it more
likely they will wear down all the defenders of the city. It makes it less
likely the AI will reach out from the city and attack you on its turn since
it will calculate it may probably not win the battle and could end up
leaving the city defenseless.
Civ3 4phun TIP - RIP UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Use fast moving units like Calvary to jump off that mountain to rip up roads
on all sides of the city. They can rip up the improvement and then jump back
up on the mountain for safety all in their turn! Once done the AI can not
make any more good defenders there since the city lacks the resources it
needs. I look for all the resources in an empire and try to get attack units
on them to destroy all the roads and railroads on that square to deny that
resource to the whole enemy empire. I also try to get a settler on it so it
becomes mine once I add a harbor or airport. I often have five of each
resource after the game has been in progress for awhile for that reason.
Use artillery to rip up nearby roads and improvements and bombers to rip up
roads on the far side of a city. I rip up roads and rail to create a buffer
zone against a more powerful enemy as I build up on the territory I have
taken. They no longer have enough of a movement advantage to attack without
my seeing it coming during my turn.
Civ3 4phun TIP - CREATE a FAT LADY
Its "not over until the fat lady sings! " Have you seen your plans messed up
with the AI suddenly taking its turn? I activate a single unit far away
which I think of as "the fat lady. " I set this unit to WAIT (W). Every time
the game cycles around to this unit I hit wait until it is obvious this is
the only unit left to move. I examine the situation carefully at this point
and see if there is some unit I could activate before my turn ends to meet a
developing situation. I look to see if there are any units remaining in a
transport somewhere that should have landed on my turn so they don't waste a
movement point next turn. I save the game at that point and then skip the
fat lady or actually move it. If something unexpected comes up during the AI
turn I still can go back and examine my situation before the fat lady sung
and see if I could have corrected it. Of course this is cheating but only
you and I know about it.
<wink> and the AI cheats some doesn't it?
I play Civ3 4phun
"R. Cohen" <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a140b0ad.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "4phun" <no-...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:<u3b6rkm...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Grrr...
> > Please stop this type of Civ 3 post.
> > Re: CIV3: What the F*** is up with the city revolts after conquest????
> >
> > Learn to read the unit's CURRENT stats correctly!
> >
Johnny Rico
>The number of cities required for high corruption can easily be changed
>with the editor if you think it is too high. In my current game, I control
>all of North and south america, with my capital and forbiddend palace in
>the US, and even cities on the southern tip of south america are
>contributing a bit. Note that corruption is less bad with democracy and
>MUCH less bad with communism.Consider moving your palace as your empire
>expands.
>
cities that needed the Forbidden palace most couldnt manage building
it fast enough and it always ended up too close to my main palace. But
it never crossed my mind that i can always move the main palace!
Thanks
Johnny Rico
asked for... Didnt that bitch of a mothr of yours tell you that if you
dont have anything nice to say, you should shut the f*** up. But
anyway if that lesson was lost on you so far it's doubtful I'll be
able to impress it upon you now.
Maloney you make me ashamed that im a cornell alum myself.
Go get some social skills you geek and if you fail there's always the
bridges...
JR
Johnny Rico
you convinced me. Also i must admit that however frustrating the game
is it's still addictive as heck.
Thanks for the advice
Pitbull
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Am I the only person who uses artillery-type units to soften up cities
>before assaulting them???
No. I build catapults. Yes, they are a somewhat lame, but they every
little bit helps. Furthermore, there is a steady line of upgrade for
the artillery so they can be kept current and grow more useful with
time and tech.
I also like to build a naval force for bombardment of coastal cities.
I usually use the ships to shell the city as the land troops
laboriously work their way into position for attack. By the time they
get there, the city has usually had a decent reduction in the
population.
Wes Irby
> Civ3 4phun TIP - CREATE a FAT LADY
>
> Its "not over until the fat lady sings! " Have you seen your plans messed up
> with the AI suddenly taking its turn? I activate a single unit far away
> which I think of as "the fat lady. " I set this unit to WAIT (W). Every time
> the game cycles around to this unit I hit wait until it is obvious this is
> the only unit left to move.
You can accomplish the same thing by enabling "Always Wait at End of
Turn" in the preferences. :)
Wes
GWB
news:3C371156...@home.com.nospam...
Hehe, yep, that's the first thing I turned on :)
Jeffery S. Jones
wrote:
>OK OK youre right most of the time. I'll go give it another go at it,
>you convinced me. Also i must admit that however frustrating the game
>is it's still addictive as heck.
>
>Thanks for the advice
I do like the game, even when the particular situation is
frustrating. I think that is one big difference compared to Civ2 --
if things go badly in Civ2, usually the AI is also in a bad way
(barring playing at high levels when you haven't learned how to
outproduce the AI). In Civ3, a bad start is harder to overcome unless
you are very patient. Being patient doesn't come easy to people who
want to see the chance to come back and lead right in front of them,
rather than a couple hundred turns down the road.
On the other hand, when things go well in Civ3 it is a lot of fun.
My nuclear war level game is like that. Even though two of my
conquered cities rebelled, I just don't care. I have units in place
to retake them, and did so, no problem. Even when the AI managed to
take a city with my artillery and planes in it (via combat), no
problem. I'm *still* going to win the war.
OTOH, nukes flying around (by both sides, but I have SDI and they
don't) makes the world very messy. Blasting the roads is good for
eliminating production, but it slows down blitzkrieg through the nuked
wasteland. Oh well.
Of course, if I had domination victory on I'd have won already.
Same if I used the spaceship, or maybe if I called for the UN vote.
Other games have been frustrating in other ways. In one, my Zulu
neighbors invaded, and their horsemen ran right to my horse and
saltpeter squares and ripped them up! No more musketmen, no more
horsemen, and though I was researching military tradition, no cavalry!
I tossed a lot of spearmen and warriors in their way, and kept
enough units in my main cities so they didn't take them. But they hit
a lot of others and razed them, keeping only a few.
When I finally got around to striking back, the going was slow.
Once I recovered my resource squares, put units on them to defend
them, and got my cavalry going, I was able to strike back.
Some of the Zulu cities did rebel, but I was prepared for that
situation, so I didn't take too heavy of losses. I have an aversion
to razing cities, but I did pound some down to size one with cannon.
I kept the war going, despite problems with unhappiness and Democracy
(which interestingly enough weren't too bad when the Zulus were
rampaging through my land razing cites. I guess that the people
aren't upset about fighting against an invader). Soon enough, I'd
taken every last Zulu city.
I did learn one lesson: Don't trust Zulu neighbors. I was trying
to build Wonders and improve cities, and hadn't built my military up
that much. I knew I was just shy of Cavalry, and didn't want to build
other units yet. Early on, my forces of horsemen and knights did
outnumber the Zulus, and I could have smacked them down rather well.
But I was trying to play peaceful, but that honestly won't work in all
situations.
4phun
Thanks Wes.
"Wes Irby" <wes...@home.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:3C371156...@home.com.nospam...
>
Topi Linkala
> If you want to avoid revolts, always reduce the population of a
> conquered city, preferably before you conquer it (by starvation and
> attrition). If a conquered city has a remaining population of more
> than two, consider reducing it by rushing improvements with
> governments that use citizens, or build settlers or workers
> (rush-build if you have the cash) with those that require cash
> instead. Keep some of your own workers (ones with YOUR nationality)
> ready to add to the city as soon as you conquer it to dilute the
> foreign population ratio. Garrison the city with military units, but
> not all government types allow garrisons to affect happiness and the
> number is limited. The probability of revolt depends very much on the
> ratio of cultural power, captured cities are not going to convert to
> your civ if their original nation has a much higher culture. I have
> kept captured cities with as many as six foreign citizens remaining
> with no revolts, but don't count on this at the higher levels.
Sorry if this tip is not new, but after discovering Nationalism drafting
and disbanding is best way to reduce local population. by that one
reduces the population and at same time generate shields to what ever
one is bulding in the city.
Reggie
?) with 12 or more resisting citizens. I just put a shitload of units
on it to keep them quiet, no big deal. Usuallly use nationalism then
coz of going to war. Usually all i had to do was put as many units on
it as there were resisters, doesnt matter if its swordsman or whatever
(thats where the cheaper older units come in handy :). Sure sometimes
a city would revolt (totally rediculous when there's 3 cities left of
their entire civ and i conquered the other 20 cities) but just conquer
it again and they will shut up next time.
Dunno exactly what makes them revolt, culture or whatever but when its
early in the game im usually the least cultural advanced since i'm
building up a millitary force. Then i rush to all cities, conquer them
and put as many units on them as there are resisters and they usually
dont revolt, whatever government type i might use at the time.
Greetz,
Reggie !!!!
Jeffery S. Jones
>I've conquered plenty cities (on monarch level i think it was called
>?) with 12 or more resisting citizens. I just put a shitload of units
>on it to keep them quiet, no big deal. Usuallly use nationalism then
>coz of going to war. Usually all i had to do was put as many units on
>it as there were resisters, doesnt matter if its swordsman or whatever
>(thats where the cheaper older units come in handy :). Sure sometimes
>a city would revolt (totally rediculous when there's 3 cities left of
>their entire civ and i conquered the other 20 cities) but just conquer
>it again and they will shut up next time.
Another method is just to put in one or two units, risk the revolt,
and have units near to retake it and make reinforcing it hard. It
seems to me that if a city revolts, it is usually only one per turn.
Lots of units to suppress resistors is OK, but I, as you did, want
to use cheaper units to do so, rather than my attack force.
>Dunno exactly what makes them revolt, culture or whatever but when its
>early in the game im usually the least cultural advanced since i'm
>building up a millitary force. Then i rush to all cities, conquer them
>and put as many units on them as there are resisters and they usually
>dont revolt, whatever government type i might use at the time.
Culture is what makes them defect, while resistance makes them rebel
before you have full control. The culture thing is because they like
their native culture better than yours (check the unhappy citizens in
the city), and even if your culture numbers are higher they value
theirs more, so want to go back.
Once you've suppressed resistance, don't leave more than one or two
units there for defense. The cultural defection risk is always
present, until the AI civ is entirely gone.
After that, they might defect to some other culture, but they no
longer will be yearning to return to their own people.
Chris Schack
<snip>
>Sorry if this tip is not new, but after discovering Nationalism drafting
>and disbanding is best way to reduce local population. by that one
>reduces the population and at same time generate shields to what ever
>one is bulding in the city.
Drafting can't take a city under size 6, I think. Besides, under
Communism, rush-building works better.
Chris Schack