Civ 3 how do you capture city upgrades???
Danny and Daniele
Why???
any help would be appreciated
thanks
Dan
dbert...@rogers.com
Chris Douglas
"Danny and Daniele" <dbert...@home.com> wrote in message
news:mThO7.194841$5h5.87...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
The process of capturing a city will destroy a great many upgrades. If the
city doesn't have many yet, odds strongly favor that all will be destroyed.
I've taken cities with surviving upgrades before, but not often. It usually
happens later in the game, at which point the number of surviving assets are
so few that the net result is a city that's far more useless than one
conquered earlier in the game with no surviving structures whatsoever.
Personally, I really like this. It forces one to really weigh the costs
versus rewards of military action. Essentially, the idea seems to be to
make wars of conquest more and more difficult as the game progresses, which
is quite reflective of reality. Alexander and Ghengis were able to carve
out vast empires, but conquering and occupying even a single modern city,
let alone an entire nation, is and should be a very, very hard thing to do.
--CMD
Erland Andreassen
> versus rewards of military action. Essentially, the idea seems to be to
> make wars of conquest more and more difficult as the game progresses,
which
> is quite reflective of reality. Alexander and Ghengis were able to carve
> out vast empires, but conquering and occupying even a single modern city,
> let alone an entire nation, is and should be a very, very hard thing to
do.
Havent tested if it works, but here is an idea, when you conqueror a city,
why not trade it with another civ... for lotsa goddies.. and if it rebels
back to orginal owner, re-capture it and trade it again...... Or maybe you
cant trade cities that is resisting.... need to test that.
Code Monkey
dbert...@home.com says...
> Every city I defeat has no upgrades and I have to start from scratch?
> Why???
>
>
> any help would be appreciated
Simply attacking a city does not destroy improvements as someone else
claimed, only bombardment will take out improvements. I posted a longer
explanation somewhere else but the gist is:
1) The AI has a different weighting for building improvements than you
do, there's no guarantee that a city had very many improvements to begin
with.
2) It appears AI sells off the improvements in a city under siege to rush
build defenders.
3) It also does this as a way to hose you if it looks like it's going to
lose (surprise attacks always net me more goodies). The AI has taken one
of my fully tweaked out cities by blind luck and immediately sold off
everything so that when I took it back the next turn I was left with only
an aqueduct, agh!
James Cobb
know it works.
--
rt
>
> Simply attacking a city does not destroy improvements as someone else
> claimed, only bombardment will take out improvements.
I'm not so sure about this. I used an espionage mission to check out a city
I wanted to take. It had lots of improvements. I then used only tanks to
capture it, no artillary. When I took it, most of the improvements were
gone.
I'm pretty sure you never get any cultural buildings (other than wonders)
when you capture a city. I could be wrong, but I'll have to do some more
testing to verify this.
Jeffery S. Jones
<codem...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <mThO7.194841$5h5.87...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>,
>dbert...@home.com says...
>> Every city I defeat has no upgrades and I have to start from scratch?
>> Why???
>>
>>
>> any help would be appreciated
>
>Simply attacking a city does not destroy improvements as someone else
>claimed, only bombardment will take out improvements. I posted a longer
>explanation somewhere else but the gist is:
I am pretty sure that all temples and cathedrals go, as do
courthouses, if you take a city by force. I am not sure if there are
other things which automatically are lost, unable to be converted to
your side.
>1) The AI has a different weighting for building improvements than you
>do, there's no guarantee that a city had very many improvements to begin
>with.
Quite true. The AI builds much less, but it does tend to parallel
my primary choices: Temple, Library, Marketplace, and if applicable,
Harbor. Barracks is also popular for AI cities.
>2) It appears AI sells off the improvements in a city under siege to rush
>build defenders.
And I do so too, especially if it looks like the enemy may take it.
Why let the enemy have that stuff?
>3) It also does this as a way to hose you if it looks like it's going to
>lose (surprise attacks always net me more goodies). The AI has taken one
>of my fully tweaked out cities by blind luck and immediately sold off
>everything so that when I took it back the next turn I was left with only
>an aqueduct, agh!
Yes, it is nice that you can sell off more than one improvement per
turn! OK, if it is you plan to hurt the enemy this way, without
keeping their cities.
--
*-__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/>
Code Monkey
says...
I've never gotten a cultural building either which is probably by design:
they don't work for you. It's even possible that maybe these are what
yields the "liberated" gold you get when you capture a city. They are
automatically sold off at capture.
I do know that the number of infrastructure improvements I get
seems directly related to the length the war has been going on which is
why I suspect the AI is coded to either sell them for troops or just sell
them to ruin your day when you do take the city. When I blitzkrieged
all of Germany in under 6 turns I got almost all of the infrastructure
improvements from the cities. When I got into a WWI slogging scenario
with Japan in another game there was nothing left. Each city was hit
hard by my troops but the only difference was the length of time it took
to capture them.
Chris Douglas
"Jeffery S. Jones" <jef...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3c0a93ea$0$35570$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:01:51 -0500, Code Monkey
> <codem...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <mThO7.194841$5h5.87...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>,
> >dbert...@home.com says...
> >> Every city I defeat has no upgrades and I have to start from scratch?
> >> Why???
> >>
> >>
> >> any help would be appreciated
> >
> >Simply attacking a city does not destroy improvements as someone else
> >claimed, only bombardment will take out improvements. I posted a longer
> >explanation somewhere else but the gist is:
>
> I am pretty sure that all temples and cathedrals go, as do
Actually, I specifically recall capturing courthouses on a few occasions.
Barracks, aqueducts, and on occasion even walls seem to survive. I don't
recall cathedrals right off hand, though.
Also, I agree that attacking the city doesn't destroy improvements.
However, it would seem that *occupying* it does.
--CMD
Peter Huebner
Hmmm, I am in my first 'for real' game (after half a dozen stillborns),
way ahead and have lots of foreign cities defecting to me. They all
***seem*** to come, void of any buildings ....
Now how do the AI players ever keep up so well if they don't have any
buildings in their cities I wonder? <grin>
Or do the rebels burn every thing down before they come over to my side?
Hmmm, I need to do some verification on this. -Peter
--
Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
Duncan
Oh yes. This does work quite well. I captured York from the English (a
size 12 at the time) and then later signed a peace treaty. I then sold
the city back to them for about 120 gold/turn.
Between this and selling off my old tech and spare resources I managed
to get about 1000 gold/turn income, mostly bankrolled by everyone else.
At the same time I was able to pull away in the science race, because I
could afford 80%+ science, whilst the other civs were using most of
their income to pay me. On the off chance that they got an advance
before me I just paid them from my huge treasury (10000+).
Duncan
Lucian Wischik
>Every city I defeat has no upgrades and I have to start from scratch?
>Why???
The manual suggests that, if you're about to lose a city, you should sell
all the improvements. "scorched earth". I guess that the AI has actually
read the manual :) and is doing this.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
atholbrose
news:9ujepq$af6$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk:
> Danny and Daniele <dbert...@home.com> wrote:
>>Every city I defeat has no upgrades and I have to start from scratch?
>>Why???
> The manual suggests that, if you're about to lose a city, you should
> sell all the improvements. "scorched earth". I guess that the AI has
> actually read the manual :) and is doing this.
Is there some kind of signal that a city is about to defect due to
culture envy, then? Every time I get a city because the citizens want to
join the glorious Collective it comes with nada...
Linda Ozr
Spalls Hurgenson
<lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi! is there still someone playing at civ :3
at will is not recommended if you enjoy getting any sleep at night.
Just... one... more... turn.
Although my personal favorite of the series remains the original
(well, the Win3 version). There's just something to be said about the
simplicity of the first game that allows for much quicker gameplay
than the later iterations. I mean, I love all of the games in the
series but the first remains the best. IMHO.
Mike S.
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Although my personal favorite of the series remains the original
>(well, the Win3 version). There's just something to be said about the
>simplicity of the first game that allows for much quicker gameplay
>than the later iterations. I mean, I love all of the games in the
>series but the first remains the best. IMHO.
answer the original poster, yes I still play Civ 3.
Linda Ozr
and yea i discovered civ last year and since then i skipped a couple of nights haha
Mike S.
<lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>waw i actually got answers, impressive
>and yea i discovered civ last year and since then i skipped a couple of nights haha
posts to such an old thread, you never hear from them again.
Anyway, you should note that Civ 3 is not the most beloved entry in
the franchise so you may want to try some of the later games if you
have not already.
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
>the franchise so you may want to try some of the later games if you
>have not already.
Mike S.
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(innocently starts whistling 'Baba Yetu')
Civ 4 definitely has better title music at least.
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
that music.
That said, Civ4 was a big step forward in its visuals. Personally, I
think it is - overall - the best looking game of the series. The
others might be graphically more complex, but the both style and
balance between readability and visuals topped with Civ4. It was also
(IIRC) the first Civilization with support for mods built into the
core system.
Was Civ4 the first game to add neutral 'city-states'? I thought that
added some interesting depth to the gameplay too. Similarly, I enjoyed
the 'culture' system that let you tailor your civ better to your
playstyle. It was overall a nicely polished experience; there were
some ideas in Civ5 that were better, but they needed more refinement.
(I've little opinion on "Civilization 6", largely because it left
almost no impression on me. I know I played it, but what it did
differently from the others? I can't remember and - because of that -
whenever I consider replaying a Civ, I tend to overlook it entirely
when making my choice. "Civilization 3" is in the same boat).