From: keith@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Keith Steiger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: Yet more civilization questions
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:27:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntp.1992Oct7.182758.12194
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <Bvr7Bw.wH@fc.hp.com> koren@fc.hp.com (Steve Koren) writes:
>It seems too short.  I've played about 6 times now, and only once has
>any civilization, computer controlled or otherwise, ever gotten a
>spaceship launched.  All the other times, nobody gets past aircraft
>technology before the time limit expires.

The computers generally don't get very far before the time limit expires,
especially at low difficulty levels where their scientific progress is
handicapped.  It is possible to get to Alpha Centauri by the year 1800,
maybe earlier.  You just need to refine your play style.

>> Okay.  Some of the things you can do to increase scientific production that
>> you don't mention:  Build roads.  Make more cities.  Build railroads.
>I do build lots of roads.  After making a city, I usually have one
>settler unit building roads around that city, irrigating, and mining.
>Then, after "improving" all the squares around the city, I have the
>settler build roads between cities.  After that, I disband it until
>later in the game when it can clean up pollution.

DISBAND a SETTLER?  (gets even more incredulous) DISBAND A SETTLER?  This
ought to be unconstitutional.  New cities are a wonderful thing--they grow
faster, use more squares (because they always use the square the city is on),
allow more production, require fewer civic improvements to keep happy, etc.
etc. etc.

Outside of a few cities to build Wonders and other huge things with, I'd
rather have 10 5-person cities than 5 10-person cities.  In fact, settlers
are the best thing since buttered toast.

>One tip I've discovered: don't build cities 9 squares apart.  Build them
>10 squares apart instead, so that you can develop trade routes between
>them.  Its frustrating to send out a caravan, only to discover that the
>cities aren't quite far enough apart to have a trade route.

That is FAR too much city separation.  The maximum city separation you should
have is one of the following: 5 over and 2 up, or 4 over and 3 up.  These
guarantee no overlap in the cities, while still allowing you to pack the
cities as closely together as possible.  In fact, I am more and more convinced
that city overlap isn't horrible--you get permanently small cities, allowing
you to skip some of the expensive methods of happiness, like colloseums.

>> They aren't pillaging.  However, the people in the city can't use a square
>> while a military unit from another civilization is sitting on it.  You
>Sometimes I think they are pillaging.  What happens is this: I have a
>square with a mine on it.  Another civ's unit moves over that square,
>and then leaves.  After it leaves, there is no more mine (or
>irrigation).  They sometimes just march through my civilization doing
>this, and I have to send out a bunch of settlers to rebuild everything,
>but I've lost a lot of production and have people starving in the
>meantime.  And this is *without* a formal declaration of war on their
>part.

This can happen without a declaration of war, but I'm almost positive this
can't happen while there is a peace treaty.  There is a difference.

>I've found it best to get a phalanx in there as soon as possible to defend
>the city, and then worry about development.  But of course, that takes time...

Are you not sending out military units for exploration?  If you meet the
enemy on his own turf, not only does he not know where you are, but he's
far more likely to give you a peace treaty upon first meeting, because of
the threat that that exploring unit could attack him immediately.  If you
get such a peace treaty, fortify that unit right in his face--next to a city
if possible.  It really stresses the computer out, just like it stresses you
out when the computer does it to you.  Not only that, but the computer will
generally break the peace treaty by killing that unit, giving you several
turns of warning.

You do need some military units around, but only the border cities really need
military units at all, and sometimes not even all of them.  Terrain barriers
help a lot in this regard.  I often play the Indians on Earth, and I just
don't guard my side of the Himalayas.  ;-)

Of course, if you're in real trouble, you can always pull save-and-restore
tricks to make sure the battles either don't occur or don't go their way.
But that's not necessary.

>> Either play on Earth, or make a custom world with "large continents".
>Speaking of "custom world", does anyone know what the "age" thing does?
>All the others are explained in the computer specific supplement (Ami
>version).  But it says nothing about the world age.  It gives you a
>choice of 3, 4, or 5 million years.

I read somewhere that this determines how large the groups of terrain are.
For example, if you choose a "young" world, erosion won't have been as
significant, and forests won't have grown as much, etc. etc..  So a "young"
world would have very varied terrain, while an "old" world would have large
grasslands and large deserts.

I tend to leave this at the default--in the middle.

	Keith Steiger
	"The jump from King to Emperor is ridiculous.  Ouch."
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games