Civ 3 Questions (OT)

Civ 3 Questions (OT)

Charis
Charis

December 14th, 2001, 8:36 pm #1

OK, I haven't had an off topic post in a while, so let me toss this out...

I just got Civ III yesterday I know Cy and Sirian and several others have been getting into this quite a bit. And I saw Jaffa post on a CivFanatic forum :P

Several questions...
- What tips would any of you have for "this is NOT like Civ 2...", ie key differences?
- When do you tend to switch governments, and how does the answer to this depend on the difficulty level? (I was pretty heavy into Civ 2, so knew the relative importance of wonders, happiness and govnment on the difficulty back then)
- Have you tried (or would it work for us to try) a "Succession game?" I read about this at an excellent site, CivFanatics.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisp ... forumid=47
In this game, you have a team of about 4-5 guys who take the reigns for about 15 turns, and post the map (.zip) and description of what happened to the forum.
The key point of this would be the amount you could learn from stronger players, with feedback such as "why on earth did you sell your Worldmap to the aggressive zulu's for incense?!". It's like "serial coop"
- Are you going to try Apollyon's Game 3, due out soon? If so, is there a forum where you discuss such things? More generally, do you have a Civ 3 forum of any kind where you participate?

Note this is not a "I'm bored with Diablo 2" post in anyway, I'm still going strong there. But I do recall the exceedingly addictive nature of Civ 2. And I know that last night, first time playing it, I had that "Holy &@#%%! It's 2:30 a.m.!! I thought it was only 10 oclock!" feeling.

=)
Charis
Quote
Share

Joined: July 19th, 2000, 6:16 am

December 14th, 2001, 10:16 pm #2

Not Like Civ2: the biggest surprises will probably be related to culture and cultural reversion. The very first time you capture a large city near your opponent's capital and watch it defect back, destroying every unit of yours garrisoned inside, will probably be the biggest thing hammering this whole culture deal into your mind.

As a result, conquest is harder, especially with the relative weakness of modern units versus their ancient counterparts. As an example, a regular Modern Armor loses to an elite pikeman defending a large city 20% of the time, much unlike Civ2 where you could assemble a group of armor or howitzers and know that they could reliably punch through hordes of ancient-era units without a chance of dying. While tech is still nice, Civ 3 puts a definite emphasis on quantity over quality, especially with the number of streaks you'll see generated by the pRNG (semiscientific study has shown, with a very small sample size, that it isn't really that streaky, but anecdotally a lot of people still feel it is). On the other hand, however, early conquest is much easier since the AI puts less priority on defending itself now, preferring to go for more cities and expanding instead.

Minimum and maximum research times. Get used to them, learn to use them, though I object to them and have removed them in a personal mod.

A marginally better AI. The first few times it will amaze you. The next few times it won't. Unfortunately, it's fairly predictable and there are all number of AI exploits, but I won't go into them.

Democracy. No longer the ultimate government. War in democracy now triggers some pretty extreme war-weariness in later difficulty levels. A change from Civ2, when the best strategy was to run to Dem, switch to it, and stay there for the rest of the game.

Corruption. There are many things to be said about this, not all of them acceptable language on a public forum. Discover the joys of 1/1 corruption for yourself.

I'm probably missing a few things, but there's a basic outline.

Switching governments: On the lower levels, whenever you want. On the higher levels, when you've finished your early-era Despotism war. On Deity, when you get Communism, since you aren't ever getting out of war.

To elaborate: on levels Regent and below, you actually do have effective freedom to play and can build your own empire, beeline to Republic or Monarchy and switch, then build up, wage a little war, play a complete game. For Monarch and above, however, it's well accepted that you pretty much need an ancient era war to wipe out and capture the cities of two or so close opponents to have a chance against the AI bonuses. Less important in Monarch, more in Emperor. In Deity, the only Deity victories I've seen so far are Despotic Conquest, Tiny Pangaea, or something similar (even as big as Standard Pangaea I think), so actually government change doesn't get into that. On Deity level, with the AI paying only 60% of the price you do for ANYTHING and picking up seven or eight free units as soon as it founds its first city, you need to hit hard and overwhelm because if you try playing builder, you will quickly find yourself outbuilt, even if they're only devoting part of their efforts.

Population rushing is generally accepted to be better than money rushing, so Despotism is a popular early game choice, and Communism not bad for the late game. Many builders opt for Republic over Democracy in the later levels, because Democracy's war weariness can be just crippling in higher difficulties.

Succession games: never actually tried one, but read the reports of several. Would be nice to try one. Yes, CFC is a quality site, TF tries very hard, I'm in and out of there on occasion.

Civ 3 Forum: That said, I'm a Poly resident (and Sirian's started posting there too, as well as Jaffa) just because some great strategic thinkers (namely Velocyrix of the GREAT SMAC/X guides) and the Firaxis guys (Jeff Morris, Dan Magaha, Soren Johnsen, Mike Breitkreutz) hang out there more. I just like Poly more, seems to have a lot more substance, and there's a pretty good ratio of useful, readable posts and helpful posters. Flames are minimal (just avoid threads with yin26 in 'em). If you're going to play Game 3, there's discussion in the Poly strategy forum, usually tacked to the top by Markos.

-Skan
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2000, 11:32 pm

December 15th, 2001, 12:08 am #3

OK, I haven't had an off topic post in a while, so let me toss this out...

I just got Civ III yesterday I know Cy and Sirian and several others have been getting into this quite a bit. And I saw Jaffa post on a CivFanatic forum :P

Several questions...
- What tips would any of you have for "this is NOT like Civ 2...", ie key differences?
- When do you tend to switch governments, and how does the answer to this depend on the difficulty level? (I was pretty heavy into Civ 2, so knew the relative importance of wonders, happiness and govnment on the difficulty back then)
- Have you tried (or would it work for us to try) a "Succession game?" I read about this at an excellent site, CivFanatics.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisp ... forumid=47
In this game, you have a team of about 4-5 guys who take the reigns for about 15 turns, and post the map (.zip) and description of what happened to the forum.
The key point of this would be the amount you could learn from stronger players, with feedback such as "why on earth did you sell your Worldmap to the aggressive zulu's for incense?!". It's like "serial coop"
- Are you going to try Apollyon's Game 3, due out soon? If so, is there a forum where you discuss such things? More generally, do you have a Civ 3 forum of any kind where you participate?

Note this is not a "I'm bored with Diablo 2" post in anyway, I'm still going strong there. But I do recall the exceedingly addictive nature of Civ 2. And I know that last night, first time playing it, I had that "Holy &@#%%! It's 2:30 a.m.!! I thought it was only 10 oclock!" feeling.

=)
Charis
Hi,

"OK, I haven't had an off topic post in a while, so let me toss this out...

I just got Civ III yesterday I know Cy and Sirian and several others have been getting into this quite a bit. And I saw Jaffa post on a CivFanatic forum :P

Several questions...
- What tips would any of you have for "this is NOT like Civ 2...", ie key differences?"

As well as what Skandranon said about Culture, the other big difference in my mind is strategic and luxury resources. You need strategic resources to build certain units. If you can't get access to them, and everyone else can, you better trade for them. As for luxury resources, the first two you can acquire make one citizens in each city that can get access to them (usually this is no harder than building a road between them, other times a Harbor or Airport) happy each, and thereafter each luxury resource makes two citizens happy, IIRC.

"- When do you tend to switch governments, and how does the answer to this depend on the difficulty level? (I was pretty heavy into Civ 2, so knew the relative importance of wonders, happiness and govnment on the difficulty back then)"

I tend to ignore Monarchy completely and switch to Republic right after my first Ancient Era conquest and I've consolidated some defence. The thing is, depending on how quickly I find other civilizations, and how many, I change to Republic at varying times.

As for difficulty, well, I've been doing this in Regent and Monarch, but it doesn't seem so important to do an Ancient Era conquest in lower difficulties. Therefore, your government switch may be a little earlier than in the higer difficulties.

"- Have you tried (or would it work for us to try) a "Succession game?" I read about this at an excellent site, CivFanatics.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisp ... forumid=47
In this game, you have a team of about 4-5 guys who take the reigns for about 15 turns, and post the map (.zip) and description of what happened to the forum.
The key point of this would be the amount you could learn from stronger players, with feedback such as "why on earth did you sell your Worldmap to the aggressive zulu's for incense?!". It's like "serial coop""

No I haven't, but it sounds interesting. I might do so after I've finished up my most recent game.

"- Are you going to try Apollyon's Game 3, due out soon? If so, is there a forum where you discuss such things? More generally, do you have a Civ 3 forum of any kind where you participate?"

Again, depends entirely on if I get my current game finished. I know that Sirian completed Apolyton's Game 2, so you might want to ask him more about it. As for a forum, apart from perhaps Apolyton and CivFanatics, I haven't seen/heard of one in the "local community".

"Note this is not a "I'm bored with Diablo 2" post in anyway, I'm still going strong there. But I do recall the exceedingly addictive nature of Civ 2. And I know that last night, first time playing it, I had that "Holy &@#%%! It's 2:30 a.m.!! I thought it was only 10 oclock!" feeling."

Yeah, that's happening to me constantly. I'll think, "Hey, I'll just play a few more turns then go watch that show."

Eight hours later I wish I'd put a tape in the VCR.

-Hocus



-Hocus

"Originality; it's been done before."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2000, 11:32 pm

December 15th, 2001, 12:12 am #4

"As for luxury resources, the first two you can acquire make one citizens in each city that can get access to them (usually this is no harder than building a road between them, other times a Harbor or Airport) happy each, and thereafter each luxury resource makes two citizens happy, IIRC."

To clarify, say you have luxury (x) and luxury (y), they will make a total of two citizens happy in ALL cities that have access to them. Therefore, one happy person each. After that, each luxury makes two people happy, instead of one.

-Hocus


-Hocus

"Originality; it's been done before."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 19th, 2000, 6:16 am

December 15th, 2001, 12:55 am #5

"After that, each luxury makes two people happy, instead of one."

Well, actually:

If you have NO MARKETPLACE in that city, all luxuries make one person happy.

If you have a marketplace, it goes 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4...so having seven luxuries with a marketplace makes 16 people happy. Those four-happy-face-luxuries are just great for maintaining order, but the AI knows it and will charge you an arm and a leg for them.

-Skan
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2000, 11:32 pm

December 15th, 2001, 1:43 am #6

Thought I had something wrong there, but wasn't quite sure.

Regarding the high expense of luxuries when trading them with the AI, yeah, I've noticed that too, but especially moreso with the new patch. The AI charges more for tech and maps too, but never returns the favour. =\

-Hocus

-Hocus

"Originality; it's been done before."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2000, 12:04 am

December 15th, 2001, 3:47 pm #7

OK, I haven't had an off topic post in a while, so let me toss this out...

I just got Civ III yesterday I know Cy and Sirian and several others have been getting into this quite a bit. And I saw Jaffa post on a CivFanatic forum :P

Several questions...
- What tips would any of you have for "this is NOT like Civ 2...", ie key differences?
- When do you tend to switch governments, and how does the answer to this depend on the difficulty level? (I was pretty heavy into Civ 2, so knew the relative importance of wonders, happiness and govnment on the difficulty back then)
- Have you tried (or would it work for us to try) a "Succession game?" I read about this at an excellent site, CivFanatics.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisp ... forumid=47
In this game, you have a team of about 4-5 guys who take the reigns for about 15 turns, and post the map (.zip) and description of what happened to the forum.
The key point of this would be the amount you could learn from stronger players, with feedback such as "why on earth did you sell your Worldmap to the aggressive zulu's for incense?!". It's like "serial coop"
- Are you going to try Apollyon's Game 3, due out soon? If so, is there a forum where you discuss such things? More generally, do you have a Civ 3 forum of any kind where you participate?

Note this is not a "I'm bored with Diablo 2" post in anyway, I'm still going strong there. But I do recall the exceedingly addictive nature of Civ 2. And I know that last night, first time playing it, I had that "Holy &@#%%! It's 2:30 a.m.!! I thought it was only 10 oclock!" feeling.

=)
Charis
Wonders aren't the huge game-breakers they were in Civ2. I don't think anyone here can argue that Leonardo's Workshop in Civ2 wasn't a game-breaker. It was ridiculously powerful.

All wonders in Civ3 provide some nice bonuses, but they aren't game-breakers. In higher difficulties, don't even bother trying to build them early on. You won't win the race, and the benefits simply aren't good enough.

Civ3 is all about strategic resources. When you control em, you control the game - whole world wars can be fought over one square. It's nice

Anyhow Charis, enjoy the game that's just too addictive, but all us Civ players know that too well.

-Bolty
Sid Meier fan since Civ1
Player of Civilization, Civilization II, SMAC, and Civilization III - But NOT Call to Power! Bad Activision! (slap)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 19th, 2000, 6:16 am

December 15th, 2001, 7:14 pm #8

In general, expect the first wonder on higher difficulties for you to have a chance at without Great Leader to be Hoover. The AI bonus is just too nice at higher difficulties.

In Civ 2, Leo's was convenient, but compared to true game-breakers like Michelangelo's, it was no more than convenient. Michelangelo's Chapel was THE wonder in Civ 2.

Actually, Civ 3 wonders have been seriously neutered for the most part. Leonardo's is not worth it. Copernicus' Observatory and Newton's University are sideshows. Cure for Cancer is plainly silly. Oracle and Great Wall are pretty pointless, too. And the list goes on. The only MUST HAVE wonder in Civ 3 is the United Nations, since if you do not have it, you can't filibuster on the vote, and it essentially means that any time after it's built, you can lose on any turn. Too much of a risk not to build. Save a leader for this one.

-Skan
Quote
Like
Share

Sirian
Sirian

December 16th, 2001, 3:04 pm #9

Not Like Civ2: the biggest surprises will probably be related to culture and cultural reversion. The very first time you capture a large city near your opponent's capital and watch it defect back, destroying every unit of yours garrisoned inside, will probably be the biggest thing hammering this whole culture deal into your mind.

As a result, conquest is harder, especially with the relative weakness of modern units versus their ancient counterparts. As an example, a regular Modern Armor loses to an elite pikeman defending a large city 20% of the time, much unlike Civ2 where you could assemble a group of armor or howitzers and know that they could reliably punch through hordes of ancient-era units without a chance of dying. While tech is still nice, Civ 3 puts a definite emphasis on quantity over quality, especially with the number of streaks you'll see generated by the pRNG (semiscientific study has shown, with a very small sample size, that it isn't really that streaky, but anecdotally a lot of people still feel it is). On the other hand, however, early conquest is much easier since the AI puts less priority on defending itself now, preferring to go for more cities and expanding instead.

Minimum and maximum research times. Get used to them, learn to use them, though I object to them and have removed them in a personal mod.

A marginally better AI. The first few times it will amaze you. The next few times it won't. Unfortunately, it's fairly predictable and there are all number of AI exploits, but I won't go into them.

Democracy. No longer the ultimate government. War in democracy now triggers some pretty extreme war-weariness in later difficulty levels. A change from Civ2, when the best strategy was to run to Dem, switch to it, and stay there for the rest of the game.

Corruption. There are many things to be said about this, not all of them acceptable language on a public forum. Discover the joys of 1/1 corruption for yourself.

I'm probably missing a few things, but there's a basic outline.

Switching governments: On the lower levels, whenever you want. On the higher levels, when you've finished your early-era Despotism war. On Deity, when you get Communism, since you aren't ever getting out of war.

To elaborate: on levels Regent and below, you actually do have effective freedom to play and can build your own empire, beeline to Republic or Monarchy and switch, then build up, wage a little war, play a complete game. For Monarch and above, however, it's well accepted that you pretty much need an ancient era war to wipe out and capture the cities of two or so close opponents to have a chance against the AI bonuses. Less important in Monarch, more in Emperor. In Deity, the only Deity victories I've seen so far are Despotic Conquest, Tiny Pangaea, or something similar (even as big as Standard Pangaea I think), so actually government change doesn't get into that. On Deity level, with the AI paying only 60% of the price you do for ANYTHING and picking up seven or eight free units as soon as it founds its first city, you need to hit hard and overwhelm because if you try playing builder, you will quickly find yourself outbuilt, even if they're only devoting part of their efforts.

Population rushing is generally accepted to be better than money rushing, so Despotism is a popular early game choice, and Communism not bad for the late game. Many builders opt for Republic over Democracy in the later levels, because Democracy's war weariness can be just crippling in higher difficulties.

Succession games: never actually tried one, but read the reports of several. Would be nice to try one. Yes, CFC is a quality site, TF tries very hard, I'm in and out of there on occasion.

Civ 3 Forum: That said, I'm a Poly resident (and Sirian's started posting there too, as well as Jaffa) just because some great strategic thinkers (namely Velocyrix of the GREAT SMAC/X guides) and the Firaxis guys (Jeff Morris, Dan Magaha, Soren Johnsen, Mike Breitkreutz) hang out there more. I just like Poly more, seems to have a lot more substance, and there's a pretty good ratio of useful, readable posts and helpful posters. Flames are minimal (just avoid threads with yin26 in 'em). If you're going to play Game 3, there's discussion in the Poly strategy forum, usually tacked to the top by Markos.

-Skan
For Monarch and above, however, it's well accepted that you pretty much need an ancient era war to wipe out and capture the cities of two or so close opponents to have a chance against the AI bonuses.

Accepted by whom?

Perhaps on Deity, this is necessary. I don't know, haven't gone there yet, don't really plan to at the moment. The rabidity of AI expansion is annoying enough, and the enemy civs are competent at Emperor level. Yes, I'm back to emperor already, after one half-game at Monarch post-patch yielded complete, utter, and hopeless domination (sans war) by the end of the ancient era. I had a great start, but it was more than that, so back up to Emperor I have gone.

With this new patch, the ancient era conquest idea has taken a serious hit. Cities with no culture are autorazed, tanking the "following the warrior-settler pairs and take over the new cities" strat forwarded by randomturn. To win cities by conquest, you must now attack the heart of an enemy empire, and that's no mean feat in the ancient era. To be successful at that, you have to focus on it, which means you don't have time to expand through "normal means".

I have two STRONG wins on Emperor with no ancient era war, so forget that "must do" portion of the concept. It may still be desirable, but let's not take it for granted. Some may depend on your civ choice, too. If you opt for a civ built for middle age or later dominance, with it's Unique Units, the ancient era may not appeal to you as a conquest phase.


Charis: for comments specifically about "what's new vs Civ 2" I refer you to my Civ III page, to the account of my first game. I went into some detail about all the mistakes I made, especially those regarding misperceptions left over from previous renditions.

Sirian's Great Library

The prevailing wisdom is generally strong, but it's not infallible. I've learned some things reading what others have had to say, but only lately, as I purposely isolated myself to play and discover on my own for the first month. The game purposely allows for any civ who falls behind in tech to catch up easily, and makes taking and holding a tech lead difficult. The patch seems to have magnified this factor. I am still evaluating that. But the bottom line is, if you engage in rabid expansionism of your own, you can compete at Emperor if you forego early wonders and concentrate on expansion. No matter how far you think you fall behind, if you have land comparable to the AI's, you can catch up, as human intelligence guiding workers and production and city placement and what squares within cities to use from turn to turn makes ground on the AI's bonuses over time. War is the other option, but I have a feeling that that is mostly due to loopholes, some of which have already been closed, others will be closed in upcoming patches. Or... I could be wrong, but I do get the sense that THIS design team cares about game balance. You know? And judging by their first patch, they are actually competent at it. Ancient wars are going to be less dominant once the design flaws are worked out.

There are more differences from Civ2 than are apparent at first. I found that out the hard way. Feel free to benefit from my mistakes. It's all laid out...


- Sirian
Quote
Share

Sirian
Sirian

December 16th, 2001, 3:40 pm #10

In general, expect the first wonder on higher difficulties for you to have a chance at without Great Leader to be Hoover. The AI bonus is just too nice at higher difficulties.

In Civ 2, Leo's was convenient, but compared to true game-breakers like Michelangelo's, it was no more than convenient. Michelangelo's Chapel was THE wonder in Civ 2.

Actually, Civ 3 wonders have been seriously neutered for the most part. Leonardo's is not worth it. Copernicus' Observatory and Newton's University are sideshows. Cure for Cancer is plainly silly. Oracle and Great Wall are pretty pointless, too. And the list goes on. The only MUST HAVE wonder in Civ 3 is the United Nations, since if you do not have it, you can't filibuster on the vote, and it essentially means that any time after it's built, you can lose on any turn. Too much of a risk not to build. Save a leader for this one.

-Skan
Forget any wonder until Hoover Dam? I think not.

A lot depends on the map. If you inherit a difficult starting position or unproductive lands, you may be in for a long haul. I certainly don't think strategic wisdom should be based on the presumption of situation, as it seems to be becoming in the community. Everything is tilting toward what applies to huge world, pangaea, lot of civs. If that's all some people are playing, I understand, but that's not the end of Civ3 strategic wisdom.

If the AI's all get early contact with one another, you are going to suffer from falling further behind as they trade their way to the lead and leave you out of the loop. On the other hand, if you can be the middle man between large groups of civs on different landmasses, or even on one landmass with you sending your explorers far and wide, you can be the one to reap the HUGE rewards of being the map info and tech trader. I don't know about Deity, as I haven't been there and don't plan to try it any time soon, as Emperor doesn't seem likely to bore me, still, to me, Deity is the ONLY "higher" difficulty, and all else is manageable. No matter how far you fall behind, the game allows you to catch up. It is built for you to weather the storm and catch up later.

There are two ways to build a wonder: prebuild, or get the tech lead. The problem with wonders is the dreaded "cascade effect" as they all start wonders, and the runners up switch to another, then another, then another. You stand no chance of breaking into that cycle until the possible wonders to be built is exhausted, and everyone returns to the zero point. From THERE, you can get any wonder you like. The question is, how long is the cascade going to last? It's definitely going to eat the whole ancient era, but I've seen it end there in some instances. A new round may take place in the middle age, or worse, the old one just keeps going, but sooner or later, the AI's build wonders and don't have the tech to switch to another, and the cascade ends, and the player's control of wonder building begins.

Wonders are worth more than you credit them for. The only useless one is the Great Wall, and even that's worth culture points for just 200 shields. Pyramids are darn hard to get, but worth it on some maps. To grab them, you have to have a SECOND city on very fertile land, well enough to pump settlers while your capital goes for the wonder. Helps if you started on a river or by a lake, and can get above size 6. Great Library is worth it, but I've never gone for it.

Once you reach tech parity, you are in the race for the wonders. If you don't get anything at all through the middle ages, your culture is going to suck. You ought to grab at least one. And in fact, I've found Newton's to be an ideal wonder to grab, as I rush right past ALL the optional techs to the Industrial age, while they dillydally with the side wonders. Both it and Copernicus are cheap, just 400 shields. They help immensely in getting/holding a tech lead, or did prepatch. Once I get the tech lead, if I can hold it, EVERY wonder I want is mine, and I've done that as early as the Sistine Chapel.

Every game I play sees more and more importance on upgrading troops. The Apolyton game started me on that, as the land was so scattered, I needed a lot of defense everywhere and could not rely on rails to deliver support in time to wherever it may be needed. Gold really is cheaper than production, so building a whole new army from the ground up is undesirable. I'm thinking it's worth it, and certainly if you get Leo's, it's much less painful. Upgrading pikes to musket is just awful, but from there on, I can't imagine NOT upgrading everything thereafter. All those useless spearmen sitting around are just sucking gold down the tubes turn after turn. Spend the gold on upgrades NOW, save the gold in the long run by having few useless units lying around.

Muskets in themselves are totally sad for the cost, but they upgrade cheaply. Two pikes are a dead end, one musket is just 40 gold away from being a rifle, and 20 more from being infantry. Not upgrading my tons of infantry to mech inf (didn't know I could!) in my first game was THE biggest mistake I made.

You can live without wonders, but you don't have to. The ancient wonders are worth more than they appear to be, because of the culture factor. You have to play your map and civ to the situation you have, though. Perhaps I have a different perspective because I've been playing a wider variety of map types? Or maybe I'm just antisocial.

Leo's can save you over 1k in gold, easily. How is that not important? Do you know what you can do with 1k? That's worth more, and comes sooner, than Theory of Evolution. And you deprive the enemy of it. They are sad at upgrading, but they do it more if they build Leo's. I know Cy adores Leo's and gets it every game. I usually can't, but I would if I could. I'm usually placing higher priority on something else, though, as the other wonders are more attractive in most cases (meaning, if you are low on luxuries) but the main problem being that it comes early enough to be in the cascade, usually, so there's no chance to get it.

Getting the tech lead is a challenge on Emperor, but not below that. At least in my experience. Tech lead == owns the wonder game. In any event, once the AI's get communism, get them to war on one another and their tech dominance is history.


- Sirian
Quote
Share