|
|
|
Settler
Last Seen:
8/10/2007 9:59 AM
Posts: 1
Visits: 3
|
|
|
I need to rethink my CIV III strategy. On Regent I won comfortably, getting so far ahead I got all the wonders. I'd always chosen France, because the Industrious trait helped me develop cities faster and the Commercial trait gave me more money/less corruption. I grew quickly and stayed ahead. On Monarch (standard size), I built 9 cities, but then found that: a) I had no iron for Swordsmen and no horses for Horsemen on my continent - they were on other continents! b) Other civilisations had ships earlier than me and had built cities everywhere. c) Other civilisations were getting all the wonders - I'd fallen behind in research. I know there's no absolute answer, but my worker-led development strategy clearly isn't working at this level........and I'm not sure France's traits are that helpful anymore. What I want to know is - how can I amend my strategy and get off to a decent start?? Over to you - the experts. I really NEED your help!
|
--
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
die with honor
Last Seen:
Today @ 11:11 AM
Posts: 5,417
Visits: 19,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game slut
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
Posts: 9,131
Visits: 11,087
|
|
|
The Regent Monarch transition in Civ 3 is the big. When you play on Monarch, you have to start paying attention to EVERYTHING, ALL the time. That means anticipating (as much as you can) what each AI will do, and trying to be one step ahead of them. If you anticipate that Genghis is going to move a settler over there to take that iron, then maybe you'd best declare war on him early and using a surprise attack to take his settler. The one thing that is definitely required to play well on Monarch is to play boldly, what some might say "take risks" but you should not leave things to luck. Try to know what is going to happen in 5, 10, 20 turns. Playing on Monarch requires a "big picture" kind of approach.
|
--
tones (9/1/2009)
I was minded to compare this site to a sort-of-private Facebook, but, on reflection, that's not right . . . Nope. Here is a forum to exchange views and discuss topics and maybe have some literary fun; post some interesting pics (not Megabits of family krap); flag up some internet sites of Interest; pass on the occasional joke. To me, (struggling for analogy here) it's bit more like a quiet and cosy pub with locals you know and the occasional visitor from "outside"; thick stone walls and a cellar full of well-kept ale. Facebook, on the other hand, is some awful massive city-centre club that serves Fosters lager. And, you know what? I am not unhappy with that analogy. I prefer the pub.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
