Age of Chivalry

[Snarkhunter]

. . . . I have NEVER managed a trade with the AI, regardless of what has gone on it the game, for a resource or a tech. Maps is it. That is one of the reasons for getting very tired of the "epic" game, and getting a Windows box to use the editor. Mac versions do not have an editor. I do have the AI demanding techs of me, the Aztecs in particular are highly annoying with this, and also resources, but trading initiated by me, none.

My first question would be, is this happening in your modded games, your unmodded games, or both? I don't always get a trade when I want it, but it's slowly dawned on me that many times that's simply because I can't afford what the AI considers a fair price. But when I have a tech to sell, I can virtually always make a trade for it, & when it is a desirable tech & the AI has lots of resources, I can make very lucrative trades indeed--this is especially true in the later eras. It usually works best to ask the AI what they will offer, then tinker with it to try to squeeze more or to swap one offering for another I prefer. Generally, I don't initiate or accept trades for resources or luxs, though I have on rare occasions when I couldn't see any reasonable way to continue otherwise--I recall a 20 turn deal for coal when I managed to rail every workable tile by the end of the deal.

I haven't tried the scenarios, so don't know any specifics about trading in them. I'm also playing C3Compleat w/ the latest & greatest, if that makes a difference--dunno what version you have. I'm very careful with my trading rep until the late game, when it simply doesn't matter any more for domination purposes, my preferred VC.

Not liking the trade system is one thing. Not being able to use it is another. I would find it hard to play at my current levels, Emperor and Monarch, without extensive trading, & if it ever broke, I think I'd be stuck for a considerable while trying to figure out another way to play the game out.

kk

 

[Spoonwood]

Timerover51,

It came as plenty clear to me that *you* don't care about HoF games before or really the epic game. Trust me, I understood that. Thing is though, that you then seem to go on about how you play, how you don't like the epic game, how you haven't figured out the trading system, etc. AND you seem to forget the context of statements made. You seem to forget your comments as public information actually. As a case-in-point, in my forests and city naming thread, you responded by talking about how you've modded forests to suit your playstyle better and decided somehow that planting and chopping wasn't then worth it. Thing is, I didn't write that for a modded game, but rather for the epic game, as should have been clear before.... so you really didn't provide any useful information to the thread.

As another case-in-point here I said

I know I *can* trade for resources and sign RoPs and hook up resources in the AIs territory, and I know other players *can* too. As a case-in-point, the highest scoring Hall of Fame game ever (which I doubt anyone will beat) traded for BOTH horses and iron before starting to whack the AIs with knights.

That's just an example of game where someone traded for resources. People around here DO care about some HoF games got played. That doesn't seem to include you, and that's fine. But, other people do care. And it also tells us that what you said about the trading system, doesn't exactly mean a whole lot for the epic game. The saves there are public also, so one can check any claims made for certain dates.

You don't have to play how the "experts" play or how anyone else plays. But, if you post strategic ideas... like those about resource trading, and forest usage, you can expect to hear the "experts" opinions, or what people have seen the "experts" do. You don't have to read what they write or respond to it.

My personal views of most of the "expert" play that I see is best not posted here, as it would more than likely get me banned.

I really find that comment interesting, as I suspect, as I would suspect most of the forum also suspects, that those "experts" could play one of your games and probably win it faster or with a higher score than you, but if you played one of the "experts" games you would take longer or have a lower score. I could be wrong, but it's sort of funny that you imply those games as second-rate in a way, when your comments here and elsewhere seem to make it clear you couldn't do it yourself. By all means play as you like, but if you want to claim your games as "better" in some way or others as "worse" in some way, then I'd expect more than just an empty claim... I'd want some evidence.

Calis,

Maybe you have a point in general about my writing style, but I've seen timerover51 before this... and I'll guess you have a better understanding of why I re-worded what he said in a harsh way now. Unlike Civinator (sp?) and other modders, he seems to misunderstand that he needs a little more circumspection in the general forums.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Okay, everyone, take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard! I won't stand for personal attacks, especially when they derail the thread. The TOPIC of this thread is modding, and how much and why you do it. Gameplay style only enters the discussion to explain why. You may now return to your keyboards, and discuss in a CIVILIZED manner.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[timerover51]

I do not claim my games are better. I simply enjoy playing them much more. What an "expert" would do on one of my modified games, I have no idea. Given some of the things that I have changed, it is hard to say. Since one of the changes is that the Great Library never goes obsolete, and gives two free techs to the builder, it would depend on how they use that. Cities on the coast get a lot of boosts from additional buildings. Given the boosts in terrain and resource yields, someone who went for very tight city spacing should progress faster, although I put in the boosts so that tight city spacing was not necessary. A lot of changes to combat ratings, some of which I still am not satisfied with, but that is due more to the limitations of the hard-coded combat system. Armor is still taking far too much damage from spearmen in the open. Board and miniature game combat systems are far more flexible than a computer in that respect. Since those would favor some civilizations over another, it would depend who they are playing and who their opponents are. Cavalry and Ironclads now are upgradeable to tanks and battleships. Never could understand why they were not from the start. The increased availability of resources and luxuries would likely have a major affect on the trading system, reducing trading for resources and luxuries, not sure how the research boosts would affect tech trading. Falling behind in tech would likely be very dangerous, as higher tech military units are far deadlier to lower tech units. Barbarians would be quite a bit deadlier. Wonders do not go obsolete, and have a more benefits. A player that did not build Wonders is going to find him/herself in difficulties, especially if he/she allows cultural victories. Overall, the changes may require one of the "experts" to make some changes in how he/she plays. It is very hard to say, as I cannot predict how someone else will use the changes. They are very likely to come up with ways of using the changes that I have not even imagine. That I call the Law of Unintended Consequences. Whether they would enjoy it is even harder to say.

Padma:Moderator Action: Okay, everyone, take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard! I won't stand for personal attacks, especially when they derail the thread. The TOPIC of this thread is modding, and how much and why you do it. Gameplay style only enters the discussion to explain why. You may now return to your keyboards, and discuss in a CIVILIZED manner.

I will go back to checking the user-created map thread every once in a while for interesting maps, otherwise, I will quit posting to the forum.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I think it was more meant as a friendly reminder, not "go away". I'm sorry that an honorable military man feels shunned by this community. This marks one of the few times I'm ashamed of being a member of of this forum. I've not always been a model citizen myself, but I hope I haven't driven anyone away. Debate should be vigorous, but it should be on topic, not personal. You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-toe and all that. Sorry to see this happen.

 

[Padma]

Certainly don't go away!

I just want *everyone* who has been posting to discuss the thread topic in a CIVILIZED manner!

 

[Argetnyx]

And Argentnyx, with respect to your quote:
The demon's face is not a fearful face. It's a face wreathed in smiles.
-anonymous Japanese Unit 731 member

I have read some of the formerly classified intelligence reports describing the activities of the Japanese Unit 731. Do you have any understanding at all of exactly what they did, and who they did it too? And the really frightful thing about it is that the leaders got a free pass from the Allied War Crimes commission if they would kindly tell us all about the nice goodies they cooked up and the results of all of the experimental activities that they carried out.

Yes, I know what they did. I know who they did it to, and I'm not saying that I am promoting those actions. They should not have been given amnesty for what they did, but it has already happened and there is nothing I can do to change any of that.

Also, this is a thread about chivalry and we should follow that and not make personal attacks on any other member. On your problem with the HoF games, who cares? The game is for enjoyment purposes, if you enjoy doing the same things that other, more experienced members have done before you, then go ahead. But if you enjoy the classic trial-and-error experience on your own, go ahead. I personally enjoy learning by myself. I've actually never even looked at the HoF games, because I enjoy playing by my own rules.

OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

 

[TheOverseer714]

OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

Lots of times, though it's usually the Scientific tribes, so I can gift them up for beginning of era free techs, then trade or steal them. Other times, I may leave a defeated tribe a distant useless tundra island that's not worth conquering. I'd say in 30-40% of my games.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . .OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

Only if I have something to gain, like it's a scientific tribe and I want to trade for their change-of-age tech. Otherwise, I usually just kill them off.

Welcome back, timerover51!

 

[darski]

I don't have much luck with AI trades either and I play at wussy warlord. MY advisor tells me that they will be insulted if I offer an expensive 2nd tier tech for a cheap first tier tech. sometimes the trading works but not often. The AI just seem to demand freebies (die puppy!!) or they want the sun and moon for their freebie techs.

 

[Spoonwood]

As far as I know, the level should only affect how much gpt you can get from the AIs (given the same techs known by everyone). One can use insults and make claims with words as much as one likes and talk about "leaving", but it works out much better to provide screenshots and saves. Fortunately, other players have done this for me.

Elear has a good example of early trading here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=308344. You can find another quite excellent example of trading here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=88786 One can check the 10 AD save here to see both horses and iron traded for http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=869 also (it doesn't seem clear whether techs or lump sums got used). Of course, it's probably a bit easier to trade for resources when you have a smaller empire than your trading partner.

Back on topic... I've thought about reducing some scientific tribe to one city in some research-oriented games, but haven't done it. I once had a histographic attempt at Deity Huge going where I could have stayed at war with Germany and finished them off in a few turns, I believe. But, instead, I decided to focus on the Babylonians. BIG MISTAKE. The captured German cities started flipping back to Germany (I had built minimial culture... not even libraries, so I could focus on military, growth, and happiness). So, that's something to consider on upper levels where you'll usually trail in culture.... playing keep and capture definitely comes as a good idea... *given that* you eliminate the tribe of the captured cities as soon as possible.

 

[Snarkhunter]

OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

I usually don't bother to finish off an AI once I've reduced it to a small island civ, unless I go for conquest (which i usually don't, takes me too long). I may let one live temporarily if war weariness finally gets too high, or if I fall into a dogpile requiring immediate repositioning. More usual would be to encyst a small AI & let it survive indefinitely, but completely surrounded; I might do that if I had a steady source of good trades out of them, or more urgent enemies to take down. I might mark them out as the last civ to fall, to put me over the domination limit. By then I would probably have railed all around them & strike every side at once, taking out most of their cities on the first turn.

kk

 

[AutomatedTeller]

depends on how much of a pain they are, what level it is, how hard it would be to defeat them and if they have managed to sneak a longbow to an undefended city I don't want to lose.

In other words, a lot of the time

 

[timerover51]

Welcome back, timerover51!

It was a short return. I will only be posting in the Creation and Customization thread from now on.

 

[da3dalus]

OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

I often do this, because I generally play with a semi-role playing style according to my own whims through the course of the game, loosely following historical situations if I am playing a real world map.

Sometimes after conquering vast swathes of an enemy's territory I'll leave him alone in a little rump of his former territory as an allied minor.

I once even saved a friendly Civ that was being pounded by another Civ by founding a city protected from his aggressor by the girth of my empire and then ceded it to him just before his last city fell. Needless to say he remained a gracious ally for the rest of the game.

I get tired sometimes of playing in a strictly self-interested way, and to make things more interesting I have even restored part of a vanquished enemy's lost territory to them after resettling their captured workers in their former cities.

Maybe I'm just wierd, does anyone else do this?

 

[Argetnyx]

Not that specifically...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

OK, back to topic: How many of you guys have let a defeated AI survive, even though you could easily finish them off?

Numerous times. For many, many different reasons and "reasons." Sometimes just to play around, sometimes to reap War Happyness, sometimes because you need a token civ in order to not win by conquest, and so on.

In Alpha Centauri there was an interesting concept where defeated factions could become some sort of vassal state of yours.

 

[Argetnyx]

That's another good idea for the Civ5 makers