Different playstyles and how game mechanics & exploits affect your preferred playstyle and enjoyment

[Buttercup]

The above isn't an adequate example without knowing if the Incans had populated all land on their own continent by the time you created your own settlers. I agree that while the AI is coded to fill up space sometimes it can be diverted from this and leave easily reachable islands untouched (and not just because they are at war).

Having played dozens of hours of AI only games with the whole map on display (to play test difficulty settings) I can say I see no evidence whatsoever that the AI conducts itself differently depending on whether or not there is a a human player.

I take all the above as a positive. As is the level of conviction some players have that the AI does one thing while another thinks the opposite. This is the sign of a good game.

As I said, we can assume the island was fully settled well before the first screenshot as at the 1320 save you can see all the towns are populated to their maximum and well roaded, mined and all the etcetera. It is also not a large island and AIs do not take very long at all to settle an island of that size.

Would playing all the weird and wonderful ways you mention be a mod of some kind by any chance?

 

[Buttercup]

On the topic of whether balancing the game is good or bad, my contribution is that a Civ game where you can genuinely keep an open mind about your tactics and strategy depending on land, AI opponents, access to resources/luxuries, global diplomatic developments etc is a far better experience than a game where there are clear power spikes and optimal strategies irrespective of the aforementioned variables. I'd score Civ3 extremely highly on how it makes this possible. Every game feels genuinely unique.

I'm currently replaying a game (2x human, 6x AI) on the same map as my last game with the same starting locations. Purely due to the different AI Civs composition the game is much more culture and tech focussed rather than the bloodbath of the previous game. Even something as simple as what islands and continents the game focusses the barbarian spawns (which differs from game to game) has utterly changed the decision making and outcomes of both human players and the AI.

Yes, balance is an interesting thing in Civ3.

Again, for the early parts of the game there's not a whole lot in it with regards to optimum strategies.

For example, going for a 20k win you really don't gain a huge amount by choosing either Republic or staying in Despotism:

A more classically recommended rush-to-Republic stab at a minimalist 20k win:

Sees a 1768 victory date on Regent.

The rushing of techs here was massively slowed by the fact that the Hittites took to very early aggression on our four-civ'ed island and took out the Persians while I was still busy learning Literature after the Republic jump and so was in no shape to contribute.

From then onwards the Hittites had their eyes set solely on me, they didn't care about the Spanish to the north of the island. I saw a massive stack rushing towards me and I had precious few military units even by this point. So I rushed to fill the Mountains with Pikemen. The AI refused to attack even a single Pikeman and instead simply kept shifting its army around looking for a gap in the defences. This classic AI lolfest gave me the opportunity to build lots and lots of units while I opened one gap and then closed another, watching the AI posse go back and forth.

Unfortunately, the AI finally managed to send a Galley my way and land a Medieval Infantry on a Mountain near London. I rushed to fill up those mountains as well, but it was too late, his MI finally had a chance to strike at London, thereby declaring war. From which point the AI Swordsmen then carved through the Pikemen in the Mountains like butter. But by that point I had a big enough army of Knights and Trebuchets and Pikemen to stem the tide.

My economy was in tatters though and I was down to about 9 turns per tech by the time I was racing towards Democracy & Free Artistry, what with the War Weariness eating up so much Happy Slider and so many units eating up the Tax Slider. I decided to finish off the Hittites just for the revenge factor even though it was fairly pointless by that point as I nearly had the 20k anyway. The Spanish took up half the space stack and they are now 'annoyed' with me in the screeny.

The conversion to Republic here seemed vital as I couldn't very well take full advantage of the mining opportunities otherwise, what with Despotism taking so much food away from a Plains start.

As you can see, the game ended just as I was building the Theory of Evolution.

Meanwhile, just a week earlier, I found myself in a 20k game where I never really got an opportunity to get out of Despotism:

Once again starting on a very congested island, this time with three of us vying for space.

As you can see, this time it was the Carthaginians who constantly pressured me, but this time it was me who was attacked first. Hmm, or did I pre-empt the attack after Hippo was settled? Can't remember now, either way I found myself in a very stalematey situation whereby my Swordsmen couldn't make much headway into those brutal Carthaginian unique Spearmen.

It didn't seem to be denting my cultural bottom line though, and I was still able to learn techs at an adequate enough rate to continually have London produce the 'big' wonders. The war raged on and on and London just slowly continued to build its wonders. With no War Weariness and a very generous unit limit my Science Slider was pretty consistent and, once again, I was at about 9 turns per tech once I got to the Democracy/Free Artistry stage of the game.

With London being pretty much all Grassland with only two Hills, there wasn't really any huge incentive for me to leave Despotism either, as it would only garner me two extra Shields, which, when you factor in the potential lost turns to Anarchy, probably isn't that much of big deal in the long run.

And I got a 1792 finish, which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't really that much different to the Republic game above, it's just 12 turns difference!

And, as you can see, I'm, once again, just starting to build Theory of Evolution when the game ends. In both screenshots you'll notice I have exactly 6 turns to Replaceable Parts as well.

As you say, the two games felt completely different and played out completely different, and yet they were both so remarkably... the same!

And that's one of the appeals of a 20k game, at least on the non-absurd difficulty levels, in that it only matters that your capital can produce lots of shields and that you can learn tech quick enough to be ready to build the next 'big' Wonder or cultural building in a timely fashion. How you can achieve that is very numerous in its variety.

 

[r16]

got into a major war with Angmar , orcish and just loves to fight and as it was massively bleeding , with me killing more units than it could produce , its units suddenly became twice powerful ... Or something like that . ı think ı have encountered similar situations where isolated spots get settled before ı get there . Though ı would suggest if the code exists it would be a simple 1990s thing that checks whether your settler is in motion .

 

[Buttercup]

The above isn't an adequate example without knowing if the Incans had populated all land on their own continent by the time you created your own settlers.

Just to add some facts to my earlier assumptions in reply to this possibility, I went back to a 780AD save. I think I made the save as I'd just defeated the Maya at this point & so wanted to compose myself with a break before restructuring after my War Weariness ended. At this point I could also reassign my Tech to get Navigation within 5 turns and so was the only save where I could solve this question for you.

I could get a Caravel to them by 800AD and the Incans did indeed already have Map Making by that point, and who knows for how long for already:

As soon as I learned Navigation I got their world map and, yes, they've fully settled everything and everything is already pretty well maxed out, fully roaded, mined, expanded borders, max population and all etc:

They haven't explored those islands yet, but I can't imagine it would have taken them 500 years to build a couple of Galleys and a couple of Settlers, there really isn't much else for them to do at this point in time.

 

[r16]

settling new towns might increase their city numbers , hence corruption hence decrease their value in partnerships with the Al to match your gamestyle , racing you to space if you look that way and have tons of spearmen against your tanks if you are keen for bloodlust ... Shouldn't be that bad ?

 

[justanick]

settling new towns might increase their city numbers , hence corruption

Additional towns donnot increase corruption for towns closer to the capital.

The idea to sell towns is seldomly a good idea. Usually you should try to max out your amount of towns or rather your amount of metropolises.

 

[justanick]

And, next turn, here's my first of two ships full of Settlers:

And you'll see the Incas are now, all of a sudden, furiously settling these lands that they haven't been bothered about for hundreds of years, maybe even a thousand years.

In other words AI tries to avoid settling islands it cannot reach without passing unsafe waters. All towns, that are not connected to the capital, suffer from a 20% higher distance corruption and they donnot get luxuries from the main continent nor do they provide any resources for the main continent. As AI seems to value those high it might explain AI valuing them low if current tech does not permit to connect to capital.

In instances as here a human player would likely settle more aggressively than the overly conservative AI.

 

[Buttercup]

In other words AI tries to avoid settling islands it cannot reach without passing unsafe waters. All towns, that are not connected to the capital, suffer from a 20% higher distance corruption and they donnot get luxuries from the main continent nor do they provide any resources for the main continent. As AI seems to value those high it might explain AI valuing them low if current tech does not permit to connect to capital.

In instances as here a human player would likely settle more aggressively than the overly conservative AI.

This doesn't explain why other Civs have quite happily settled similarly separated island territories by this point nor why the Incas would suddenly want them in 1300AD, as their 'connectivity' hasn't changed by that point.

 

[Quintillus]

On the other hand, I agree with many of your other points. For example, I have never seen your idea of the warrior rush stated somewhere else, but after I have read your explanation and looked at the numbers, I do think it can be a very good idea in the right circumstances. It may not work at Sid, where the AI can produce swordsmen as fast as the human player can produce warriors, so any such attempt may end in a bloodbath without the human player being able to reinforce the losses, but it may work well on lower difficulty levels and especially during the early Despotism phase, when unit upkeep and war weariness are not a problem. Do some early damage to a close-by rival while he is still weak and at only a low cost to yourself! I may actually try that in one of my next games.

No, Warriors are not noticeably inferior to nearly everything else at their time of appearance. I don't know if you've even tried, but next time you play, stack up 10 Veteran Warriors and use them to invade any random AI Town with its obligatory 2 Regular Spearmen, you'd be amazed. Then try the same thing with 10 Archers in the next game. Then try with 10 Swordsmen in the next game, and tell me the results of your findings - I predict the Warriors will lose maybe 3 or 4 units before taking the city, 5 at a stretch. The Archers will lose maybe 2 or 3 units before taking the city and the Swordsmen will lose maybe 1 or 2 before taking the city - That's the variance. The variance isn't the fact that the defender has a defence value of 2.5, the variance is that having 10 units of each results in one less death on average per attack point of the attacker, to which only when you get to Tanks at an attack of 12 does your chance of not losing one drop to below an average of one per attempt. And, on top of this, those two who do defeat the Spearmen will likely take a lot of damage, unless they are just finishing one off.

Right, so, Warrior cost = 10 shields, Archer 20 Shields, Swordsman 30 Shields

Cost to take Town = 30-50 Shields with Warriors, 40-60 Shields for Archers, 30-60 Shields for Swordsmen

Unit numbers cost assuming over your freeby limit and in Despotism = sending 8 Veteran Warriors, just to be safe = 8gp, 6 Archers = 6gp, 4 Swordsmen = 4gp

The relevant factor in improving your army isn't the numbers on their defence/attack rating, it isn't really their Shield cost, though, obviously, Warriors are cheaper, marginally (and much quicker to spam) the relevant factor is you need less of them to do the same job... if you are the attacker.

However, the war wont end when you take the Town, you'll have to do some defending at some point. At some point an enemy archer will fire upon you. And in these circumstances you really are up the creek whichever unit you send. The enemy Archer will have a very good chance to annihilate any one of the above, or, at best, still remove at least half your unit's strength. The outlier will always be the Archer dies without inflicting any damage at all, if anything that's more akin to a miracle than a hope.

So now what are the potential costs of that invasion force?

10 Warriors = 3 to take the town with 4 or 5 casualties and two to die to Archers on the way or soon after = 100 Shields and 10gp
8 Archers = 3 to take the town with 2 or 3 casualties and two to die to Archers = 160 Shields and 8gp
7 Swordsmen = 3 to take the town with 1 or 2 casualties and two to die to Archers = 210 Shields and 7gp

The gp cost is now marginal, barely relevant, but the Shield inflation has gone through the roof, and the important aspect of spamming units is to be able to produce them as quickly as they die.

Now, if we could somehow find a way to make the defence stat relevant, the second aspect of this scenario becomes less relevant and things... balance... out more.

But wait, I hear you say, if defence was better then you'd need more units to take the town, well, no, if the defence was more rational then the player would be more inclined to take siege equipment before even thinking about taking a town.

Catapult cost = 20 Shields. Catapults needed to reduce 2 Regular Spearmen to 1hp = 4 = 80 Shields, 3 Swordsmen to defend against the two Archers and take the town = 90 Shields = 170 Shields and 7gp

Which is a definite improvement over all the above and an improvement over the following requirements with an improved defence stat:

4 Catapults, 6 Archers (two to die due to low defence stat, two to possibly die in 50/50s with the 1hp Spearmen) = 200 Shields and 10gp

4 Catapults, 10 Warriors (two to die, six to possibly die taking the town) = 180gp and 14gp

And suddenly the combat would... make sense. The sense of progression would make sense.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

(and yes, I'm aware even the above will have variance, but the base average defines the cost for explanation purposes).

It is not better than Civ2's combat because it pays so little heed to upgraded arsenals, probably the most defining feature of successful combat. You might well describe the unpredictability as 'fun', but then 'fun' isn't definable, and one can call anything one likes 'fun' regardless of any factors, however, if you want to suggest to someone that Civ3 is primarily a 'strategy' game that 'attempts' to 'simulate' something vaguely 'rational' then the above is very much more important than your personal interpretation of 'fun'.

I happened to be perusing this thread shortly before picking up GOTM 181, and decided to lean in to this strategy. Of course, it helps that GOTM 181 is the Aztecs, but I've traditionally been a "stronger is better" player, and even as the Aztecs or Inca would only use Jaguars/Chasquis early on in the game. This time, I decided to follow the "lots of cheap units may be worth it" logic as long as I could.

I've been posting updates in the GOTM 181 thread as the spoiler limit advances; as of the current time that is the end of the Ancient Times. Although I did build a few Spearmen to defend chokepoints, and one Archer in a panic (it died in its first attack), the vast majority of my army has been Jaguars... and despite facing Swordsmen, Spearmen, Archers, Impi, and a Horseman or two, and suffering some losses against them, it has done pretty well.

Would it work as well with a slower unit? Probably not as much; speed has a lot of benefits. But I'd be curious to try. My hunch is it would have been a bad idea to go Always War without Jaguars, but with planned wars it may have worked out well enough.

Edit: Link to GOTM 181 thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gotm-181-aztecs-regent-discussion-and-spoilers.665788/

 

[justanick]

This doesn't explain why other Civs have quite happily settled similarly separated island territories by this point nor why the Incas would suddenly want them in 1300AD, as their 'connectivity' hasn't changed by that point.

There are significant gaps in the explanation.

One part of the problem could be exploration. As i understand it AI does not see tiles it has not discovered so far. It only sees resources on tiles it has dicovered, even if tech for that is still insufficient. In other words AI would have been more eager to settle if you had sold it maps that show those islands. After having crossed to the first island AI did not take long to reach the second island.

Another part of the explanation may be mere chance, and having build up what AI deems more important. So once a certain degree of development has been reached AI will be more eager to invest into endeavors, that it considered too risky before.

 

[r16]

current game has a town just outside my core . Population 12 , produces 51 shields with scenario's factories . Had a long run with a single shield corrupted , which means it produced an unit / a turn . Currently it has 2 spoiled , which means it produces wealth at one coin per one shield . No forbidden palace yet , as ı use excess military leaders for small wonders . Can attribute it only to increased numbers of cities ı have taken in the interim .

and just an idea . With my current problem being something else . ı just love enveloping Al armies to keep them out of wars which they just destroy the lands and raze cities , which ı can't replace . ı would form a wall of units with a single gap left , which would concentrate Al units in a single stack given time , forming a labyrinth decreasing the number of tiles this particular future enemy would occupy . Bring in artillery in time , create an easy target , an unoccupied city perhaps and in the middle of nowhere kill them at your leisure -if you can't kill them at once .

a year or two years ago Al suddenly developed something , a single unit going backwards or something similarly awkward , so that my envelopment will not be "perfect" . The net result on me is if ı send a large stack , one of them might just "disappear" and stay behind as if patrolling , ı mean you can't see it has remained on its spot ... ı number my units if elites so if ı discover it has happened , ı will reload , choose the unit through F3 screen . Not agreeing that Al calculates 50 turns ahead but more of a rant . Last night ı opened a gap for Mordor to attack a single barbarian guarding his hut , 200 - 300 units marching on . Except on the second turn , the cavalry types and two armies returned back to its own borders... But 6-6-1 and 5-1-1 units are marching on , with a single 6-6-1 trailing at the back . ı killed the barbarian , took 25 gold and yes , because there was no combat and one single gap in the wall and yes , every Mordor unit walked into the opening with no rear guard . Can't imagine why .

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

And that's one of the appeals of a 20k game, at least on the non-absurd difficulty levels, in that it only matters that your capital can produce lots of shields and that you can learn tech quick enough to be ready to build the next 'big' Wonder or cultural building in a timely fashion. How you can achieve that is very numerous in its variety.

In all my time, I have never even tried a 20k Victory! Doesn't really hold any appeal to my playstyle.

Might just try it for the curiosity though.

 

[vmxa]

The AI knows all tiles and their properties. What they don't know is how to path to that tile, unless they have scouted it or traded maps. IOW learn the path. IIRC this was talked about in the CD that came with a pre order
of Conquest. This is why trading maps was a bad idea in vanilla and PTW. Not so much in C3C as map trading comes later in Conquest.

 

[Buttercup]

The AI knows all tiles and their properties. What they don't know is how to path to that tile, unless they have scouted it or traded maps. IOW learn the path. IIRC this was talked about in the CD that came with a pre order
of Conquest. This is why trading maps was a bad idea in vanilla and PTW. Not so much in C3C as map trading comes later in Conquest.

This is one of those things that gets repeated ad nauseum on forums and in guides, but it's simply not true & there's never been any actual evidence of this. All the in game evidence suggests that the AI knows everything regardless of scouting or map trading.

It becomes particularly obvious when you play the huge archipelago maps as a seafaring civ as you can sit back and watch for yourself as the AI's first Galley out comes complete with Settler and Spearman and bee-lines directly for that small island on your side of the bigger island as if it was on a fully mapped mission. I mean, you cannot sit and watch that happen and then give any credence whatsoever to some old wives tale that someone said once.

 

[Buttercup]

In all my time, I have never even tried a 20k Victory! Doesn't really hold any appeal to my playstyle.

Might just try it for the curiosity though.

You're really missing out, the 20k win is by far the most interesting of the VCs.

It's the primary win condition for the challenging Single City win. It's the primary win condition for Wonder addicts. It's a win condition that can be completed in just 4 hours, even on a huge map. It's the only win condition that doesn't require either military/city spam or painstaking trudging into Modern Age technology. I could go on and on about it's benefits.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

What are your top 5 tips for going for a 20k victory?

 

[vmxa]

Buttercup, not sure why all the vitriol, but it is true. Sending out a boat with a settler to find an island is not proof of anything. That is a reasonable thing to do, when you know something is in that area. Just like you
would do, when you get an embassy and see the capitol of a civ. You know the vicinity and you send a scout to find out exactly what is there. You don't always know, if it is on an island or not. I have sent out a settler with an escort on a boat, in the hope of finding a place to settle, not an unusual thing to do.. The knows there is a place and they are seeking the path to it.

You do not know, if they have gotten a map from another AI or stolen yours. If the AI already knows all things and the paths, why do send out scouts. It is not to make contact as they do not always make contact, even when
quite close to you.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-map-knowledge.37376/

Bamspeedy's post:

"The AI has the ability to see the whole map to help counter human intelligence. They know where the resources are and build cities to claim these resources sometimes (ever wonder why the AI builds those cities in tundra and desert in the BC's? It's because there's probably oil or saltpepper there). And this is why the AI seems like it always beats you to those unsettled islands...
But they must still uncover tiles before they can use them for trade (this is why they still value your maps and send out units for exploring). As long as they have tiles uncovered, there isn't a need for their units to go there usually (they sometimes will try and go through your territory that will uncover 1 sea tile).
In one game I sold world maps to both the Persians and Chinese. Since the Persians now had the ENTIRE map of China and all surrounding lands, they had no need to head in that direction. Thus Persia didn't get contact with China, despite they were next door neighbors on a pangea map."

I have seen many times that the AI did not find locations, that it should have, until I gave them my map. I am going to have to go with Soren, when he says the AI does not know the path, till it is scouted or they get the map. Too many great players have attested to it.

 

[Buttercup]

What are your top 5 tips for going for a 20k victory?

You could start an interesting thread about that as everyone will have different snippets of advice and areas where they disagree. And, of course, there'll be a huge difference between min/max'ing it and just doing it for maximum quality of life pleasure and/or roleplaying.

 

[Buttercup]

Buttercup, not sure why all the vitriol, but it is true. Sending out a boat with a settler to find an island is not proof of anything. That is a reasonable thing to do, when you know something is in that area. Just like you
would do, when you get an embassy and see the capitol of a civ. You know the vicinity and you send a scout to find out exactly what is there. You don't always know, if it is on an island or not. I have sent out a settler with an escort on a boat, in the hope of finding a place to settle, not an unusual thing to do.. The knows there is a place and they are seeking the path to it.

You do not know, if they have gotten a map from another AI or stolen yours. If the AI already knows all things and the paths, why do send out scouts. It is not to make contact as they do not always make contact, even when
quite close to you.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-map-knowledge.37376/

Bamspeedy's post:

"The AI has the ability to see the whole map to help counter human intelligence. They know where the resources are and build cities to claim these resources sometimes (ever wonder why the AI builds those cities in tundra and desert in the BC's? It's because there's probably oil or saltpepper there). And this is why the AI seems like it always beats you to those unsettled islands...
But they must still uncover tiles before they can use them for trade (this is why they still value your maps and send out units for exploring). As long as they have tiles uncovered, there isn't a need for their units to go there usually (they sometimes will try and go through your territory that will uncover 1 sea tile).
In one game I sold world maps to both the Persians and Chinese. Since the Persians now had the ENTIRE map of China and all surrounding lands, they had no need to head in that direction. Thus Persia didn't get contact with China, despite they were next door neighbors on a pangea map."

I have seen many times that the AI did not find locations, that it should have, until I gave them my map. I am going to have to go with Soren, when he says the AI does not know the path, till it is scouted or they get the map. Too many great players have attested to it.

No vitriol, sorry if you read it like that.

But you have just done the same thing again, you've taken one person's speculation and presented it as fact. Even in the link you provided from 2002 there is dissention from that one theory you present.

Sure, some 'important' players side with what you postulate, but that still doesn't mean fact, that just means personal bias towards certain people's view.

The evidence of "why didn't XYZ meet with China sooner" is quite possibly a completely unrelated issue, not at all related to the one under discussion here - because it doesn't effect the human player.

We are talking about the AI bee-lining isolated islands that they would have had zero knowledge of. They are not 'just wandering about", they are bee-lining, sometimes even bypassing other unsettled islands, all before they have possible knowledge of the map area. Evidentially, not just via speculation.

In the link you provide, the thread starter even starts out by saying "Firaxis have said that the AI has full map knowledge", and the last guy on that thread you linked is suggesting exactly as I am, just like me though, he's probably not, or, rather, wasn't, an 'important' poster.

It seems to me that the 'conspiracy theory' is not whether the AI knows everything or not, but rather that some have invented a conspiracy theory that it doesn't and used circumstantial unrelated evidence to try and prove that.

 

[vmxa]

I don't know anything about any 'conspiracy theory'.