Does anyone...

[Strong Reaction]

Use this tactic?

OK, for starters I will list the settings I usually play at:

• world size: standard
• barbarians: roaming
• continents: 70% water
• temperature: temperate
• age: 3 billion
• difficulty: monarch

With these settings as the game plays out you find there are two large continents. The player is located on one and the other is yet to be discovered.

In a winning effort, playing an aggressive style I will eventually dominate the continent I am on. During the middle age at around the discovery of Education the second continent will be found. It will be discovered by me or perhaps the AI will find the continent I am on. In other words the civs on both continents will become aware of each other. I've seen it stray from this narrative, i.e. I may find the other continent in Ancient Times, but this is the way it usually plays out.

Invariably one civilization will be dominant on the second continent. Sometimes I discover the second land mass and only one civ remains. Other times I find there are multiple civs still competing for domination over the continent. This is where the heart of my question lies.

At this point of the game victory is all but assured, unless a force rises on the second continent and becomes my rival. I will take action to ensure that this does not happen.
For instance I will:

• strengthen weaker civs by giving or trading tech
• intercede on behalf of the weaker civ in war
• block access on the continent i.e. prevent military movement
• give strategic resources to enemies of my rival
• deny rival of strategic resources, either through trade or seizing territory
• capture and return cities to their rightful owner to maintain power balance

All of these actions serves to ensure that no one civ dominate the second continent. Also, if in the future I go to war with any of these civs, they will not be strong enough to withstand an invasion by yours truly. So if in the future I find I am without aluminum I can easily capture a rivals territory to a). ensure I have it, and b). keep it out of their hands.

Of course there are many variations of this strategy this is just a basic outline. I just wonder if anyone else does anything similar?

 

[justanick]

In several variations this is a common strategy. Something important you did not list is luxuries. Interceding to change what luxuries AI can use is a powerful tool. AI does usually not use luxury rate, therefore the size of its cities is limited by luxuries and military police. By keeping luxuries away you can keep cities small and in a government with military police. By granting luxuries you can help cities grow and AI can adopt a better government like republic or democracy. This makes quite a difference.

You may want to have a look at this strategy article:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116771

 

[Strong Reaction]

You may want to have a look at this strategy article:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116771

Wow, that's quite a read & pretty thorough. And yes I didn't mention the luxuries largely because I am ignorant to the exact effects it has on the AI, thanks for the info.

Generally, I now its a positive so I tend to trade with allies and cut trade with rivals. Though, sometimes I just find whoever pays top dollar for a luxury regardless. This gives me something to consider in the future.

 

[justanick]

Though, sometimes I just find whoever pays top dollar for a luxury regardless.

This will help both you and your likely top rival. This makes for a more challenging endgame. In a way that is more fun. Helping to shape the world to be divided into many empires of 20+ cities each will likely maximize what you can extract via diplomacy from those cities that you donnot control. But it comes at the "price" of stronger rivals.

 

[Roundman]

I play with similar settings, (though usually with a 4 billion year old world). I tend to play as Germany on Monarch. I often have a similar experience to what you describe (though there's usually more than 2 continents- often there are 2 major continents and one or two smaller continents / large islands).

Along with your observations, the other things that I notice are that (1) I almost always start on the smaller of the two major continents; and (2) the more dominant I am on my continent in the early game, the more likely there will be a dominant power on the other major continent when we make first contact. It seems like a game balancing feature to prevent the Human player from running away with the game. The AI knows how well you are doing even before contact, and it makes sure that it grows a power than can counterbalance you.

When I have conquered my continent early, I tend to settle in for a race to Modern Armor and then go for world conquest (I disable Domination and Diplomacy as victory conditions). If you get Modern Armor before the AI discovers Computers, then conquering them is almost always very easy. The best way to get ahead in the tech race is to encourage the AI civs to be at war with each other as much as possible. That doesn't take much effort after Communism & Fascism arrive.

I tend to stay out of the other continents affairs as I develop my empire and race for Modern Armor. Sometimes I'll instigate wars if things are getting too peaceful on that continent. Sometimes I will trade cheaply or outright gift tech like Nationalism or Replaceable Parts to a weaker Civ if it's defending itself from a larger aggressor. Other than that, I don't take the physical steps to interfere on the other continent that you describe. I put as much focus as possible to preparing my eventual invasion.

 

[justanick]

If you already play the germans, than waiting for modern armours seems a bit abundant. Simply spam panzers, they are as fast as modern armour and strong enough at attack.

 

[Roundman]

If you already play the germans, than waiting for modern armours seems a bit abundant. Simply spam panzers, they are as fast as modern armour and strong enough at attack.

Believe me, I've done plenty of Panzer blitzes in my day, but I usually do them when I need to conquer my own continent. A Panzer-triggered Golden Age + mobilization, with Panzers coming out of my core cities every turn, has helped me take down dominant powers on my own continent more than once.

But if I'm doing a mass conquest of another continent, then I prefer to use Modern Armor. Panzers, while strong, still lose too often against fortified infantry in large cities. The losses add up when you have to ship your Panzers to the other side of the world in transports, and I don't like slowing down my attacks by building huge artillery stacks or creating mass bomber forces to weaken the infantry before the Panzer assault. I'd rather simply steamroll them with Modern Armor. There have been times where I have conquered dominant 20+ city AI civs in 3 turns using a mass MA assault.

Plus, I take pleasure in being almost an entire technological age ahead of the AI. There's also the extra delight of occasionally finding that a minor AI that has somehow survived only has Riflemen. MA vs. Rifleman is just fun to watch.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Plus, I take pleasure in being almost an entire technological age ahead of the AI. There's also the extra delight of occasionally finding that a minor AI that has somehow survived only has Riflemen. MA vs. Rifleman is just fun to watch.

I loled, I am also guilty of this

 

[Lanzelot]

the more dominant I am on my continent in the early game, the more likely there will be a dominant power on the other major continent when we make first contact. It seems like a game balancing feature to prevent the Human player from running away with the game. The AI knows how well you are doing even before contact, and it makes sure that it grows a power than can counterbalance you.

Don't give the AI programmers at Firaxis too much credit... I am pretty sure there is no such algorithm programmed into Civ3. (Otherwise: if they were capable of doing something like this, then why did they produce such a lousy AI in all other aspects of the game... )

 

[vorlon_mi]

The common factor I've observed in determining the relative strength / development of the other continent is terrain, especially rivers. If one of the AI has lots of rivered grassland plus iron, it will grow large and dominate its neighbors. If the other continent has more desert, jungle, or plains, they are usually scrawny.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Don't give the AI programmers at Firaxis too much credit... I am pretty sure there is no such algorithm programmed into Civ3. (Otherwise: if they were capable of doing something like this, then why did they produce such a lousy AI in all other aspects of the game... )

Not a programmer so take it with a grain of salt.

The AI does a pretty good job at either keeping pace with the player in tech. and commonly leads (the games I play) in tech. I can barely keep up even with The Great Library & the only time I can substantially pull away is in the Industrial Era & and that's mainly due to The Theory of Evolution. So, the idea that the AI balances the game out doesn't seem so absurd.

That being said I have no idea if the game balances itself out due to player performance.

Agreed in aspects like war & troop movement the AI makes some head scratching (& that's being generous) moves.

 

[justanick]

Untill the industrial age AI can usually keep up in tech, once the industrial age is reachd it is screwed. Tech costs double, some low use techs are reserached with high priority and the human player gets an additional boost by ToE. Before the industrual age AI can often progress semiwell because it is very eager to trade, so multible AI research more or less together. In the industrial age chances are that AI will crumble under unit support due to overbuilding of military. Sometimes this already happens in the ancient age because fresh water is scarce and aqueducts are available too late due to huge map but small islands.

 

[Strong Reaction]

In the industrial age chances are that AI will crumble under unit support due to overbuilding of military. .

That makes sense at some point or another a successful AI civ is bound to overbuild, evidenced by the common encounters with SoD's. Hence no money for research, at least not productive research.

That must explain why the AI during the industrial age, in some cases because they have excess gold, will pay an exorbitant amount for tech. Also of note, some AI civs, even if large don't have two coins to rub together and won't/can't offer any gold in exchange for tech. I assume, since the individual AI controlled civs trade among themselves, they may be in debt to one another, though I am not sure of the specifics on AI trading.

 

[justanick]

That must explain why the AI during the industrial age, in some cases because they have excess gold, will pay an exorbitant amount for tech.

The amount of money AI is willing to pay for a tech depends on the costs to research it and on whether you have a monopoly. While you have you can get about twice the money.

Also of note, some AI civs, even if large don't have two coins to rub together and won't/can't offer any gold in exchange for tech. I assume, since the individual AI controlled civs trade among themselves, they may be in debt to one another, though I am not sure of the specifics on AI trading.

I highly doubt that. AI is programmed to keep some net commerce for themselves, thus small economies lack the ability to be indebted. Only larger economies are willing to pay meaningful gtp.

 

[Buttercup]

It's very rare I find an AI civ with more than 0 gold in their bank account and it never ceases to amaze me when people get huge pay-offs for stuff. Never seems possible in my games. I can get lots of hundreds in the Ancient Age but for some reason I never see these 1,000+p/t deals. Is it something that's just more common on higher difficulties?

 

[Strong Reaction]

I think the AI is broke because they buy tech or maybe even luxuries at every given chance. I think they trade amongst themselves. Ive seen civs stockpile gold during war time. They're not trading with me or the civs they are at war with so the gold accrues. My last game every civ except mine had fascism as the form of govt. All were at war. Two civs had stockpiles around 1400 2000 gold each. I ended up trading tech for the gold from both nations.

Also, last game the Iroquois payed me around 149 gpt for a modern era tech. Later in the game everyone was broke and I didn't get any more good tech trades.

I play Monarch level anything harder than that is silly to me with the AI getting so much of an advantage. Deity level, I am sure you have to use game exploits and gimmicks to win, i.e. play on archipelago map to keep civs from trading technology with each other etc.

 

[justanick]

It's very rare I find an AI civ with more than 0 gold in their bank account and it never ceases to amaze me when people get huge pay-offs for stuff. Never seems possible in my games. I can get lots of hundreds in the Ancient Age but for some reason I never see these 1,000+p/t deals. Is it something that's just more common on higher difficulties?

Yes. There are the low lump sums that AI harvests from barbarians and bonus huts in the ancient age.

But for AI to have great amounts of gtp it needs to have a strong economy. If being a republic or democracy having 20 size 12 cities should be enough to extract some gtp, also being a commercial civ helps. There is some sort of threshold below which AI keeps commerce for itself for research etc..

Having to upgrade obsolete units may entice AI to increase tradeable gtp. Also having to rush urgently needed defenders may entive AI to produce more gold at the expense of research.

I think the AI is broke because they buy tech or maybe even luxuries at every given chance. I think they trade amongst themselves.

AI trading amongst them selves happens more on higher level. More importantly, if they lose gold or gtp at trading, who is gaining it? The trade argument leaves no sound explanatation for the lack of tradeable gtp or gold.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Well the fact is that sometimes civs have excess gold in the thousands. Its got to a. come from somewhere and b. go somewhere. If I don't trade for it doesn't simply vanish. I don't think can you definitively say that the AI doesn't buy lux or tech from each other unless you have examples to prove that.

 

[Strong Reaction]

AI trading amongst them selves happens more on higher level

Explain, this is open ended... higher level as in difficulty setting? And more importantly how so? Examples? Is there a working model of the Civ 3 economy (aside from playing the game itself?) that we can use to confirm this? Is this just opinion?

 

[justanick]

I don't think can you definitively say that the AI doesn't buy lux or tech from each other unless you have examples to prove that.

I can defintively say that AI does trade luxuries and techs among each other. In case of tech its is definitively buying tech in the sense of paying with gold.

AI trading amongst them selves happens more on higher level

Explain, this is open ended... higher level as in difficulty setting? And more importantly how so? Examples? Is there a working model of the Civ 3 economy (aside from playing the game itself?) that we can use to confirm this? Is this just opinion?

It is essentially a fact that on higher difficulty settings AI is more likely to trade among themselves as AI values higher what is offered by another AI. At regent AI will value an offer of 100 gold from another AI to be worth 130 gold, at Sid it is 200 gold.