I gotta complain...

[MadScot]

VC:

1. Spearman can defeat tanks because it's a game and the rules say they can! It's a design choice that all units, however obsolete, have a significant chance to win. This stops the situation where the first person to, e.g., chivalry rolls over the whole world because his units are unstoppable death machines. It provides balance and more fun.

2. Because civ is not a wargame. Therefore strictly technically accurate depictions of military tactics and the relationships between units are neither expected nor provided. Among other things missing: supplies, leadership, morale, reserves, ... Short summary: don't play civ if you want a wargame, it's a "grand strategy game" with corresponding simplifications

3. If neither of these work for you, think of it this way. Workers and settlers have graphics upgrades at each "age". Imagine that all units got graphics upgrades too. So, by the industrial era, the "spearman" unit is a badly equipped militia. Still unlikely to beat tanks, but with a technical chance to do so. After all, "spearman" is just a name. Really it's a 1.2.1 defeating a 16.8.2 - I could call then squirrels and elephants if I wanted, the game mechanic is the same

Don't let it annoy you.

And I didn't mention vision slots once

 

[TheNiceOne]

First, I will apologize for the tone in my previous post. I still stand for the content, but I get carried away sometimes...

Originally posted by Old&Slow

A Test.

I don`t want to be argumenative here, nor do I want to convince anyone, but in an actual new Game of playing Persia VS the Iroquois at Warlord setting here is the result of about 20 combats of my fresh Vet. 4.2.1 Immortals VS their fresh 3.1.2 Mounted Warriors.

My attacks in equal Terrain.


I won 5 and lost 15. ( No kidding !)

That was really skewed results. Please provide a save game for me (and others to test). To be honest, I don't trust your results, I believe there is some missing information: As how many MW withdrew (none seems weird) and what kind of terrain.
There has been several, very much more thorough tests that all have come to the opposite conclusion of what your test indicate. So please provide a save game, and at least provide exact numbers: Exactly how many immortals attacked, against what kind of terrain, was the MW fortified, and exactly how many MV won, lost or withdrew.

My defending in equal Terrain.

I lost 9 and won 6.

That's about as expected.

[/B][/QUOTE]It`s difficult to attribute this all to " Bad Luck ".

In 65% of the combats I did not get in the first hit point.

FWIW: in Games VS the AI Immortals they run right over any unit I have.[/B][/QUOTE]
But until you can provide a test and a save game that is close to as thorough as older tests, I will attribute it to a combination of "bad luck" and selective memory. You remember your misfortune when it fits into the pattern you expect, but you forget your luck that doesn't support your theory.

When this is combined with the other AI advantages of seeing into your Cities, seeing resources not yet on the Map, and researching different Tech paths & trading Techs among themselves ( which is why they always have 3-4 techs VS your 1 or 2 ), Ganging up on the Human Player, plus others, the Game, especially since the 1.29 patch, has become massively unbalanced IMHO.

:
...here we go again... Yes, the AI knows the position of all cities/units and all (including future) resources. That is well-known, and I consider it a cheat. But the part about different tech research/sharing, and ganging up on the computer is nonsense. This too has been checked by experienced players and found not to be true. If you think otherwise, then please give proof not unsupported accusations.

I'm afraid that this didn't turn out much more polite than the previous. But it's so very simple to accuse that AI of working together to bring down the human, while all decent tests have shown otherwise, and I don't like statements that ignore all thorough tests and only state unsupported beliefs as facts.

 

[Turner]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
But it's so very simple to accuse that AI of working together to bring down the human. . .

I'd just like to say that the AI obviously does not gang up on the human. Sure, sometimes it appears so, but there have been plenty of times when all the civs ganged up on one, and the one was not human. In fact, I've had several games where an AI attacked me, and I managed to get the rest of the civs on my side to fight the AI.

Now, if you don't treat the ai 'correctly', then yes, it does appear that the AI gangs up on the human. So trade trade trade to keep the AI happy. A little brown nosing goes a long way in this game.

 

[Xink]

I agree with you there Turner. When the Dutch declared war on me I bribed the Carth's to join in and since then it does seem to be the mission of all the 7 other civ's to kill off the Dutch.

As you have found trade and gold to keep the other civ's happy does go a long way to ensure that they don't go to war with you on their terms. Buying from them and paying by turn rather than a lump sum is my choice of payment as I tend to think that makes them less likely to go to war with me, until they get their money anyway.

On writing the above though it is a different thing when you are no longer needing the other civ's favour for your luxeries and have a overwhelming superiority in your military capability they can be annoyed or furious with you but they do have a certain respect, even if it is based on fear of retribution

Morgan

 

[Old&Slow]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
First, I will apologize for the tone in my previous post. I still stand for the content, but I get carried away sometimes...


That was really skewed results. Please provide a save game for me (and others to test). To be honest, I don't trust your results, I believe there is some missing information: As how many MW withdrew (none seems weird) and what kind of terrain.
There has been several, very much more thorough tests that all have come to the opposite conclusion of what your test indicate. So please provide a save game, and at least provide exact numbers: Exactly how many immortals attacked, against what kind of terrain, was the MW fortified, and exactly how many MV won, lost or withdrew.


That's about as expected.

It`s difficult to attribute this all to " Bad Luck ".

In 65% of the combats I did not get in the first hit point.

FWIW: in Games VS the AI Immortals they run right over any unit I have.[/B][/QUOTE]
But until you can provide a test and a save game that is close to as thorough as older tests, I will attribute it to a combination of "bad luck" and selective memory. You remember your misfortune when it fits into the pattern you expect, but you forget your luck that doesn't support your theory.

:
...here we go again... Yes, the AI knows the position of all cities/units and all (including future) resources. That is well-known, and I consider it a cheat. But the part about different tech research/sharing, and ganging up on the computer is nonsense. This too has been checked by experienced players and found not to be true. If you think otherwise, then please give proof not unsupported accusations.

I'm afraid that this didn't turn out much more polite than the previous. But it's so very simple to accuse that AI of working together to bring down the human, while all decent tests have shown otherwise, and I don't like statements that ignore all thorough tests and only state unsupported beliefs as facts. [/B][/QUOTE]

I did not save that Game, since it did not start as a test.

I`ll start another Game and will save it in case the same occurs.

Clearly this is not a popular topic so I`ll drop it, but just in closing and in the interest of Friendly Debate why do you think the subject of AI cheating in the CRT results comes up all the time with Civ 3 ?

Since the discussions on the old, now defunct CGO Boards, when it first came out to the QT3 Forums and indeed here it keeps poping up.

Just curious.

and, FWIW, I have never heard of Alpha Centauri CRT results being questioned...odd eh ?

Also, could you kindly take the time to explain how most, if not all the AI`s, at Warlord setting, all Game settings & City sizes being equal, always have 2 - 4 more Techs then I do if they are following the same rules ?

No worry about being Harsh in your Posts, I`m not thin skinned or easly offended BTW

 

[NobleLeader]

About this topic, let me expose my thoughts...

IMHO, this is the funny thing of the game. It's impossible to exist spearman and ICBM on same year in real world. But this is what happens in the game. And the weak ones deserve some chance...

Once I was playing with Chinese, squized in a island without iron. Spearman and archers was all I have, and I could survive (obviously, I couldn't win although).

The damned Germany tried to rip me off several times, but they were like waves crashing into the rocks !!

So, as somebody wrote that before, it's bad when you lose, but good when you win. That's the purpose of the game...

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Old&Slow
Clearly this is not a popular topic so I`ll drop it, but just in closing and in the interest of Friendly Debate why do you think the subject of AI cheating in the CRT results comes up all the time with Civ 3 ?

Since the discussions on the old, now defunct CGO Boards, when it first came out to the QT3 Forums and indeed here it keeps poping up.

Just curious.

and, FWIW, I have never heard of Alpha Centauri CRT results being questioned...odd eh ?

Also, could you kindly take the time to explain how most, if not all the AI`s, at Warlord setting, all Game settings & City sizes being equal, always have 2 - 4 more Techs then I do if they are following the same rules ?

Actually it's a very popular topic; if search were enabled you'd easily see that, I was able to find a slew of discussions on AI 'cheating' manually.

Why is this? If I may offer a few suggestions:

• First of all, may people do not distinguish between 'cheat' and handicap/advantage. So people routinely squeal when the AI respawns, for example. It is in there as a game balance item, and can be turned off, but if you've never encountered it before it sure seems like cheating for the civ you just killed to come back. Quite a few of the repeatedly reported 'cheats' fall into this category. I have seen people call the AI advantages at Deity etc a 'cheat' (but strangely never the human advantages at Chieftain )
• Specifically dealing with the combat system, again the reports of cheating vary in tone and content. Very common is the report of unexpected victory by inferior AI units - "the spearman beat my tank". Often this is associated with failure to understand the intricasies of the combat system, and failure to account for all influences on combat. A regular tank attacking a fortified elite spearman in a metro on a hill, for example. Added to this is the design choice that obsolete units remain effective for ever, which gives that spearman a statistically significant chance of victory. It didn't have to be that way, but it's a philosophical choice and in my opinion helps the game. See Vietcong's post a few previously for an example of the "spearman beat my tank" post.
• Psychonlogically, as TheNiceOne alluded to, we are all biases towards remembering the streaky events. Now, since few humans attack when grossly outclassed - we rarely let ourselves get in that position - inevitably many of the streaky results favour the AI.

To address the research/tech issue. While the human has a small benefit in tech costs, I have to ask whether you are using trade to its utmost. Bearing in mind it is possible for a canny human to maintain tech parity even on Deity through tech trading (even I can do it!) it would be no surprise to find the Ai can trade for tech advantages at lower levels - the human never has a handicap (bonus) of the same magnitude as the AI on Deity. Depending on how many civs and what contacts they make, and what their research paths are, and how aggressively you pursue techs, I would be willing to believe such a result is possible. Of course, it's also possible to crush the Ai on research at warlord - all depends what happens and what you do.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Old&Slow
Also, could you kindly take the time to explain how most, if not all the AI`s, at Warlord setting, all Game settings & City sizes being equal, always have 2 - 4 more Techs then I do if they are following the same rules ?

No worry about being Harsh in your Posts, I`m not thin skinned or easly offended BTW

I am not eager to wade into yet another "the AI cheats in combat" arguments, but since you're neither thin-skinned nor easily offended, I'll take a stab at answering the question above:

A: You have not developed the game skills to compete effectively. Put more bluntly, you're not very good at Civ III. The good news is that there is plenty of room for improvement.

Since many players who post here routinely establish and maintain tech leads, power leads, military leads, etc. on difficulty levels far higher than Warlord, perhaps its time to turn the attention to the most obvious variable between their games and yours -- the human player playing the game.

 

[Old&Slow]

Originally posted by Catt


I am not eager to wade into yet another "the AI cheats in combat" arguments, but since you're neither thin-skinned nor easily offended, I'll take a stab at answering the question above:

A: You have not developed the game skills to compete effectively. Put more bluntly, you're not very good at Civ III. The good news is that there is plenty of room for improvement.

Since many players who post here routinely establish and maintain tech leads, power leads, military leads, etc. on difficulty levels far higher than Warlord, perhaps its time to turn the attention to the most obvious variable between their games and yours -- the human player playing the game.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite possible, I`ll take the Rap for all those Lurkers feeling the same way about the AI.....

While I`m tempted to say talk is cheap, I won`t since I`m polite as well as non thin skinned Oh ! well I guess I did say that...sorry.

But, I take your point, so how about a detailed AAR ( with screen shots if possible ) showing how you did it, or direct me to one by a " routinely posting player " on the Board please.

Most game specific forums are full of them.

I have read all the FAQ`s and How To`s here but while they are full of more or less useful general interface advice they seem a little short of play specifics, none of it _taken as a whole_ seems to work on a large Map against 5-7 AI Civs, one of which is always aggressive.

Especially if your fighting a war one AI starts almost at once, while trying to grow Happy cities, and keep a full fast tech research program going so you have something to trade they don`t have.

Not Enough Gold.

In fact in many ways Civ3 remines me of the old 4X game "Stars", wherin one AI kept attacking you while the others built & researched full speed in the background.

Thanks & over to you.

 

[Pongui]

Tanks vs. knights. If one imagines an actual tank rolling over some lance-wielding dude, the odds are clear enough. But a unit of tanks really just represents tanks as the star feature in a larger military operation. There will be trucks and trains full of gas cans and mechanics and radios and telegraph wire behind them. There will be wagon loads and airdrops of ammo, code books, maps, and rations. There will be rickety bridges and mud and foul weather, and foul play. And of course there will be more infantrymen marching on the ground to scout for the tanks, support them, mop up. There will be morale or lack of it. So we shouldn't be too sure.

 

[Padma]

And don't forget that the *shortest* turns in a standard game take a full year. A lot can happen to a tank regiment during the course of a year ....

 

[Lyonesse]

Originally posted by Morgan UK
Couldn't argue with you there budweiser. Then again no one in history managed to fight a tank and beat it with a spear, that I know of anyway - except in this game

I feel the need to correct you on this. I do recall a time when a mear horsemen, no spear, only a rock beat a tank <evil grin> Now I will let you know when this happened. If you remember a certain Gentleman by the name of "Indiana" Jones, well in his "Last Crusade" he did defeat that Nazi tank with horse and rock (okay and a lot of luck)


Okay, I'm in a wierd mood today, can't control myself...watch out!

 

[Atotarho]

Originally posted by Old&amp;Slow


When this is combined with the other AI advantages of seeing into your Cities, seeing resources not yet on the Map, and researching different Tech paths & trading Techs among themselves ( which is why they always have 3-4 techs VS your 1 or 2 ), Ganging up on the Human Player, plus others, the Game, especially since the 1.29 patch, has become massively unbalanced IMHO.

The AIs research different Tech paths becuase they are different CIVs with different strategies. It virtually ensures that no matter what the map/terrain/start locations/level at least one of them will be competitive. If they all did exactly the same thing you might as well just have one AI to go up against.

Yes they do sell techs between each other, and they will sell them to you as well, and buy them from you. On the higher levels its the only way to keep up with the AIs. Trade , trade , trade. I think a lot of people miss the point on this. Before you get trade routes you trade techs and maps, as much as possible (just beware of trading IW to the Aztec next door). When you get trade routes you trade lux and resources. Keeps em happy and keeps you up there.

The AIs will dogpile whoever they percieve to be the weakest. Unfortunately in the earlier part of the game that is quite likely to be you. The best tactic is to get them into a war with each other early on and this can take some of the heat off you and keep them busy. In the game I am playing I couldnt get any of the AIs to fight with each other, I was paying off bribes all over the place just to keep them away from me. Then the Persians demanded tribute and they were accross the other side of the continent, perfect. I refused, they declared war, I bribed everone else (except the Irq who would not have a bar of it) into the war (the Irq were brought in by one of the AI cis latter anyway). I never fired a shot or sent a troop. Sued for peace for tech and money 20 turns later and everyone else is still fighting amoungst themselves over it.

I think a lot of people suffer from selective memory when it comes to battles, I know I do. I get "upset" when my stack of ten knights batters itself to death on a size 1 city with two spearmen but I am well chuffed when my lone spearman sees off a stack of invading swordsmen. Im not 100% convinced that the AI doesnt give itself a little help in battles but Im sure its not nearly as bad as some people would have us believe. Besides how boring would it be if you knew the outcome of every battle before you fought it, you win every time (whoopee).

A very good point was made earlier that the human palyer weighs up the odds and doesnt attack unless they percieve there is a good chance of winning. The AI takes more chances, and some of their attacks are just plain suicidal, so you see more "unbelievable" situations from the AI. If you sent more spearmen up against tanks you might win a couple too.

No one can tell you 'Do this and you will win' every game is too different for that. There are some things that will help you out but no game killer strats that anyone can use to win every game (thank heaven).

All in all. Whether the AI cheats or not. Its the way the game is. If you dont like it you dont play. But most of us do what the AI cant. We look at the way the AI plays the game, look at what caused our major embarrasment and adjust our tactics accordingly. In the end thats what the game is all about, finding each games winning strategy.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Old&amp;Slow
=But, I take your point, so how about a detailed AAR ( with screen shots if possible ) showing how you did it, or direct me to one by a " routinely posting player " on the Board please.

Please take a look in the Game of the Month forum.
Here you will find large numbers of people playing games above regent level - i.e. where the computer has the advantages, not the human - who nevertheless are consistently pushing the AI around in all areas of the game. There are detailed summaries of games in the spoiler threads (for all players) plus there is the "Quick Start Challenge" which requires a log of actions in the first 80 turns of the game - to 1000BC. Here you can see how the big boys do it. Or big girls - a first rank player called Moonsinger had a "trading thread" where she showed how to maintain tech parity through trading at deity level.

Most game specific forums are full of them.

So is this one if you look in the right places. I suspect the democracy game or the succession games have plenty of examples too, but I'm less familiar with those.

I have read all the FAQ`s and How To`s here but while they are full of more or less useful general interface advice they seem a little short of play specifics, none of it _taken as a whole_ seems to work on a large Map against 5-7 AI Civs, one of which is always aggressive.

My best advice - read some of the articles the GOTM has generated, by some of the better players.

The AI is not more inclined to attack you over the other civs if you are nice. If you are overly aggressive the Ais will attack you of course.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Old&amp;Slow


But, I take your point, so how about a detailed AAR ( with screen shots if possible ) showing how you did it, or direct me to one by a " routinely posting player " on the Board please.

Most game specific forums are full of them.

In addition to Mad Scot's helpful link to the GOTM (Game of the Month) forum and the related QSCs, take a look at the Succession Game Forum by clicking here -- succession games involve a team of players all playing the very same game, each taking a series of turns before passing it on to their teammates; because of the format, detailed reporting, including many screenshots, are usually included in most SC games.

I tend to post more often at Apolyton, another Civ fansite. We created a a concept called Apolyton University (or "AU") for comparison games similar to GOTM. AU is a lot less formal and doesn't emphasize playing a purely efficient or powerful game -- it offers up a variety of themed games* where the intent is more on sharing tactics and experiences then pursuing a powerful win, and usually games are offered in the form of scenarios so that players can play the very same map / opponents on any difficulty level they'd like - we routinely have Warlord - Deity players playing the "same" game. You can visit AU by finding the strategy forum at Apolyton (though we'll have an AU-specific forum soon) and you can see many of my own games, with detailed AARs and screenshots, posted in the AU History thread (a topped thread about AU), as well as the very same games played by a bunch of very sharp players and some newer players as well, if you think my talk is cheap . I won't provide a link only because it is technically a competing website to Civ Fanatics, and I think you'll find all the examples you may want by visting the GOTM forum that Mad Scot linked and the Succession Game Forum that I linked above. You are of course more than welcome at the AU - just be sure to get your fill of Civ Fanatics and all it has to offer (and click on a few sponser links too!) before you leave this great site.

* We played one at Emperor level, before the editor allowed us to easily post the same game at any level a player would like to play, with the rules modified to disallow building any military units by the human -- this one was themed "Give Peace a Chance" and several players won without ever building even a lowly warrior.

 

[Catt]

I didn't edit my last post because this one deserves its own post -- if you haven't already found it, by all means spend some time at cracker's Improving Your Opening Play Skills pages -- far and away one of the best tutorials on how to play the game well. This link offers some fundamental advice, specific and with numerous screenshots and even saved games, on how to become a better Civ III player.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Old&amp;Slow

Clearly this is not a popular topic so I`ll drop it, but just in closing and in the interest of Friendly Debate why do you think the subject of AI cheating in the CRT results comes up all the time with Civ 3 ?

The subject is popular. What I don't like though, is accusations of cheating without any proof, since there have been so much testing.
And I think the subject comes up again and again for three reasons:
1) The game is deliberately made so that even a spearman has a slight chance (~1%) to win against a tank. In the real world it wouldn't, and since the human is the one who most often attacks with tanks against AI spearman, people who experience those losses shout "cheat" instead of considering the game mechanics.
2) The game is quite random, too random for some people's taste, and real random numbers have longer streaks of weird results than what humans expect. Therefore, when we encounter weird streaks where we lose more than we expect, many thinks this must be a cheat, when it actually is what shouldbe expected from real random numbers.
3) The CIV3 AI is actually pretty good. So good that many new players think it must be cheating while the AI actually play by the rules.

But, I take your point, so how about a detailed AAR ( with screen shots if possible ) showing how you did it, or direct me to one by a " routinely posting player " on the Board please.

As othes have said, check GOTM and especially succession games.
But the most important lesson is "trade".

In fact in many ways Civ3 remines me of the old 4X game "Stars", wherin one AI kept attacking you while the others built & researched full speed in the background.

This is not the case in CIV3. The AI work indipendently, but they will attack any civ they consider weak. If your gaming style is to prioritize infrastructure and growth over military, then the other AI will know this (yes, its a cheat that they know this), and use it against you. If you instead make sure to build the necessary military as well, any agressive AI civ is just as likely to attack someone else. I have played many games where my two neighbours start an early war, which gives me the room to grow and easily take them out both after some time.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
If your gaming style is to prioritize infrastructure and growth over military, then the other AI will know this (yes, its a cheat that they know this), and use it against you.

No cheat here, really. Human has military advisor for rough estimate, powergraph and sometimes a spy too.

 

[Volum]

I simply see it this way.
If i have bad luck in one combat, then in the next combats i notice im haveing more luck. I think the RNG is handing out luck to one side at a time

 

[The Last Conformist]

I note this is like the fifth or sixth thread of this type I've posted stories of unreasonable combat results in my favour, and as yet nobody has commented. This despite some of them being pretty outrageous - the CombatCalc gives 0.0% for the Cav beating Mech Inf incidence, and the number of times I've tried that is a dozen-odd at the most.

If I reported that sort of thing in the AI's favour, I have very good reasons to believe certain people would take it as evidence of AI cheats ...