. . . there are several different ways to play the game. I usu. play monarch/emporer, and I'll play warmongering with early war, peaceful builder w/ modern war, or straight peaceful. I'm with Sirp - I find that it's too easy to manipulate the ai into being too peaceful. I can always win on monarch and win 80% of the time on emporer following a builder strategy - on a standard map with 5-8 civs, I'll have maybe 6-12 cities. I'll keep a very weak military and concentrate on infrastructure, especially commercial improvements. Next thing I know, I'm generating tons of cash, I quickly buy enought techs to be competitive, and I'm bored bcs the ai never attacked when I was weak. A human player would definitely have been more aggressive and attacked me while I was technologically behind and militarily weak. I think in MP you will find your human opponents to be more aggressive, rather than less. The difference is that they will be more malleable - a human player will quickly go from friend to foe for an advantage and won't stay pissed like the ai. Also, human wars will tend to be more intense and much shorter.
I quit Civilization 3!
- Thread starter Lt. 'Killer' M.
- Start date
Qitai
.
I believe the AI is programmed to "stop the strong and leave the weak alone". My observation of their behaviour is that once a civ gets very weak in tech and military, no one bothers them. AI's choice of opponent is always someone comparable or stronger it seems, esp. one who is stronger.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
I can understand why you think that.
Maybe it would be more correct to say that tech trading can be fair. I don't think it is always fair or always unfair.
I understand that you like to do minimal research, have the AI do almost all the research, and buy the techs from the AI. I'm sure that you can win such a game, but for me it would not be fun or satisfying. I like to build scientific improvements and try to be (even though the game designers make it difficult) in the tech lead, even though you will get a higher game score with your style of play.
When I play my kind of game, tech trading is not even. Whether it is "fair" is subjective, but I would say no, not "fair." In your style of play, though, you get fair deals because the leading AI civs have more techs than you do.
It's not enough to win for me. The game must have some joy in it.
Dead wrong, the ai civs are not acting "in concert". In fact, my complaint would be the opposite - it is *too* easy to manipulate one ai civ into going to war with another. While I'm weak and builiding infrastructure, I'll amass enough money to bribe one or two other civs to gang up on a civ that's posing a threat, or which has some territory I want to take. The only ai behavior which appears to be "in concert" against the human is the insane ai tech trading - and that is easily modifiable down. The complaints about the ai being suicidal at times - refusing to take a decent deal rather than be destroyed - are valid, and the ai overall could certainly be improved. But this "in concert" talk is way off-the-mark.
Zouave, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you
. . . But in this case, you're just being paranoid.I think you'll find that the 'insane AI tech trading' has been solved in the new patch. I'm playing a new game (at Regent level) and I'm finding that the tech trading between AIs seems much more reasonable. I can now actually trade sensibly without feeling that its just me against the rest.
In fact, overall, I'm sensing that the gameplay has got much more even all round - I usually expect to win at Regent (and maybe have a tough challenge at Emporer) but this latest game (my first with the new patch) seems easier than before (and the gameplay is much more 'natural').
IMHO, if this is all due to the patch, then Firaxis have done a great job!
In fact, overall, I'm sensing that the gameplay has got much more even all round - I usually expect to win at Regent (and maybe have a tough challenge at Emporer) but this latest game (my first with the new patch) seems easier than before (and the gameplay is much more 'natural').
IMHO, if this is all due to the patch, then Firaxis have done a great job!
I must say this new patch intrigues me, I haven't gotten to play it much yet, but it seems much better. It would seem that you can't just do insane farmer's gambits anymore - build lots and lots of cities, with very little protection, and just naively believe the AI will not attack you.
Anyhow, if a game was really crap, we would have people posting "that's it I quit", and then leaving; never posting again, going and playing a decent game. Here we have Killer saying "I quit Civilization III" and then saying "well umm...I mean I'll still post on the forums and still play Succession Games and I guess I'll come back and play the game later but at least for a week I do quit!"
I do that too, even with the greatest games; because great games are challenging, and challenging games can cause frustration, and one needs a break from them from time to time.
So Killer, what kind of saved games do you want from me?
ohhh btw, just one observation, I have found that if you build a city just one square from another Civilization's city, that will greatly encourage them to sneak attack you. I would recommend never doing this, unless you want to go to war with them.
Anyhow, if a game was really crap, we would have people posting "that's it I quit", and then leaving; never posting again, going and playing a decent game. Here we have Killer saying "I quit Civilization III" and then saying "well umm...I mean I'll still post on the forums and still play Succession Games and I guess I'll come back and play the game later but at least for a week I do quit!"
I do that too, even with the greatest games; because great games are challenging, and challenging games can cause frustration, and one needs a break from them from time to time.
So Killer, what kind of saved games do you want from me?
ohhh btw, just one observation, I have found that if you build a city just one square from another Civilization's city, that will greatly encourage them to sneak attack you. I would recommend never doing this, unless you want to go to war with them.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
If this is true, it's another change not documented in readme.txt. We already heard from Cracker that Soren said he had changed the human and AI research rates under the covers.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27535
Qitai
.
Sumthinelse> Perhaps, you took it that I like to be behind tech from one of my previous post. Well, not really. That particular tournament game has space victory as the victory condition, which is why I play that way for that game. In general, I do like to be ahead of tech too!! Who doesn't.
But at deity, I realise that before industrial age and if the AI's are at peace, I can never be ahead because they catch up on me in 1-2 turns after I discover any new tech. Or worse! They are always ahead. So, it makes sense for me to just sit back and pile up my cash. Buying tech is always much much cheaper then researching it yourself. After Industrial age, when I can easily get ahead in tech, I will definately do so.
Also, along the way, when some civ lose out in the tech race, I drop trading with them. And yes, they do get left behind by other civs too even on deity. Once, there is a civ still in ancient era when I am in modern age. Remember I mention overwhelming forces in one of my earlier post?
As for the fair part. It will always be "unfair" to the tech leader. This is because, tech gets easier to research and trade when others have it. If you are always the tech leader, then yes, it will always be unfair to you. But it is fair because we get the same benefit if we are behind tech.
And yes, I am not used to be behind tech initially. I use to like playing on island map in Civ2 and finish up all research before messing with the AI. It always feels good to have all the modern troops crushing the ancient troops. A nice feeling I must say.
And just one more thing. I play for that perfect game (high empire production and trade is deem to be perfect for me), and not high score. If you notice, I had not even bother with sending in my games for HoF although I have several games which would put me on that list. Milking is just lame. In fact, from my observation, few good players bother with that HoF thing.
I will probably move on to MOO3 once that is out. I hate probability and discrete programming (refering to wasted shields for excess production) in strategy games. Discrete programming is stupid, makes me do all the micro management. And there is enough probability in real life that when I play a game, I like to be in control!! Not subjected to stupid probability.
But at deity, I realise that before industrial age and if the AI's are at peace, I can never be ahead because they catch up on me in 1-2 turns after I discover any new tech. Or worse! They are always ahead. So, it makes sense for me to just sit back and pile up my cash. Buying tech is always much much cheaper then researching it yourself. After Industrial age, when I can easily get ahead in tech, I will definately do so.
Also, along the way, when some civ lose out in the tech race, I drop trading with them. And yes, they do get left behind by other civs too even on deity. Once, there is a civ still in ancient era when I am in modern age. Remember I mention overwhelming forces in one of my earlier post?
As for the fair part. It will always be "unfair" to the tech leader. This is because, tech gets easier to research and trade when others have it. If you are always the tech leader, then yes, it will always be unfair to you. But it is fair because we get the same benefit if we are behind tech.
And yes, I am not used to be behind tech initially. I use to like playing on island map in Civ2 and finish up all research before messing with the AI. It always feels good to have all the modern troops crushing the ancient troops. A nice feeling I must say.
And just one more thing. I play for that perfect game (high empire production and trade is deem to be perfect for me), and not high score. If you notice, I had not even bother with sending in my games for HoF although I have several games which would put me on that list. Milking is just lame. In fact, from my observation, few good players bother with that HoF thing.
I will probably move on to MOO3 once that is out. I hate probability and discrete programming (refering to wasted shields for excess production) in strategy games. Discrete programming is stupid, makes me do all the micro management. And there is enough probability in real life that when I play a game, I like to be in control!! Not subjected to stupid probability.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
If I set the AI to AI tech rate to 100 and play an expansionist civ on deity I think I can try for an early tech lead and maybe keep it. So far in my deity game I am ahead. We shall see how this turns out. I hope Firaxis doesn't change the goody huts in this patch.
"Buying tech is always much much cheaper then researching it yourself."
And that is what I don't like about CIV3. However, sometimes it's economically advantageous to spend the money for research in the long run. For example, if you research navigation before the other civs, you will get many times what you spent by selling maps and communications.
Qitai, I would like to review your paper about trading, but I am moving from Bangkok to America and will have to wait for a week or 2 before I have much time. You can email it to me if you like or
if you upload it I will also look at it.
Dinorius R.
Somnambulist
To Killer: I can't believe you're quitting, Killer. And I see Simwiz is in trouble too. My how times change. I never thought the day would come when you guys spat the dummy and gave Civ3 the big "heave ho". Is it just Civ3 burnout?
Well, I didn't last as long as you, I gave up about 2 months ago - from boredom with the game, not so much any violent disagreement with it. I hardly ever bother with Civ3 any more, apart from looking in on the Forum, which in my opinion became more interesting than the game itself. When I realized I was spending more time reading the Forum than playing, that's when I effectively retired. I'm now having fun building my own virtual train set (a sim called TRAINZ) and it's great. Suggest you find something else to pique yor interest too.
I see they have a new patch now (God, how many patches has it taken to fix up this game?? It would be interesting indeed to add up all the changes and fixes in all the patches, it must amount to several hundred. Makes one wonder how they could have even considered launching the original 1.07f version doesn't it?).
Well, I didn't last as long as you, I gave up about 2 months ago - from boredom with the game, not so much any violent disagreement with it. I hardly ever bother with Civ3 any more, apart from looking in on the Forum, which in my opinion became more interesting than the game itself. When I realized I was spending more time reading the Forum than playing, that's when I effectively retired. I'm now having fun building my own virtual train set (a sim called TRAINZ) and it's great. Suggest you find something else to pique yor interest too.
I see they have a new patch now (God, how many patches has it taken to fix up this game?? It would be interesting indeed to add up all the changes and fixes in all the patches, it must amount to several hundred. Makes one wonder how they could have even considered launching the original 1.07f version doesn't it?).
Mullet Crusader
Celtic Warrior
Only a couple things i don't like about Civ 3:
*Movement Speed
*The AI Cheating
* The AI reputation crap. Start a war with a civ. Any civ. Raze a city. lets say this is 2000 BC. In 2000 AD chances are they will still be furious regardless of what you have done.
But none of these things make me dislike it enough to quit!
*Movement Speed
*The AI Cheating
* The AI reputation crap. Start a war with a civ. Any civ. Raze a city. lets say this is 2000 BC. In 2000 AD chances are they will still be furious regardless of what you have done.
But none of these things make me dislike it enough to quit!
Qitai
.
What's your email? I will send it to you. It maybe outdated though since 1.29 has some additional changes.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Reputation? What a load.
Some AI civ attacks me for no reason (other than to commit suicide to slow my progress down to help its brother AI civs - another cheat). A thousand years later other civs hate me for my "perfidy" with the civ that attacked ME!
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
Says it all for me!
Dino, Sirp: I simply can't stand to do more than play the expansion part to 4 cities atm. Then, I get horribly bored when i have to pile up military and just hope the AI isn't braindead again.....
Sure I will be back - at the latest when all-human-games come round
That will be fun, imagine playing on a small map, archipelago map 8human made, not the crap the game creates), no AIs...... all victory conditions
docceh: roger, wilco!
When civ III came out, I played for about two weeks. But something was missing, and I went back to civII. I LOVE civII - I get so wrapped up in a game that hours can fly by and I think I've only played 20 minutes. No matter what I think of III, I'll always return to II.
Since the patch, I returned to III> and it's a lot better. I can say that with civII, I sometimes wished the computer would gang up. There were times (and as a player, we always know when that was) that the computer SHOULD have ganged up or attacked, or done something to stop me. And they didn't. Civ III has the opposite problem. Just as you are starting to get going, they gang up on you (like clockwork). I started 5 games over the weekend and in all five, they ganged up at some point and crushed me in four (still playing the 5th).
At first, I didn't like the game "speed" as turns seemed to take too long. That seems ok now. The trades CAN be fair - but I don't get it. In my current game two civs (China and Japan I think) were at Polite. I had never had a problem with either. Both were neighbors and I hadn't even done an incursion on either. Rep was perfect, no wars, etc. I asked to trade for a tech. One offered 30 gold, the other 130 gold, world map, and 5 gold per turn. Huh?
But, ultimately, I notice that I'll play for only small unit of time (15-30 minutes) before I'm irritated or bored. That tells me more than anything.
Since the patch, I returned to III> and it's a lot better. I can say that with civII, I sometimes wished the computer would gang up. There were times (and as a player, we always know when that was) that the computer SHOULD have ganged up or attacked, or done something to stop me. And they didn't. Civ III has the opposite problem. Just as you are starting to get going, they gang up on you (like clockwork). I started 5 games over the weekend and in all five, they ganged up at some point and crushed me in four (still playing the 5th).
At first, I didn't like the game "speed" as turns seemed to take too long. That seems ok now. The trades CAN be fair - but I don't get it. In my current game two civs (China and Japan I think) were at Polite. I had never had a problem with either. Both were neighbors and I hadn't even done an incursion on either. Rep was perfect, no wars, etc. I asked to trade for a tech. One offered 30 gold, the other 130 gold, world map, and 5 gold per turn. Huh?
But, ultimately, I notice that I'll play for only small unit of time (15-30 minutes) before I'm irritated or bored. That tells me more than anything.
I seriously don't get this "pile up military" thing. I have never, never once built military, more than one unit per city, for the sole reason of "I have to pile up military to stop the AI attacking". I just build one unit per city, and then more for MP, or if I am planning to attack someone else, or if a city has no peacetime improvements left to build, or very early on, as explorers.
Other than that, every city I have just gets one military defender, and then starts building peaceful buildings, settlers and workers, until it has every peaceful building it can have, and then it builds military.
I very rarely get surprise-attacked. I think it's a farce. My military service ranking is always dead last, yet I don't get attacked. Why not? It's a joke, I should get attacked.
Killer: you'll be back, I'm sure of it
Other than that, every city I have just gets one military defender, and then starts building peaceful buildings, settlers and workers, until it has every peaceful building it can have, and then it builds military.
I very rarely get surprise-attacked. I think it's a farce. My military service ranking is always dead last, yet I don't get attacked. Why not? It's a joke, I should get attacked.
Killer: you'll be back, I'm sure of it
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
Masquerouge
Deity
I know why you resigned from Civ3, ltKiller.
So you can now fully work on the RTFM posts and search function of this forum...
You won't fool me !
So you can now fully work on the RTFM posts and search function of this forum...
You won't fool me !
Similar threads
