That's amazing since I had enough trouble just keeping them off my cities fat cross. I would be interested reading a post how to win civ1 or civ2 without building any military. Still I fail to see how civ3/civ4 was more of a war-like than civ1/civ2 was. I remember building the Great Wall often in Civ2 in order to have peace and even then it still didn't keep them off my back. Also In civ2 spies was a little too powerful as you could buy cities a lot cheaper than build an army to conquer them.
I'm sick of the broken diplo !
- Thread starter Navarre
- Start date
The only military i had was what i used as MPs in the citys before repub and democracy came into effect and what came with the citys when i aquired them from my enemys its a method of play that has you constantly hounding your enemy so thay cant hound you seeing as standard combat was iffy at best on the highest setting. near the end to save turns i dropped a nuke on there last city and walked in with some of the surplus units i gained from my foes, so i did build military but i dont think militia men stand much chance aginst the more modern barbs that can sometimes spawn.
If the method was overly powerful in civ 2 then it may be partly the prices set in civ 1 as that had a income cap of 30,000 and would not hurt my feelings none to see it a little harder with your foes useing it on you when you arent looking or so.
If the method was overly powerful in civ 2 then it may be partly the prices set in civ 1 as that had a income cap of 30,000 and would not hurt my feelings none to see it a little harder with your foes useing it on you when you arent looking or so.
In what xml file this can be done?
r_rolo1
King of myself
If we could simply red out things like the AI can......
This would only cause more confusion as of why the AI declared war on you. The whole purpose of red out is to keep the player wasting time asking the AI something it will not trade.
r_rolo1
King of myself
^^But it would make the game more symmetrical... I'm currently playing a SG where we have the objectives of founding every religion ( done ),having every religion in all of our cities, having our first founded religion ( budhist ) as SR of all civs ( done ) and having our first founded religion in every city in the world. As you can imagine the world could be a love fest, but because of the stupid AI requests ( that even with all the people of the same religion stills wants to fight wars ( sour bloods from long time ago ) ) we are the least loved civs and we're facing a double DoW ATM because of that....
What I'm saying is that the fact of the humans can't redline and the AI can ( I would be happy if both humans and AI would play by the same set of rules, whichever it is ) makes the diplo shift against the Humans, because AI will never have a diplo - because of a request/demand of another AI.
What I'm saying is that the fact of the humans can't redline and the AI can ( I would be happy if both humans and AI would play by the same set of rules, whichever it is ) makes the diplo shift against the Humans, because AI will never have a diplo - because of a request/demand of another AI.
You got to make diplomacy somewhat against the player or the game will be a cakewalk where the player has pretty much control over the AI civs just like civ3.
On the other hand the player never gives any attitude clues to the AI. The player can attack anytime and for reasons completely unknown to the AI. And the AI always has to be prepared. Ever thought about that beeing slightly unfair?
r_rolo1
King of myself
@ Smidlee
True enough, but we already have the stuff in the Civ handicaps file giving humans a demerit in terms of diplo. So if we already are handicapped, why having a unsymmetrical game mechanics?
@gps
If we are going that way, AI doesn't buy the game, so that is unsymmetrical as well. They should pay us to be in our games
True enough, but we already have the stuff in the Civ handicaps file giving humans a demerit in terms of diplo. So if we already are handicapped, why having a unsymmetrical game mechanics?
@gps
If we are going that way, AI doesn't buy the game, so that is unsymmetrical as well. They should pay us to be in our games
r_rolo1
King of myself
@Bhruic
WFYABTA.... Noble between AI , level dependant towards humans. If that is not a handicap to Humans in highers levels.... I know it is not explicitly coded ,but it is "under the skin"
WFYABTA.... Noble between AI , level dependant towards humans. If that is not a handicap to Humans in highers levels.... I know it is not explicitly coded ,but it is "under the skin"
Bhruic,
I think the handicap is...well for example, if you're Hindi, and Gandhi is Buddhist, often times you can not even suggest for him to convert. "That goes against everything we believe in!" Where as the computer can endlessly request for the player to convert religions. When the player chooses to not convert, the player then suffers penalties. I think that is what they are calling imbalanced favouring the AI.
I disagree and I believe that the diplomacy system is balanced towards the human players. My games often reflect this, as I do my best to exploit the diplomacy system in my advantage. I've played, and won, many games where I've only produced 2-3 military units per city...usually warriors and/or archers. The diplomacy system is rather simple if you are hell bent on avoiding war. Learn your foreign advisor's screen, and check it often.
Choosing sides is important. You must know who is aligned with whom, and how they feel about others. This is especially key during or before a war. If you want to remain friends with BOTH parties, instantly close open boarders with all civilizations involved, the moment they start to have issues with each other. You suffer no penalties for manually closing boarders (but receive less or no bonuses.) Where as if you let side 1 demand that you close boarders with side 2, and you say "sure" you suffer penalties with side 2. Also stop trading with both sides. This means canceling all current resource and gold trades, as well as no trading technologies, gold nor world maps with them.
Would you rather not trade at all, or choose sides?
Micromanagement on the domestic level increases your success in CivIV, it only makes sense that micromanagement on the international level increases your success as well.
How is that unbalanced? There is no mechanism for human like of the AI. Or, more properly, there is no feedback mechanism for the AI with regards to the human's perceptions of them. As far as they are concerned, the human may very well hate them for their requests (which for some people seems to be the case). But there is, and can be, no way for the AI to know that. That's just a reality, not an imbalance.
Or, to put a different spin on it, you might as well call it biased in the humans favour, because we can choose to go to war when we are "friendly" with the AI. Or we can choose to cancel deals that are in our favour. Or we can refuse to make trades that are obviously good. How many times do we see someone come here and complain that the AI won't accept a grossly uneven trade. Is the reverse not true? Can the human not turn down even a grossly uneven trade?
The human has all the advantages when it comes to diplomacy. Claiming that it's unbalanced in the AIs favour strikes me as ludicrous. Yes, the AI will come to you with demands, and yes, you're either going to have to give in to the demands, or suffer diplomatic penalties. But since the human has a default advantage to begin with, that merely offsets the advantage, it doesn't reverse it.
Bh
Bhruic,
I'm not sure if your post was directed at me or not, but regardless I want to say that I agree with you. I've only had Civ a few months, and I'm playing on Monarch+. Part of this is because I am anal about micromanaging. I micromanage my workers, cities, specialists, civics, religions, diplomacy, military units, espionage, and research. Everything is directly or indirectly related to everything else.
For example, if I have a new city site that is 12 spaces away, and no horses nor ivory in my BFC, there are three (basic) ways to do this.
1) Move your unescorted settler blindly through the fog, and hope that no enemy civs nor barbarians show up to whack your settler, but at the same time not delaying it's movement.
2) Move your settler with a military units, denying the settler their 2nd move. This results in a new city being built 3-5 turns later, but ensures it will not be an easy target if a barbarian shows up.
3) Use two or three military units in set positions such that they can see (fog bust) the entire path from my city to the new site. This ensures that no barbarians will spawn in the direct path. If barbarians do rear their ugly heads, move your military unit(s) to intercept. This protects the settler from barbarians at the same time doesn't delay the city being built.
This micromanagement of my military units permits a new city to be quickly erected and safely, decreasing the time it will take for that city to turn into a thriving city of whatever I wanted that city to do, increasing my empire's overall efficiency and power quickly. Doing 10 different micromanagement "thing" can mean the difference in having a strong army of catapults 10 or 15 turns before your enemy even has construction, or having the enemy have a strong army of catapults 10 to 15 turns before you have construction.
Diplomacy is the same way. If you aren't constantly checking the diplomacy screen you are going to have a tougher time than someone who lives and dies by the diplomacy screen. Get to know your neighbours! Talk to them, constantly. Find out who they're on good terms with. Find out who they hate. Find out who those people like and hate. Create a spiderweb in your mind of who likes who, and who hates who. Sometimes there are two large factions that hate each other, (think Hatfields and McCoys) other times there are multiple factions, with 2 powerhouses of a few civs, and multiple 1-2 civs that are fairly isolated diplomatically. Sometimes it's more beneficial to team up with a neutral 2 civ faction than to join the 5 civ faction that is currently at war with another 5 civ faction.
It is up to YOU to decide. And that's where micromanagement comes in. The diplomacy system isn't that tough to figure out if you put your mind to it. But just like anything else in civ, don't expect to master a new strategy your first game practicing it. Attention and experience are what it takes to master anything in civ. But especially experience.
I'm not sure if your post was directed at me or not, but regardless I want to say that I agree with you. I've only had Civ a few months, and I'm playing on Monarch+. Part of this is because I am anal about micromanaging. I micromanage my workers, cities, specialists, civics, religions, diplomacy, military units, espionage, and research. Everything is directly or indirectly related to everything else.
For example, if I have a new city site that is 12 spaces away, and no horses nor ivory in my BFC, there are three (basic) ways to do this.
1) Move your unescorted settler blindly through the fog, and hope that no enemy civs nor barbarians show up to whack your settler, but at the same time not delaying it's movement.
2) Move your settler with a military units, denying the settler their 2nd move. This results in a new city being built 3-5 turns later, but ensures it will not be an easy target if a barbarian shows up.
3) Use two or three military units in set positions such that they can see (fog bust) the entire path from my city to the new site. This ensures that no barbarians will spawn in the direct path. If barbarians do rear their ugly heads, move your military unit(s) to intercept. This protects the settler from barbarians at the same time doesn't delay the city being built.
This micromanagement of my military units permits a new city to be quickly erected and safely, decreasing the time it will take for that city to turn into a thriving city of whatever I wanted that city to do, increasing my empire's overall efficiency and power quickly. Doing 10 different micromanagement "thing" can mean the difference in having a strong army of catapults 10 or 15 turns before your enemy even has construction, or having the enemy have a strong army of catapults 10 to 15 turns before you have construction.
Diplomacy is the same way. If you aren't constantly checking the diplomacy screen you are going to have a tougher time than someone who lives and dies by the diplomacy screen. Get to know your neighbours! Talk to them, constantly. Find out who they're on good terms with. Find out who they hate. Find out who those people like and hate. Create a spiderweb in your mind of who likes who, and who hates who. Sometimes there are two large factions that hate each other, (think Hatfields and McCoys) other times there are multiple factions, with 2 powerhouses of a few civs, and multiple 1-2 civs that are fairly isolated diplomatically. Sometimes it's more beneficial to team up with a neutral 2 civ faction than to join the 5 civ faction that is currently at war with another 5 civ faction.
It is up to YOU to decide. And that's where micromanagement comes in. The diplomacy system isn't that tough to figure out if you put your mind to it. But just like anything else in civ, don't expect to master a new strategy your first game practicing it. Attention and experience are what it takes to master anything in civ. But especially experience.
A lot of things the AI does are easy to figure out. You always have to keep in mind: the better the AI plays, the longer it takes the computer to calculate. And I often hear claims here, the computer is already taking too much time. So what do you want? A flawless playing AI that perfectly simulates a human player - but you need to wait 3 weeks between turns, or a dumbed down AI that almost but only almost plays like a human player but finishes turn within a handfull of seconds??? I think what we got with CIV is still a good compromise. And if you want to have the feeling of playing against human beeings, maybe you should try playing against human beeings?
onedreamer
Dragon
Your problem is your lack of understanding you're dealing with an artifical intelligence. An AI does not think and does not understand... but you do. So once you learn this simple concept you will learn how to "diplomatically" deal with the AI. In fact, there is nothing diplomatic in it.
Would have answered sooner but got distracted, go to the civilizations folder in the XML section that is inside the assests folder and in there will be a Leaderheadinfo XML file the first civ on the list will be the barbs, just be for worned in order to make a signifigant diffrance you have to change each AI barbs dont do diplomacy so you can skip them.
Have fun wolfstorm.
Have fun wolfstorm.
Ambidexter
Edjumacated Idjit
My only objection to diplomacy is that the negative points last forever. In my last game, Isabella asked me to convert to her religion and I refused. 2,000 years later, that was still being held against me, even though she had converted to a different religion herself.
Similar threads
