Blackbird_SR-71
Spying from 85,000 ft
I never help the weaker civ. its my policy to gobble up all weak civs and struggle to gain more land than anyother superpower.
Protecting Weaker Civs
- Thread starter slatemen
- Start date
fe3333au
Deity
I sometimes protect struggling civs with gifts of tech and cash ...
But when I'm attacked without provication I get angered
and roll through their kingdom taking city after city until they are ready to surrender ... which means that I get all their cash and techs and also gain control of all remaining cities.
So I end up with little one city civilisations scattered in my kingdom, these pets are there as an example to all others who would cross me
But when I'm attacked without provication I get angered
and roll through their kingdom taking city after city until they are ready to surrender ... which means that I get all their cash and techs and also gain control of all remaining cities.So I end up with little one city civilisations scattered in my kingdom, these pets are there as an example to all others who would cross me
Admiral8Q
Prince
I'll protect a small Civ if they're not in the way of my expansion, or if they don't have any resources/luxuries that I need. 
slatemen said:
That's very kind of you! In most of my game, I'm usually the weakest civ. Therefore, I don't have the luxury of defending anyone who can't defend themselves. Also, the only way my weak civ to become stronger is to assimilate other civs, especially one that is just a little bit more advance than us but not too advance.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
The time when I see this phenomenon the most is when I'm playing an Earth map game, like Rhye's of Civilization. It kills me to see some really big civ like Germany, Russia, or France get completely smeared and wiped out. I know it doesn't make any sense strategically, and doesn't help my win, but the caretaker and historian in me make me help these guys out. In my last game, I even reconquered Germany's cities from their conquerors and gave them back to Germany. I was Russia, and something about not having Germany as my neighbor just seemed very wrong .
I also gift techs and resources to the struggling civs, so that they maintain a historical position. When Russia was in the modern era, by golly there shouldn't be anyone on the map that is in the ancient era, just like real life. At that point, the only peoples in the world that are still in the dark ages should be indigenous peoples (i.e., barbarians), not "civs"!
The thing I don't understand (and here is where my post tries to contribute to the discussion, and not just add a "me too") is why the little guys who are in danger of extinction always allow themselves to get roped into wars they'll lose. In my last two Earth games, civs that were on their last legs, like Spain and the Maya, kept accepting military alliances against their uber-powerful neighbors, and I had to keep bailing them out. I imagine they were lured by money or techs by someone else, but still, there should be something in the AI's programming that tells it when to not accept an MA as the weaker party, because those are the times when they are going to get wiped out!
I also gift techs and resources to the struggling civs, so that they maintain a historical position. When Russia was in the modern era, by golly there shouldn't be anyone on the map that is in the ancient era, just like real life. At that point, the only peoples in the world that are still in the dark ages should be indigenous peoples (i.e., barbarians), not "civs"!
The thing I don't understand (and here is where my post tries to contribute to the discussion, and not just add a "me too") is why the little guys who are in danger of extinction always allow themselves to get roped into wars they'll lose. In my last two Earth games, civs that were on their last legs, like Spain and the Maya, kept accepting military alliances against their uber-powerful neighbors, and I had to keep bailing them out. I imagine they were lured by money or techs by someone else, but still, there should be something in the AI's programming that tells it when to not accept an MA as the weaker party, because those are the times when they are going to get wiped out!
Admiral8Q
Prince
I'm also guilty of thatCamber said:
Your overall argument though gives a point in the "A.I should not always be BRIBED!" topic as well. Myself, I may give all my techs to a weak Civ just to prevent stupid going to war on an uber powerfull one.
Ebitdadada
Master Baiter
I usualy protect as many weak civs as I can. I don't really ever go out conquering except possibly once to become sufficiently strong if I didn't get enough land in the initial settler rush. I also usualy play on small maps with about 18 civilizations. My entire foreign policy after I've got a decent sized nation is then composed of maintaining the ballance of power between the other civs. This includes things like blocking land wars by putting lines of troops between two civs or giving techs and money to weaker civs. I've even gone as far as to send workers to other countrys to build up their infurstructure. From time to time I'll actualy declare war on stronger civs that are war mongering and, hopefully, teach them a propper lesson. I'll then take their cities and give them to weaker neighbors.
That said this game would be alot more fun if the AI and diplomatic system wasn't horrible. Hopefully the people who make Civ 4 will play a couple of games made by Paradox entertainment (Europa Universalis, Victoria ect.) and realize how pathetic it is that a tiny Sweadish company can build an excelent diplomatic system and somewhat rational AI (as far as declaring war) while the company making a fairly mass market game are incapible of doing the same. (What the hell were they thinking when the released a game where after nationalism was discovered the world would be at war for the rest of the game!). Anyway, in summary, Civ 3's diplomatic system was/is horrible. Have a nice day!
That said this game would be alot more fun if the AI and diplomatic system wasn't horrible. Hopefully the people who make Civ 4 will play a couple of games made by Paradox entertainment (Europa Universalis, Victoria ect.) and realize how pathetic it is that a tiny Sweadish company can build an excelent diplomatic system and somewhat rational AI (as far as declaring war) while the company making a fairly mass market game are incapible of doing the same. (What the hell were they thinking when the released a game where after nationalism was discovered the world would be at war for the rest of the game!). Anyway, in summary, Civ 3's diplomatic system was/is horrible. Have a nice day!
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
In a recent game I gave a weak, diminished civ their towns back after taking them from a superpower because I didn't have the units available to defend them. It made the borders expand instantly (they had culture there before they lost the towns) all the citizens were converted to the pathetic civ's people, I got right of passage with them so that I could use thier cultural bounderies to heal my armies and any captured workers or arty got teleported back to my capitol. Altogether it was a pretty sweet deal.
ive left small civs around and surrounded them to keep them from being destroyed for no other reason than to keep the other ai in war weariness 
nowthen .. in real life i swallow up my opponents. and here is why. lets suppose we are playing monopoly or something. you are beating everyone and someone says to you "give me a loan or something! give me a chance!" but i say back to him "if i do that i prolong your misery in a losing game. wouldnt you rather the pain to be overwith and just start a new game?"
in civ the ai doesnt really experience any emotion as in real life but to the extent i identify them with real life people the guilt is in attacking them not in conquering them.
nowthen .. in real life i swallow up my opponents. and here is why. lets suppose we are playing monopoly or something. you are beating everyone and someone says to you "give me a loan or something! give me a chance!" but i say back to him "if i do that i prolong your misery in a losing game. wouldnt you rather the pain to be overwith and just start a new game?"
in civ the ai doesnt really experience any emotion as in real life but to the extent i identify them with real life people the guilt is in attacking them not in conquering them.
Similar threads
