So annoyed... literally.

[TROD]

Hey guys, i have a problem with my Civ III game. Up to about 1700, i was the most liked civilization, giving gold and stuff to the poor nations, and readily avoiding war and trading with the better countries. All my relations were polite, apart from when i accidently went into enemy territory etc.

Then, the Indians RANDOMLY declared war on me (how likely it is that Ghandi would do that) and so obviously, i defended myself. He took one of my cities which was near their land, so i when he refused to acknowledge my envoy, i decided to get my friends the French, Portguese and Arabia to also declare war, all accepted without me having to offer anything.

After about 20 or so turns (around the same length as adeal lasts i think) i noticed that one nation had declared peace, and that a few Indian cities had been taken. I contacted Ghandi and offered a peace treaty, as you do.

I ended my turn, and on the next turn i wanted to exchange Physics with the French or something, so when i went to the foreign minister screen, i was a tad surprised that ALL the faces were annoyed or furious... Every single one, including Ghandi, all ... 14 in the game or whatever i have on.

20/30 turns later and it's still the same, people dont want to renew deals with me, they wont accept rights of passage or mutual protection acts or anything! It's almost as if i've invaded India, taken 30 of their cities before commencing nuclear bombing on Delphi or something! I'm genuinly gettting reallty annoyed about this, because whatever i do, however much i try to offer technologies and stuff to people, THEY ALL STILL HATE ME!

I'm so confused, Civ II was never this complicated

 

[DBear]

You broke the alliance by making peace with India. Even with the 20 turns passing that you say, you are still technically in alliance with the other nations. After the 20 turns, manually cancel each alliance--then make peace with India.

 

[vmxa]

Civ2 was too easy, now you have choices to make that matter. Understand that as the game progresses you will eventually find the AI will be less happy with you, unless you are steady doing for them.

This makes sense as you should be getting stronger and having more things that they want, like tech, lux, resource and gold.

Now if you had an alliance Vs India with someone and made peace, before the deal ran 20 turns, you will take a rep hit. You need to cancel the deal and then make peace. This means no more gpt deals, you have to pay in full up front, be it cash or techs or whatever.

Forget about Ghandi, he is often one the more nasty guys in the game, act accordinly.

The real question is why you were not in a position taken many towns form him so late in the game with several allies? I know why, I suspect.

 

[TROD]

dont understand your last sentence. Oh and sorry i probably didnt elabourate, i've played Civ III most days since i bought it two years ago, so i know about how it changes etc.

Its just that, in tens and tens of games, ive never had every nation be angry at me for over 50 years, and with seemingly no way of being able to change that.

 

[vmxa]

I can't addresst the furious not being seen in your games, except I am guessing you play low levels and are a builder/peaceful player.

How long someone has played is not relevant as many participate in things and never really understand how to excel at them. My dad used to always tell be he had been play Pinochle for all these year and knew how to play.

My response was that all I could say is I was far better at it than he was and he could not out play me, only get better cards once in a while. Fact is I would beat players when they had better cards as long as it was not outrageous.

My last sentence was in reference to the scores of players that have posted the same thing as you did here and at other forums. When you look at their games they have not manage their empire very well.

They have been too slow to expand, too slow to get workers and did not use the workers properly. They always have every structure they have the tech for in nearly every town as soon as they get the tech, they built it.

They have too many defenders, don't make contacts nearly fast enough and will not crush the AI when it goes to war with them. I have played out so many of those games that they post where they could not beat it or this problem or that problem.

Now I could be completely wrong in your case, so forgive me is that is the case. Post a save and we will see.

Now to you last point. It is the norm for all civs to be furious with you once you have gone to war with many of them, broken alliances and so forth. Once you get to the late middle ages or later in the game and a civ does get furious, it is quite an effort to get them off of it.

Frankly I would not even try, I would just wipe them out, one by one. So post the 1700AD save you mentioned. Last week a Warlord game on a large map was posted saying it was not going to be won. I saw the same issues and played that save out to win easily by domination and was declare magnificent.

So that suggest that the evaluation of the status of the game was just a bit off. Me I like high level games where the first time I met a civ, it is already annoyed with me and it is not uncommon to have then be furious upon contact.

Even better if it is played as Always War and you never can make peace.

 

[TROD]

haha! what a post.

Nah i bow down to your knowledge, you have me almost down to a tee. Im just a freindly player, much happier to build my nation up with high culture, and see them tower above the rest of the world in inteligence lol. HOWEVER, on this game im the largest population and i have the largest military, so i guess i deviate from what you say there!

Actually you raise an interesting point though, the problem with playing Civ "boringly", or, peacefully, is that you get the innevitible endgame bog-down, all the sciences are exausted and there is nothing else left to do.

By raging war on people who originally attack you, would certainly be more interesting, and would probably prove a far harder challenge as you strive to bridge holes within your over-strectched military. Certainly interesting.

I may well try doing that, I am right next door to the Arabs, and they are constantly furious with me (rather than annoyed) and in most other games, nations that are furious with you tend to (at some point down the line) attack in numbers.

I may actually start a new game at some point tomorrow, with a smaller map and try to be aggressive for once, havent "properly" been aggressive since i played with the Mongols on Civ II, and attempted to play them like history

 

[vmxa]

The interesting thing is that you can do a rather peaceful game at Monarch or less. You probably will have to stay at Warlord or be very nice to the AI to keep them happy at the end game.

What is required either way is to tighten up just a bit on the empire. Just a bit more aggressive on having a large enough worker pool. Just a bit more diligent getting them to do useful task in a timely manner.

A few less structures in places that cannot really take advantage of them. Such as no lib in that 1 beaker town, even if it is size 6. Not putting up that temple as soon as you can, but wait till you can do it quickly.

Barracks only where you need them, that is to say, where you are making troops or the frontline.

No cath/coloseum ever. Later banks only where you are netting enough gold and if you are running taxes above 10% much of the time. Conversely uni's only were you are making enough beakers and are going to run research above 40%.

Skip spears altogether in games below Monarch. wait for pikes and then only what you actually need.

This is enough to smash low level games without being a hardcore warrior type. The times you do go to war, be prepared to crush them. Take 4-6 towns in a few turns and end the war quickly or eliminate them.

Note that if you raze AI towns, they will all get ticked. Eventually you will be too strong and they should be mad anyway.

Another thing that makes them unhappy is if you are founding towns right on their culture borders.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I can play pretty peaceful games above emperor. I have never played a game at that level where I had no wars at all, but it's perfectly possible to play a peaceful game.

There is a whole article in the war academy about AI attitude - one hit on attitude is being ahead. The AI doesn't like you if you are stronger than them.

 

[TROD]

interesting points vmxa, the whole "not building improvements that arent useful" thing is something i've been telling myself since Civ II, yet for whatever random reason; i fail to heed notice.

That one library in that border town eh Been there

 

[vmxa]

I can play pretty peaceful games above emperor. I have never played a game at that level where I had no wars at all, but it's perfectly possible to play a peaceful game.

It is possible to play peaceful at any level, I would suppose. The questions are, what does one mean by peaceful and what are the settings. You can surely play peaceful in an OCC.

The reason I cut it off at Monrch is not that you cannot, but rather what does one mean by peaceful and how much are you willing to work to have it?

I figure the peaceful builder is talking about not ever starting a war. Maybe even not going all out to eliminate a civ that declares upon them. They tend to go to peace as soon as it is offered or even ask for it.

They do not start wars to gain land and those criteria makes Emperor a hard go. This is especially true if you start isloated or surrounded.

 

[TROD]

so you're saying that without playing offensively, it's very hard to play the game on a top difficulty setting?

 

[Captain2]

I have the same problem as you, I am usually peaceful unless I see an enemy with a big disadvantage, or if the knights templar gives me too many crusadiers

i'm actually in a game i've played from begining to end, only three wars, only one of them actually fought on the enemys home land, first one was in the roman home land, second agianst russia because one of their cities culture swallowed up my defenses and another simply because I wanted to see a war between france (ally) and japan (enemy)

so i imagine i'm only like one or two agression levels up but i know how it is to just build

 

[vmxa]

The reason you need to fight some on say Demi or better is that the AI will fill the land in a hurry. Now how do yo get more land at that point? The only way is to take it.

The other thing is that at those levels they will see you as weak for quite a time and feel free to attack you or make demands. It is not hard to lose a town to a demi or deity AI in the AA. If you only managed to get 7-8 planted, losing one is a clamity.

 

[TROD]

so offence is the best form of defence, i guess.

 

[Captain2]

unless your playing as the civ i invented, the kirsmuggens, their UU is the pillow fighter, mongols ripped the poor buggers apart

 

[vmxa]

so offence is the best form of defence, i guess.

Exactly, MAD works. The civs see you with say 30 units and they are all knights, you get percieved as stronger than if you had 10 knights and 30 spears.

Thus having offensive units does two thing. 1) you look stronger to the AI 2) you are able to do more damage if you do have to fight.

 

[TROD]

god you're so right about this. Ok, today i've had nothing to do so i started a new game with the Mongols

I started on a small island, and apart from temples, made no other improvements to start with. Workers and settlers were the only non-offensive units i made. I got across to the viking homeland and within a matter of turns, found that i already had like 25 archers/swordsmen occupying my one outpost-town i'd built there! To be fair, it wasnt "totally" out of chraracter for me, the Vikings had threatened to kill me if i didnt give them monarchy...

Anyway i have already taken six of their cities, and the Americans have also started war with me. It really is very weird to play offence as the best form of defence, by not allowing the other civs to rest (by giving a peace treaty) they soon become totally overworked and their cities impossible to defend.

I'm really enjoying this as a new aspect to playing, also, back in the mainland i can happily go about my usual city-building stuff! Best of all worlds!

I'm power-mad

 

[Little Corporal]

god you're so right about this. Ok, today i've had nothing to do so i started a new game with the Mongols

I started on a small island, and apart from temples, made no other improvements to start with. Workers and settlers were the only non-offensive units i made. I got across to the viking homeland and within a matter of turns, found that i already had like 25 archers/swordsmen occupying my one outpost-town i'd built there! To be fair, it wasnt "totally" out of chraracter for me, the Vikings had threatened to kill me if i didnt give them monarchy...

Anyway i have already taken six of their cities, and the Americans have also started war with me. It really is very weird to play offence as the best form of defence, by not allowing the other civs to rest (by giving a peace treaty) they soon become totally overworked and their cities impossible to defend.

I'm really enjoying this as a new aspect to playing, also, back in the mainland i can happily go about my usual city-building stuff! Best of all worlds!

I'm power-mad

Temples are not a necessity, don't make them in every town! Use libraries in towns that need a cultural expansion to get a useful resource, or better yet, build your town close enough so they link up automatically.