Some old issues

[gozpel]

Yep, I checked pangea all those times and never I've got a one continent map...but I keep trying.
I want pangea because I have played many maps with continents already, same with archipelago maps and now I want the comfort to go all over the map without having to use slow ships.

Sorry if I sounded whingy, that wasn't my intention...the last thing I want to do is to upset fanboys (I'm one myself I better add!)

And alright Zachriel, I give in and accept your remarks too logical too disagree with Frustration can make one sound silly and it's better to play on and perhaps I will find "my map" one day.
And even if the civs keep bullying me to the end, it's not always sure they will win if war is declared...as the game I mentioned before in the thread. I waited and kept the Babs at bay and finally eridacated them. I forgot about the Russians tho, they finally won on spacerace, hope the Iroquois will do better in my new game.

 

[pompeynunn]

I can understand some of Gozpels reaction to incursions of borders.

Whilst it is logical for a superior AI civ to exploit a weaker human civ (after all, we will do it to him!), I believe that more credit should be given for the players actions towards the AI. For example, if you consistently tolerate incursions into your borders that help the AI civ, you are on good terms with the AI civ, and you are at least as powerful, or even more powerful, than the AI civ, then perhaps the AI civ should be more tolerant to your own incursions. I hate the way I can't explore using triremes because all the coastal squares on a continent are taken by the AI civs. If I allow an AI trireme passage round my territory to explore the world peacefully, then why can't he do the same for me?

However, if the AI civ is stronger than me, then I don't blame him for pushing his luck!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel


So the Babylonian comes up to you and says you are standing on his rock. Well, you would be within your rights to declare war. What's holding you back? Have you been smoking too much of the peace pipe? Or is the bully Babylonian scaring you?

Zach, calm down , the game's ridiculous in this respect and you know it! After all, the AI will even cancel ROPs and demand you leave right away when to only thing between their 1-Rifleman-defended lasst city and 25 enemy tanks is your troops on the 1 square in between......

Sure, they have a right to tell me to get lost, but the AI should be loth to do it when I'm twice as strong and it has 25 undefended workers in my borders.....


Ahhh, you know what the pinot here is?????? For the AI to feel threatened and overmatched, you need to bring 20 times their forces. For them top feel more powerfull, they need to have 50% of your forces (according to advisor, that is!!!!!)

I got the Japanese to pay me tech for prolonging peace treaties last game, twice! But I had 212 Immortals and 60% of the land and they had 1 city no iron..... Before, they had refused to give me tech for peace after I had clobbered them from 10 to 2 cities in 2 turns.......

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by gozpel
And alright Zachriel, I give in and accept your remarks too logical too disagree with

Quick! Call a doctor.

Or maybe we should report gozpel's post. Is this against forum rules, to actually change one's mind or admit even the possibility of a mistaken notion? It's never happened on Civfanatics, so there must be some sort of rule -- but there is no precedent. I'm so confused. Maybe it's a trick. Yes, expel the invaders. Borders should be inviolate! Or not. We must study the situation. There's spies everywhere. Who goes there?



Mary had a little lamb. It's fleece was white as snow. . . .

 

[pompeynunn]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Quick! Call a doctor.

Or maybe we should report gozpel's post. Is this against forum rules, to actually change one's mind or admit even the possibility of a mistaken notion? It's never happened on Civfanatics, so there must be some sort of rule -- but there is no precedent. I'm so confused. Maybe it's a trick. Yes, expel the invaders. Border should be inviolate! Or not. We must study the situation. There's spies everywhere. Who goes there?



Mary had a little lamb. It's fleeces was white as snow. . . .

Nope, it happened earlier this week when a well reasoned argument by Hamlet persuaded me to modify my position in the Celts vs Gauls thread!

But I agree, a very unusual situation - perhaps the quality of the argument is improving?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by pompeynunn
However, if the AI civ is stronger than me, then I don't blame him for pushing his luck!

Sometimes it is best to keep a low profile. Here, a couple dozen Persian infantry are helping themselves to a shortcut through my territory, while my Mounted Warriors and spearmen stand at the ready.

I don't consider this a problem with the game mechanics. Just a "slight" problem with my technical development. Who was I to complain about the mighty Persian army? Fortunately, the Persians just wanted to get to the remnants of the Russian Empire (which I encouraged whole-heartedly). I never had saltpeter, but I was able to upgrade to riflemen in a few more turns, then infantry shortly after that.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Hehe, Zach, it`s nice to see you humble for once

I agree that respassing is OK for strong civs (though they should also get internal trouble fter a while if demo or republic!), what is annoying is the AI being a lot weaker and still going on and on and on.....


Heres an idea: why can't we get "limited" ROPs? like a ROP for scouts, settlers (plus 1(!) escort!) that you cannot deny without a slight reputation hit and cannot deny at all for workers? They could cost a fee like 1 Gold per every 3 turns in the territory (payable after turns 1, 4, 7.....). Also, the same could be applied to military units, but at 1 Gold / turn / unit. This would keep the AI from milling aimlessly around. Units that do not pay (AI broke!) have a 10% risk of defection.....

This should get the AI to restrict their movements or sign proper, all-out ROPs.....

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Hehe, Zach, it`s nice to see you humble for once

Have I told about my Luxembourg strategy?

Hi, Joan baby. How 'bout a little saltpeter?

Dearest Catherine, you look lovely today. Is that a new dress? By the way, I have some gems you may be interested in.

Bismark, my fine gentleman. Here is your annual tribute. What do you mean it's not enough? And would you please tell your Panzers to stay off the palace lawn. Thank you very much.

 

[Bamspeedy]

IIRC, 5 billion vs. 3 billion doesn't radically change the ratio of mountains to plains, etc. -- I think the "age option" primarily affects the distribution (or clumping) of terrain types.

The age does affect the number of mountains greatly. On a 5 billion year map mountains are rare (thus iron is hard to find).

Gozpel - Wet and warm is the condition you want if you like jungles. Wet, warm, 5 billion ,the map is almost entirely jungle/plains/grassland. I have started about 100 games with pangea/wet/warm/5 billion years on a huge map and that's what the terrain is 99% of the time. There is very little tundra by the poles, and very little desert by the equator. There is massive jungle near the middle of the map, with large stretches of grassland near the poles usually, and plains everywhere else.

Yes, you will occasionally start out by the desert or tundra, but there usually is very little of it, compared to the rest of the map. And yes, I sometimes get continents or start on an island when I select pangea. If I start on an island, when I select pangea map, I'll restart, but if the Zulu start on some puny island....

 

[God]

Bamspeedy: Are you sure its 3 billion without the mountains? I thought it 5 billion was the way to go.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Have I told about my Luxembourg strategy?

Hi, Joan baby. How 'bout a little saltpeter?

Dearest Catherine, you look lovely today. Is that a new dress? By the way, I have some gems you may be interested in.

Bismark, my fine gentleman. Here is your annual tribute. What do you mean it's not enough? And would you please tell your Panzers to stay off the palace lawn. Thank you very much.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Bamspeedy: Are you sure its 3 billion without the mountains? I thought it 5 billion was the way to go.

Oops, you're right. I'll edit my post. 5 billion for fewer mountains!

 

[punkbass2000]

I thought the older age just meant the tarrain types didn't group together as much.

 

[Bamspeedy]

It mights do that, I'm not sure. But the biggest difference is that there is more erosion, so you have fewer mountains/hills.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Well, I just read the manual and according to that it states that the young world is where the terrain types occur in clusters. For the older world it mentions that erosion 'soften the terrain features'. In my experience I have noticed far fewer mountains on a 5 billion year map. On a 3 billion year map, mountains and hills are everywhere.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Well, I just read the manual and according to that it states that the young world is where the terrain types occur in clusters. For the older world it mentions that erosion 'soften the terrain features'. In my experience I have noticed far fewer mountains on a 5 billion year map. On a 3 billion year map, mountains and hills are everywhere.

That's what I remembered from the manual and what prompted my IIRC statement. And we all know that the manual is accurate to a fault . I tend to play random, so 3B vs 5B could very well mean more/less clumping AND more/less hills & mountains.

 

[Grawss]

I like ships! I normally play on archipalango just because I don't want to be pushed around and I can claim all the territory I want without infringing on the enemy's territory but personally, when I used to play on chieftan, I had the same problem of the enemy coming on to my territory with thier stupid settlers. And getting off the subject, does anyone know any answers to why the enemy keeps building cities? The english had 49 cities on a large map! I hate that when they can build twice as many cities than me in half the time! BTW, I have the 1.21 patch.

 

[Insomniac]

What I find immensly irritating is the the difference in attitude the AI civs display when they are dealing with each other compared to the way they treat the human player - especially when it comes to tresspassing: when U are at war with a civ it ALWAYS uses everbody else's territory as transit area or "bases" for hit and run tactics regardless of whether it has passage agreements or not (and regardless of resp. military strenghts). If U try to do something similar everbody is screaming bloo... murder.
Don't misunderstand me - I like for the game to be difficult, but in a logic and fair way, and sometimes in CIV III the feeling of "the rest of the World against you" takes a bit of the fun out of it.

Also with the latest patch civs are "furious" with you most of the time - a big dif. from prepatch...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I guess this is the same as Regent being fair - but AI-AI trade was at 120......

Same here, the AI is dealing (ROP in this case) more easily wwith an AI.... not good!!!!!

 

[Bamspeedy]

Same here, the AI is dealing (ROP in this case) more easily wwith an AI.... not good!!!!!

ROP is based almost entirely by land size. If your territory is bigger than theirs they will pay more for it. It doesn't matter how convenient or strategic the land is, just how big it is. I often sell ROP to smaller civs for alot of money. But if your rep is screwed, ROP is worthless.

Now, as far as map setting I started a few games and used mapstat. For wet/warm pangea maps, the difference between the age of the map resulted in the new worlds (3 billion) having almost always 2-3 times more mountains and hills as the old worlds (5 billion). 5 billion had more jungles than 3 billion, and usually the same amount of grassland (although on one map, the 5 billion had 500 more grassland tiles than any other map). The rest of the terrain was pretty close for each age, and varied quite a bit to determine anything. Tundra and flood plains were almost non-existant (anywhere from 4-172 tiles out of 4500+ land tiles on the map!). And yes, on the 3 billion year maps all of the terrain seemed to be clumped together, better. Another thing is that 3 billion had the most tiles possible before you reach domination (about 7-10% more tiles than the 5 billion year maps)!