The Most Effective World-Dominating Strategy: The Banker... learn how!

[Mullet Crusader]

Conquer the world Illuminati style? LMAO! Yeah, i have a gun closest specifically for when the Illuminati take over completely, or the Majestic Twelve, or the Freemasons, whichever comes first, anyway, bottom line is lock and load.

As for your strategy? You actually got the computer to agree to GPT for Gold deals? How exactly does that work? The computer would probably tell em to go to hell more often than not.......

 

[aneeshm]

Nice strategy . So we are trading a small ( and temporary ) loss of gold to gain land and resources in the long term . I dont mind ( and don't think many other people will ) losing a few hundred gold to get a permanent source of some resource .

 

[jpowers]

The computer doesn't often accept a loan offer (The AI has apparently read about the IMF's bait-and-switch tactics). What it does, though, is accept a 'generous' cash gift and then immediately agree to costly gpt deals for techs or lux. This achieves the same purpose - the AI usually spends its windfall quickly and then has to spend the rest of the 20 turns reducing its research or disbanding units.

 

[Double Barrel]

Interesting read and strategy. I'm currently playing a huge map with 24 civs (only vic condition is conquering), and my civ is the biggest and baddest on the block. I've been trying to figure out a way to instigate wars between other countries in order to keep my democracy out of as many wars as possible. I think I will definitely check this strategy out tonight...hopefully it works to some extent, because it seems too good to be true, IMO.

 

[CaptainMeh]

Neat strat. It's got a lot more finesse then "And then sent in my 97 tanks and conquered the whole world." Anyways...

 

[dexters]

Azik, Are you sure this is on the 1.29f patch? on a Regular Civ III game? Without the PTW expansion?

I quickly tried out the strat described on a game I'm currently playing. At this stage I'm #2 with 3 civs left in an originally 8 player standard map. I was #5 and managed to claw my way up to #2 by cozying up with #1, and riding its coatails when it started wars. I've managed to start a 50 turn war between #1 (Japan) and the former #2 (India) through an MPP. I have exited the war long ago, but Japan and India are still at it. They hate each other.

Anyways, both other civs are about as rich as I am. Japan (#1 civ and with a Polite attitude) has 2200 + gold. Me #2 civ, has 1800+ gold. India #3 Civ has 1200+ Gold and Furious Attitude.

I tried offering my entire treasury to both Japan and India and neither would accept any gpt or lump sum deals, even when they would made a profit. I offered 1,800 gold in exchange for a lump sum of 100 gold to Japan, on Polite, and they still refused it.
I also tried offering Japan 1800 gold in exchange for 1 gpt and my advisor immediately tells me the deal is not going to work.


Frankly, If a Civ on polite refuses, I see holes in your strategy. Either certain conditions must be met, or it simply does not work. And the way the AI and my foreign minister behaves seems to point to a very specific fix Firaxis has made. The AI makes generally competent choices when it trades, but somehow, it refuses the very idea of a loan in exchange for gpt. Even if they turn a profit.

If you can confirm your game version clearly, and explain what conditions (other than Rome is militaristic and it hates France) made it work, then I'd be less skeptical.

 

[Grille]

Welcome to CFC, dexters!

Originally posted by dexters
Azik, Are you surre this is on the 1.29f patch? on a Regular Civ III game? Without the PTW expansion?

Can't speak for Azik, but since he hasn't been around lately:
This works w/o PTW.

Expected since I just made peace with it.

You should not make war while using this strategy (this is a downside, of course)

I tried offering my entire treasury to both Japan and India and neither would accept any gpt or lump sum deals, even when they would made a profit.

There have been a lot of discussions about *stupid* ai, especially their trading behaviour.
Anyway, these rules must be accepted:
-they'll never agree to make gpt payments that exceed their current gpt income
-a ruined reputation of yours lets them act very doubtfully, regardless of their attitude - even if they are gracious; in fact, you can get comparatively the best rate of interest from a furious civ when your reputation is fine!
So it might have occured that...

Frankly, If a Civ on polite refuses, I see holes in your strategy.
Either certain conditions must be met, or it simply does not work.

However, I agree on the last point. Surely, you can't *plan* to win by this stat. But it may help you occasionally. Furthermore, on monarch and higher, it's getting difficult to *feed* your opponents with enough money. And of course, you have to wait for them to start a war.
You'd better take over initiative and declare war on a weak neighbor than waiting for christmas.
Conclusion: Don't bank on banks on higher levels. But play with it.

 

[dexters]

Grille, a question.

Is there a way for me to find out, perhaps through a utility program quantitatively my reputation score? If so, please lead me to the item.

One of civilization 3's great failings it seems is that it lacks enough indicators when it comes to attitude/reputation management.

 

[Grille]

The reputation thing just seems to be sort of *black&white*. Although it is suspected that there's still a *grey* level inbetween. Now I don't want to confuse you. Generally, the quality is more important than the quantity. And I don't know if there's "counter" for quantity of reputation. An indicator of a bad reputation may be a statement of your opponent during negotiations, such as "we know what you did to the Romans".
Only one rep hit (even when received in ancient times) can skrew up trading/deals for the rest of the game.
On the other hand, the "quantities" of attitude have been researched by Bamspeedy. You can read his great arcticle "ai attitude" here
BTW, if there's any concept etc (e.g. rep hit causes) not clear to you: Don't bother to ask in the newbee thread, stickied at the top of "General Discussions".

 

[dexters]

Just a follow up on this whole discussion. I'm currently playing a new game as the Americans. I'm in the early early game. No wars yet. Met my neighbours, the Aztecs. They are polite. I'm rich, 5 cities to their 2. So I give them my entire treasury 402 gold. This gives the Aztecs 440 gold.

Using Azik's banking system, you would expect a breakeven (nominally) return of 402/20 turns = 20 gpt per turn. This is actually a negative interest rate given the time value of money, but as a Finance major, I understand It can get confusing. So I'm just calling it breakeven for the sake of clarity. You'd think the Aztecs would take it. Nope.

So I sweeten the deal. With their expanded bank account, I offer then a tech, pottery in exchange for 20 gpt. Still a no go.

I'll keep trying, but it is increasingly apparent that the banking thing may not work, and may only work, if at all, in very specific circumstances. Reading through the entire thread, I'm surprised no one has actually tried to confirm this. All the discussion up to this point has been theoretical. Unless Azik was playing a pre 1.21f version of Civ3, when the AI was easy to swindle gpt wise, I don't think the banking thing is even feasable. And I've tried it on both Warlord and Regent just to be sure it's not a difficulty setting issue.

this screencap is from a warlord game.

 

[Speaker]

The AI always runs research at a full or nearly full rate in the Ancient Age and they very rarely (if ever) have gpt to spare. You can't usually get GPT from them until the Mid to Late Medieval Age.

 

[dexters]

A couple of more "extreme" trades to prove the point.

trade 1: 405 lump sum in exchange for 1 gpt. The answe is NO

trade 12: 405 lump sum + 3 techs in exchange for 1 gpt. The answe is still NO

 

[Speaker]

They are likely running science so they have a surplus of 0. Check their treasury next turn. Is it still 35?

 

[Grille]

Even if their bank account is expanded, they won't accept a gpt deal that exceeds their income. If their income was 0 gpt and their account was 10,000 gold, you could offer the sweetest things while they won't accept paying any gpt for it. As said before, some call this *stupid*.
Back to the bank: Perhaps it's too early in your game to establish the bank. You might check F3 screen from time to time (but also their *trading behaviour*!) to observe their kind of government. Under despotism, the have very likely a very low gpt income.
Another hint: Sometimes you need to split your money offered. Example: You have around 400 gold to offer. Their income is high enough to accept a loan deal. For some reason, they won't accept a single deal, say 20 gpt for your offer of 380 gold. But 4 individual deals 5gpt/95 gold will do it though. I can't say why, but I have observed such ai manners.
Anyway, regarding your game (they have 2 towns & you have 5), I'd suggest to build up a decent military and kick them...

 

[TheNiceOne]

dexters: In all your examples there is the very simple answer that the AI cannot accept a trade where they pay something they currently don't have. If they have a current net income of 3gpt, they will accept to pay 3gpt for whatever tech you offer, but try to ask for 4gpt and they "will never accept".

Similarily, when they don't have a positive income, they will "never accept" any trade where they give as much as 1gpt, simply because they don't have it.

This thread started explaining one tactic to take away a civ's positive income. The tactic will obviously not work if the civ already is without positive income.

 

[dexters]

I stand corrected. It does work as Speaker, Grille and TheNiceOne has suggested.

The interest rate seems to run between 8 to 10%, but looks to be more like a standard 10%, witht he variability coming from the indivisibility of the gold units during smaller trades but as the amount gets into the thousands, the rate tends towards 10%.

I'd like to add a tip that may be useful to some of you. A quick way to find out if the AI is willing to accept gpt is to test a trade where you give them X, and ask for Y gpt. Your foreign minister apparently knows exactly how much gpt the AI giv makes but he is too lazy to tell you directly . Anyways, if he frowns and tells you "They will never accept such a deal" you know they don't have the gpt to pay for it. If you're asking 1 gpt and your advisor tells you the AI civ won't accept it, that means the AI civ have 0 or maybe negative income.

The same idea applies to civs who can pay you positive amounts of gpt. If you ask for amounts more than they earn, your advisor will tell you "They will never accept such deals".

I don't think the advisor thing is a major discovery, as it seems many already know how to milk the AI of their gpt income. But perhaps it may be news to some of you.

Anyways, thanks to Grille et al. for their patience with my skepticism. I am now convinced.


Edit: As first mentioned in another thread by another poster, I should also mention that it is possible to play banker and still wage war. As I understood it, some of the earlier posts raised concerns over your reputation and war. While it is likely your squeaky clean reputation will take a hit because you wage war, the AI civs are more than willing to overlook the acts of agression. Granted I haven't really razed any cities or nuked anyone and I'm financing the war of the two allies who can pay me considerable amounts of gpt for the banking strat to be worthwhile.

*****
Just as an addendum to the Grille's original thoughts that we shouldn't "bank" on this strategy winning us the game, I wholeheartedly agree. It is a nice way of getting that big fat bank account to generate some money IF you can fine a civ who has the gpt income to pay you. But most AI civs are infact somewhere at 0 gpt for a good part of the game. Or have low gpt incomes where if a banking strategy is possible, you're looking at 3gpt a turn for a loan of 55-54 lump sum. An interest profit of 5 -6 gold.

Secondly, sometimes, you just don't have the cash to do this on a large scale. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but despite managing for research slider and making a decent income, for most of the early to mid game, I'm rush building things, and upgrading units so my treasury is always very low. And I have better uses for that money than the 10% interest. As already noted, on Diety, AI civs simply declare war if you try to get them into a position where they cannot make their financial committments.

 

[Doshin]

Azik, if you want to join I'm running a SG largely based upon your strategy. The thread's here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1050005#post1050005

Or if you just want to let us know if we're going about the game as you would, feel free to comment

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I have tried this strategy (before reading this) and it works, even on diety.

See my GOTM industrial age spoiler for a quick glance. I cant give away the finer details here, so here is a general example. I trade my treasury of about lets say, 300 gold, every turn for gpt in return. Soon, country x declares war on another nation, and in return, every nation declares war on them. Although they are powerful enough to defend themselves, they lose out on the economic front. Their army cannot grow any larger, they are in a stalemate, in a war weariness war, losing out on the economy, and starting to fall apart. After about 10-20 turns they give in, and make peace.

By that time they are low in treasury and gpt, and lose their lead. A better way to set them further back is to sell them your treasury for gpt, then buy back what you sold to them with technologies. Now they have started a war, are low in gpt and in treasury.

Although this strategy by itself is not enough to win the game (there were a few massive factors in my games that have tried this)

So in other words, this is an effective strategy on all levels, but you cant win the game by this. Even an average AI player compared to you will out-research you (but not as much as the weakened superpower). You cant weaken the entire world by this, nor can you perform this in multiple instances (unless you are rather good).

I dont think this is an exploit or a cheap tactic, as you could have just bought a huge army with the money you are selling, which is most probably better (and easier) in some instances. In some instances, this would be the best path to victory, in others, it would not. E.g. if the superpower was on a continent of his own, the strategy would slow the pace, but the superpower would not be destroyed. An ok strategy.
If there were no other evenly matched enemies, the plan could backfire, the superpower becoming more powerful. Bad idea.
But if there were two AI superpowers, evenly matched, sharing borders, this is one of the best strategies out there.

EDIT: See edit II

And if this is considered a too easy way to win, then try a harder game. Give that jungle start a go. Or even harder, try a Dry/Warm/3 billion years/Archipelago/Emporer game. With a start location of tundra, desert, and a bit of grassland. Isn't a cheap way to win easily anymore, is it? (BTW, I lost that game to culture, in 2000 and something AD)

EDIT II: Removed critical analysis of Dexter's tests, as the point had well been proven.

 

[dexters]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
EDIT II: Removed critical analysis of Dexter's tests, as the point had well been proven.

Gingerbread Man, you'd be glad to know that after my initial skepticism, I've become a great fan of this strategy.

I still take issue with how Azik misrepresented the strategy as a sure fire way to win a game. If you are not winning, extra monies could be better spent maxing out research and playing the tech broker or rush building improvements. Even in the cases where you somehow find surplus funds, lending them for 8, 9 or 10% return isn't much. 10% of 1000 gold lump sum is only 100 gold interest spread out over 20 turns. I see that you agree with me ont his point.


RE: your superpower comment. This is highly subject to chance. Unless the two super powers are on a different continent playing banker is a rather risky business as you risk having both come after you. While there is some truth to the fact that AI civs are often eager to knock down their opponents a notch or declare war to weaken a close power rival, they are just as predisposed to attack a weak neighbour. Giving superpowers large cash infusions for gold perturn payments is not a guarantee of both going to war. I've seen plenty of cases in the many games now that I've employed this strategy where the superpowers turned around declared war on some other 2 tier Civ and proceeded tobecome more powerful.

This whole strategy is highly dependent on the situation. it's all about your location. If the AI is far removed, I care more about my profit, they can go beat each other up or pick on someone else. A set of superpowers sitting next door to me will not get the same deals. I'd probably be more willing to play tech broker with them and keep them in check that way. --Even then the definition of superpower is subject to gross misinterpretation. A lot of people refer to superpowers as game leading AI civs, but sometimes the human player is so far ahead it doesn't matter what you give to the AI "superpower" next door. They still aren't a major threat. I apply a more rigorous definition of superpower in my games. Civs are superpowers if they are considerably ahead of the rest of the pact. And by definition, you are looking at at least A Civ with 1.5 to 2 times the power of its cloest rival. In those cases, if the human player is in the same league, you would not want to give your rivals those large lump sum gold. You'd give them to the non superpowers and forego the large payments for more modest interest incomes.

Originally posted by jpowers
The computer doesn't often accept a loan offer (The AI has apparently read about the IMF's bait-and-switch tactics). What it does, though, is accept a 'generous' cash gift and then immediately agree to costly gpt deals for techs or lux. This achieves the same purpose - the AI usually spends its windfall quickly and then has to spend the rest of the 20 turns reducing its research or disbanding units.

It depends. Playing "Banker" is more of a win-win for me and the AI. I get my money working for me instead of sitting in my treasury doing nothing and giving an AI civ a cash infusion usually means they will rushbuild improvements.

It is not uncommon to have an AI increase its gpt income as a result of this deal and they are now in a position to pay higher prices (if I have a tech lead). It's a good way to accumulate wealth and to constructively help an AI civ without giving them free money.

As for a loan offer, I don't think you can offer the AI a loan. I don't recall every seeing it as a conversational option in my diplomatic dealings. You CAN ask the AI to loan you money though. What Azik is discussing is a synthetic loan, a loan that the game AI doesn't see as a loan, but the trading mechanism is such that the cashflow mimmicks it.

 

[Smirk]

Originally posted by wargasm23
Originally posted by "T-hawk":
Give Azik Blaze a break, this a impressive thread or none of you would have bothered to even post here.

No offense but this is a lame thread. He is basically describing loans, you can no doubt read this in the manual. If you have ever taken out a loan the mechanics should be simple.

As to the use of this strategy, I doubt highly this would work well in general use. Its far more effective to just ally with Rome to fight France, not to mention I would be pretty wary with Rome breaking deals anyway since they often do. Forcing them below their gpt is shaky as well for a number of reasons, they have a slider and lots of room to modify their gpt, the secondly is simply they get a lot of free unit maintanence.

This strategy could at most be used instead of other tradable assests like luxuries and techs. If you are not leading in tech, and have no luxuries to trade you can try being a banker.