 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:34
|
|
vxma1 thats a bit extreme isn't it? Having diplomacy removed totally??
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:34
|
|
Yeah I'm definitely holding out for the days of almost pure AI (ie can think for itself). In those days we will see a AI that can compete on par with a human player. It'll be a day of glorious celebration with people crowding the streets getting drunk celebrating the birth of pure AI. Well not quite but you get my drift.
In my opinion diplomacy is the only thing lacking in Civ. Everything else is fine by me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
I definately try to take what I need. it's better to control something than to trade for something, but i place my weights differently.
I play really with an eye on balance of power, advancing my interests through friendly contacts and exploiting openenings by helping one side over the other if I have a goal to contain someone.
It's always better to have two AI clobber each other while I build than be a party in a war that I'm not prepared to fight anyways. This probably comes in part because I'm more of a builder and under most circumstances, my early military is not equipped for massive sustained long-term conquests. There's too much infrastructure I want to build.
That said, there's obviously no one right way to play a Civ3 game. I like to use diplomacy more for its implicit effects than its explicit one. An ROP is just an ROP, but one signed with a Civ that is at war with a more powerful civ can shift the balance of power by allowing one Civ free reign over my territory and thus counterattack effectively while the other civ plod along.
It's me, but I like stuff like that.
P.S. in almost every game, I've always picked one Civ that I partner up with. We never go to war and they are often, not real vassals as in a really weak civ. but more of a middle power. On difficulty levels (Emperor, Monarch ) which I play most often, having a partner civ like that around ensures that there's always someone who is behind me and I can trade techs to as well as the frequent bonus of them going down a different tech path and allowing me more options in trades.
It's an arguable benefit I suppose as most people can trade techs around with or without this partner. But a partnership with me usually entails a strong rich middle power, which is much more secure than some other AI civ that could be wiped out anytime or one that may not have the cash to pay for it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Tall Stranger
|
 |
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002 time: 00:34
|
|
As you probably know, the reason for this is simple: the AI bases its demands on how many happy faces the luxury you seek will provide you. Thus, if you already have 3-4 luxuries and have a large number of marketplaces, a single luxury can be worth several happy citizens. Because you will benefit much more than they will in a one-for-one trade, the price they demand is high.
If you add into the equation the fact that humans use the luxury slider while the AI doesn't, that single luxury you get from them may also enable you to reduce your luxury budget, thus allowing you to up your research as well.
Finally, so what if they want a 3-for-1 deal? If you have surplus luxuries, they're not doing you any good just sitting there. The benefit you get from that extra luxury is more than worth propping up the AI.
In short, I never understood why people think a 1-for-1 deal is "fair," when it demonstrably is not. In most cases, with a well-developed human empire, even 3-for-1 is very beneficial to the human.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kailhun
I have to agree that diplomacy is fairly pointless in Civ III. Basically it features in the following ways:
- all the AI civs have mutual protection pacts, so that sooner or later a cascade of wars start;
- if you want a luxury (say furs), you have to offer wine, dyes and incense otherwise the AI is insulted;
- techs and world maps are not traded for luxuries (if I even offer one as part of the deal the AI is insulted);
- if you have a tech the AI wants then most deals that do not involve that tech will fail.
Most deals run along these lines:
Me:"What do you want for furs?"
AI:" Wines, dyes, incense, world map." 
Me:"What will you give for wines?"
AI:"2 gold per turn."
Somewhat pointless.
I'm sure this has been covered before, but It happened to me last night (again) and I felt a need to complain about it. |
That's not diplomacy, that's trading. And as the poster below you noted, it's not pointless. Civ3 actually has a fairly sophisticated AI when it comes to trading. That is the result of several patches that removed human exploits and improved AI valuations. its not perfect, but its quite robust.
As for diplomacy being pointless, I have to disagree.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:34
|
|
I thought that the AI got continously more and more pissed off at you if you didn't trade with them?
Thank you Tall Stranger, I've always wondered why the AI want so much.
kailhun I've never really had a problem with the AI just giving a couple of gold. I'm usually pretty happy with what the AI gives me when I ask them to put something on the table. Usually I can get the likes of 150gpt for a single tech.
One thing I can't understand though is the AI attachment to Fascism and Espionage. They won't trade these unless for bloody stupid prices, for examply a couple of luxuries and a modern age tech plus some gpt. Doesn't make sense to me, those techs aren't that great.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
Espionage is quite obvious. Without espionage, you can't plant spies, and the military advisor w/ spies is one of my most used screen in the middle to late game. I have circumstantial evidence that the AI is 'more' aware of my military make up after they have espionage than before. This is purely conjecture here, as I need to play a debug game to test this theory further, but it does feel like the AI will actively engage in an arms race with its neighbours, and I suspect its because it too has spies in your capital and can actively see at all AI levels (leader, city, unit) what sort of units you have.
A standard retort here I suppose is to accuse the AI of cheating and bring evidence that the AI knows all your units anyways etc. etc. To that, all I can say is since the AI isn't human and Soren probably won't tell us how the AI sees the world, we don't really know what it knows and at which level. The declare war routine may be the only routine with access to your force data, and even then, it may only give the AI a defensive /unit count value and not the actual unit break down. Therefore, I think that if what Soren said initially (nearly 3 years ago) was true -- that the AI was designed to cheat as little as possible, then they will have to pay and plant plant spies and only then can they gain access to hard data about your military composition.
As for Fascism, this may have simply been an AI quirk. Or the AI simply sets a higher than normal price for it because it is assumed the AI will like to switch to this government and thus denying other AI players from getting it too cheaply. for us humans, with the AI to AI trade bonus, the price may simply exceed what we normally can offer then AI.
We have to try and get out of the mindset that the AI behaves in a certain way for the sake of the human player. It looks to me like a lot of the AI routines are applied without discrimination of whether its human or AI, and i suspect that trading valuations, aside from the AI trade bonus, is exactly the same for an AI as it is for a human.
Last edited by dexters on 04-03-2004 at 07:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:34
|
|
Ahhh righteo.. see I've never really used espionage at all. I only rarely play into the late game.
Yeah I agree with your last bit. It's just easier to assume that the AI is catering for you as you don't see the AI dealing with each other.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:34
|
|
Yeah I'm keep promising myself that I'll play to the end, I just never do. I always have these visions of large fleets controlling the waves and a superior air force, with a powerful economy to back it all up. I may start playing smaller maps so games don't take so long.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Solomwi

|
 |
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
Dec 2002 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Willem
At the very least, there should be a non-aggression agreement in the game, not just mutual protection. |
Non-Aggression Pacts are already there, though not by name. I do this a lot when I get into a war with Civ A, and really don't want Civ B coming in on their side... open up diplo with Civ B, renegotiate peace, usually with no strings attached, and presto: 20 turn NAP. I abhor MPP's, and usually don't want Civ B involved on my side, either, so this works as well as anything. I haven't had Civ B break the peace before 20 turns are up yet.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Solomwi
Non-Aggression Pacts are already there, though not by name. I do this a lot when I get into a war with Civ A, and really don't want Civ B coming in on their side... open up diplo with Civ B, renegotiate peace, usually with no strings attached, and presto: 20 turn NAP. I abhor MPP's, and usually don't want Civ B involved on my side, either, so this works as well as anything. I haven't had Civ B break the peace before 20 turns are up yet. |
I don't recall Peace Treaty ever being in the diplomatic options, unless I've just been at war with them. I'll check that out though next time I play. I don't like MPPs either, I usually end up getting dragged into a war I don't want. And even with Military Alliances, sometimes War Weariness forces me to negotiate peace, then I take a diplomatic hit. I'd prefer just to have certain civs stay out of the conflict most of the time.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|