 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
We are now facing the Koreans and the Persians. Our Persian neighbours are a fearsome war machine, able to churn out Mech Infantries (12.18.2) for 66 shields, and who have the Hoover Dam. Also, the Persians and the Koreans are the most advanced civilizations in the world, and they can easily bribe other civs in joining the alliance against us. It will not be difficult, given we are probably the most loathed Civ this planet is bearing.
We have no chance whatsoever to win by spaceship victory: we are two eras late, and the AI won’t trade techs with us. We have absolutely no chance to reduce the gap between the advanced civilizations and ours. We also have no chance to win a cultural victory, as our culture is extremely weak compared to others (especially the Egyptians). We have no chance to win a domination / conquest victory because all our troops will be needed at home to survive the Persian onslaught. We have no chance to win a diplomatic victory, because we aren’t populated enough to figure in the vote (13th population, whereas we should be 1st or 2nd). Finally, our histographic victory is very improbable, as it would mean none of the other victories will be reached by the AI in the next 800 years 
So, our shot at victory is history now. But another, more urgent question is asked. The war against Persia. Very soon, Persian MIs and tanks will roll on our territory. Our berserkers and pikemen will have a very hard time to fend them off. Our galleys and caravels will be powerless against the fearsome Persian vessels. Our cannons, developed in 6 turns, will be our main chance to scratch Persian troops, but hardly to destroy them.
The question is: do we try to make peace talks with our enemies as soon as they acknowledge our envoys? Do we surrender at any cost against their war machine, to wait for them to claim victory, dishonoured but alive? Or do we fight to the death? Do we refuse peace talks, and die with pride?
This is an important question we the people of Apolyton will have to answer. It is our fate we are talking about, so we shouldn’t be apathetic about it. Discuss!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
I say peace. Let's try to survive and we may find better days for us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
I've never heard of the AI in Civ III ever outright refusing tech deals.
Setting a price higher than we can afford, yes.
To reach deals for GPT payments to draw down a surplus over time though, it's needed to lower all sliders to 0 (actually just far enough down where the trade wouldn't cause a deficit), make the deal, and then raise the sliders back up to what they were. And luxaries can be used to discount the price.
Also, techs that have unbuilt wonders should be avoided if possible until they complete. |
The French can sell us Banking for our world map and 733 gold. We make 103gpt. I haven't seen them accept any gpt payment. The AI will outright reject any deal where they provide something up front, and get something spread out, if the player is deemed treacherous.
Try for yourself in one of your games: betray a few deals; Then try to make an agreeable tech-for-tech deal with a Civ that knew you prior to the betrayal; offer an extra luxury, or some gpt, without demanding anything new from the other Civ... Suddenly, "they'll never accept such a deal". The AI is hardcoded to that indeed, no matter how interesting the "possibly betrayed" deal is.
(interestingly, when the advisor tells you "they'll never accept such a deal", it is not because your offer is too light: it's because the AI is hardcoded to refuse for some reason. By the same token, when you demand more gpt than they currently make, they'll suddenly "never accept such a deal" for that reason)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KuriousK724
|
|
5 days ago when i last checked the threads for the viking nation everyone was happy and joyful. come back and we are in a deadly war with persia and everyone is gloom... im not quite understanding whats going on but lets kick the pansies in the balls before we get pummeled into the next apolyton game!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:35
|
|
Hum, in classic Civ III, at one point techs used to be immune to the one time vs gold per turn issues for treachery. Guess they changed that to one time in either a patch or when going to PTW.
It's been a long time since I've on purpose betrayed the AI. Also, the triger was once and not several times with regard to luxaries / maps / GPT / gold.
I've seen a No Way for a too light offer a long time ago. It was a Military Alliance, adding a tech changed what the AI said to "would consider it an insult", and a second tech was needed to change to "almost there", and some cash thrown in to make acceptable. (That was before I learned that signing an MPP when actively at war is cheaper.)
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
The French can sell us Banking for our world map and 733 gold. We make 103gpt. I haven't seen them accept any gpt payment. The AI will outright reject any deal where they provide something up front, and get something spread out, if the player is deemed treacherous.
Try for yourself in one of your games: betray a few deals; Then try to make an agreeable tech-for-tech deal with a Civ that knew you prior to the betrayal; offer an extra luxury, or some gpt, without demanding anything new from the other Civ... Suddenly, "they'll never accept such a deal". The AI is hardcoded to that indeed, no matter how interesting the "possibly betrayed" deal is.
(interestingly, when the advisor tells you "they'll never accept such a deal", it is not because your offer is too light: it's because the AI is hardcoded to refuse for some reason. By the same token, when you demand more gpt than they currently make, they'll suddenly "never accept such a deal" for that reason) |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Lots of mistakes:
We assumed we would get the participation such as we had in demo game one. Not so, as with the advent of PBEM games, the multi-site demo games took off. Many of the people that either got fed up completely with demo games (just like real life – in a democracy, the masses rule), or moved on to other games. Participation was very low from the beginning, and the specifics we have for this game do not allow for that. We needed people to look at and analyze everything, and that didn’t happen.
Very difficult map. It is a large map, with lots of civs on it, with the AI getting a 60% bonus in everything it does (PTW – Deity). Even under monarchy, this would have been a very difficult map to play on. No disrespect to BFM and Togas. They did exactly what we asked them to do, and did an outstanding job of it. I know that I would love to try this map (updated to account for the new C3C terrain features – swamps, volcano’s, etc) on my own, and I know that I would find it difficult.
Set our sights too high? Not sure, but demo games are supposed to be FUN, and, as this single player version has evolved, educational (to show people what demo games are). We set ourselves up to have great challenges. Deity. Water world. Vikings. While challenges can be fun, it is not the best way to show people what is what. We don’t want no wimpy games, but do we really want to have games so hard that it actually scares people away?
Poor city management. Let’s face it; we didn’t manage our cities as efficiently as we should have. We wasted shields left and right. We build things that we didn’t need (ie barracks in cities that should never have produced any military units, granaries in cities that should never be allowed to grow beyond size 6, etc.). We didn’t develop any long term plans for our cities. How many times did growth cause a city to go into disruption? I can think of at least 4. We were sloppy, and at the level we set ourselves up to play at – playing sloppy means that we never had a chance.
Poor diplomacy & war plans. We made many bad decisions, causing the AI to not respect us. The only way I have found in this level of game to stay in the tech race is to do the following things. Cause the AI to attach each other, causing them to divert interest from science to military. Buy all but 1 or 2 techs per age. That means gold. No libraries. No temples (except as needed to get resources within the city radii). And finally, make war constantly – but only on one civ at a time. Attack – take a few cities. Make peace and take them for all they are worth. Eventually, the civ will become a cripple, and will have to be subsumed into your empire. But you need to do this to two or three civs constantly. Once one war is over, you adjust your armies and go into the next war. This map was not conductive to this (we had to ship our armies oversea to get anywhere). But, we tried to play peaceful for far to long. Except in the REX stage of initial expansion, we should have not had peace for longer than the 20-25 turns necessary to re-supply and re-equip our armed forces, and to place them into position for the next battle.
And finally – poor scheduling to get the people involved. At the beginning, we had fairly set schedules so that people who wanted to show up knew when and how. As the beginning people left the game (such as myself), there wasn’t enough people to pick up, and for a while the game stood still. Then the great Paddy came along, saw the problems, and rushed the game forward. This rushing was the result of the cry of the people, but it cause its own set of problems. When I came back, the game was moving so fast that I couldn’t follow. I had no opportunity to plan, consolidate, and make orders. I never once got to attend chats, as there often were only hours between when the chat was announced and when it started. I place NO blame on Paddy, because he was doing what was asked of him. I simply not it as an issue and problem.
No one person is to blame any more or less as to the failure of this game. Actually, I don’t see it as necessarily a failure, as it did achieve one of its primary objectives, to teach people about new aspects of Civ, even if it wasn’t a win.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2004 23:30
|