 |
|
DaBear
|
|
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by pchang
I'm pretty sure the AI code cares about who ORIGINATES the trade request and that is why you are seeing this behavior. |
I agree. That's why I was saying that the minimum threshold for his offer is lower than accepting an offer by you. I've seen it before where a civ that is grausions towards you offers you a tech at a great price and you turn it down (I needed the money) go back to them immediately and the price is back up!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Ok, here's a question:
Do you think that playing a strategy that is "against the grain"of your civ is a good or bad idea, or neither?
Say you're the Japanese. Playing peaceful builder style with them seems strange, right? Well, that militaristic trait and samurai can really come in handy when a warmonger AI attacks your peaceful civ. In essence, you're well-rounded.
Say you're the Babylonians. You play warmonger style. But cheap temples and libraries in conquered cities come in handy, don't they? Playing the Babs, you can slip, fall, and end up with great culture. That matters when you go a-conquering.
Then again, one could argue that it's best to concentrate on your civ's strengths. If you never use those cheap barracks and super samurai as the Japanese, you're missing out. Whaddya think?
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
pchang,
I agree about the power of culture. It's huge. To answer the question I posed in my first post, I'd say that playing the Babs with a warmonger style will work much better than playing the Zulu as a peaceful builder. Fact is, culture and science rule the game. Of course, war is very important. I'm playing a game as the Germans now to see how they work. I have yet to fight... I actually went turtle and built up a nice little empire (I nabbed the GL, Sun Tzu - golden age, Sistine, Copernicus, Adam Smith's and I am 11 turns from Newton). I fully intend, however, to remove the Japanese from my southern border (probably once I get Cavalry). I wanna see "militaristic" in action.
The Samurai are solid. I agree that there are others that are better (Immortals, Mounted Warriors), but the extra defense point comes in handy. You will kill a lot of knights. Here's the thing: mounted units cannot retreat from other mounted units. Thus, they have to fight it out.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
Your last point was the one I was going to make, and it is an excellent call, IMO.
The real weakness of the Samurai lies not in the fact that it's a bad unit, it's not...but given that the Japanese are the ONLY faction...er...civ (damn, I just KEEP doing that!) in the game who start with the Wheel, and the ability to see where the horses are, it is a "push" of a UU. That is to say, it nets them no real advantage nor disadvantage....it's just sorta....there. An alternate graphic.
That's okay though, because for the sake of balance, that's as it should be. After all, the ability to know from turn one where the horses are is an important ability indeed! If they had a UU that was every bit the equal of, say the Mounted Warrior or the Jaguar, they'd just *totally* dominate the game, denying all neighboring civs access to horses and then running roughshod over them with mounted troopages...OUCH!
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
eMarkM
|
|
Chicago Area
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
I started my first Deity games yesterday. I have a whole new appreciation for Expansionist trait now on this exalted level. I started a few games as non-expansionist civs and sent my warriors out to explore. In each case I would uncover the nearby goody hut to have barbarians come out of it. Everytime. Goody huts don't give you many goodies on Deity so I'd invariably have my one city besieged by barbs. And these ain't the wimpy barbs, either. First warrior dead, starting worker killed, city plundered. Impossible set back on Deity. Restart.
So I figured I'd have to either ignore huts or try Expansionist civ. I went w/ Relig/Expan Iroquois. My first goodie hut was a settler! Very nice and I was actually able to keep up w/ AI for a moment. So real expansionist advantage isn't seen until Emp/Deity where otherwise barb infested huts might actually have something good in them. Expansionist I think is pretty weak on lower levels, but what a difference on early game Deity.
Later had a warrior discover a 2 ivory site, only to see the English racing me there w/ own warrior/settler escort. I started a war w/ her, killed the warrior, got 2 workers from settler capture and was able claim the site later. The early settler and this aggression are the only thing that's kept me in the game.
If I can even say I'm "in the game". AI has an obscene tech lead on me. I started my first "vassalization" war too late I think. Didn't get under way until almost AD. English are vassal target, they have no iron and are easily pushed around by my Mounted Warriors. I got all their tech and I'm still far behind. Once I got the tech it revealed they had even more behind that since you can't see the more advanced tech until you discover their predecesors. Really can't tell how far behind I really am, it's not even 1000ad and the AI is midway through middle ages. But the English will be my victim again once the 20 turns are up.
Persia is my other neighbor and they are fearsome, no chance to vassalize them. Luckily they've been very polite as they drain my coffers each time I buy tech from them. I finally bought gunpowder, was unfortunate to have nearly all the desert in my territory, but Persia ends up w/ the one saltpeter on the little corner of the desert they have. Ouch. The Persian cities I've seen all have mustketmen and I'm still struggling to upgrade to pikemen. This is where the game stands now and a mighty struggle lies ahead for Hiawatha.
e
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sauron07
|
|
I've been following a few other threads here in the last few days and wanted to survey the opinions of some of the more theoretical minds playing the game about pop-rushing, so I naturally came to this thread.
[kiss-ass mode off]
What I want to know is if players feel pop-rushing is currently unbalanced in the ealry game. By unbalanced, I mean does pop-rushing provide such an advantage(especially on higher difficulty levels) at the beginning of the game that it has become just an accepted part of nearly all successful strategies. When or if it gets to that point, there is no strategy involved in deciding whether or not to utilize this tactic - ie the benefits always outweight the costs so its really not a strategic decision anymore which IMO makes the game less enjoyable.
If you havent already figured it out, my perspective is that pop-rushing is slightly unbalanced right now, and would be even more so if mp were to ever come out. Even if I'm playing a peaceful building strategy, it is very hard to resist not rushing granaries and temples and sometimes even libraries and marketplaces before I switch to monarchy or republic.
So I want to find out what others think about this subject and if there is any feeling among the community that pop-rushing should be tweaked or at least be able to alter in the editor(Im assuming you cant change the effects of pop-rushing but having not really used the editor that much please correct me if I am wrong).
I would also be interested in finding out if any of the top finishers in the apolyton tourney avoided using pop. rushing or if any diety players have been successful without utilizing it.
Please post any thoughts or pm me if you feel the need(ie to utilize excessive profanity in your flame).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Ok, kissass just kiddin', of course.
I generally pop-rush in the ancient era for temples, and occasionally libraries or granaries. It usually works out to 1 or 2 poprushes per city (more 1's than 2's). I beeline for republic, so it's only fairly early that I use it. For some reason, I just can't accept poprushing units. My mind can deal with working my people to death in order to complete a structure, but not a military unit. *Shrug* As for the strategy element... well, I always use it. Always. Even though my use of it is rather limited, I can honestly say I have never played a game totally without it. Then again, given the way corruption works (I do not have the patch yet, but I doubt they changed it THAT much) early on under despotism, how else are you going to get those outlying cities to build their temples?
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sauron07
|
|
Thanks for the feedback...
Arrian, you and I seem to have similar playstyles, although I recently began testing out some militaristic strategy and have experienced the power of poprushing military units as Pchang describes.
Tell me what you think of two potential fixes or possible editor inclusions -
1) apply diminishing returns to poprushing from any one city - ie the first poprush in a city produces 40 shields and each thereafter produces less 30,20,10, ect until it is no longer advantageous to do so. This would limit the power of the so called "training camps" by allowing only a certain number of units to be rushed AND would force players to deal with the unhappiness effects once they couldnt constantly deplete pop via rushing. This seems to be consistent with the current practice of diminishing the value of rushing more than one pop. point in any given turn.
2) ( and my personal favorite) Make pop-rushed units start as conscripts without a barracks and as regulars with a barracks. This does several things, it decreases the value of pop-rushing units for an early offensive and creates a tactical decision for the rusher of pop-rushing or waiting a few turns to crank out veteran troops. I think this is also more realistic and consistent with the handling of conscription later in the game. As a side note this tweak would also increase the value of the militaristic trait(at least for rushing tactics) as barracks and field promotions will become even more important.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
Two thumbs up! Taken as a pair, the ideas on pop-rushing would tame that beast sufficiently that it would no longer represent the "end-all" to the game! As it stands now, it is entirely possible (and some would argue, desirable) to remain Despotic until you can switch to Communism. Those ideas, working in concert, would take just enough of a ::::CRACK!:::: from the Despotic Whip to make the question of whether to rush or no a truly strategic one, and it would seriously limit the usefulness of pop-rushed units (though, what I see happening in response, is that players would allow 2-3 units to build normally, send EVERYTHING out, and then (if needs be) pop-rush a token defender).
Excellent ideas!
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
absimiliard
|
|
NE USA
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
Just jumping in to say that I don't pop-rushing is overpowered. It has it's place, but when you ask about when you would and would not pop-rush I'd have to say that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the right answer, right up until it's not.
Let me refine that since it's a little blurry.
In the early game I always pop-rush a Granary & Temple, still debating the correct order. I occasionally rush the odd unit, but not much. Thus my thought that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the answer.
Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness.
So I'm very cautious about rushing when I'm getting close to the point of changeover. If I think I'm getting a better form of government soon, then I stop rushing immediately because unless I'm at war I'm switching the moment I get the chance.
In most of my games the tech progression is such that I make that switch somewhere after rushing a Granary & Temple, and occasionally a Library but before any other buildings. For unit building I prefer high-pop cities to pop-rushing for the long-term benefits.
Since there are parts of the game where rushing is the answer and parts where it's not, for me, I have concluded it's not broken. Though it's certainly powerful when used appropriately it carries some powerful disadvantages if used too much. (I really hate only making 2 gold a turn with 0% Science in a Republic because my infrastructure is so built up that my pop can't support it.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ChrisShaffer
|
 |
Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Aug 1999 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by absimiliard
Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness. |
I think you're missing the point, absimiliard. What we've been talking about is building a city, pop rushing units out of it, never letting it grow above size 3 (or 2), and then, in the end, disbanding the city. No unhappiness at all. And, as Vel has described, it's entirely possible to skip Monarchy and Republic altogether, and simply pop-rush the entire game from Despotism -> Communism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Fighting the Babylonians? ACK! You're fighting me, then! Heh.
First off, I suppose my comments on the poprushing issue should always be prefaced by: I have not played above Monarch yet.
It took me a while to get to Diety in Civ II, and I'm following the same slow progression in Civ III. I've thrashed Monarch a few times, but it's no sure thing yet. Thus, more Monarch for me.
I understand that poprushing may become much more of a factor on Emperor and Diety. With the AI needing only 60% of what you need to build something, and 4 free units with each new city, you use everything available to you, right? So yeah, tone it down, but don't wreck poprushing that first temple in your border towns, please.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
absimiliard
|
|
NE USA
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
Hey Chris.
I totally get the idea of base-pairing. I could have sworn Sauron was just asking for general thoughts on pop-rushing. Thus my generalized response.
However now that I'm looking back through the thread I see the topic rapidly shifted to base-paired pop-rushing. That wasn't really what I was talking about though. So either I was a moron and missed the posts or I just cross-posted. Either way, no harm no foul.
But yeah, I totally get the base-pairing concept. The key is in the disband at the end. I just don't do it because I hate the way it looks, my playstyle is heavily influenced by aesthetics. (maybe too much since using base-pairing could make my military totally rock.)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|