 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
I've seen the Ai give cities plenty of times, however usually its because they've declared war on me only to find that ive overpowered them....about 10 times.
I really wish that they would make the AI a little more cooperative when it comes to cities....I mean, if I had two cities and each of them were surrounded by 100+ modern armour, I would probably accept peace and give them the cities instead of being furious and saying no.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999 time: 06:20
|
|
While in SMAC it was too easy to grab good cities from AI, I consider almost useless that part of trading in Civ III
I understand how difficult could be for AI (...programmer) to evaluate on a strategic basis if a city trade is bargain or not, I would like to see at least some value considered into the equation.
Sometime I'll be happy to trade (sometime exchange) early or half developed city because I can better manage corruption, borders, allies' strong if I can:
- buy a small city, already inside or near my border, without the need to wait for culture flipping, maybe in exchange of a previously conquered city near the selling Civ.
- give (but not as a gift) some cities to a Civ I want to help to keep it stronger enough to be a valuable ally (this worked very well in SMAC, where you can have long pact very useful if you keep up the friendly AI development)
- excert some kind of "diplomatic influence" forcing a cities reallocation (a trade "buy from winner &sell back to original owner") after some silly attrition war between AI Civ
I know some particular situation are quite difficult to manage (beachead city, chokepoint city), also because the AI know in advance where strategic resources will appear, and it will fight forever before abandon the city or trade it.
I simply suppose that a mixed model between SMAC and CIV III mode can help in this part.
Maybe it's only my wrong opinion, because in Civ III others Civs are often furious with me (and I'm not a backstabber!), so it's very difficult to sign good trades for me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dan Severn
|
|
Wellborn, Texas The Warrior Dennis Miller
May 2001 time: 23:20
|
|
I've gotten cities for peace plenty of times. Usually crappy little cities.
Strange, If I ask for 5 cities, all their treasury, their maps, and all their tech, that's fine.
But if I throw in my world map or decide to give them reparations to sweeten the deal, they're insulted!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
wervdon
|
|
Things the ai would definatley have to take into account when trading cities for something other than peace:
1) Total possible commerce from the city, taking into account terrain with best possible modifications (roads) wether or not currently present, and presence of improvements like markets and adjusted for corruption
2) Same for production
3) Same for food
4) Presense of its citizens (citizens native to its civ)
5) Presense of military units in the city
6) Importance of location: if its a choke point, that one is hard but important (a canal city is also a choke point by definition really, or close enough to be considered one) This should also not just look at the city tile, but any tile within the city radius.
7) Resources in the city's squares
8) Culture generated by the city for the civ in question
9) Potential future but unseen resources in the city radius
10) How much its worth to the civ its going to: ie) is it giving them access to a resource the lacked?
There's probally more than that involved, but thats just a few of the things i'd look at it if another human player asked me to trade the city. Maybe not as thoroughly (with regards to commerce), but I would assess its economic, military/strategic, and cultural value.
I can see why they didnt make ai's want to trade cities. Thats a hard sort of thing for an ai to accurately judge if its getting the short end of the stick.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DeepO

|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002 time: 06:20
|
|
Oh, I too saw several occasions where the AI had suspicously good city placements for future resources, but look at what your own cities look like. It doesn't show that much, but you might find that your own cities aren't placed any worse. I doubt it is a cheat, because so far, the AI cheats are documented, and boil down to production bonusses, and faster AI-AI tech trades.
How many times have you seen that an AI city could build the Ironworks, as opposed to one of your own cities doing it, for instance? I had, in all my games, 4 AI cities with IW, or the possibility for IW. While at the same time I had 2 IWs in native, human cities. That is not decisive information, but from the looks of it I had better placement than the AI...
I think it is more an artifact of the algorithm that spaces out AI cities: they do try to cover as much ground as efficiently as possible. It's only normal that doing so will give them access to all resources. I have not seen that many cities placed on spaces that later give access to a resource without at least as many cities being placed on tiles that are just off, while my neighbouring city (built later) gets the resource. It is a matter of luck, or bad karma as I put it 
As to the smoke: there is a famous saying in Dutch, from a historical comedian-freedomfighter. Roughly translated it goes like this:
"Where smoke is, is fire" said Tyl Uylenspiegel, and he warmed his hands on a pile of horse dung.
I guess that says it all 
DeepO
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|