 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TacticalGrace
The game would be much harder if the different AI civs did different things. For example the military civs did a archer rush once it had 2 or 3 cities. Meanwhile the expansionistic civs would keep pumping out settlers and colonising the world and the perfectionist civs (religious/scientific) civs built less cities but went for temples/libraries early on.
This woul dbe hard to play against because while you were fending off the archers the clock would be ticking as the expansionists grabbed all the land and the perfectionists ramped up their culture. |
Only if everything was directed at you. One thing Civ 3 seems pretty good at is not playing favourites. If you are seen as the most tempting target, prepare to be stomped. If others seem to be better targets you can sit at peace while the AI nations fight each other around you.
In the time that Firaxis had, they gave the AI a strong early expansion tactic. Yes its tedious to know that you will always face aggressive expansion, but it works. The problem is that the civ traits don't do enough to change the effectiveness of opening strategies. Religious civs might pick temples as their first build to slot in between defender, settler, defender, worker, defender ,settler at a convenient point, while a scinetific one may choose a library, but that doesnt do enough to change the pattern. Any greater move away from REX is just making that AI nation weaker than its neighbours, including all competent human opponents.
To change this you'd have to actually create different rules. One way could be restrictive, i.e. a religious civ must build a temple before it can build a settler while a military civ must build a barracks. Since each Civ has two attributes that would make their early development quite different. Alternatively you could encourage choices by making the key buildings more effective for those civs, i.e. temples would produce wealth for Religious civs, barracks would help keep people content for military civs etc.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001 time: 21:21
|
|
I am not real fond of the MPP either. I do not mind so much the ROP. It does not seem reasonable that everyone gets in on the wars all of the time. I would like to see a more sensible approach. I mean that if you have beaten a civ a few times in the past and they had to asked for peace, why on earth would they agree to a MPP with another civ that is at war with that civ? Would you not at least wait until the war was over?
Last edited by vmxa1 on 24-08-2002 at 01:57
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|