 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Honor
|
|
Provo, UT, US
Mar 1999 time: 22:22
|
|
Starting with Chicago is, in my mind, the ideal. After all, the resources we really crave are there. Washington is valuable primarily for its proximity to Chicago, so therefore its importance is high, but secondary. Boston and New York are nice cities, but more valuable because owning them would limit the unhappiness of our "citizens of american descent". Though NY (or should I say, "The Big Banana"?) has a pretty nice localtion.
If only the Aztecs would attack those nothern persian cities, we'd be able to form trade routes there as well as to our current neighbors... is there any chance we can convince the Aztecs to attack persia? (without paying them, that is?) And the same thought applies to the russians attacking france... if they conqered those cities by the bay, we'd be able to trade with them as well. *sigh* if only the computer were as willing to fight as we are... (for our causes, of course.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Honor
|
|
Provo, UT, US
Mar 1999 time: 22:22
|
|
I should have been little more clear about what I meant: the AI govs rarely fight meaningful wars that don't include the human player... once in a while, they'll declare war on each other without your inolvement, but usually those wars end with a maximum of one or two small cities changing hands. If you want to have a decisive war, it seems like you need to be in the middle of it. (For example I did set up a 3v2 war once, where I was one of the 2 and watched as my Zulu ally lose 3 of 6 cities to the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Honor
I should have been little more clear about what I meant: the AI govs rarely fight meaningful wars that don't include the human player... once in a while, they'll declare war on each other without your inolvement, but usually those wars end with a maximum of one or two small cities changing hands. If you want to have a decisive war, it seems like you need to be in the middle of it. (For example I did set up a 3v2 war once, where I was one of the 2 and watched as my Zulu ally lose 3 of 6 cities to the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.) |
Actually, I've seen (rare) cases where this has not been true. One example is that I played a game on a huge map where I (China) was the dominant power on one continent and Persia and Greece were the dominant powers on the other continent. Persia completely annexed Egypt and Russia while Greece mostly annexed Babylon and was fighting Rome - this throughout much of the late middle age and early industrial age. Later in the same game, the Aztecs (on a third continent with America, Germany, and England) invaded America and took much of it over before I (China) intervened and took over the aztecs. On that third continent, the Germans and Americans had been at war with the English and Aztecs (both sides allied against their opponents).
I could go on, but that one game had an absolute TON of AI-vs-AI wars where they seriously devoted to the conflicts.
This said, however, I will agree that this game I played a few months ago is notable because it is such an amazing exception. I have also noticed that MOST games go by where the AI players NEVER fight one another throughout the entire game unless YOU are the cause of the conflict. My most recent 2 games are good examples of this.
I honestly don't know what leads the AI's to go to war... it would be interesting to figure out (or simply hear from Firaxis or whatever...) what the algorythm is behind whether the AI goes to war... would be VERY interesting to learn that. I suspect, from my own experience, that at least part of the algorithm must have to do with whether a hegemonic power exists (typically the human player). For instance:
IF human player is hegemonic power THEN AI players will refrain from fighting one another (in order to aggressively trade techs with each other and hopefully catch up to the hegemon or at least keep them in check)
IF no hegemonic power exists or especially if the human player is not hegemonic THEN AI players may feel free to invade one another as they see fit.
Anecdotally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Firaxis had in mind...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
History Guy
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
In my opinion, we can take out the Americans in about three turns at most, but I think we should get Chicago first.
My question, however, is this:
How close are German ties to America? Would Bismarck attack us to avenge Mr. Lincoln even if he goes out before he can contact the Germans for assistance? What I mean to say is, when the Americans are gone, will the Germans instinctively attack? I know that Bismarck is a warmonger, and a powerful enemy, and I know that catching us while attacking Lincoln and Xerxes and declaring war would be very dangerous indeed. This is why it is so imperative that we take out Lincoln in a single turn altogether, so that he doesn't get the chance to establish a military alliance with Germany. But, would Germany attack us even after Lincoln was gone, considering Emperor Otto's intense hatred of our people?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
The Americans are alone- they are extremely weak and poor also. They are far behind in techs and have nothing to trade: no one will stick thei necks out for Abe.
If we want to minimize the diplomatic impact, as I said, we could ally with the Aztecs against the Americans. Make aslightly better friend for a while with Tenochtitlan and make other civs less likely to intervene.
Going along with what Arnelos said: We ave become number one civ, but only slightly in front of Greece, so we are not really hegemonic- thouh AI behavior towards us may change now that we are #1, not #2. I think a war with france will be more dilomatically challenging than one against America. France has more money and territory, more terrain, and ebsides, French territory is in a valuable strategic position.
I see three posible scenerios about a war with france: Either all goes well, is us vs. them and its done in 8-10 turns, or other civs, mainly Rome, decide to pick off French cities as we advance: the vulture scenerio, or the French, as they didi last time, get a ouple of other civs, most like germany and someone else to go to war with us.
May I add a last point. It seems o me the AI is somewhat slow in upograding their armies in peacetime. Many civs can make knights, but only us and the aztecs have- the only civs at war that can make them. If other civs o to war, even among themselves, we would soon face much bigger and dealier enemy forces. We have to make sure to plan for quick and decisive attacks. This is more ture of a war wth France, since the Americans are so weak a one turn war, which is very desirable, is very possible.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|