 |
|  |
 |
|
kgoodrid
|
 |
Ann Arbor, MI
Nov 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
I'm starting to remember why I stopped playing Civ III last year. Take my most recent game as the Vikings on Monarch. I'm off to an incredible start thanks to my Scouts finding some great city spots and even a village that joined me. I have a very large empire before 0 C.E., and am ahead of the French, Russians, Celts, and English, the other civs in close proximity to me. Russia decides to go declare war out of the blue, which is bad for me since I have a fairly weak military due to my rapid growth. I have horses and iron and start building up my military. Soon, however, the other three civs have joined the war against me. By this point I have built up swordsmen and plenty of defenders.
The thing that annoys me is that these civs had been trading heavily with me and were all polite. I was no longer in the lead (Russia sneaked ahead of me by about 10 points), and had built up a decent military. Thus, I see no logic for the sudden AI gangup. I didn't look weak. I hadn't been breaking deals. I wasn't the top dog/target. And the other civs would not join me against Russia for any price. But they would join against me...why?
On a side note, despite my heavy tech research and larger empire size, based around several rivers to help fund tech, the other civs continued to beat me in research. Even with tech trading, I was getting smoked. The AI tech trading and research is unrealistic and unfair. They are not held to the same rules and treat the player differently than the other AIs. If I was vastly ahead, that would be one thing. When we are the same or I am below, why continue to gang up on the player?
I have had a great start ruined, and none of the usual explanations for the AI behavior seem to be applicable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vondrack

|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
Well, guys, I think you are forgetting of a very important thing - bribery. If your enemy has something valuable to offer to your "friends", they may (and often will) change their minds and sides, because getting a shiny new tech or two is a better deal than keeping trade going (unfortunately, the AIs are not programmed to understand what loyalty means...).
I have done this countless times to AI civs... say, somebody declares war on me and I am not 100% sure I can handle him or I just want to force him fight a multi-front war. The first thing I do is to talk to all the other leaders and check if there is a convenient way to get them into alliances or at least into trade embargoes. Usually it is rather easy to get them on your side, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING VALUABLE TO OFFER. And I have no reason to believe that it could be different when AIs negotiate among themselves.
The remedy to your diplomatic failures is to actively seek allies. No matter how strong you feel you are, if you can get others on your side, do it. You may not need their units, but your enemy might...
Being almost simultaneously attacked by 5-10 other civs means that you are either very very weak, or that you have seriously screwed your diplomatic relations before (don't forget to establish embassies, make fair trades etc.).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kgoodrid
|
 |
Ann Arbor, MI
Nov 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
quote: Being almost simultaneously attacked by 5-10 other civs means that you are either very very weak, or that you have seriously screwed your diplomatic relations before (don't forget to establish embassies, make fair trades etc.). |
Not true. Sometimes it happens even when you are in a position of strength, rated high, but not on top. In the game I was playing, I had not broken a single deal and had given the AI civs many profitable, favorable trades. Heck, in a recent game I even gave into an AI demand for a tech because I didn't want war right then. I also traded and gave it a per turn gold deal. The next turn, that AI declared war on me, thus losing the gold it would be getting and making its previous trade utterly worthless. This sort of behavior has no logical explanation. It is simply a poor diplomatic model.
I would also like to raise a disagreement with the AI need to expand being justified. Empires don't have to expand to survive. Sometimes expansion can actually be harmful. If nations had to expand to survive, then small states like Belgium and Luxumberg would be invading France.
The bottom line is that Civ III had made some great additions to the diplomatic modeling in games. The bargaining table is done well. But it isn't perfect.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vondrack

|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by kgoodrid
Not true. Sometimes it happens even when you are in a position of strength, rated high, but not on top. In the game I was playing, I had not broken a single deal and had given the AI civs many profitable, favorable trades. Heck, in a recent game I even gave into an AI demand for a tech because I didn't want war right then. I also traded and gave it a per turn gold deal. The next turn, that AI declared war on me, thus losing the gold it would be getting and making its previous trade utterly worthless. This sort of behavior has no logical explanation. It is simply a poor diplomatic model. |
By "screwing diplomatic relations" I meant primarily an improper or insufficient diplomatic reaction when the first AI declares war on you (even though I mentioned general diplomacy improving activity examples, which might have been a bit misleading... sorry).
By caving to the AI demands you've shown weakness (you even state you did not want a war). The AI does understand this principle, so don't be surprised.
As far as the logic of the declaration of war goes, there is always some reason (just like in the real world, I might add). A resouce or luxury AI can take from you, territory control/denial, even the fact that an AI has many units that must be put into some sort of use not to be a waste of shields... If you think that it's nonsense "real-world"-wise, just think of Germany in 1939. What "reason" did they have to attack Poland?
quote: Originally posted by kgoodrid
I would also like to raise a disagreement with the AI need to expand being justified. Empires don't have to expand to survive. Sometimes expansion can actually be harmful. If nations had to expand to survive, then small states like Belgium and Luxumberg would be invading France. |
As vmxa1 correctly pointed out, this argument is totally irrelevant. This is a game, not real life. In Civ3, a bigger generally means better. The territory you control is the territory your enemies do NOT control. Even if the only reason to occupy an area is to deny it to your rivals, it is worth considering. I would be inclined to agree with you that there should be a more sophisticated approach to the "size matters" principle, but that is a question of the fundamental game mechanics, victory conditions (in the real world, nobody is trying to "win by 2050AD") etc. , not of the diplomacy model.
Just as so many other aspects, Civ3 diplomacy is a very simplified one. However, instead of thinking "how come they declared war on me, I did nothing bad to them, that's so unfair!", it's better to learn how the Civ3 AI diplomacy works. It's not that complicated and when you get a grasp of it, you will be able to use it to your advantage quite easily. If you still believe that what happened to you could not be explained by what me and other posters here mentioned, post a savegame. We may be able to find out what the problem was...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kgoodrid
|
 |
Ann Arbor, MI
Nov 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
quote: kgoodrid get a grip, it is a game and they do have to expand in it. |
Ok, I don't care about anything else you have to say after starting your post like that. Try to be a little more mature when you join a discussion.
quote: However, instead of thinking "how come they declared war on me, I did nothing bad to them, that's so unfair!", it's better to learn how the Civ3 AI diplomacy works. It's not that complicated and when you get a grasp of it, you will be able to use it to your advantage quite easily. If you still believe that what happened to you could not be explained by what me and other posters here mentioned, post a savegame. We may be able to find out what the problem was... |
Don't assume I don't understand the system. I already acknowledged the reasons for the original attack. I had a weak military. I know how it works. The problem was when a bunch of others jumped in AFTER I had built up a larger, tech-superior military. As for the bribery issue, I of course tried that right off, but the other three civs would not join me for any price, even when I offered multiple useful techs, maps, and large sums of gold. However, they were all willing to join my weaker opponent, who could not possibly have paid them as much as I could. The only explanation that I can apply here is the AI gang up on the Human thing. But that ussually happens towards the end of the game. This was in the Ancient Age...so I'm still not sure.
Thanks to most of you for the insight into possible explanations. Its always good to see the situation from a few other viewpoints. Vmx, you have been around long enough to know how to engage in a good discussion, so drop the attitude.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boracks
|
 |
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Jan 2001 time: 23:23
|
|

Having run into this problem my, I think that part of the issue is with the name of the game, "Civilization".
When you try and play a 'civil' game, it doesn't work. I wonder if the game should be called 'warfareization' or, given some games I've had, 'Survivor'. Oh, wait, they already did that last one. 
In a sense, I wish that they had the people who did the diplomacy in SMAC do the diplomacy in CIV3. I had some great games of SMAC from a diplomatic perspective, even had a computer player give me units when I was invaded.
However, this is CIV. Keep bribing the close big guys. So far, 24 gold evey 5 or 6 turns seems to work good. (Oh, did I mention he's giving me 33 gold a turn on another deal so its his money anyway? )
Little bribe effects may not last long but they last long enough. Its just a cost of running an empire.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
I have to agree with Vondrak. I also, had the exact same problem with the AI ganging up on me, most of the games that I play. I love to expand fast and far. The only units, I build are settlers and workers. So, I am usually a target for an AI invasion. And it will usually happen. Or, I attack some other civ because they are in the way of my expansion. I did a couple of things. First, right when the AI declares with me, I try to get the neighboring Civs, to go to war with the attacking civ. Giving them whatever they want, just to get involved. Then, I don't consider it a big loss to lose a few cities, on my "frontier" or on the edge of my civ. Knowing, that if the city was not razed, I will probably get it back through culture. Also, knowing that those cities were not producing that much anyways. I use my culture borders to my advantage. I stay inside my own borders and attack their attackers. Because, if my culture is good enough, they can not enter my territory and attack a city in the same turn. So, I can "see them coming". This is where having roads, really comes in handy. Also, I will take a city that is quite a few tiles away from any border and leave it undefened. Most of the time, the enemy civs will move past other cities just to attack an undefended city. This gives me time, to continue to attack them. Try to attack their attack units and leave their defensive units alone. Hopefully the defensive units, will attack something and die. Really, this problem is not the end of the world. Keep playing the same game, to see what happens. Sometimes, losing a few cities is not the end of the world or game.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|