 |
| |
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
i mentioned this before but i has pissed me off again in my most recent MP game with a buddy of mine.
we're playing small map 8 civ deity, and trying to work together against the cheating AI  sort of fun.
anyway, i'm crushing babylon. me and them ended up on our own landmass somehow, and i herded their settlers enough to carve myself most of the island. they, noticing they had nowhere to colonize, declared war.
perian immortals on babylonian archers. you do the math.
i got them down to 3 cities now, 2 large ones and 1 crappy one. and i went to talk to them. apparently me and my buddy have fallen behind in techs. we have chivalry and theology, and nothing on the bottom of the techtree.
we know china is building leonardo's, and we know babylon and them are in bed together.
so i go to make my peace treaty, i put on the crappy city, and all their techs, and they'll accept it. the only problem is, i can only get engineering, and not invention from them.
if i add a tech to the table it's following techs should be added as choices for the table. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
quote:
They just prefer being EXTERMINATED from the game
|
This is a big problem that Firaxis must fix. The AI just doesn't see it's own survival as being all that essential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I think the "problem" that Uber is referring to is actually a design decision. First, it prevents pure warmongering from ruling the game, where you could just attack and extort your way into the Modern age (if you think this is how Civ3 works now, imagine if you could get Invention, Gunpowder, Chemistry and maybe Metallurgy in one shot!). Second, if you could put every tech on the table, that AI would deal itself into the poorhouse trying to get all of them (the same is true to some extent of the human player). By "artificially" restricting how much progress one civ can make by trading, all civs are encouraged to do their own research (which is more fun, and easier to program for the AI).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJ Corp. The FAIR
|
 |
Antwerp (the pearl of Flanders) Belgium
Jan 2002
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigDork
I think Dom is right on here. If it were possible to beat the crap outta a civ and get most of the techs for a given era would you do anything but warmonger? Okay, I know you can still do it the old fashioned way but it'd piss me off if I spent all my time and money in researching all these techs to have some warmonger come along and in one turn catch right up just by beating up on the AI. I feel that it would just make warmongering too powerful and Firaxis did a good job of designing it this way.
BigD |
Don't agree or may I say ...
DISAGREE AT ALL  (no offense meant!)
1)civ is about game experience, strategy and ... being as close to the real thing (human's history/ possible human history ?) as possible, meaning ... yes, you guys (and of course you sweet Ribannah   ) --> REALISM;
2)civ is about much more than 'doing anything but warmongering' --> try to survive without city improvements, terrain improvements, etc;
3)if AI is a worthsome AI they don't get 'beaten in one turn' --> try deity one time ... should I say more? To play a decent (=difficult) civ game there IS NO SUCH THING AS PURE WARMONGERING;
4)no, Firaxis did NOT do a good job concerning THIS issue, certainly not in SP games: an UTTERLY DEFEATED CIV GIVES AWAY EVERYTHING IT HAS FOR INDEPENDANT SURVIVAL, as in real life (if extermination is the only other solution);
5)wasn't warmongering always a rather powerful 'tool' troughout' history? (yes, it was ...) --> some well balanced, stable civs/countries however could defend themselves, as peace/building-gamers know in their civ-experiences;
Points 6,7,8,9, ...
again:
Civ is about gameplay, strategy and ... REALISM !!
If you were given the choice: your money or your life, what would be your REAL choice in a REAL LIFE situation?
Unless you're suicidal ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Civ3 is not about realism; Firaxis explicitly said so to the community during the design of the game. Civ3 is about a fun and challenging experience.
Putting the Science slider at zero, building a bunch of Horsemen, extorting every tech until Chivalry, upgrading all Horsemen to Knights and repeating this process would be the way to play Civ3 with the change UberKrux is proposing. The game would not be fun because there would be only one good way to play it, and it would not be challenging because this way would be too easy.
If you're thinking that this would not happen, consider how dumb the AI is, and how easy this situation is for the human player to set up (can we say vassal states?). And yes, this could be exploited to hell even on Deity.
Finally, although any body would give anything to ensure its own survival in real life, this is a game and so this golden rule need not apply. In fact, it does not apply: what human player would give all his techs to his conqueror in a MP game? Not me! I would claw and fight my way to the end, never giving a moment's respite until I'm finally gone. Which is more or less what the AI does.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MoonWolf
|
|
Funny, I agree on both sides... Some of the tech bonus you got from cities in civ1/2 should be back I think. Maybe not the newer techs, but the older ones. Only seing an other tech gives new ideas. Think of it; a group of spearman is beeing attack by a group of horsemen. Just by luck they survive the fastmoving attackers. They noticed that the men and the animals are two seperate individuals, they are not one, strange monster! Then one the surviving spearmen says "Hey, guys, let's try to sit on these animals ourself! I think old Bradir Redbeard has some lurking in the forrest by his farm!". Techs like this are more ideas than actual developing. Maybe the whole system should be changed (civ4?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
olaf
|
|
I already think the game forces the player to adopt certain strategies/exploits to win at higher levels. I dont think this change would make that any worse.
One of the draws of the Civ games, for me, was that there was more than one way to play. In Civ3, the higher the difficulty level you choose, the less viable ways there are to play and win. That sucks IMO. Not to say it wasnt like that in previous games...I just wish they could make it so that more peaceful empire building and less duplicitous tactics could result in wins past Regent.
Back to the point though, I definitely think the AI should have its survival as its #1 concern. I dont think you should necessarily be able to extort numerous techs out of a civ all the time, but when they are faced with certain extinction or giving up tech, they should choose to give out the tech.
olaf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Civ3 is not about realism; Firaxis explicitly said so to the community during the design of the game. Civ3 is about a fun and challenging experience.
Putting the Science slider at zero, building a bunch of Horsemen, extorting every tech until Chivalry, upgrading all Horsemen to Knights and repeating this process would be the way to play Civ3 with the change UberKrux is proposing. The game would not be fun because there would be only one good way to play it, and it would not be challenging because this way would be too easy.
If you're thinking that this would not happen, consider how dumb the AI is, and how easy this situation is for the human player to set up (can we say vassal states?). And yes, this could be exploited to hell even on Deity.
Finally, although any body would give anything to ensure its own survival in real life, this is a game and so this golden rule need not apply. In fact, it does not apply: what human player would give all his techs to his conqueror in a MP game? Not me! I would claw and fight my way to the end, never giving a moment's respite until I'm finally gone. Which is more or less what the AI does.
Dominae |
hi ,
why on earth would you want to extort every tech until chivalry , ....  , even if it would work you still fall behind , ..... or going to war with each civ , ....
the best is to get the great library , with an asap republic government and then race towards cavalry , ....
it seems to work at almost every level 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zurai
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
why on earth would you want to extort every tech until chivalry , .... , even if it would work you still fall behind , ..... or going to war with each civ , ....
the best is to get the great library , with an asap republic government and then race towards cavalry , ....
it seems to work at almost every level
have a nice day |
Because, following Uber's wishes, you'd be able to get every tech in between horseback riding and chivalry in one fell swoop. There would be no need to waste the shields or gold on the Great Library or on research. All you'd have to do is build hordes of cheap units, kill their pikemen, and all of a sudden you'd jump an era and a half. Not balanced at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bongo
They will give you everything they have to aviod destruction, but not always. They will be more stubborn if you have extorted them earlier in that game. |
It does not appear as if anyone has brought this up so far. I have read and seen in the game, where if you have a low reputation, then the computer will not give you techs when you are conquering them. But if you have a high rep, then they will give techs. I have played both peaceful and warmonger. And this seems to be true. I actually love it, when the computer declares war on me, I usually play with a very high rep, just by minding my own business. So, when the AI declares war on me, I can expand my empire.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2003 21:27
I'm not saying I agree with the current program reasoning...I just understand why it happends. 
|