07-05-2003 01:31									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Question:

what is 4X?

Spank you kindly,
L'idiot d'apolyton

	07-05-2003 02:14									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Xplore, Xpand, Xploit, Xterminate -- it's the generic label for grand strategy games like the Civ series, MOO, GalCiv, etc.

	07-05-2003 02:15									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate, I believe.

-Arrian

	07-05-2003 02:20									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

Jeeziz, that's a bloodthristy acronym.

	07-05-2003 07:13									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

As Ubergeek noted, the block strategy is fairly limited and isn't really very practical even when dealing moderate sized maps pre-RR.

Unless you're lucky and your objectives as Arrian noted is simply to protect the Capital or a tiny border.

The issue of backing allys can be complicated. It is often that I want them to keep more than one city, and more often than not, I want them to regain lost territory. Sometimes, as with Carthage, it's just making sure they don't fold faster than witless hack when attacked. And sometimes, it is simply to keep one civ from gaining a domestic source of a luxury or a strategic resource.

I think flexibility is key here. Arrian's blocking strategy will certainly be filed away in my brain as a potential strategy

	07-05-2003 07:19									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

When the blocking strategy works, it works wonders. In a recent game, my northern neighbors, the perpetually hapless Romans (man, I have NEVER played a game where the Romans were a factor after the end of the Ancient Age) were being clobbered by THEIR northern neighbors, the Carthaginians. Now, Rome hated me but was a harmless neighbor, while Carthage liked me but would have been nothing but trouble if they got to my borders. So I got a ROP from Rome and shook out a cordon sanitaire across a relatively narrow portion of the continent, thus preserving a Roman rump state on my border and keeping everything up that way nice and quiet until the end of the game.

Now, keep in mind it was relatively narrow -- on a huge map, that meant it took 30 units to block the Carthaginians. Had the Romans been anything other than adjacent, I never would have been able to pull it off.

	07-05-2003 08:59									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

OT: ROMANS

Ubergeek, you're right. I can't help but cringe whenever I see the Roman AI perform so poorly.

The Germans and Zulus aren't much better either.

	07-05-2003 18:18									#38
	Put an end to popups!

OT: In my last game, the Germans were the 800-lb gorilla of the other continent, smashing everything that got in their way. That is the one and only time I've ever seen them perform even adequately. The Zulus, on the other hand, are a lost cause.

	07-05-2003 19:04									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Blocking runs both ways. In my current game, I've got a few elephants blocking my way into Babylon, which has JS Bach's. ARRGH! I've got to move across 2 mountains with my cavalry to pour into Babylon before it gets properly defended. I'm in for a long, long war and the elephants of my allies on the mountains make it worse.

OT: Agreed with the Romans, Zulus et Germans... but when they do become powerful, they tend to be super-tough and major pains! Never let them make it to the industrial age, especially not the Zulu or Germans!

	07-05-2003 19:27									#40
	Remove this text

I've only seen a strong AI Rome once. It made the mistake of declaring war on me, and ceased to be strong shortly thereafter.

The trait combo just isn't that strong. One of the traits, militaristic, is just wasted on the AI. It doesn't know how to use it (whereas commercial doesn't require any sort of strategy, it's just there). The unit, while not terrible, isn't all that great, and of course the AI isn't going to horde vet warriors & cash and then do a mass upgrade.

-Arrian

	08-05-2003 08:31									#41
	reminds me... Support Apolyton

Machiavellian politicking has actually taken a step backwards in Civ3.

In Civ2 we had those wonderful puppetmaster options of supplying military hardware to nations as well as the option of paying them off to declare war on an enemy.

How many times have you wanted to aid some poor bastard who was being smoked by an aggressive superpower halfway across the globe. I know I've lost many a resource because of this restriction on diplomacy in Civ3...

	08-05-2003 08:39									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, the AI in Civ2 is far inferior to the AI in Civ3. And while the puppet master thing may be less obvious in Civ3, strategic /luxury resources and careful management of who has access to it more than makes up for it.

	08-05-2003 17:37									#43
	Tired of ads?

I think Civ 3 was a big step forward in this regard from Civ 2, but actually a significant step backwards in some regards from SMAC. We sorely miss the ability to make peace between third party belligerents and a truly useful world council/UN.

	08-05-2003 21:52									#44
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by dexters Well, the AI in Civ2 is far inferior to the AI in Civ3. And while the puppet master thing may be less obvious in Civ3, strategic /luxury resources and careful management of who has access to it more than makes up for it.

but I think we'll all agree that this type of global domineering (controlling the flow of resources) more often than not requires direct military intervention by the player, especially when you're dealing with military superpower rival vs. poor weakling trading partner.

I should be able to supply other nations with units because:
1) I have no desire or ability to get sidetracked by attempting to restrict the global flow of resources (a monster of a task even on smaller maps)
2) I have no desire to supply anyone (even my allies) with the required technology so they can build units similar to mine.

Feel me?

	08-05-2003 22:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Jog Feel me?

Yes, but to the extent that civ is modeled on reality, there are a two problems with your reasoning:

1. Once a nation is supplied with a piece of military hardware, it is quite easy for them to figure out how to produce that hardware themselves. Whether or not they have the resources and capital availible is another question, of course.

2. Anyone can tell where specific items of warfare are produced. Similarly, even with small arms, it's easy to tell who's backing insurgencies, etc. Just slapping paint on the hardware involved doesn't do the trick.

	08-05-2003 23:42									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

There was another thread on XP wishlist and the unit trading issue was mentioned.

I am in fact NOT opposed to unit trading in principle. Firaxis' concenrs over the AI being manipulated, can, I believe, be corrected with a fairly strict set of rules, which includes the AI putting a negative value on units that are outdated compared to what it can build. Units it cannot build will receive a higher value, and units it can build will receive a value of a fraction of the actual production cost. (ie: 1/4) So if a unit costs 160 shields to build, the AI will pay 40 gold for it.

There could then be a unit cap on how much the AI is willing to pay, and the AI could probably get additional codinfg on its income management as not to be flooded with units by the human players in order to cripple it financially.

Getting back to Yahweh's concern, the unit trading can perhaps be enabled only under MPP and military alliances. That I think can reasonably be implemented in a potential future XP for Civ3.

But to make it even more interesting, I'd actually introduce a new diplomatic option, called a mutual aid pact, which allows unit trading with civilizations without having to form military alliances and is fairly easy to establish. This sort of pact would be in addition to a trade pact that would allow for abstracted goods to flow between civilizations with both civs receiving a bonus.

Think about this. I am America and I establish a trade pact wiht China. The game uses a formula, possibly using the existing resource trades as some of its base values, and I would automatically receive added gpt from international trade. This would encourage players to trade internationally and be less of a warmonger. The idea of a trade pact can be further expanded to included a two sliders (one for each side) that range from "worst" to "best", so that two friendly civs would be on the "best" of terms and receiveadded gpt. A powerful Civ may also demand a "best" trade deal for themselves from a weaker civ who may not be inclined to provide it. And the options for waging economic war just opens up.

Hmmm... I may make a thread on this.

Disccuss

	08-05-2003 23:49									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

A very solid proposal, Dexters. Civs should be able to actually MERGE without warfare. Seems bizarre? Well, I all I can say is look at NATO, look at the EU, look at FTAA, etc...

	09-05-2003 02:20									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Yes, but to the extent that civ is modeled on reality, there are a two problems with your reasoning: 1. Once a nation is supplied with a piece of military hardware, it is quite easy for them to figure out how to produce that hardware themselves. Whether or not they have the resources and capital availible is another question, of course. 2. Anyone can tell where specific items of warfare are produced. Similarly, even with small arms, it's easy to tell who's backing insurgencies, etc. Just slapping paint on the hardware involved doesn't do the trick.

1) This is true. It would be easy to replicate such hardware in real life. But I think this could be overlooked in Civ. It doesn't have to be THAT realisitic. And besides, if the nation to whom I'm supplying units already has the financial and resource ability to mass produce these units, I wouldn't be aiding them in the first place!

2) I'm not quite sure I understand your point. When you think about it, the entire roster of Civ units are all generic and the same. The game actually does just slap some paint on the hardware so we can tell who's team its on...??? My tank is no different from Japan's or Persia's tank except for the color of the paint..

	09-05-2003 02:27									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

Er, well, I'm just saying, I don't object to the idea of donating units necessarily, I just feel that in doing so:

a. The recieving civ must get the tech the unit is based on, and

b. Others civs should realize where that unit COMES from. So maybe if you're America and you donate a tank to Carthage to fight Persia, then Persia sees a maroon-colored tank with a little "A" next to it, or something...

...I also feel that the guerilla unit should be of a hidden nationality, just like the privateer. This would reflect real-life, modern insurgencies. In other words, it would allow Russia to attack France without ever declaring war... and all the French could do in return would be attack back with more guerillas!

	09-05-2003 03:13									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth ...I also feel that the guerilla unit should be of a hidden nationality, just like the privateer. This would reflect real-life, modern insurgencies. In other words, it would allow Russia to attack France without ever declaring war... and all the French could do in return would be attack back with more guerillas!

I've modded my guerillas to be 2/2/1 units with the Offensive, Invisible and Detect Invisible tags, and the AI actually does quite a nice job of using them to irritate me, slipping them behind my lines to pillage and kill workers and such. I may experiment with the idea of removing the nationality tag...on the other hand, since the AI never uses Privateers, they probably wouldn't use Guerillas like that either and only I would gain any advantage...

	09-05-2003 04:22									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ubergeek ...on the other hand, since the AI never uses Privateers, they probably wouldn't use Guerillas like that either and only I would gain any advantage...

They might use privateers if you would give them a little more advantage.

They do with my mod (2/2/4, bombard of 2/1/1, still costs 60). They'll make pests of themselves harrasing your wooden ships and trying to pillage your coastal areas.

	09-05-2003 04:25									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jaybe They might use privateers if you would give them a little more advantage.

Really? I've modded my Privateers higher than that, but then I also modded my other naval units extensively too. I made Privateers have a much higher attack than defense, but I didn't give them a bombardment value. I would think it would be the bombardment value that makes the AI use them -- the AI lurves bombarding with naval units...

	09-05-2003 19:34									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Wow! I didn't even realize that there WAS an invisibility tag in Civ3. I remember that from Civ2!

	12-05-2003 14:13									#54
	Support Apolyton

IMO, the rep hit you take from a hidden nationality unit is annoying.

I mean, I understand that rational nation states may suspect you for pulling a stunt, but shouldn't there be some randomness where sometimes, they may miss it?