Suggestions for tweaking conquest difficulty needed

Cagliostro · November 12, 2003, 17:00

Hi!

I just got conquests and so far I can say that I like it - my Problem is: I Started a Mesopotamia Conquest as Mycenae on emperor and left the rest untouched, but after playing for a while and doing quite well, civ after civ decided to declare war on me, so now everyone is at war with me (and only with me - not one single war against each other

).
It's obvious: The AI sees that I'm going to win and thus declares war, which is quite logical but also makes a perfectly stupid game: I have no Problem fighting them off on the Bosporus, but there's no diplomacy, trade etc... going on.
It's now my 121st turn, I'm leading with the Hitites second (700 points ahead of them, tendency rising, because of getting victory points for destroying their units), but it's allways the same and boring as hell - I patrol my coastlines with triremes & make excursions with my cav to destroy approaching units (each and every turn

) - peace negotiations are ridiculous - they all want one of my cities for a peace treaty, because I don't have too much money and am technologically backwards due to them ganging up.
I even seized one of the Hitites city in Turkey to see if it makes a change which it did, but the only thing changed is that the Hitites are now willing to accept a peace treaty for a tribute that would render me ruined...

I'm thinking about starting a new game, but this time I want to avoid that situation - so what would you do - scale down overall difficulty or maybe even raise overall diff (to maintain a challenge) and scale down their aggression?

sorry for my english

Brundlefly · November 12, 2003, 17:14

If you're winning on Emperor that easily, I would try DemiGod..

Cagliostro · November 12, 2003, 17:21

Mmh - thanks - but that doesn't really answer my question - the Challenge is ok (with "exploiting" the Bosporus - I'm not that good at civ), but I just want to avoid the "all AI civs vs. me" situation.

There's no diplomacy at all, which is the most fun imho and I wonder if it's possible in that conquest...

Arrian · November 12, 2003, 17:29

When one civ declares war on you and you aren't in a position to crush them, the best thing to do is often to sign an alliance with one of their neighbors.

This does two things: it draws off some or even possibly all of your enemy's troops, and it prevents your new ally from becoming your enemy's ally. This prevents the "pile on" effect.

-Arrian

Cagliostro · November 12, 2003, 17:40

I've had that Idea too and reloaded an earlier game, but noone wanted to ally with me - guess I underestimated the importance of money once again (I allways have to re-learn that after having taken a break from playing civ) and thus had nothing to make the alliance tasty (techs weren't enough).

Guess I'll try going that way in a new game...

Thanks

Shogun Gunner · November 12, 2003, 18:14

I always attempt to track which AI is fighting other AI so later when I need an ally, I have an easier time convincing an ancient emeny of an attacking AI to join with me in a MPP or embargo at least. Sometimes you have to give them something (tech, resource, luxury), but you need to pull someone on your side to distract the aggressive, attacking AI civ.

RobC · November 12, 2003, 18:25

You might have to bribe some of them regularly during the early parts of the game to stay in their good graces so you can get them to ally with you in the later stages of the game...think of it as an incentive to stay active diplomatically.

Cagliostro · November 12, 2003, 18:45

That's the funny part - I was in the lead from the beginning (V-points), but lots of the other civs were polite and sometimes even gracious.

I only trade techs in my turn, never when the AI approaches me. When I sell a tech to one civ (or just bought one), I sell it to all the others as well most of the time, since they'd pass it around in the next turn anyway - if the AI has nothing to offer, I'll even bestow techs, since their gratitude is some kind of ressource too.
But all of a sudden (after building the temple of Zeus), it took like five turns to have them all go mad (i.e. war) at me - maybe they became "afraid" after I suddenly had barracks in every city).
I tried to make mutual protection pacts, alliances etc. in that period, but no chance...

dexters · November 12, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Cagliostro
I've had that Idea too and reloaded an earlier game, but noone wanted to ally with me - guess I underestimated the importance of money once again (I allways have to re-learn that after having taken a break from playing civ) and thus had nothing to make the alliance tasty (techs weren't enough).

Guess I'll try going that way in a new game...

Thanks

Money and relations. It cost you more if the civ you are trying to make your partner doesn't trust you or think you have a bad reputation.

I make a point to not break any deals, even if I can technically afford it. I'm not a player who enjoys waging war against everything, breaking peace treaties when I feel like it, and generally creates havoc for a large empire that's corrupt and useless anyways.

My preference is generally through managed alliances and managed control of your surrounding civs. I've played games before where I was essentially engaged in 2 races. A military race against my chief military rival, and a economic and production race against my ally, who also happens to be the largest civ in the game (before I overtook it after gaining new territory).

If you can find long term partners, and there will always be civs out there which most of us non warmongers will have no use for, then it's always good. That tiny India at the top of the continent which looks totally hopeless in the early game, may be your best friend later on. This is exactly what's happening with my game.

But... I'm talking more about the general games you play. I think the same ideas apply. If you're playing conquests, some civs will not be your friends no matter how hard you try.

Check out my thread on my preferred style of play.
Machiavellian Doctrine

Cagliostro · November 13, 2003, 03:57

I've read your thread and I developed a similar playing style since playing civ 1 (maybe because I've read "the prince" - I even used the Nick in some MTW forum

).
I never break treaties if I can avoid it and even if I absolutely need to, I rather try to provoke my enemy until he declares war on me, try to use cultural conversions.

One thing I try to avoid however is signing mutual protection pacts, since I think most of the time, the AI only uses them to force you to declare war on others.
I'm not a pacifist, but I think wars in civ 3 are unnecessary and plain boring - so I avoid them.

So I can't be regarded as untrustwothy by the other civs in that specific game.
That's why their behaviour looked so strange to me, but I think it really might be related to the short game and victory conditions - I've had similar situations in earlier civ games shortly before I completed my spaceship or (earlier) shortly before it arrived on AC.
It's logical, but no fun - might be a problem with conquest style games - I'll try it a bit more to find out if its the conquest or just my rusty civ skills...