Whats the Bloody point?

The Andy-Man · July 7, 2001, 11:03

Whats the bloody point of having a massive greek empire of 38 cities, spanning from spain to japan, if you cant push the other civs around?

At first glance i thought 'hey! I could demand tributes. My power is supreme, and i have the catapults to back up my threats, lets go'

First thing i do, goto the diplomacy screen and speak to the vikings with one city and 2 units left: I DEMAND MONEY.

answer, we ignore your feeble threat.

Next turn, bye bye Gunhild.

Next turn: Americans and Sioux sign an anti greek agression pact.

this is on prince mode btw.

Father Beast · July 7, 2001, 12:07

Hmmnn... doesn't seem like much does it?
I have had the occaisional huge empire with lots of advanced units, and a zulu warrior comes up and demands tribute in exchange for refraining from crushing my pathetic civilization. they will also declare War! over it, go figure, and sue for peace as soon as I wipe out a settler of theirs.
I don't get it.

The Andy-Man · July 7, 2001, 12:36

stupid AI, its like your up against 6 irish nations (no offence).

Scouse Gits · July 7, 2001, 17:31

I don't know the exact details of your game Andy Man, but the AI will use that "Ignore your feeble threats" reponse in a number of circumstances:

a) You have just received tribute from them in the last few turns.
b) They don't have any money to give you.
c) You can only gain tribute if you are on the same continent as the relevant Civ.

I suspect that they just don't have the cash

The anti human player "aggression pacts" are common playing at Deity level after 1750AD - I assume the same date holds good for Prince.

----------------

SG(2)

The Andy-Man · July 7, 2001, 17:39

the first pact was signed in 1000AD...

The Aztecs have only their capital city left, they demanded metalurgy. I said no, and they say: Prepare for WAR!'

This is with 1 city left and me having 5 on that continent...

Earwicker · July 9, 2001, 12:39

Seldom, if ever, has the AI been accused of rational, intelligent thinking in the face of superior forces.

It would be so much better if Civ, like SMAC, had the "Surrender and Serve" option for dying Civs. It's a nuisance and a pity to destroy civs only because of their rulers' arrogance.

The Andy-Man · July 9, 2001, 13:04

its no pity whiping out the last city of a civ with 30 artillary

Its just a nuisance if that last city has city walls and you cnat be bothered to make the spies and diplo's to break 'em...

Its like the anti agression pacts they make give them a flase sense of security.

And btw, has anyone ever seen 2 AI civs which have an anti agression pact, break the alliance and declare war on each other?

Earwicker · July 9, 2001, 16:28

Being a howitzer man myself, I like to leave the city walls alone.

I am more likely to see the war-peace-alliance all in between one turn that the AI is so fond of. Dogpile the Human, I think it's called. I love causing those alliances to break, while their units are wandering around within each others' territories - pay one civ enough to declare war on an enemy. Watch them both plummet in the powergraph.

Rasputin · July 9, 2001, 19:02

I nerver find AI will give me truibutes once i get powerful , they obviously run scared.. then if i do attack one of them (usually after they attack first) all the other AI gang up on me and share techs to catch me up. very unfair, this happens in all my games and can happen very early in game pre 1000AD...

The Andy-Man · July 9, 2001, 19:30

its very hard to use howitzers when know body has discovered steam engine.........

This is a problem with ICSing, 30 cities by the year 1000bc, all with garrisons. by the bc/ad turn, 3 nations have already signed a nice anti-you agressionm patc :mad

The Andy-Man · July 9, 2001, 19:35

and these stupid smilies never work :evenmadder

Thoth · July 10, 2001, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
c) You can only gain tribute if you are on the same continent as the relevant Civ.

SG(2)

You don't have to start on the same continent. If you have a sufficiently large colony the AI will pony up. I suspect it makes the decision based on number of cities and military strength.

The Andy-Man · July 10, 2001, 11:57

Latest news:

In a game as the persians on euro map, i am the most scientificly advanced nation (by far), and by chance have again amasses a high number of cities, am the only nation (apart from from my backward allies the greeks) to have gunpowder. Almost every city is defended by 3 musketeers ready for when i discover metullergy and loose the great wall.

The year, 1220. In 2 turns, all nations apart from greece have signed an anti agression patc

Even the germans who have only one city left after massive wars with greece have declared war on me.

Now get this, they have all signed anti agression pacts, against a nation that only ever declared war once, and that was just because the sioux were showing signs of hostile intent, so i sent 2 or 3 of my far advanced army and beat them back a city

For a nation that has a history of little agression, lots of people havesigned anti me agression p[acts

splangy · July 10, 2001, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Latest news:

In a game as the persians on euro map, i am the most scientificly advanced nation (by far), and by chance have again amasses a high number of cities, am the only nation (apart from from my backward allies the greeks) to have gunpowder. Almost every city is defended by 3 musketeers ready for when i discover metullergy and loose the great wall.

The year, 1220. In 2 turns, all nations apart from greece have signed an anti agression patc

Even the germans who have only one city left after massive wars with greece have declared war on me.

Now get this, they have all signed anti agression pacts, against a nation that only ever declared war once, and that was just because the sioux were showing signs of hostile intent, so i sent 2 or 3 of my far advanced army and beat them back a city

For a nation that has a history of little agression, lots of people havesigned anti me agression p[acts

i agree, its like im all

and for NO reason they become

im like

ok time to die!

then they all act like

and

(smileys are fun)

The Andy-Man · July 11, 2001, 05:45

well if the ai didn't be nastyy, i would never have seen that colourfull post. I think i will frame it

shade · July 12, 2001, 17:44

only anti-agressionpacts against you.
My last game is better i can't even get them to make peace best i get are cease fires .(maybe it's because i'm atrosciuos

)
shade

Rasputin · July 12, 2001, 21:47

i have played gaems wher ei have not attacked a single nation , but they have all signed anti aggression pacts agaisnt me, I know its because the AI is suposedly too weak and as soon as you get ahead it does this to fight back, but it is just so unrealsitic...

The Andy-Man · July 14, 2001, 15:25

i have recently been plating a game in King (fist tiome for me)
as the english on world map. I was a lil agressive, but nations kept making war with me. so i conquered most of the roman empire and had a large nation. EVERYBODY has an anti me aggression pact except my allies the spanish, but they have 2 citiess

and because i never expected to go war. some of my cities have very little defence, bye bye big empire

Father Beast · July 14, 2001, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
i have played gaems wher ei have not attacked a single nation , but they have all signed anti aggression pacts agaisnt me, I know its because the AI is suposedly too weak and as soon as you get ahead it does this to fight back, but it is just so unrealsitic...

I know the feeling. I played as an OCC once where a number of nations made anti agression pacts against me. go figure.

The Andy-Man · July 15, 2001, 13:25

but if you are the most power nation, wouldn't it mak sense for the AI to want to ally with YOU?

i would rather have the most powerful nation as my ally then have 2 crappy nations with me against the most powerfuk whuich just destroyedc the romans!

EOL · July 16, 2001, 06:37

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but if you are the most power nation, wouldn't it mak sense for the AI to want to ally with YOU?

i would rather have the most powerful nation as my ally then have 2 crappy nations with me against the most powerfuk whuich just destroyedc the romans!

Sure in the real world - but how would one lesser civ win the game if he can't scupper the plans of the leading civ due to an alliance. It might be more realistic if civs allied to the eventual winner were allowed some of the glory too.

EOL

Rasputin · July 16, 2001, 07:26

allied victorys are something i am hoping to see in Civ3 .. opens up more stratgeys instead of all ganging up on one..

shade · July 16, 2001, 09:26

There is only one thing that would make civ3 infinite better than Civ2=> an AI with a brain(all the rest will pale against that,I'm sure of this)

Shade

Rasputin · July 16, 2001, 10:09

no not an ai with a brain , but MP built as integral part of the game ... not an add on ....

The Andy-Man · July 16, 2001, 13:23

if there were more civs and a bigger map, alliances would mean something, for there would be less room to expand, and there fore most nations would need the help of some others to obliterate another grtoup of nations etc.

lord of the mark · July 19, 2001, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
stupid AI, its like your up against 6 irish nations (no offence).

Evidently you missed my "yasser arafat is a civ2 ai" thread in the off topic forum

at risk of being off topic

LOTM

lord of the mark · July 19, 2001, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

The anti human player "aggression pacts" are common playing at Deity level after 1750AD - I assume the same date holds good for Prince.

----------------

SG(2)

The AI gang-up starts in 1750 on ALL levels, IIRC. Its just much easier to deal with on the lower levels

LOTM

The Andy-Man · July 19, 2001, 13:49

its worse when your nation is inbeetween the other 2 on a massive continent

and nobody has come up with tactics or leadership but they all have connons?

Gatekeeper · July 19, 2001, 14:16

T-A-M, et al.:

I don't find it that illogical when weaker nations team up against you.

In your world — one where logic would dictate that the weaker join the stronger for preservation's sake — then Cuba, Iraq and Libya should all be in the American fold. After all, isn't our military might strong enough to wipe them off the face of the Earth? Yet these nations continually thumb their noses at us and get away with it despite their weakness. They also seem to get their jollies by making pronouncements against U.S. "hegemony."

With that in mind, the AI strategy isn't so far-fetched, IMHO. It's annoying, yes, but not unexpected. BTW, I have my games set to scenario mode, where you can prevent the AI from sharing technology with itself (that gets rid of the Stone Age culture becoming a Modern Age culture in the span of a single turn).

As for the post 1750 AD anti-human player alliances, I avoid that by simply trying to stay at "mighty" status or lower. Usually that can be accomplished in a perfectionist type play with less than 20 cities and a strong (but defensive) military.

CYBERAmazon

The Andy-Man · July 19, 2001, 14:44

there are more nations that side with the stronger then the weaker, cuban anti-american attitude has arisen from them being on friendly terms with another mighty power in its day (russia).

But look how many weaker do join the stronger, all of europe joined with america instead of all joined against for eg.

and every time i have tried to live a perfectionist society, the AI declares war, and unless i CONQUER him, he never gives up. then i end up with more then 20 cities.