1.17f strategy - Page 2

notyoueither · February 16, 2002, 20:57

It seems that when Soren said the AI would aggressively sell tech, he was serious.

Anybody else sense that the AI will immediately sell any tech to all available civs for what-ever it can get? That's what it seems to be to me, at first glimpse.

Oh well. It also seems to lessen the cost of buying from them, so it might be a double-edged sword.

Salve

Ironwood · February 16, 2002, 21:03

Hey! Firaxis taught the comp to tech whore!

Panag · February 17, 2002, 13:12

well , if the Ai is thinking that he can get a benefit in not giving the tech , he shall do so !

Also , depending on the level , the AI gets his tech's faster or slower , anyway lets not forget , unless you changed it in the editor that after 40 turns you or they get the tech anyway !!!!!

Have a nice day !!!!

barefootbadass · February 17, 2002, 22:00

Hmm, about pop rushing, the change is good and appropriate I think, the entertainer thing would work but require a steady supply of workers which might still be worth it, but it won't be near as powerful. At least that is how it looks on paper to me, I just installed the patch.

I'll be interested to see what they did to the food box and granaries that prevents the size 6 city thing, I'd guess we'll have to settle for a worker every other turn, which will be good to leave my 10 shield cities to building more shield intensive stuff.

notyoueither · February 19, 2002, 03:21

Ummm, OK. This is getting scary.

I am well into 2nd game with 1.17 now. Playing Emperor, standard map, 8 civs.

The world is at the early industrial age right now. Yes everyone. The AI seems to sell tech amongst themselves as soon as they get it. But that's only half of it.

---- Conversation in the Senate a few minutes ago.

Advisor: Ummm, sir, sir?

To whom I reply: *Yeah what is it?*

Did you notice sir, how Mao attacked the English until they were down to 5 or 6 cities, then gave them peace even though he could easily have finished them?

*Yeah, so?*

And then he switched to the Germans. Funny though that even though the core German cities were the easiest to get to, he has taken everything else. The Germans are down to 6 cities now, and they're fairly burnt out. What do you want to bet that Mao will make peace with Bismark in a few more turns?

*Just what are you driving at? I'm beginning to get annoyed.*

Well, just that if Mao were vassilising his neibours, he'd make peace with Bismark after taking 1 or 2 more cities, that's all.

*Vassilise? Yeah, of course that's what he's doing. Do you...? !!!!. Hmmm... errr... ahhhh... That'll leave us as his next neibour won't it. Ummhmmm. Do you happen to know were the consul responsible for armaments is right now?*

----

Have any of the rest of you noticed that the AI can tend to be much more aggressive early? In this game the Russians, on another continent, were gone during the Ancient era.

Now, by the end of the Middle Ages, 2 more are basket cases that will only survive as vassels. Have any of the rest of you noticed the AI practicing the favorite strategy of many of the human feudal lords?

Salve

Skanky Burns · February 19, 2002, 07:35

Now that you mention it, in my current (just finished) game, the Chinese crushed the French down to 2 cities, but let them survive till the end with that many cities.

I started the game to test out how much group movement and not-always retreating affected the game, but started out as the only civ on my continent (half the land on it) and the other 3 civs on the other continent. I did not attack a single enemy during that game

(excluding barbarians)

Looks like I will need a new game to test these stuff out but...

Useful strategy:
Once you discover railroads, you will likely have many workers and can put them into groups to build railways in 1 or 2 turns. In this situation you can use group movement to your advantage by moving the whole worker group to their next railroad site with one command, rather than 1 by 1.

Unfortunately, thats my only tip at this time

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 04:19

I have a hard time believing that there is not more to discuss about strategy changes as of 1.17f.

Maybe you're all too busy playing.

OK, here's one. The effect of rushing on the AI seems to be making the builder strategy more viable.

From examining AI civs (with the handy *multi* switch) I have observed the AIs driving themselves into the ground happiness wise. So either the AI does not pop-rush, or if it does it just ham-strings itself.

In either case the builder, who would not be likely to pop-rush very often (if ever) does not find him/herself overwhelmed in a sea of pop-rushed AI armies.

Bump

Salve

Zachriel · February 20, 2002, 09:16

The biggest change is in the goody huts. They now result in bigger and better prizes, including settlers. That gives expansionist civs a major advantage.

Arrian · February 20, 2002, 10:37

Ok, after playing one game into the mid-industrial age, here are my thoughts:

Goody huts are definitely much "nicer" whether you're expansionist or not, though I would expect them to be great for exp. tribes.

IMHO, however, the biggest change is the AI tech trading. They trade techs immediately to each other at low cost (not for nothing, I've seen dirt poor AI's fall way behind). Though I found this VERY frustrating, I found that buying or trading for tech from the AI was pretty cheap too.

Tech advancement is much faster... I think the first AI hit the Industrial Age right around 1000AD (Normal/Continents/8civs - Monarch). That's pretty quick, but what really threw me was that they got there before me. I have a successful game going, and pre-patch that would have meant a substantial tech lead going into the Industrial Age. Instead, I traded for and/or bought a couple of techs, including nationalism and military tradition!!.

I think I may have made a mistake early on in not selling any tech where I had an advantage - trying to hold my lead. Once I got Steam Power before the AI, I sold it (only 2 or 3 AI's paid top dollar, the rest offered me 30gold/world map, or even nothing at all for it once I'd traded it). I then sold medicine. Then I sold something else. NOW, finally, I have a tech lead. It's not much, but it will do. So, basically, trade like crazy. Beelining is more important now. And keep in mind that one luxury trade can net you two or even three techs you've ignored.

-Arrian

Selkirk · February 20, 2002, 13:38

I also notice that post-patch the AI seems better at upgrading units. I was in a late age war and the computer landed a transport full of tanks behind my lines and managed to raze one of my cities. Pre-patch, I think the transport would have only had 1 or 2 tanks, or would have had a archers mixed in. In the whole war, I didn't see any units more obsolete than cavalry.

I also think the computer might be a little more aggressive, or might be more accurately calculating power. (Perhaps accounting for obsolete units?)

Overall, I think the AI changes are good. I tried playing a couple of games on deity and got my ass kicked and had to drop down to emperor. (I was playing all my games on deity pre-patch).

Arrian · February 20, 2002, 14:05

Selkirk,

I hope you're right about that. Many posters have mentioned that the AI wasn't upgrading properly. My (limited to one game) experience thus far isn't conclusive:

I was invaded by Greece (my nice, friendly trading partner with an active RoP agreement). Alex sent in a couple of riflemen, a horseman, 3 swordsmen, a longbowman, and a Cavalry. Sounds like the old non-upgrading AI. But then I went on the offensive and ran into cities with nothing but Infantry in them, with Cavalry counterattacking (until I cut his saltpeter, horses, iron and rubber). I had to slug it out with artillery bombardment followed by Cavalry charges... many of which ended badly. I won, but it hurt. So it does look like the AI upgraded its city garrisons. The first few defenders (2 or 3) were regular or even vets, with draftees underneath.

-Arrian

DrSpike · February 20, 2002, 14:38

Well I thought I'd miss out tourney 6 and instead play a post-patch deity game. I chose the Egyptians, because since 1.07 I prefer to consolidate a bit then rush rather than rush a la Randomturn's vassalisation strat. I haven't played as the Egyptians before, and since 1.17f will have less early rushing I thought the cheap chariot would serve me well. I'm soon going to get chance to see, as the Romans are between me and all the other civs within reach. Furthermore they are being really tight. The AI never gives anything away on deity but they wont even sell me their original techs for 150 gold, and it's about 1000BC. They also wont sell any communications for 150 gold, and that's all I've got. The new tech trading is in evidence though, they have loads more techs than I do, but I thought the idea was that they were more aggresive trading with the player as well. I can see why some people are suggesting that there is a "me V the AI feeling".

Tonight onward with the war against the tight-assed Romans.

Aeson · February 20, 2002, 16:07

The AI certainly gives better deals to other AI than to the player. I was just running through a couple ancient era games to test openings without any pop rushing, and consistantly the AI would trade away Techs to other AI for close to nothing, while charging me at least several hundred gold for each. In one case the Egyptians wanted my world map (worth ~400 gold at the time if I wanted to sell it) and 700 gold for Construction. They had just traded it to the Persians for 5 gold total. I passed on the "deal" and got construction from a hut for free a couple turns later. Now my stacks of Impi are taking revenge on both AI, keeping either of them from ever getting a road to Iron... teach them to try and rip me off. Like all the other shady AI practices, it just gives me a motive for otherwise senseless violence

Ironikinit · February 20, 2002, 17:15

Has anyone noticed a change to how the Theory of Evolution works? I got the tech I was researching and then could choose the second one.

Arrian · February 21, 2002, 13:10

Yeah, it's now working like Darwin's did in Civ II. If you discover a tech 3 turns before ToE is to be completed, just shut science off, rake in cash, and then go full science once it's done. I didn't realize it had been changed, so I left my research rate alone and wasted 2 turns at 70% science. Doh.

-Arrian

Ironikinit · February 21, 2002, 15:04

Right, so no more need to backfill techs now. I still ended up with the dead ends eventually, although I didn't get espionage until the mid-modern. The AI tends to tack them on to deals or I picked them up in peace treaties, treating worthless techs with the contempt they deserve. I offered my world map and got free artistry and 3 gold, for example. Shakespeare's Theater was completed, of course.

IMO, the Theory of Evolution is an important wonder as it gave me the tech lead and as a large democracy I was able to keep it despite AI tech trading. I'll have to see if it as useful in future games. Since the techs can now be chosen and backfilling isn't required, IMO the ToE is more important under 1.17.

Xin Yu · February 22, 2002, 20:17

Well, I suppose you can still do high research rate, and just before the ToE is done, switch to another tech. After getting your free techs, switch backthen continue.

Ironikinit · February 22, 2002, 20:28

What would be the advantage? You get the tech you're researching + 1 of your choice. AFAIK switching research causes all generated beakers to be lost.

Xin Yu · February 22, 2002, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
AFAIK switching research causes all generated beakers to be lost.

Oops, you are right. They only keep your research for the same turn. The next turn it got lost.

Panag · February 26, 2002, 19:19

ya know one thing that is not good with the theory is this ;

ya have to put your science low for whatever reason ya build the thing and then , only one advance , if you look at it good , grrrr , not only that , say , ya make a mod , and in the editor , you have marked somewhere , "+2advances" , ya only get one ! grrr

imagine you are like only 2-3 or even 1 turn away from a new tech , BANG , all the work for nothing , aint life great , in civ3 , LOOOOOOL just nice , just nice , okay , if we make ourselves heard loud enough , maybe someone , somewhere' will think of it in patch number so and so , ...........................

have a nice day

DrSpike · February 26, 2002, 19:22

I'll have whatever he's having

Encomium · February 27, 2002, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
. . . the biggest change is the AI tech trading. They trade techs immediately to each other at low cost (not for nothing, I've seen dirt poor AI's fall way behind). Though I found this VERY frustrating, I found that buying or trading for tech from the AI was pretty cheap too. . .

-Arrian

With Culture Flipping still occuring despite garrisons; with outrageous extortionate trade demands from rival civs; with civs constantly swapping techs cheaply; and with the AI cheating at least as bad as ever. . . my best strategy is to go back to 1.16. I'll miss stack movement, but that's all.

1.17 is simply the Human Against the World. No sale.

Zouave · February 27, 2002, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium

With Culture Flipping still occuring despite garrisons; with outrageous extortionate trade demands from rival civs; with civs constantly swapping techs cheaply; and with the AI cheating at least as bad as ever. . . my best strategy is to go back to 1.16. I'll miss stack movement, but that's all.

1.17 is simply the Human Against the World. No sale.

Will you ever stop harping on these things? Anybody who has read this forum in the last month is quite aware of your feelings. Let it go.

DrSpike · February 27, 2002, 13:32

LOL

Well at least the humans V AI gripe is new...........and not exactly unfair.

radegast · February 27, 2002, 13:43

Only one game played anywhere near completion on 1.17f. A few losses (Babylon got stomped by 100Ad, but then it started on a jungle/desert peninsular with no iron/horses/saltpeter and not much contact either). Only one luxury too.

Strategy doees not seem to have changed much with this patch other than I have to trade a lot more than before (when the AI allows this).

Playing Huge, 16 civs, Romans, Emporor all random. Tech advanced very fast indeed, I'd researched nuclear power by the mid 17th Century!

I've stayed in republic since i discovered it, the faster workers in democracy is not much of an issue, I've got 100 or so foriegn workers plus many others from the worker farms (see later), so cleaning up/building anything is no big deal. My core (original) empire is fully developed with most cities stable in population and producing tank/mech inf/mod armour every 1 2 or 3 turns.

I have more armies than in any other game (about 15 at the moment), making the capture of cities fairly guaranteed and relatively costless.

I control about 1/3 of the planet, with the English and Greeks my only serious competitors. (America were, but now they aren't!).

I'm now at about 100 cities, most of which are hopelessly corrupted. But there is 25 or so that have good solid production, fully built up so the armour just keeps rolling out.

An army of 250+ units, all mod/arm mech/inf with a few elite tanks/infantry/cavalry still hanging about. Plenty Arty,Airforce,Navy and Nukes around too. Oh, and an elite legionairre kept for sentimental reasons as the Palace guard. Actually these guys did sterling service in the industrial age, polishing off heavily damaged cavalry in stacks, garrisoning the mountain fortresses on the borders (even got it to take a chunk out a a passing cavalry once, so fortress ZOC obviously do work, at least on occasion), and generally rushing to where just 'one more unit' was needed.

What I have done this time is I'm getting some use of of my totally corrupt cities. Almost all of these have access to sufficient food for them to produce a worker every 10 turns or so.

I tend not to raze AI cities as this tends to slow down the blitzkrieg, espicially on established civs and cities. I'll raze peripheral cities, and even central ones if I've got a settler who can build immediately and the borders don't look to overlap. Sometimes the new city gets founded one square away.

I counter city flipping by destroying the host empire! Or at least by bouncing their capital a long way away, and giving some peace treaty cities away if I have too. City flipping really only becomes a major problem in the late game anyway, so early wars are usually not to destruction. Unless I can that is!

Basically, on capturing a city and deciding not to raze and rebuild, I'll start a temple right away. 60 turns, yeah right. So, normally I'll disband an artillery of two and pay the rest once resistance has been crushed. I use arillery mainly because once the blitz is underway, arty can't usually keep up and is relativly cheap. And building arty is better than building wealth because I don't have to use it to 'rush', I can use for offence/defence is I need too.

The temple is built to ensure cultural expansion, and hece borders If the captured city has no market place it is put straight onto making workers, if it has a market place then it will sometimes be able to produce a few shields from a large population, so these get to produce a factory or cathederal depending on the overall luxury state of the nation.

This is because a totally corrupt city can stiil produce normal food, and hence can produce population which can be turned into workers which can either work, or can be joined into productive cities. Most major cities are poulation stable with at most one or two specialists which will get consumed into workers/settlers every so often.

The AI has a propensity to draft/force labor to extremes so its is not uncommon to have cities with just one pop who is a specialist, so no growth at all. These just get settler disbanded and rebuilt, expensive but it pays back over time.

This feature does cause me a lot of frustration though, it wasn't me who drafted/forced laboured them yet they blame me for it. Doesn't seem right to me.

Often I'll use my own workers to 'dilute' the foriegn nationals in a newly captured city, I'm not sure this helps with the flip but it seems to. I've generally got enough workers anyway.

The AI loves sending its troops across my territory, these will get funnelled back with worker/unit walls if I don't fancy the risk of war by demanding withdrawal. By the end game, workers are just there to depolute there is often little point in improving much of the captured lands past building roads/railways/irrigation, and most of this has been done already.

Aeson · February 27, 2002, 17:29

Deity/Huge/Pangaea/8AI 950BC

I played several openings to games until I got the perfect start. I was able to get every Ancient Era tech from huts, along with 3 Settlers (two kinda late though). The Pangaea was split into at least 2, with only 5 of the AI on my continent. I was able to get the Great Lighthouse, which slowed down my expansion, but should pay off as I will be the first one to make contact with the other 3 AI. I was never able to trade tech or maps for gold per turn, even when the AI were visably making 15-20 gold every turn. I still was able to get most of their gold by selling my map every turn though.

I had a tech lead of 5+ on each of the other Civs once I hit the Middle Ages 8 turns ago. The entire continent was mapped out, no huts. I traded Republic to each of the AI for a few gold, useless maps, and 5 workers (why I made the trade), putting me at 4 techs ahead. 8 Turns later I am now 1 tech behind all but the English, who for some reason have no money and are very backwards (only halfway through the Ancient Era). They do have as many units/cities as any of the others. I had swapped the Zulu and English places in the editor, so that I could use orange. The game crashes if you just try and swap colors. Then I modified the Zulu names, but no gameplay changes were made. Somehow it must have affected the way the other AI see the English, but sadly it hasn't helped my relations.

Without pop rushing, military buildup is falling way behind. I think conquest will still be the way to go, but Horsemen are almost useless on these settings unless I use the Scout trick to deny the AI Iron and Saltpeter. Knights are looking equally useless, as by the time I build any the tech for Cavalry will be available. I just will unhook my Iron and build up a Horsemen army, then reconnect and upgrade. Hopefully my Impi stacks can keep a couple of the AI without Saltpeter. Riflemen will probably be showing up by the end of the BC's though, and with Astronomy the other 3 AI will most likely be added to the trading loop to speed up the tech rate.

I would say that the tech trading system will make military rushes much harder, which is a good thing. The problem is that all gameplay has been cut out. Ancient Era units are obsolete in the blink of an eye. It isn't looking very good for Middle age units either. Those were the two most enjoyable era's for me. It isn't that it is too hard, just that it all flys by much too fast. I guess I can play lower difficulty levels to lengthen things out, but then the challenge is less too.

Jack_www · February 27, 2002, 18:33

The first new game I played after I installed the new patch was as the Eygptions. I noticed that when a discovered a tech that led to a new form of government that if I chose to start the revolution right when it asked me if I wanted to start the revolution or stay with my current form of government that after I it fininshed telling what cities have produced something that the anarcy was over and was not even a full turn of anarchy, just the begining of the turn and thats it. I not sure if this was ture before the patch or not though.

Now it is harder to trade tech to the computer since it traded even more now and sometime when you got extra techs to trade they have no gold. But I did noticed that you can get pretty close to the 4 science a turn rate with out much gold per turn form other civs if you focus on building up your empire though.

Panag · February 28, 2002, 16:10

hmmm , the only thing i start to see is people who start to be frustrated , hmmmm , more and more , hmmm , maybe , just maybe , if we complain hard enough , the will do something about it , just maybe , .................

have a nice day

Ironwood · February 28, 2002, 22:37

What are you, a professional troll? That almost sounded like a psychologist's notes on the effects of a particular post on its readers.

DrSpike · March 1, 2002, 10:42

I think its Jimmy's DL alterego for when he's partaken in one too many.