Trading with the enemy.

Txurce · May 31, 2002, 23:10

I just played a space-race game with the Egyptians (Emperor, standard) and launched in 1725, trying an enhanced version of a traditional research approach: trading with the enemy.

My start was the usual: I had Greece and Rome below me on my continent, so after building seven cities, I swung north and knocked England and then Germany off the land mass, taking ten cities in the process. I backfilled two spots, and settled into republic with my 19 cities in 30 AD. Early in the middle ages, I took the tech lead for good. I was on such good terms with everyone that I never upgraded my 14 WCs - they were my only offensive units until I built some tanks because I had nothing better to do. (Note: the AI took forever to research military tradition - no one beelined for it.) I never fought a real war after the ancient era - the Iroquois attacked across the water in a very lame manner right near the end.

My strategy was to trade or sell techs to the enemy throughout the game, staying one tech or less in the research lead. This accomplished three things: it kept me on good terms with all three major powers; gave me the money and luxuries to keep research at the highest possible rate for the entire game; and kept the AI close enough in tech that they occasionally researched something ahead of me on a different tree, which then allowed me to trade for it.

What was I counting on, purposely cutting things so close? That the AI couldn't beat me to space, even when it's on a par with me on every level - because it's just not as focused. This is a simple article of faith, and the AI has never disappointed me. As it turned out, it wasn't even close in the modern era, because they were all fighting, and loving me for keeping them in the tech game.

By the way, these results were achieved with one GL, which gave me a perfectly placed and timed FP (the key to the game), the Sistine Chapel, the Theory of Evolution, and SETI. What could I have done better? I missed out on both Copernicus and Newton, because I didn't have the industrial base; I should have built at least one. As it turned out, I didn't need to research military tradition, and sanitation didn't help all that much, because my cities grew very slowly. That's eight turns wasted on the techs, and who knows how many for missing both those science wonders.

Theseus · June 1, 2002, 11:48

I can imagine your Egyptians being very self-satsified and even arrogant.

"Yes, we fought wars in our ancient past, but we really are the most civilized civ."

Txurce · June 1, 2002, 11:59

They're also a pretty bored bunch: "How many ages until we launch, my queen?"

I had hoped that my not-overwhelming size (and Swiss Guard army) would lead to some conflict over the last 1700 years, but all that trading kept everybody smiling. It was weird. I felt downright uncomfortable not being hated.

Theseus · June 1, 2002, 13:02

I have not had a spaceship win yet... is the AI not as focused as in Civ2?

Russia has built a structural unit. Russia has built a propulsion unit. Russia has built a module.

Theseus has taken Moscow!! Russia splits in two!!

Txurce · June 1, 2002, 19:35

That tactic you just described was my favorite single aspect of Civ2, and what I miss the most.

My sense is that the AI in Civ3 focuses on building wonders, meaning it's aiming for a cultural victory, but can't compete well enough with itself to pull this off. Occasionally you see one militaristic civ engaging in what seems to be a quest for world conquest, but they're rarely as aggressive as you would expect. So in the end, all of them end up racing for space. But the AI's fatally generalist tendencies lead it to research recycling, for example, losing a step. They definitely don't research in an order designed to launch as quickly as possible... and they're never ready to launch one turn after researching the last tech, unlike the farsighted human. I would venture to say that you could enter the modern era one or two techs behind the AI, and still beat it to space.

So, getting back to my trading tactic, keeping them even with you is nowhere as risky as it sounds, as soon as you confirm that they are not researching significantly faster than you. My last trade was two space techs for ecology, which technically caught them up with me... but I trusted in the fact that I had just pulled ahead by two (which is how I could trade two for one). I was right. I quit trading after that, because I had plenty of gold and they failed to research anything I needed.

Catt · June 2, 2002, 00:23

Txurce, I have never been as bold as you have been in your "trading with the enemy" strat, but I don't think I will be shy about using it in the future. From what I have seen (admittedly not a huge sample), you are absolutely right -- while the AI is seemingly going for a space race victory, it diverts attention away from victory to go for Recycling and even Genetics. I just lost a game to Greece via a space race victory. About 5 - 10 turns before the "humiliating defeat," I got the pop-up that the Greeks were building both Cure for Cancer and Longevity! (and, BTW, it wasn't as if the Greeks were multiple techs ahead of the other AI and "milking for wonders" -- it seemed to be a pretty tight race, at least among the AI

-- I was miles behind but wanted to play it out

).

My somehwat limited anecdotal evidence, now that you've made me look at it more closely, indicates that I could be much more aggressive trading techs with the AI. Thanks!

Catt

Metaliturtle · June 2, 2002, 00:45

Tzurce, You've inspired me, I'm off to win my first diety game!!!

Txurce · June 2, 2002, 01:50

Catt, it occurred to me that just because the AI out-researches you in parts of the game (the ancient era, for example), doesn't mean you can't trade with it. If you think about it, trading is how they get ahead in the first place and zip right along. So why not play along, knowing you can plan ahead and beat them to your main space-race goal - scientific method - and then space itself.

(Looking back, I realize I also built Hoover, but that was strictly preventive.)

Metaliturtle, if you win at Deity with this method, definitely let me know!

Lucilla · June 2, 2002, 10:31

I had two or three games where this strat worked really well (regent level, though). I always try to get to the point where I can trade techs and either get enormous amounts of money or other techs out of it.

It's a dangerous strategy, but very thrilling and so far the most exciting way that worked successfully for me in the end game.

An addition to that:
I try to sell luxury / strategic resources as much as possible. When these trades are started at different turns, every few turns I have the possibility to cancel the trade and then get the AI to offer me either more money or its newly researched tech.

Metaliturtle · June 2, 2002, 15:53

Cultural VICTORY!!! I played a pangea with 3 civs and me, I was the Greeks, I quickly allied with Rome, and began some hardcore trading. The French and British were north on the Pangea, and the French were whomping the brits, giving me a perfect trade partner, because the brits were money hungry. The french got the brits down to like 3 cities, when France declared on Rome, the romans asked for my help, and I evened up my trade stance. I then made peace with france, and invaded the rest of England, London had massive wonderage, which is how I got my culture up. The french and the romans were stalemated, so I just traded tech and built temples and libraries, from the final map it looked like I would have gotten a domination vict if I'd had gone off to war with the Romans.

What I found was that I had to give up my luxury recources (I started with 3 wines and a furs, and my next two cities had fur and dyes respectively.)

I think I lucked out with my starting position, but I did utilize the AI will take a spearman in a mountain over a spearman on a plain one square further strat.

Techs just barely went into industrial, but could have gone much further quickly.

I also lucked out with london having killer wonders, Copernicus and Newtons!! This let me keep up in tech, even though the people are really b*tchy on diety and I'm going back to my regent games which I love so very very much.

Alkis · June 2, 2002, 17:30

There are situations, I think, where it's better not to trade your luxuries. Just leave them there to rot rather than be used by a rival Civ.

Example. Suppose you have a monopoly of a certain luxury. This means another Civ has only one way of getting that particular luxury, trading with you. You will get some 10 - 15 per turn, he will have the benefit of something like 50 per cent a turn. Having that luxury means he will allocate less to keep the people happy, meaning he will allocate more into science.

In some situations, when trading with my main rival for instance, I would go so far as to give them money, lots of money, to get what I want and let my luxuries rot.

Try it.

Txurce · June 2, 2002, 22:46

I don't know what's a good deal here, Alkis: wouldn't all that money you're giving them allow them to allocate more for science? Who knows... we'll never have a chart that tells us who comes out ahead in every possible situation. Because we're usually playing against ourselves in the end, I tend to keep trading, since almost any trade gets me to my goal - winning asap - quicker than not trading.

Alkis · June 3, 2002, 11:53

Txurce, you really have a point. The money I gave the Germans in one game, (about 40 per turn) surely helped them and I was aware of that. I just thought that giving them the luxury(s) they wanted would help them even more. You see, when you are in the domestic advisor screen every click of 10% equals about 100 per turn in the late industrial age. When you have many luxuries a single marketplace can keep a 12 size city in order with zero % on luxuries. All that on Emperor. What they asked to sell me their gems where 3 luxuries of mine. Yes, 3 luxuries for their gems. I thought it would be a mistake to accept such a deal. On the other hand getting their gems by giving money would enable me to cut luxuries from 10% to zero %, thus gaining more than double the money I gave them.

Something else on the same subject and in the same game, I gave the Russians who were at war with the strong Germans 3 luxuries for 1. That was done on purpose because I wanted to make them as strong as possible in their war against my main rival.

All I want to say is that it just isn't a good idea to give your luxuries for some 10-15 gold per turn blindly. In some situations your rivals will benefit a lot more. In others, its ok and it's a good idea.

Lucilla · June 3, 2002, 12:00

Alkis,
I agree, if you have a monopoly for a certain luxury, it's of course much more worth. But if other civs can sell that luxury as well, the AI will most likely deal with another civ. If I get the deal, I can at least prevent that they are dealing amongst each other.

Lucilla · June 3, 2002, 12:04

Addition to previous post:

For the same reason I'm often willing to sell a tech to other civs as soon as I've sold it once. If I don't sell it immediatly, the AI will do it in the next turn, and getting less money than it's maybe worth is better than getting nothing and the AI keeps happily spreading it's tech.

Txurce · June 3, 2002, 12:30

Alkis, I see what you're getting at. I've made 3-for-1 deals, but usually with second-rate civs. The same deal with a major power may be enough to put them back in the game.

Alkis · June 3, 2002, 13:10

So, it seems we agree

I also agree with Lucilla, sell to everyone once you have sold it (a tech) once.

jshelr · June 3, 2002, 15:05

You can't lose the tech race once you catch on to AI habits.

If you are way behind at the close of the middle ages, you can always use trading to catch up in tech if you have a decent economy -- by which I mean middle of the pack. If you are way behind, put your research slider on zero. Don't buy from the absolute tech leader, trade with the number two or three civs. They will use the gold to chase the tech leader. You can almost always buy every three turns or so for about half price of researching yourself. That lets you catch up very quickly.

Then, as all of you mentioned, the AI will wander around or fall to fighting in the modern age. Either you have the SS turned on, so you can beat them to it, or you don't, in which case you can always beat them to modern armor and kick butt.

Once you have played a while, unless you get stuck in the occasionaly a bad geographic situation, about the only place you can lose this game is in the ancient era.

Txurce · June 3, 2002, 15:19

Jshelr, that's why I focus on the fastest possible ancient-era start.

And probably why Theseus spends so much time focusing on armies. He's got the game licked, and is having a hell of a lot of fun.

Theseus · June 3, 2002, 18:59

NO WAY. Thanks for the compliment, but I don;t feel that way at all. I a haven;t really shared all the details yet, cause I have a decent shot at a come-back, but in that Egyptian game I am getting whacked upside the head (which is fun actually, if I can pull out a Cinderella story).

Fast starts are key. I do think I handle the ancient era OK though; that's prolly cause the first 15-20 games, that was all I played... I'd get up to maybe Tanks and start a new one. Sort of like Planetfall's been doing, but I tried it on multiple games. For a while, I actually had a cheat sheet taped to my monitor, with all the steps to take early on (and the Civ2 things NOT to do), until I got used to it.

Probably the most important thing I've learned here on 'poly, sort of subconsciously, is that the game experience is set up to help the player win (I guess the theory is that it's more enjoyable). I want to win, sure, but I got really obsessed with Vel's concept of the metagame, and I like to think I've even extended it (a little).

The reason I've always been focused on Armies is that I learned in the Marines about concentration of force... there's nothing else like an Army in the game. And I got inspired by that screenshot Zachriel posted!

Anyway, thanks, but there's a long way to go (especially when it comes to MP!).

Arrian · June 4, 2002, 10:37

I almost never trade tech anymore. One of my main goals is tech supremecy (not just a lead). I will sell the AI luxuries and maybe even strategic resources, and if things are going well, that will max out their economy. Since continental domination is my goal in the ancient/early medieval ages, I usually end up with multiple luxury monopolies which I can sell to the remaining AIs. If the AI would accept a decent deal, I'd trade my luxuries for whichever ones I don't have, but that's not the way it works. So I just sell them mine for gpt to drain them.

Offer I made last night to Shaka (polite): spices, dyes, ivory, wines, and horses in exchange for furs. "I doubt they would accept this proposal." When asked what they wanted... two techs, world map, 740 gold. Hah. If and when I want those furs, I will just go take them.

-Arrian

Txurce · June 4, 2002, 13:22

Theseus, armies define concentration of force in Civ3, in the way that military strategists conventionally use it. I tend to avoid the "500 tanks for every one of theirs" ratios because they don't call for skill beyond building the units in the first place. But armies combine "concentration of force" with the elegance of "just enough" units. I just wish I would get two GLs in the early game more often, so I could practice what you preach.

Now what do you mean about the metagame? I missed many of those threads, not having had the game at the time.

Arrian, even if you do not trade techs because you want to not just win, but to crush the AI... wouldn't a 1-for-1 deal still be advantageous? What do you think about Alkis' point about the benefits to the AI of getting luxuries at a cut-rate price?

Arrian · June 4, 2002, 13:54

1 for 1 deal? You're kidding, right? The AI will never give you a 1 for 1 deal if you're doing well.

Yeah, the AI gets luxuries on the cheap. So what? I don't mind if the AI's people are happy, so long as they're paying me for the priveledge. This has the added bonus that if they find themselves in a war against me, *poof* there goes four luxuries.

I see no disadvantage to selling luxuries. I do see disadvantages to selling tech or strategic resources.

There are exceptions. I will sell the overseas AI tech at first contact to get their world map, all their contacts and gold.

-Arrian

Harovan · June 4, 2002, 17:04

Like Arrian, I like to be the #1 civ, and therefor don't sell techs very often, from the industrial age upward. I had a nice game at a huge map with 16 civs, which I'd like to share. It was my first game with 1.21f, Monarch level, I have mentioned it before. It's not very impressive for territorial gains, but it shows, that one can rule all AI's and have a 1st class reputation. I'm alone at my continent, because I killed the Americans and Aztecs early. I broke many treaties, but, look at my reputation in the savegame. Nobody knows about my ancient atrocities, I am everybody's buddy, all civs eagerly trade with me (which makes this post on-topic

) and even the nasty and demanding Herr Bismarck is polite to me, as are, btw, all other civs too. I wanted to go for the spaceship, I'm at least half era ahead in tech, but I won by culture about a dozen turns before the launch.

Here's a 1500AD shot:

Txurce · June 4, 2002, 23:39

What throws me sometimes, Sir Ralph, is that I always assume that if you're going for, say, a space-race win, then wouldn't your goal be to win as soon as possible? If so, then trading with the AI will definitely get you there faster, if they trade you even one tech, or provide you with the gold to research a tech even one tuern faster than you otherwise would have. The only risk is that they beat you to it!

By the way, is that Blucher under your monicker? I know he was pretty old by Waterloo. Cool choice... but why didn't you pick the German Sun-Tzu?

And most importantly... would you know how I can open your SAV file on a Mac?

Harovan · June 5, 2002, 04:08

Txurce,

you are right, things would go faster if the AI could compete. I should probably play more Emperor games. In this game, I also traded tech. Mostly old, medieval techs for luxuries. And IIRC I sold iron to Bismarck for low price, because he was in need. But if the AI is so poor, that I get offers like World map, 20 gold for Steam power, I lose the interest in trading. Btw, I achieved my lead researching myself (as I was alone) and I outresearched the whole bunch of 11 AIs on the big continent, so far about the AI competing.

Yes, it's Blücher in my Avatar. And the words in my footnote are, what he said to his troups on the verge of the Battle of Nations, 1813. Roughly translated, it is: "Who this evening will be neither dead nor drunken of delight, must have fought like an infamous coward", and it won close ahead of Wellingtons "Night or the Prussians must come". Who's called the German Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? Well, it would also be a good choice.

I have no idea how you can open the savegame on the Mac. You probably have to wait till 1.21f is available, which can't be so far ahead, according to the latest news.

Txurce · June 5, 2002, 11:33

Yeah, there's no point in trading steam power for next to nothing, unless you're playing puppetmaster. And I suspect that trading rocketry to the Iroquois for 350 gpt led to them declaring war on me soon after... but it was fun, anyway.

Yep, it's Clausewitz whom I characterized as the German Sun Tzu. I was making light of Sun Tzu's rapid rise to supremacy over the last ten or twenty years in the pantheon of popular strategists. There was a day when Clausewitz was seated a few rows above him...

Harovan · June 5, 2002, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Txurce
And I suspect that trading rocketry to the Iroquois for 350 gpt led to them declaring war on me soon after... but it was fun, anyway.

If you want to stay in peace, never accept trades for more than 100 gpt. If the AI gets bankrupt, because it switches governments or loses cities (or even luxuries!), it will declare war as it's the only way out. I have learned that the hard way, btw with the Iroquois too. I sold a tech for about 150 gpt and was at war soon after.

Metaliturtle · June 5, 2002, 12:55

I found that Ghandi Perpetually bankrupts himself, he may have the largest civ on the map, but all he ever has to trade is like one lux and a map. Anybody else notice this?

I've also seen the same stuff with the Iroquois, maybe it's because they are extremely warlike.

My $0.02

Txurce · June 5, 2002, 13:31

It is surprising how broke some successful civs are. You could argue that they are putting their gold to good use, etc, and it could be true. Does anyone know if the AI's personality settings affect behavior like this (much like the Germans being aggressive, or France friendly)?