Man, I can't get the hang of this diplomacy stuff...........

wvfoos · September 21, 2002, 11:51

I'm new here (so be gentle please), nice site.

I used to play the orig civ, and just would use my catapaults and tanks to own the world, even on the higher difficulty levels.

But this civ3, man, you get one or two civ's mad at you and its over. I'm playin on chieftan (no laughs, its only my second real game of civ3). And it seems evern though i'm technically superior to the civs, in terms of science and military, i'm getting lots of "blackmale" type offers from the civs. In other words, they are always wanting just gift type stuff - they want techs, etc, and offer basically nothing in return. And they always are annoyed. Even the americans, who were "polite" were asking for blackmale offers. No offense, but i just don't feel like giving up chivarly and metallurgy as I'm the only one with them, AND the guys asking for them are often showing "annoyed" (or even "furious" sometimes) in their leader's screen. Not to mention, I"ve got ideas of taking their land in the very near future, and would rather not have to wade through knights and cannons to get to their capital.

Also, is it better, to go straight for the capital? Does parking some units within striking distance of their capital make them more receptive to peace. It seems like we can fight for years over their outlying territory, and they just keep coming. But I make a thrust towards their capital and get within a few squares, and they want to talk peace.

Btw, i've seen some posts on here about selling your techs to make money. How much should I be getting for them? Do i just use that little advisor guy who tells me if they will accept the deal? I mean, hte civs i'm playin with are always just about broke. I"ve got like 1000 gold, and they are down around 100 or so gold. I did manage to sell one to the americans for like 250 one time. Is lump sum better than over time? Which will bring you more? Or is it the same, and its better to just get the 250 now, instead of over 20 years?

Fredric Drum · September 21, 2002, 13:09

All the other leaders are bastards. That's a fact. So you have to be one too. Build your military, so that you can easily refuse that silly blackmailing (or they may refrain from doing so

. Diplomacy is very crude... they all hate you and want your head on a plate by default, so it's up to you to either destroy them or bribe them. The only language they understand is fear, so make them fear you.

If you sell something, it's better to get the money right away, unless the amount you get per turn adds up to more.

As for trading techs, I never sell techs for money, only for other tech. That's on a higher difficulty, and maybe they have no tech to give to you on Chieftain?

About the peace/capital business... never seen any connection there. They will agree to talk to you after a while, whether they will give you anything depends on how the war's going. If they're reduced to almost nothing, they will give you all their good stuff for a treaty.

vmxa1 · September 21, 2002, 16:22

Don't know how much time you are willing to spend, but there are some great threads on strategy here.
As was stated, you have to have enough troops to make the AI respect or better yet fear you. Go to the advisor and select each civ and he will tell you how you comare. If he says they are stronger, expect to hear from them with demands or declarations.
Trade is optional at chief, you can use it to get a boost or you can ignore it as you can get ahead either way.
The advisor will tell you what they will offer/accept. The idea for selling a tech is to do it for all. If you sell ecology to one, go to all sell it for whateveer you can get as the AI will sell if you don't.
Rexing to get the number of sites you control is first priority and having troops is second. Use of workers if the key to power early. Mine, mine, mine, did I mention minning? Hold off irrigation until you have no choice. Only improve tiles that are worked by a citizen. Plan worker movments to keep from wasting turns. Attacking capitols is a special case and depends are your goal. Do you want them out of the game or not. If not them hit a few cities and let them buy you off.

bbaws · September 22, 2002, 00:04

A lot of the reason they all hate you so bad is that you have a big tech lead on them. I undrestand your position, you are trying out Civ3 for the first time after playing Civ and Civ2. You want to be able to build each wonder first etc. The only way to get a real tester gaame is to give the AI all techs that you have, but don't give them the techs straight away, keep a buffer of one to three techs, if you get too far ahead just give them away. Particularly currency, construction,banking,sanitation,industrialization and steam power. Give the AI techs that will improve their economy. This way you will get a better tester game, the AIs will probably all love you to bits and you'll get more realistic feedback on what pisses them off. Also they won't just have Ancient age units and you'll get a decent idea of what you need to beat certain units.

bbaws · September 22, 2002, 00:11

The capital strike isn't anywhere near as effective as it was in Civ and Civ2. What you can do though is cut the capital off, all the empire gets its luxuries and resources through the capital so if you break or stand on all the roads from an enemy capital you are likely to see a lot of enemy cities go into revolt and all those cities will be unable to build units that require strategic resources. Have a look at the manual, there is a must read chapter for those who have played civ before.

vmxa1 · September 22, 2002, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Fredric Drum
About the peace/capital business... never seen any connection there. They will agree to talk to you after a while, whether they will give you anything depends on how the war's going. If they're reduced to almost nothing, they will give you all their good stuff for a treaty.

That true, it all depends. My last game was monarch and I was pasting USA hard. Took 10-12 cities and they never even asked for peace. I finally decide I had enough and let them slide. I have had them ask for peace and want it straight up even though they lost city after city and most of their units. I am doing an EMP game now and they still want lop sided deals.

Ethelred · September 22, 2002, 02:50

The problem isn't your diplomacy. The problem is that you haven't learned how to develop your civ yet.

There are a number of threads you read to see how to play better.

I am going on cases where people have posted saves but I bet this fits you.

Basics.

BUILD CITIES. You can't build enough units if you don't have enough cities.

USE YOUR WORKERS wisely. You need close to one for each city if your are playing an industrious civ. Close to two for a non-industrious civ. Don't build workers instead of settlers though. You don't need the workers till you have the cities.

You first worker should mine grasslands or irrigate plains and ONLY for THE TILES THAT ARE BEING WORKED. Road all tiles that are being worked. As soon as your worker has improved TWO tiles, maybe three set the worker to building a road to the next city which should be or will soon be planted by then depending on whether you have industrius workers or not.

My build que for my first city

warrior
warrior
settler OR warrior if I am not close to three pop yet.

Your early cities should kick out at least one warrior and one settler each before working on other things.

On Chieftan:

Don't stay there long. You will develop bad habbits.

Maximize your spending on research. The AI is crippled and cannot help you unless you are doing very badly. This will have to be changed on higher levels. Don't bother with the Great Library either for the same reason. Its a compleat waste if you have the tech lead.

If the AI is extorting you AND you are sure its not a bluff then you aren't building enough military units and on Chieftan that means you haven't developing anywhere near fast enough.

Ethelred · September 22, 2002, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

My last game was monarch and I was pasting USA hard. Took 10-12 cities and they never even asked for peace. I finally decide I had enough and let them slide. I have had them ask for peace and want it straight up even though they lost city after city and most of their units.

You may want to change the way you negotiate for a peace treaty. For some odd reason if you use EITHER of the peace negotiation options it limits what you can do. The best way is to simply click on the basic negotiation option like you would for trade. The only thing you can put on the table is peace to start with but once you do that you can demand things. Do not bother offering any money to balance things out as that won't be accepted. You can demand money but even if you close to getting what you want adding money to your side of the bargain won't work.

vmxa1 · September 22, 2002, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred

You may want to change the way you negotiate for a peace treaty. For some odd reason if you use EITHER of the peace negotiation options it limits what you can do. The best way is to simply click on the basic negotiation option like you would for trade. The only thing you can put on the table is peace to start with but once you do that you can demand things. Do not bother offering any money to balance things out as that won't be accepted. You can demand money but even if you close to getting what you want adding money to your side of the bargain won't work.

I am sorry if I gave you the idea I needed help, I do not. Well maybe I do as I do not follow your response. Here is the options you may choose
1- We wish to propose a deal
2- Our troops approach
3- We seem to have over extended
My experience (not inconsiderable) is that option 2 can net a better deal if you in fact have troops literally at their door.
My point is that the AI seems to be very slow to ask for peace and when it does, it does not offer any thing but peace. Demanding is initiated by you. I am well aware that offering/adding money or maps will have no effect. I have after all played at all levels and with every patch since the game out. I do not claim to be a great player, but I am well versed in the major facets of the game. Currently seen the same behvior on my Emp game, if I want to stop a war early and I have hammered them, I have to ask for peace and offten they want a sweetner, even when they are losing.

Ethelred · September 22, 2002, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I am sorry if I gave you the idea I needed help, I do not.

Based on what you wrote you do.

Bugger Off yourself.

Quote:

Well maybe I do as I do not follow your response. Here is the options you may choose
1- We wish to propose a deal
2- Our troops approach
3- We seem to have over extended

Yep. Those are them. You are better off using NO. 1

Quote:

My experience (not inconsiderable) is that option 2 can net a better deal if you in fact have troops literally at their door.

Your experience didn't help you in your example did it?

I read this here on Apolyton. I then tested it. It worked. Option 2 and 3 limited what I could demand. Option 1 didn't. Which explains why my CONSIDERABLE (since the day after the game came out) experience with Civ III had subconsiously resulted in my only using option one for many months before I read that.

Quote:

My point is that the AI seems to be very slow to ask for peace and when it does, it does not offer any thing but peace.

They may just not like you. It happens. However they don't seem to like to ask much of the time. For one thing there is a time consideration that was added in to stop an exploit where people were taking a single city and then sueing for peace to browbeat the AI every few turns. This change was made in the first patch.

Quote:

Demanding is initiated by you. I am well aware that offering/adding money or maps will have no effect.

Oh it has an affect allright. It goes from being close to they would never accept that deal.

Quote:

I have after all played at all levels and with every patch since the game out. I do not claim to be a great player, but I am well versed in the major facets of the game. Currently seen the same behvior on my Emp game, if I want to stop a war early and I have hammered them, I have to ask for peace and offten they want a sweetner, even when they are losing.

Well then how about you quit being so stuffy and try what I just suggested. I haven't played on deity because I prefer playing as a builder. I have played as builder and won on every other level than deity.

The method I suggested has worked quite well in my last two games where I have been experimenting as a warmonger.

Remind me not to try to help you in the future.

vmxa1 · September 22, 2002, 23:59

Originally posted by Ethelred

"Based on what you wrote you do.

Bugger Off yourself."

Not sure why you elected to be so immature with thiis response. What help was it you thought I was asking for? I mearly mentioned that I do not see the AI making all the great offers for peace that others claim they do. No matter how much they are being beaten and at what level. They never offer me much.
I have used used all three options. Why do you take it personally?

"Yep. Those are them. You are better off using NO. 1"
That is what I normally do.

"Your experience didn't help you in your example did it?"
How would it impact a peace treaty? The only thing that really matters is your strength visa via theirs.

"I read this here on Apolyton. I then tested it. It worked. Option 2 and 3 limited what I could demand. Option 1 didn't. Which explains why my CONSIDERABLE (since the day after the game came out) experience with Civ III had subconsiously resulted in my only using option one for many months before I read that."
I am glad yours is bigger than mine for your sake.

"They may just not like you. It happens. However they don't seem to like to ask much of the time. For one thing there is a time consideration that was added in to stop an exploit where people were taking a single city and then sueing for peace to browbeat the AI every few turns. This change was made in the first patch."
This is the only reason I bothered to mention my playing experience so you would not waste our time with a statement that was understood. I said I played all the patches at all levels, I am aware of the fix. One of the reason I do not bother to try to extort more from the AI, is some consider it unfair to do so. I do not tweak offers for trades to get the last GP. I do not mind if others do.
Of course they don't like me after getting stomped. The AI will not like the human in short order, once you get in the lead (yes there are many factors and I am not going to list them).

"Oh it has an affect allright. It goes from being close to they would never accept that deal."
I am sorry I did not take the time to delienate every nuance and just said it did not matter. I did not expect to be taken so literally.

"Well then how about you quit being so stuffy and try what I just suggested. I haven't played on deity because I prefer playing as a builder. I have played as builder and won on every other level than deity. "
I am sorry if I was "stuffy". what you postulated was nothing. I told you they did not offer anything special and they won't under the circumstances I noted. The whole point was I tried all the tricks to see what would happen and you came along and say demand more as if that is all there is to it and perchance I had not thought of it.

"The method I suggested has worked quite well in my last two games where I have been experimenting as a warmonger."
Great, all I was saying it I have not seen it work that way for me. If it does for you wonderful.

"Remind me not to try to help you in the future."
Ok, but seriously there was no request on the table. I reread the post and I only made a statement of what I have seen.

Look I am not trying to say I am a great player or that you are wrong. You seem to be saying that what I have experienced is not what I experienced. I understand that given a few scores of games that anyones results are not always going to conform to the norm. I was merely trying to see what the norm may in fact be and was I on it or not. No game play options were available to alter the results for me in any significant way.

Ethelred · September 23, 2002, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Originally posted by Ethelred

"Based on what you wrote you do.

Bugger Off yourself."

Not sure why you elected to be so immature with thiis response.

I simply said the same thing you did to me. Only I was more explicit. You seemed put out that I would try to help you with your stated problem. You still seem to be huffy about it or you would have understood that I was replying in kind.

Quote:

What help was it you thought I was asking for?

I never said you were asking for help. You did however make it clear that you had a problem that I don't have in negotiation. If I take 12 cities from the AI they WILL give me something for peace even if I have to start the negotiations.

Quote:

I mearly mentioned that I do not see the AI making all the great offers for peace that others claim they do. No matter how much they are being beaten and at what level. They never offer me much.
I have used used all three options. Why do you take it personally?

The question is why you did YOU TAKE IT PERSONALLY that I would try add information to this thread. EVEN if you are too stubborn to accept aid there are others reading this thread that are looking for information instead telling people to piss off when it is offered.

Quote:

How would it impact a peace treaty? The only thing that really matters is your strength visa via theirs.

Try it. It works. Your way did not by your own statements. You claim to have taken 12 cities and couldn't get the AI to give you anything for peace.

Quote:

I am glad yours is bigger than mine for your sake.

I didn't claim that. YOU CLAIMED IT. So I merely pointed out that you are not the only with any experience.

Why do you think its OK for you to get huffy and no one is likely to respond in kind?

Quote:

This is the only reason I bothered to mention my playing experience so you would not waste our time with a statement that was understood.

YOu didn't undstand what I was doing. You are not the only one the thread either.

Quote:

I said I played all the patches at all levels, I am aware of the fix. One of the reason I do not bother to try to extort more from the AI, is some consider it unfair to do so. I do not tweak offers for trades to get the last GP. I do not mind if others do.

Its part of the game and not an exploit. In the original version it was an exploit. After all the AI wasn't doing it to you BUT the AI is presently willing to demand things from you for peace.

Quote:

Of course they don't like me after getting stomped. The AI will not like the human in short order, once you get in the lead (yes there are many factors and I am not going to list them).

They don't like people that break treaties either. That was one possible reason for them not starting negotiations. Another is that maybe they still had a lot of offensive units but that seemed unlikely in your example.

Quote:

I am sorry I did not take the time to delienate every nuance and just said it did not matter. I did not expect to be taken so literally.

I didn't expect someone to tell me to piss off like you did for adding something to thread for those can take advice. Nevertheless that is exactly what you did.

Quote:

I am sorry if I was "stuffy".

Then why are still responding in exactly the same rude way?

Quote:

what you postulated was nothing. I told you they did not offer anything special and they won't under the circumstances I noted.

I wasn't postulating. I was telling what happens if you don't use the first option. They won't offer anything special as it would be stupid to do so when the other civ may be willing to settle for a straight up peace treaty. I too would do the exact same thing. I wouldn't offer a dime. I might pay it if the other Civ demanded it but I sure as heck wouldn't start out the negotiations that way.

Quote:

The whole point was I tried all the tricks to see what would happen and you came along and say demand more as if that is all there is to it and perchance I had not thought of it.

I was trying to tell you that you can demand more if you use the first option but not if you use the second or third. I am so sorry to have tried to help someone that considers help an insult as you seem to do.

Quote:

Great, all I was saying it I have not seen it work that way for me. If it does for you wonderful.

It would work for you if you tried it. I don't own a special version of the game. Again you are not the only one on the thread. Some people are open to advice and don't think its a reflection on their adequacy as a human being. You are acting like you are in the latter group.

Quote:

Ok, but seriously there was no request on the table. I reread the post and I only made a statement of what I have seen.

You acted quite insulted that anyone would give you anykind of suggestion.

Quote:

I am sorry if I gave you the idea I needed help, I do not.

I take you didn't reread that part. Its looks very much like you were quite put off.

Quote:

Look I am not trying to say I am a great player or that you are wrong. You seem to be saying that what I have experienced is not what I experienced.

I did no such thing. I was trying to show you that a different method of handling peace negotiations makes a difference. Why it does so I don't understand. To me all three options should get the same result but the fact is that they don't. Perhaps that is why there is more than one option.

LotC · September 23, 2002, 01:08

vmxa1 · September 23, 2002, 02:47

Originally posted by Ethelred
"The question is why you did YOU TAKE IT PERSONALLY that I would try add information to this thread.."

Simple, you said bugger off, that seems rather personal, maybe I am wrong.

"Try it. It works. Your way did not by your own statements. You claim to have taken 12 cities and couldn't get the AI to give you anything for peace."

Ok, maybe I am very dense, but clicking on any of the three choice under the stated conditions, did not get me any thing to jump and shout about and I am unaware of other options. What would have changed??

"Why do you think its OK for you to get huffy and no one is likely to respond in kind?"

I do not understand what you mean by huffy, you have hurl curses in the last two post, I have said nothing about you personally, nor challenge you skills, but if I did I am sorry and did not mean to do it.

"YOu didn't undstand what I was doing. You are not the only one the thread either."

So true and I will not further waste its space after this with any response to you. Only becasue it would be boring to others.

"Its part of the game and not an exploit. In the original version it was an exploit. After all the AI wasn't doing it to you BUT the AI is presently willing to demand things from you for peace."

Again, I did not say I felt is was and said I had no problem with people using it, I just do not bother.

"They don't like people that break treaties either. That was one possible reason for them not starting negotiations. Another is that maybe they still had a lot of offensive units but that seemed unlikely in your example."

By the time one gets to modern era and has had wars with more or less everyone they are going to be unhappy with you that is obvious. Just for the record, I do not break treaties. I suspect that the patch that attempted to stop the exploit you mentioned with grabbing a city and asking for peace, just went a bit far. I am not sure, but since then the AI seems to be very slow to want peace. As I mentioned that may just be my experiences and not others. It just seemed absurd that one would not want peace after losing 10 or more cities. They do tend to have large numbers of good units on hand, but only use them in piece meal bases, which is doomed.

"I didn't expect someone to tell me to piss off like you did for adding something to thread for those can take advice. Nevertheless that is exactly what you did."

I do not see it that way and as I said if you felt it, I am sorry.

"Then why are still responding in exactly the same rude way?"

What is rude about anything I have said and where does one get the gall to say that, when one has used terms like you have.

"You acted quite insulted that anyone would give you anykind of suggestion."

That is not correct and I have said repeatedly that I was sorry if I did.

" I was trying to show you that a different method of handling peace negotiations makes a difference. Why it does so I don't understand. To me all three options should get the same result but the fact is that they don't. Perhaps that is why there is more than one option."

I thought we agreed that there were only three options, so what other different way is there? What I have meant to say is no matter what options I choose they do not offer me techs and cash galore, no matter how badly I beat them. You came in and tried to tell how I was doing it wrong, if I misread something, then forgive me, but I think not. I have not been rude and have been civil and least I meant to be.

Ethelred · September 23, 2002, 04:59

I sent vmxa 1 a PM.

I did not curse at him. I was trying to point out in the ONE instance (not two ONE) what he had said to me in more blunt terms.

I only mention that because the accusation of me cursing at him was made in public. It was an intentionaly rude turn of phrase, chosen to make it clear what he had said actually meant, but it hardly counts as cursing TWICE for that one remark.

In any case should anyone bother reading this try making peace with the first option if you want tribute. It works better but I have no idea why. Don't expect the AI to offer tribute. You have to put it on the negotiating table yourself.