Important changes in game behavior in PtW

[Harovan]

This thread is about the little changes in the behavior of the game, that need a different strategical approach than in the standard Civ3. I have seen 3 of them so far, but I think there are more for sure.

Barbarian tactics
Barbarians have gotten a real pain in the butt. They don't attack the nearest target anymore, sometimes they even flee from your unit in the fog of war. They keep roaming around your empire and, since they are all-seeing and all-knowing, will for sure target your undefended settler, worker or city in a moment, when it pleases you the least. They keep you on your toes. Making elite Spearmen by placing regulars on a mountain near a barbarian hut does not longer work, because the barbarians avoid to attack below a certain probability to win. If they succeed to ransack a city, they steal insane amounts of money. Consequence: You need more units roaming around your empire to keep it safe from Barbarians. The worst, what can happen, is a massive uprising with raging barbarians. 24 horsemen with improved tactics can ruin you completely and kill all your settlers and workers.

Ability to capture a non-expanded size-1 city
This is the most important change I encountered so far. I did not make any research on this matter, but I suppose, that a size-1 city survives a capture, if there is any culture at all, even though it doesn't suffice to expand the city's borders. This makes captial chasing easier and vastly increases the efficiency of early wars, namely Warrior and Archer rushes.

Cities popping from huts
I consider this to be a quite annoying change. I still want to have control, where I want to plopp a city and where not. O well, it's still possible to disband a city by building a Settler with no food surplus, but it leaves an ugly "trash dump" tile, which lasts till you mine or irrigate the tile. There's really nothing one can do against it, maybe praying more will help .

Stuff from the discussion follows:

To buy workers is very expensive now
Nuff said. Arrians worker buying strategy is no longer affordable.

The AI actively trades contacts
Although version 1.04f was buggy and allowed the AI to trade contacts even before Writing, the fact remains, that the AI actively trades contacts now, which it (at least for me) never did in Civ3. This can give the human player some advantage, because he can save a lot of money to buy all contacts himself, or at least save some time for scouting.

The AI puts a bigger focus on building wonders
Master Marcus noticed, that the AI is quite a GW addict now, well it was already in vanilla Civ III, but even more with PtW. It will build relentlessly any available GW now, and that combined with its improved scientific priority, that comes at the expense of its early expansion ( slighty, but I'm sure so far ). That's good for the builder player, but beware it's easy now to fall more behind the AI on tech ( Monarch+ ). Perhaps the "behavioral" change that has the most impact on gameplay, especially on larger maps played 'til modern era.

The AI makes more MPPs
So it's easier to be involved in an industrial/modern world war. Contributed by Master Marcus, I couldn't confirm that yet.

The AI upgrades his units more rapidly
When reaching replaceable parts for example, the turn after he has already MULTIPLE infantry defenders in every city. In vanilla Civ III the AI - even the strongest - was keeping its obsolete units much longer.

Have you seen more of these "little important changes"?

[Catt]

I haven't had as much playtime as I'd like, but I nonetheless suspect something has been done to the AI tech acquisition rate -- either better researching, more varied researching among AI's with a greater propensity to trade, or simply a greater impetus to trade. Don't know what it is, but it sure seems to me that I fall behind further and faster under PTW than I did under vanilla Civ 3.

Nonetheless, since this is purely anecdotal and I've played far too few games to constitute an adequate sample, I won't follow your example and list this "change" in boldface.

Catt

[Nakar Gabab]

Speaking of tech, has anyone noticed extortion is harder? I haven't moved up a level since PTW came out, so I don't think it's difficulty-based aggression. The AI just seems more stingy than before, and I can definitely say from experience that they get VERY uppity when your reputation starts to drop.

There's the worker sales thing, of course. We know about that. Maybe there was more?

[Arrian]

I just downloaded the 1.14 patch and will install PTW tonight. I'll keep my eyes open

-Arrian

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Arrian
I just downloaded the 1.14 patch and will install PTW tonight. I'll keep my eyes open

-Arrian

1.14? For PTW??

[Harovan]

statusperfect: yes.

Nakar Gabab: Good job , I forgot about the increased cost for workers.

Also, Arrian reminded me (in the Scouting thread) about the AI trading contacts now. I hope it still does in 1.14f, since it was buggy in 1.04f.

I will try to keep the 1st post edited. Thanks for contributions.

[Master Marcus]

Sir Ralph and all, I agree on most of what's been said; but as for the workers, although the AI sell them at a much higher price in PtW, I actually can still purchase a few ( 100-110 gold+World map instead of 30-40 gold ) especially when I play a non-industrious civ- it's still quite "affordable" and useful.

- I noticed also that the AI is quite a GW addict now, well it was already in vanilla Civ III, but even more with PtW. It will build relentlessly any available GW now, and that combined with its improved scientific priority, that comes at the expense of its early expansion ( slighty, but I'm sure so far ). That's good for the builder player, but beware it's easy now to fall more behind the AI on tech ( Monarch+ ). Perhaps the "behavioral" change that has the most impact on gameplay, especially on larger maps played 'til modern era.

- The AI makes more MPPs, so it's easier to be involved in an industrial/modern world war.

- The AI upgrades his units more rapidly, when reaching replaceable parts for example, the turn after he has already MULTIPLE infantry defenders in every city ( to name the Ottomans in my last game ). In vanilla Civ III, it seems to me the AI - even the strongest - was keeping his obsolete units much more longer unchecked and was waiting to build new ones. Now I scarcely see AI spearman units after mid-game, quite a noticeable difference I'm sure.

- Among other things, it won't give you a tech unless you have a bigger lump sum ( x 3 ? next to previous versions ): generally not affordable, now I have to do more ( not all, but more ) tech advances on my own. It's more aggressive, but DOESN'T seem to build MORE units than before.........

[vmxa1]

The 114 patch fixes the trading comms without the prereq tech.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Ability to capture a non-expanded size-1 city
This is the most important change I encountered so far. I did not make any research on this matter, but I suppose, that a size-1 city survives a capture, if there is any culture at all, even though it doesn't suffice to expand the city's borders. This makes captial chasing easier and vastly increases the efficiency of early wars, namely Warrior and Archer rushes.

Wow. Not played any ptw yet but this must make a huge difference.

[joncnunn]

Just looks minor to me.

All it means is that you don't have to wait 5 turns after the Temple completes to safely capture a size 1 city.

[DrSpike]

Oops, misread the quote.

*backpedals*. Yeah, minor.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Catt
I haven't had as much playtime as I'd like, but I nonetheless suspect something has been done to the AI tech acquisition rate -- either better researching, more varied researching among AI's with a greater propensity to trade, or simply a greater impetus to trade. Don't know what it is, but it sure seems to me that I fall behind further and faster under PTW than I did under vanilla Civ 3.

I suspect this might be due to the bug where the AI traded contacts before Writing in 1.04f (among themselves), hence allowing tech trading to happen among more civs at an earlier date.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Just looks minor to me.

All it means is that you don't have to wait 5 turns after the Temple completes to safely capture a size 1 city.

It is a major change, when using early capital chasing. In an early war in the beginning of the REX phase usually no temples are built, and you need to be very lucky to catch a city with more than size 1, because the AI instantly poprushes a defender or an archer if the city is likely to be attacked. The only building with culture is the palace, hence the capital is the only city to be taken. It gives 1 culture, so after taking the capital I had to wait it needs 10 turns till I could take the next one. I usually don't want to wait that long, because I want to make peace ASAP, so that I can suck this neighbor dry (money, techs, workers) and send my forces to attack the next neighbor.

Believe me, the difference is huge!

BTW, I can confirm it now, and here's a test game save. Just take St. Petersburg with the active Archer. You'll be able to take it, despite it's size 1 and not yet expanded. Russia respawns instantly, so I was able to extort all her respawn gifts for peace.

Look at it. Except the 4 techs Russia is ahead (I didn't care about trading myself, since it's only a test), it has only 7 gold. After it respawned, it has 118 gold and 2 workers more and parts gladly with it and the 4 techs for peace. So compared with Civ3 behavior I have 1 city more from this war. In that early game state this is a big difference.

[joncnunn]

I had an early game war a few months ago where I successfuly captured rather than raze a city that had been size 2 but was now size 1 that hadn't expanded culturlely.

I haven't gone place chasing in early game though. Difference in style, I prefer a series of wars that are each short to annex the enemy over a single long war.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Difference in style, I prefer a series of wars that are each short to annex the enemy over a single long war.

So do I, and I'm pleased, that I can capture 2 cities now in 3-4 turns instead of 10-12 as it was before. See my point now?

[Theseus]

SR, I sometimes forget how much of an early warmonger you are!

I concur with Master Marcus, it seems the AIs are much more focused on GWs now, and upgrading units is taking place more rapidly.

Thanks, Soren!!

("A few tweaks to the AI..." is now my favorite Firaxian phrase)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Theseus
("A few tweaks to the AI..." is now my favorite Firaxian phrase)

Yea, but unfortunately the active contact trading by the AI and the capture of size-1 cities with minor culture is more a help for the human player, not the AI.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Just looks minor to me.

All it means is that you don't have to wait 5 turns after the Temple completes to safely capture a size 1 city.

Not minor at all, after the first time your armies swirl about a burg in the middle of nowhere.

btw, I don't think he mentioned... it never goes poof, even with non-original owners intervening, I think.

I posted a lament once upon a time where I cried for a city going poof when the Greeks had captured an Egyptian Wonder city and that city poofed when I took it from the Greeks.

No more.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yea, but unfortunately the active contact trading by the AI and the capture of size-1 cities with minor culture is more a help for the human player, not the AI.

The contact trading you have noticed could be a bug addressed with 1.14.

[Catt]

The screenshot below is from the late game of a PTW game, Emperor level, all random, on a standard map (started in 1.04f, finished in 1.14f). Other than the Vikings, I (Russia) am the only civ to have discovered Nuclear Power. I noticed this only because I got a pop-up that the Vikings had added Planetary Party Lounge to their ship.

I have never, ever seen an AI research The Laser before Satellites or Superconductor. FYI, the Manhattan Project had been built so Satellites were somewhat important in that they would allow ICBMs.

Catt

[Catt]

I noticed two things in late gameplay, one appears to be a bugfix, and the other's nature is something about which I can only speculate.

Bug Fix
Moving naval units into or through cities located on a hill no longer costs 2 movement points.

Bug? Transported Units "Safe" in Harbors
I loaded 2 transports full and set them across a narrow channel without escort. Unfortunately, the tile adjacent to my city was occupied by an enemy sub. My first transport engaged the sub, but was sunk. Happily (miraculously? buggily?) the 8 units on board the transport must have managed to unload during the battle, because there they were, waiting for me, as active units, immediately following the sinking. I was concerned that I somehow goofed and didn't load the transport so I reloaded from autosave, confirmed that the transport was loaded, watched it sink again, and still didn't lose the units. For all I know, this was true in Civ 3 as well, but it strikes me as "wrong," and I certainly have never heard of it happening to others.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Catt
...
Bug? Transported Units "Safe" in Harbors
I loaded 2 transports full and set them across a narrow channel without escort. Unfortunately, the tile adjacent to my city was occupied by an enemy sub. My first transport engaged the sub, but was sunk. Happily (miraculously? buggily?) the 8 units on board the transport must have managed to unload during the battle, because there they were, waiting for me, as active units, immediately following the sinking. I was concerned that I somehow goofed and didn't load the transport so I reloaded from autosave, confirmed that the transport was loaded, watched it sink again, and still didn't lose the units. For all I know, this was true in Civ 3 as well, but it strikes me as "wrong," and I certainly have never heard of it happening to others.

Catt

COOL!! This confirms my "interpretation" that transport units include a small escort!
The escort distracted the submarines enough for the transports to either dock or unload onto landing craft before being lost.

[jshelr]

Aggressive New Civs Are Hyper Aggressive

Deity feels a little easier to beat in PTW.

I'm just finishing a deity game on a small map. Germany, France, Greeks, Scandy, Carthage, and our Egyptians. The Egyptians were hemmed into a small pocket by jungle and mountains. But a routine archer rush and some road building liberated a swarm of chariots that took out neighboring Germany and set up a good game. However, the AI was out of control the whole game, allowing Egypt to focus first on buying tech and then on tech research. Believe it or not, Egypt built a 100 turn tech lead going into the modern era. Hyper aggressive AIs are really to the human players benefit.

I have to say that the new AI's have stepped up aggressiveness a notch at least. Scandinavia ate other civs alive from start to finish and, in fact, there are only two civs remaining at the moment, including Egypt. The axe-wielding SOBs just would not stop. I was worried that they would get a domination win at one point. At the moment, Egypt is nuking a size 25 Scandy city every turn or two, and they just won't give up. In fact, they demand a tech for peace and are performing very credible amphibious landings at well chosen vulnerable points all over the globe. The seas are filled with battleships.

[metalhead]

One big difference I have noticed is the propensity of the AI in PtW to pick on you if you are weaker. Before, they would contact you with a demand every 15-20 turns if you are weaker. In my latest PtW game, I was near Arabia and the Zulu, who were both bigger and more powerful. Arabia demanded a tech from me as soon as we met, a turn or 2 later, the Zulu demanded my map and some gold. The Arabians demanded another tech about 4 turns after that, as soon as I discovered it. The Zulu kept after me every 4 or 5 turns with demands for gold and a map! The AI now just seem WAY more aggressive with demands, if you are behind.