Is the AI actually cheating??

wrgj · February 8, 2003, 08:12

I have a problem: When the AI players trade techs, their research towards the newly gained tech then counts towards the next advance. The advanced 5 or 6 AI players all spend most of their effort researching, but when they finish, they trade, and end up getting 6 or 7 advances in the time of 1!

I am in the Middle Ages, playing on a huge map (Europe map on the civ3 website) with 16 civs. I only play Civ3 on Deity. (Otherwise it is too easy.)

Therefore, my problem is that they get tech at 30% or 40% off, trade it to each other at reduced prices, and therefore advance at roughly 12 times the rate as I.

This is a problem in itself. BUT it also means that you cannot beat them to wonders. They already get them at 40% off, and the only way to get them is to finish one quickly and make them waste their shields without switching. But even if I build a wonder in 10 turns, I cannot finish before they get another 6 techs! The fact that we'll be in the modern era BC, not even as a result of my tech advances, is unrealistic and ridiculous!

I invite responses/thoughts on the topic:
Is the ability to swap the technology being researched (after trading for this technology) an unfair "bug" in the game, or is it a fair aspect which allows the AI to get ahead of the human player's ability to wheel and deal?

WarpStorm · February 8, 2003, 09:43

If you don't like the features that make the game harder to win on diety, play on an easier level.

Kassiopeia · February 8, 2003, 09:56

AFAIK it's not a bug, I mean, it's Deity, it's supposed to be very difficult.

Unconquered · February 8, 2003, 10:57

I think the extra unit advantages, minimal anarchy period, and build advantages are enough. The only thing I don't like is I think the AI trades to much with itself but I can live with it. Deity is hard, I've played two games at that level and they were defensive games all the way to my end... What I did was work my way up from chieftain to a level where I could beat the computer with effort consitently (Monarch). Sounds like you need to play a lower level. But your right, the AI advantages are frustrating sometimes.

Alex · February 8, 2003, 12:05

I never play Deity. It annoys me.

WarpStorm · February 8, 2003, 14:02

In the editor you can set the AI-AI trade rate bonus. If you lowered it there you could play a diety-minus game, that would still be tough but without the AIs all being buddy-buddy.

Immortal · February 8, 2003, 14:15

Deity is far beyond my playing capacity, I played one game and I was trounced by 700AD. I stick to Emperor and Monarch now. Emperor if I want a good challenge.

But Deity is supposed to be difficult, judging by other peoples games, it is still possible to win on deity.

notyoueither · February 8, 2003, 15:54

You can also increase the costs of tech and increase the minimum time to research to slow the game down. That way you would not get into the modern age so soon.

vmxa1 · February 8, 2003, 18:05

I do not see what difference it makes they still lose.
You can trade techs if you want to or buy them or take them by force. It is not a cheat as in theory it is available to the human as well. I know that in reality they will not be trading with you as you have nothing to offer most of the time and are often not on good terms, but this can be corrected.
You can research things they tend to not research. Me I prefer to take them and do not trade much anyway.

Nor Me · February 8, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
I have a problem: When the AI players trade techs, their research towards the newly gained tech then counts towards the next advance.

Are you sure? I've not heard this before. If this were true, it would be another example of the AI cheating at chieftain.

vmxa1 · February 8, 2003, 20:42

I suspect he is refering to the fact that as more players know a given tech it becomes cheaper to research for the rest. You can see this at times when you notice you have 3 turns to learn something and boom you get it the this turn. The price in beakers went down.
This is why some will streak out for a more remote tech and get the ability to trade or sell the one the have and back fill later at a lower cost in terms of beakers.

wilbill · February 9, 2003, 02:12

I have a real problem with using the terms "cheat" and "bug" to describe the AI advantages at the higher levels.
Seems to me that if the AI "cheated" it would involve breaking some rule of the game. Bonus units, cheaper trade rates, etc. are not cheats, but are. in fact, the rules the designers wrote into the game. These elements define the higher levels of competition. Far from "AI Cheating", when the AI's trade techs with each other at a lower rate, it's "AI Follows The Rules."
A "bug" is a programming mistake that causes the game to lock up, crash, or otherwise fail to perform as it is intended. In the early patches, fighters intercepting bombers frequently caused the game to crash. That was certainly a bug.
Since the AI is essentially the same software at all levels, AFAIK, the designers chose to give it these advantages as the difficulty levels increased. They certainly had other options. For instance they could have given the AI military units higher attack/defense values and more MP's than the human player's units at higher difficulties. Or they could have given AI temples and cathedrals a larger contentment bonus than the human's. Would those have been fairer? Probably not.

pedrojedi · February 9, 2003, 09:13

A "last" option, of course, is playing MP only, so no one will get AI advantages, and, picking the right adversaries (you have a lot here in the forum), it is still a Deity-Level challenge, with the spiced detail that you do not know your human opponent, as opposite to AI, which all of us know at least a little something:

"The Greeks are annoying"
"The Persians are really annoying"
"I should trash down those egiptian scum before they get too cultural on me"
"I hate too many Legions at my frontier"
"Another Babylonian king goes down"

wrgj · February 9, 2003, 23:14

[I just got logged out, and I lost all of version 1 of this message!! How annoying!!]

This issue is posted for two reasons:

* To bring it to the civ community's attention, such that IF it is deemed unbalancing in too many situations, there can be an adjustment to the mechanics of the game (as opposed to adjusting settings in the editor); and

* To bring it to players' attention: it is not obvious that it'll happen like this. It is important to know for AI trading strategies, especially for DIETY players. I didn't know for a while and it was important, and I concentrate on maximising every minute detail to gain every gold, shield, food and movement economisation I can.

### Clarification ###

The problem I am talking about is as follows. Imagine an AI player having, say 2 turns to finish researching a new tech. Then another player gets that tech, and trades it to aforementioned AI player. The AI player then has 1 turn to go for another UNDISCOVERED technology.

Thus, I suspect that the AI still will trade the tech only for a small amount if they only have a small amount of research to go (as the human player does) but then gets to transfer the research to another technology! This is doubling up on the value of trading techs, and at Deity level, they trade at reduced prices. I am not sure about the exact working of the valuation and mechanics of trading AI to AI, but I currently fear the worst in this situation.

[B] Evidence [\B]
How this appeared was when I was in the ancient era, and America (placed in England, with contact only with myself) had been researching Code of Laws for a while. I traded Lincon the tech, and the next turn he discovered Philosophy.

Note: This situation is fine - it means that the value of trading tech with AI doesn't depend on timing and which tech you choose to research. Also, it means that you cannot take advantage of the AI players by trading them techs by researching what they are not researching and getting ahead (by pseudo-cheating and reverting to a saved game.)

More evidence and a problem

The problem arises in the middle of the Middle Ages when you get to a large run of wonders, and so everyone is concentrating on tech, so they have a chance to build a wonder. Let us imagine that there are 6 AI civs with cutting edge techs - up to Gunpowder, Astro, Printing, Music - as an example. Thus, there are necessarily more than one Civ researching some of these techs. As they are all of roughly the same size/power to be cutting edge, they all finish their next tech at roughly the same time. As each civ finishes, they trade it to the other cutting edge civs who can afford it (at reduced rates, of course!) These civs then switch to other techs - including ones which needed this tech as a prerequisite. Thus, a civ can go from researching gunpowder to having metalurgy in the space of 3 turns!

The reason I mentioned wonders is that I assumed that having a short break between the race for certain wonders is implicit in the game's design. You do not expect to be able to switch from Sistine to Newton's College! But this will happen in my game. I admit that this might be deemed fair, as it gives all civs an opportunity to finish their wonder while not being held back by having the right tech. But it appears to me that rushing through the second half of the Middle Ages in the space of a handful of turns is unrealistic. All other challenges in the Deity level seem to be tough, but realistic.

### Responses ### [In reverse chrono order...]
pedrojedi: I assume MP is multiplayer? Yeah - MP, can't wait. PTW came out (apparently) here Down Under this weekend, but I do not have it. Love the idea, for the reason you mention - no AI means the ultimate challenge. (Yes, I love Diplomacy as well!) Still, the SP challenge lies in beating the best that Sid and the team can dish out, and still label winable. I am hoping this phenonemon will not effect the game from now on, but only this wonder-intense time.

wilbill: What does AFAIK mean? Hopefully it is now clear that I am not complaining about the changes in rules at Deity. I am glad that there is a 67% bonus for AI players, as when I thrash their arses in getting to wonders, despite their advantages, it is rewarding. I am talking about a difference in a fundamental game mechanism, and not a variable setting. I used the words "cheating" and "bug" to get players' and developpers' attention respectively. This is why I know want to make it clear that I am not moaning about deity being hard.

vmxa1: Thanks! I like your "they'll lose anyway" attitude! And the solution is obviously in trading techs to maximise one's ability to stay cutting-edge. Your suspicion was a good one - logical given the problem I proposed. BUT I am not actually referring to them getting techs easy once they have been discovered! That is a given - I know that once a tech is discovered, then ALL AI civs who are up to date on tech (no matter their wealth) will have it the next turn (assuming they have some gold/turn to trade, which they'll never give to me).

WarpStorm & Notyoueither: Adjusting the game mod settings may well be a good solution when playing with a certain number of players, at certain levels. I do think that it is not good to rely on the player to change the workings of the game - how do we know what is a fair challenge? I want to play the hardest game (on a map that I like, eg, Europe) according to the v1.29 rules. I have no idea how the mod rules may have been changed by the Author of Europe in the Civ3 website, and I don't know how I could change them back, IF they were changed. I thought that there were no real rule changes, but then again, squares diagonal from a river do not count as river! (I believe that this is strange and abnormal). But I accept them, as I have already invested an enormous number of hours into this game (and I'm still BC!) and it is indeed a challenge.

Question: Do you know how to verify what rules have been modified, and how? And how do we change them back to the current patch version?

Those who do not like Deity: The reason for this post, as I've already clarified, is not to get an easier game. I am only playing this bloody addicative game because of the challnge Diety offers. I tried Emporer and found it too easy for my style of overly nitpicking, detailed, time-consuming style of play. I only intend playing faster when I get a time limit in PTW. The real issue is if this quirk in AI-AI trade lets them gain doubly from trading techs, and if this is an intended working of the game.

For the record, I managed to build the Pyramids, Great Library, am about to have the choice of Sistine and JS Bach, and will be able to finish Copernicus' Observatory before any of the AI civs. All in the one city, which has no hills, no improvements (haven't had time yet, except for the wonders) and whose empire has managed to catch up to the size of the other civs. I have no doubt that I will win (even though I am still last in points) and it is not too difficult. This "quirk" worries me, though.

Hurricane · February 10, 2003, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
### Clarification ###

The problem I am talking about is as follows. Imagine an AI player having, say 2 turns to finish researching a new tech. Then another player gets that tech, and trades it to aforementioned AI player. The AI player then has 1 turn to go for another UNDISCOVERED technology.

Thus, I suspect that the AI still will trade the tech only for a small amount if they only have a small amount of research to go (as the human player does) but then gets to transfer the research to another technology! This is doubling up on the value of trading techs, and at Deity level, they trade at reduced prices. I am not sure about the exact working of the valuation and mechanics of trading AI to AI, but I currently fear the worst in this situation.

[B] Evidence [\B]
How this appeared was when I was in the ancient era, and America (placed in England, with contact only with myself) had been researching Code of Laws for a while. I traded Lincon the tech, and the next turn he discovered Philosophy.

That would definitely be a bug, but I am 100% certain that there is some other explanation. Of course (like always), you should back up your claims with a savegame.

wrgj · February 10, 2003, 03:20

I may well have a saved game, certainly from current situation, possibly from trade with America. I'll see what I can do, but it'll be a while before I can transfer the files off my computer. (Floppy's buggered, lent out my modem.)

Catt · February 10, 2003, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
Thus, I suspect that the AI still will trade the tech only for a small amount if they only have a small amount of research to go (as the human player does) but then gets to transfer the research to another technology!

[. . . . .]

How this appeared was when I was in the ancient era, and America (placed in England, with contact only with myself) had been researching Code of Laws for a while. I traded Lincon the tech, and the next turn he discovered Philosophy.

What method are you using to verify what tech the AI is researching? I haven't seen this anomaly before (AI getting to switch beakers from one project to another) and I suspect you've stumbled on a bug or there is an unconsidered explanation.

Catt

wrgj · February 10, 2003, 03:53

First I saw that America got Code of Laws right after getting Philosophy from me (or the other way around, but it doesn't make any difference). I went to the auto-save and reloaded, tried trading the other tech first (Code of Laws), and they still managed to finish researching Philosophy on the following turn! The key here is that they did not have contact with any other civ.

Catt · February 10, 2003, 04:44

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
First I saw that America got Code of Laws right after getting Philosophy from me (or the other way around, but it doesn't make any difference). I went to the auto-save and reloaded, tried trading the other tech first (Code of Laws), and they still managed to finish researching Philosophy on the following turn! The key here is that they did not have contact with any other civ.

Memory is funny. Unless you're on top of things and go back and document them, and then provide something to touch and feel to others, it's hard to come up with a good diagnosis -- my memory gets fuzzy and has certainly completely blindsided me on several occasions.

I'd say that you've either (1) found a bug; (2) are misremembering; (3) experienced a shocking series of undiscovered twists of fate; or (4) are just trolling the forum for the helluva' it. I am inclined to go with option 4, but I don't know you well enough to say that you're just trying to have fun with other posters.

As I said, memory plays tricks on all of us. But I find your tale curious, and unbelievable in its present form, for a number of reasons: (1) no other credible, serious poster has ever documented anyhting like this; (2) your "facts" are based on fuzzy memory ("or the other way around, it doesn't make any difference"); (3) you only play Deity because you're so good

; (4) you're playing a Deity game on a huge map with 12 civs that offers lots of contact between civs at an early time (assuming I understand the Europe map you're playing) -- therefore, lots of opportunity for AI-AI tech trading; (5) in your game, at Deity, you've researched / traded all the way to having a lead of both Philosophy AND Code of Laws against an AI-controlled America civ in England on a Europe map; and (6) in this game, at Deity, you've managed to get the Pyramids, the Great Library, and either Sistine or Bach, and you will finish Copernicus' too! Doesn't add up. Sounds suspicious. Casts doubt on your statements as to what happened. Looks a bit silly. Bollocks!

Your posts sound like you enjoy the game and understand how it works. But the fact pattern you present makes it seem as if you just want to have fun with posters all too willing to help you solve your mystery. Which is it?

If I've maligned you unfairly, I apologize. and will do so again loudly when I'm convinced that an apology is deserved. Until then, in answer to your questions, (1) "AKAIK" means "as far as I know;" (2) when you launched the game, a pop-up should have appeared warning you that the game rules had been altered -- if no such pop-up appeared, then your rrules should be default (though I only have experience with the US version of the game -- other versions may not behave in this way).

Catt

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

First I saw that America got Code of Laws right after getting Philosophy from me (or the other way around, but it doesn't make any difference). I went to the auto-save and reloaded, tried trading the other tech first (Code of Laws), and they still managed to finish researching Philosophy on the following turn! The key here is that they did not have contact with any other civ.

Quote:

I'd say that you've either (1) found a bug; (2) are misremembering; (3) experienced a shocking series of undiscovered twists of fate; or (4) are just trolling the forum for the helluva' it.

There's a fifth possibility. The Americans may run into a hut with a tech next turn. Of course they will get the tech they don't have yet. So if you trade them Philosophy, the hut gives Code of Laws, and vice versa. That explains the phenomenon quite simple. After all, they are Americans and as expansionists supposed to get more goods out of huts than the rest of the civilizations.

wrgj · February 10, 2003, 05:38

This service is aweful when it logs you out, you post, you relog, and you've lost an hour's writing!!
-----
Note to future posters on this thread: IF YOU WANT EXACT DETAILS, WAIT UNTIL I HAVE
A CHANCE TO POST THEM!

I am embarrassed that it looks like my details are dubious - I did not know that th
ey would. Thus, I will repsond:

Yes, I did not document at the time because I thought - bugger, they've got even more of an advantage than I thought, and decided just to minimise trading tech. Thus, I originally
thought that I had not found a bug, as such, and wanted to find out if this AI tech-swapping was a usual accepted thing.

I only replied to that post several minutes after it was posted. NO, I have not had time to go back and provide more details.

NB I tried the American trade both ways! It is not a fault in my memory, but it is indeed irrelevant - follow the logic!

I find it wierd that you would think that people waste their time writing all this S**T for the fun of it. I have avoided the site, because it is time consuming, and there is such a variety of standards of play and experience. "Don't talk - play!" was my motto, if you will.

I do not know what TROLLING is, but the only reason that I am here is because I couldn't find an email for the development team, and I think that all quirks should be exposed.

As I have JUST FINISHED SAYING, I will put some saved games on when I can get them. I have work to do 9-5 and cannot rush off at the whim of posters! (My internet connection at work is not where I play Civ!)

Yes, it did say rules were changed, but not how. All of the premade maps said that to me. I thought that if you make your own mod, then it says that. I still do not know if I am playing under a different set of rules. The mod is on the civ3 website, so anyone can get it from there.

And, again, for the record, I am playing with 16 civs (15 AI), yes, with a lot of tech trading. But not everyone concentrated on tech as much earlier, so I didn't notice. It's just now when they're trying to build wonders.

I already said that I spent a long time playing this. I restarted with the French (Bien sur! Je suis francophone!) several times to get a feel for Civ 3, and played until 500BC on Emporer. So I knew the terrain - but I did anyway, because it was France that I was playing in!!! And so, when I had a stroke of luck after starting one game in a very nice spot (and I found later that the layout of the land meant that there is no italian player, and the spanish starting position is a long way away) I decided to restart the whole thing and try for the pyramids. When finished, a city size 12 (on river) had a large production, giving a shot at Great Lib, as I would have not survived without it (having low tech/low expansion).

I have ONLY built settler, wonder, wonder, settler, wonder in my capital, and I calculated EVERY bloody shield before starting the wonder to make sure I'd get it. With industrious workers that develop your land in turn with your growth (with cows and wine on river) it is quite possible to outstrip the competition.

Later, the only way to finish Sistine in time is to have a hoard of workers, and I'll get
Copernicus' (I've calculated 30 turns ahead, so I am not sure) if I have 38 workers, and my 2 captive workers. I'll have only a few shields and zero turns to spare.

What I am playing is not the only way to play. It is hard, boring, and tedious. When you spend 10 hours playing in a day, and you only do 4 or 5 turns, it is frustrating. But that's my choice, and I do not claim to be BETTER than other players. I have read velacroix' analyses, and it is obvious that there are different tactics required for each type of game.

When you spend this much time on each turn, you do not forget your game Remember that I have only played to about 700BC - that isn't much to remember!

I only want to bring this out, as in another type of game it may not be noticable. I will
check the details and post them (although I may not be able to get back here straight away, and it seems there are a lot of very active people - where do you find the time????)

I am sorry for not already answering my question (as to if this is indeed a problem with the game), and then posting my data - I thought someone might be able to enlighten me!

Damn!!! It is now already 8:30pm and I haven't left work, haven't eaten, and I'm missing the first day of ratings season at prime time.

So, I will verify, bring data, and hope that I was not mistaken. (Do you want me to put my hand on the bible while I type? It'll take longer.)

wrgj · February 10, 2003, 05:43

Sir Ralph: Before I go - yes, a hut is quite possible. They were still exploring Scotland and Ireland. I will investigate that possibility.

Hurricane · February 10, 2003, 06:17

Just for the record, wrgj: the reason people got angry with you is your thread title. New "THE AI CHEATS AGAIN!!! ARRGGH!!!" threads pop up every day, and are just as quickly proven to be false. A "How does AI research work again?" title would have given you a much more friendly response.

Catt · February 10, 2003, 15:41

The intent of my post was to get you so riled up that you would bring more detail to the forum for examination. Partial success!

"Trolling" is essentially posting in order to spark controversy for its own sake. "Don't talk - play" is very much my motto as well -- I do most of my posting at work (where I can't play!).

Yes, as Hurricane noted, part of some posters' frustration (including mine) with your post flow from throwing around the "AI cheating" theme. But the other part, for me, is that your post was articulate and displayed pretty solid game knowledge on your part -- but your reported facts (particularly your tech advancement and wonder prowess) are so contrary to the best performances by some truly outstanding players here, that it begs the question "what the hell is going on?"

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
NB I tried the American trade both ways! It is not a fault in my memory, but it is indeed irrelevant - follow the logic!

I understand the logic you presented. Unless it is a bug, or an entertaining tale, I am inclined to believe that Sir Ralph probably nailed it -- must have been a hut (I completely missed that possibility!).

Quote:

I find it wierd that you would think that people waste their time writing all this S**T for the fun of it.

You'd be surprised. I find it weird that people do it, too -- but I don't think most regulars here would find it weird that some like to come here only to troll and post BS. For my part, I read and post here because I enjoy it more than my work – when it’s slow, I can spend a good chunk of the workday peeking in on threads.

Quote:

I still do not know if I am playing under a different set of rules.

That's a possible explanation, too (perhaps accelerated production, perhaps?). But surely you’re an experienced player – you must be able to tell if the rules have been radically altered, just from casual observation, let alone the all-day thought processes you go through for the 4 or 5 turns each day

.

Quote:

I already said that I spent a long time playing this. I restarted with the French (Bien sur! Je suis francophone!) several times to get a feel for Civ 3, and played until 500BC on Emporer. So I knew the terrain - but I did anyway, because it was France that I was playing in!!! And so, when I had a stroke of luck after starting one game in a very nice spot (and I found later that the layout of the land meant that there is no italian player, and the spanish starting position is a long way away) I decided to restart the whole thing and try for the pyramids. When finished, a city size 12 (on river) had a large production, giving a shot at Great Lib, as I would have not survived without it (having low tech/low expansion).

I have ONLY built settler, wonder, wonder, settler, wonder in my capital, and I calculated EVERY bloody shield before starting the wonder to make sure I'd get it. With industrious workers that develop your land in turn with your growth (with cows and wine on river) it is quite possible to outstrip the competition.

[. . .]

When you spend this much time on each turn, you do not forget your game Remember that I have only played to about 700BC - that isn't much to remember!

Okay - good; some facts. Let me try and lay out the case more clearly for why your presentation seems so far-fetched.

It is roughly 700 BC, which means that you've played roughly 90 turns. During those 90 turns, you've built 3 wonders, at a total cost of 1400 shields, and three settlers. If you haven't switched governments, then you're in despotism, subject to the tile penalties of that form of government; if you have switched, then you lost some turns due to anarchy. All of which means that, assuming not one single wasted shield, your capitol city has produced 1520 shields, an average of more than 17 shields per turn. Even with cattle on a shielded-grassland (possible only in player made maps, which yours is) which you’ve mined, that tile still only produces 2 shields. To get to your average of 17 shields per turn, you’d need at least 8 mined, shielded grasslands minimum, or some mined hills and mountains -- but you'd need an awful lot, wouldn't you, because the average of 17 per turn is heavily burdened by the very early game when you're not likely producing more than a few shields per turn. Even a mined mountain won't produce a huge amount of shields under despotism – but, wait, working hills or mountains costs food. So let’s turn to the food.

You've grown the city to size 12 and also sacrificed 6 additional population points to your three settlers, meaning you've grown the population 18 times. As a hypothetical, with a constant 4 food surplus, that alone would require approximately 140 turns (before you built the Pyramids and got a free granary – after the estimating the effects of the free granary, figure more or less 100 turns) – course I’m struggling to figure out how you’ve managed a better than 4-food surplus the whole time, while in despotism, and while also generating the shields needed for your build projects. An irrigated flood plains with wheat will produce 3 surplus food under despotism – is Paris located on or near a flood plain in your map? Maybe you added workers from other cities? (But that would take some time in and of itself, wouldn’t it?) That’s some pretty fast growth - but wait - since you’re playing Deity, with only one citizen born content, you’ve really got to keep you eye on citizen moods, right?

One citizen born content. You have not built a temple or the other happiness improvements / wonders to help control your people's moods. If in despotism, you have access to 2 military police (3 if in monarchy) for mood control.

Did you find and connect (or trade for – and we know how good the AI is about building trade routes early in the game

) at least 5 luxuries in these first ninety turns? Somehow, you must be keeping all those population points content, right? I suppose you could be spending all your income on entertainment -- but wait, where is your income going?

Must be research, of course. Because in those same 90 turns, your are within 30 turns of acquiring Astronomy (or do you already have it?) for Copernicus. That means that you’ve researched / traded for / popped from huts all the ancient age techs in those 90 turns – plus some middle age techs too! Bravo! I’m trying to imagine how your initial research got done so quickly. Sure, your building of the Great Library eased this concern later in the game – but that’s at least 800+ shields away, right (since you built the Pyramids first).

Quote:

What I am playing is not the only way to play. It is hard, boring, and tedious. When you spend 10 hours playing in a day, and you only do 4 or 5 turns, it is frustrating. But that's my choice, and I do not claim to be BETTER than other players. I have read velacroix' analyses, and it is obvious that there are different tactics required for each type of game.

Play the game any way you prefer – after all, it’s a game and we play it, presumably, for fun. My disbelief stems from the fact that no matter how hard you plan your 90 turns, and how well you execute it, I don’t buy the fact that the output could possibly be what you say it is.

Quote:

When you spend this much time on each turn, you do not forget your game Remember that I have only played to about 700BC - that isn't much to remember!

And hence my point – if it's pretty easy to remember, I’m sure we’d all love details on how you managed to find yourself in this situation. What were your opening moves? What did your initial warrior find in huts? What was your early research strategy – without contact or city infrastructure, those first few science projects must have taken a good chunk of your 90-turn window, no? How did you end up with Literature (and thus the Great Library) with your “low tech / low expansion” early start? What did your second and third cities do, focus on workers or units? You must have fought someone, since you have 2 captured workers – who did you fight and how did you overcome the Deity AI’s 16 bonus units at the beginning of the game (especially since your capitol city’s production was tied up on wonder and settler builds)?

Quote:

So, I will verify, bring data, and hope that I was not mistaken. (Do you want me to put my hand on the bible while I type? It'll take longer.)

No bibles necessary – just some straight talk would be helpful.

Catt

Albert B · February 10, 2003, 17:26

I'm much more of a lurker than a poster on this board but a discussion of a post such as Catt has prepared deserves a standing ovation. Personally I just play the game for fun, usually on Monarch and rarely to completion, so I could not care less about who is right in this debate. However, I love a good arguement and to see Catt make such an effort to explain why this post has potential BS written all over it is quite impressive.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2003, 18:19

About the only way one beats the AI to all of those early wonders at Deity is use souped up player generated map.

wrgj · February 11, 2003, 00:09

I must admit that I do not have the courage to wade through the seemingly thousands of posts, so I do not know that there are a lot claiming "cheating". I only asked the question.

I also assumed that there are a lot of players out there who have exceptional games, but it would be difficult to find, as most stuff posted that I've seen is for lower levels.

Before I get a chance (probably on the weekend) to provide a level of detail which will be sufficient for your curiosity, I just wanted to point out that the map (I have attached the zip file) is extremely abundant in resources. I believe the intension was to create lots of strong civs to represent Europe realistically.

I have not been able to find any significant changes to the rules by playing, except for the extremely unusual river squares, which do not count if diagonally adjacent to a river.

The French normally start in Bordeaux (the junction of the rivers on the SW coast of France) but a friend of mine (who is just as capable, I believe, as myself at civ - I used to always play Civ2 with him and decide on everything together) only managed to build the Pyramids by not even building a settler. (That woulc be ruinous!)

I started on the city site on the Seine river, near the coast (west of Paris). There are shielded cows, wines, horses, fish and 8 shielded grassland. With the latter mined, you can grow quickly, and also get a high production. With the irrigation on the cows and wines turned to mines at size 12, grow 2 forests on the river, and you can get from around 20 production to a maximum of 26 (having lost one due to corruption).

I onyl built one settler (went to Brussels) who then produced workers, and then settlers. It built a warrior waiting to grow to size 2, who uncovered a settler in a hut. That was in 3200. He went to Amsterdam, and hemmed in the German expansion, forcing them east. Every other hut has been barbarians since. When I got that, I decided to commit to this game start.

The French start with alphabet, and go writing, literature. You have high entertainment (but you have wines as well). By 700BC you have 3 luxuries. All other cities stay at size 1-3. You have 2 warriors (built elsewhere) for mil polics in capital, total army size in 700BC is 5 warriors and one spearman. Risky, yes! Worth it, though.

There is no infrastucture anywhere. I got the 2 workers from trading when they had a worker in their capital. But they work at half rate

The key here is I got the Great Library (which gives all ancient techs, and tech up to education, invention), and pyramids allows smaller cities (esp. ones on river) to expand at double their exponential rate. Expanding in other areas took rushing, due to high growth, but low prod. due to corruption.

wrgj · February 11, 2003, 02:29

N.B. The map is Europe by Will McGregor, which is on the first page of maps downloadable from www.civ3.com

February 11, 2003, 02:54

It'll be interesting to see if wrgj can come up with the neccessary proof (saved game files) to show catt that he(I'm assuming he) was not pulling anyones leg around here.

While his boasts are awfully high, I tend to lean toward wrgj's account, if only because his defense of his posts' have been steady and lack attacks against those that are questioning him.

I will definately be monitoring this topic for future updates. Have fun playing in the mean time.

Nor Me · February 11, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by wrgj
The problem I am talking about is as follows. Imagine an AI player having, say 2 turns to finish researching a new tech. Then another player gets that tech, and trades it to aforementioned AI player. The AI player then has 1 turn to go for another UNDISCOVERED technology.

I was finally able to spare the 15 mins of civ playing time it takes to test this. I waited for an AI to get an advance, reloaded the autosave 1 turn before they got it, gave them the advance and watched as they took several turns to research a cheaper advance.
It was on Deity on a very simple (attached) scenario. I doubt I'm missing any obvious factors. It just doesn't happen.