Threats are not useful at all

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 08:44

I played around 50 games on deity, have won some, have lost some. The most success I have had with the Iroquois, the Chinese, the Aztecs (always very competitive) and the Romans. I play original civ 3, update 1.29f.
I have one problem, though. In civ 2 you could, if you were powerful enough, extort money and techs from the AI. I usually didn't destroy those AI civs that were paying the tribute. However, here in civ 3, you can nearly destroy the other civ, and it won't give in to your threats. It will never yield even the slightest amounts of money, let alone some advanced tech. An AI civ would sooner take its techs to the grave rather than acting rationally and yielding them to superior foe.
I find this extremely frustrating and unrealistic. This fact is forcing me to speak with all AI's every turn just to catch a tech or two, which is really tedious. I may be wrong with my findings, for I haven't played that many games yet. That's why I'm interested in the opinions and the experience of the others.
So, to repeat my question: Can you ever extort anything from the AI and if yes, how?

Dr. A. Cula · September 1, 2003, 09:20

It depends. If you make your demands, then click "Take this deal or suffer!", it only makes them angrier with you, but they don't give in. In my experience, the only way to actually extort outrageous deals from the AI is when signing peace treaties and you are overwhelming them on the battle field, or you are so far ahead in tech they will pay you anything to catch up.

I've seen the AI cough up hundreds of gpt, all their treasury + tech, some luxuries and cities to get out of a war they were losing badly. The best I got from the AI in peace time for a tech they needed was a few hundred gpt, some more cash and an occasional luxury.

So, if you want to extort something from the AI, just go to war and make sure you're winning. It's the easiest way.

WarpStorm · September 1, 2003, 09:21

Sure, plenty of times, but never on diety. You just need a military much larger than the enemy's. I also get quite a few on peace settlements.

PeaSoup · September 1, 2003, 09:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. A. Cula
I've seen the AI cough up hundreds of gpt, all their treasury + tech, some luxuries and cities to get out of a war they were losing badly. The best I got from the AI in peace time for a tech they needed was a few hundred gpt, some more cash and an occasional luxury.

you cannot negotiate for resources or luxuries during a peace treaty deal. Cities, gold and techs, on the other hand, can come by easily if you are beating the AI badly, all depends on the value of what you are asking.

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 10:39

I have an example. I was playing Chinese. Nearly destroyed the French. Now, I'm behind in techs at the moment (don't have even military tradition, while they have nationalism). I would like to catch up, and for a few techs I'm even willing to let them live. But no, they won't part from any of their precious techs even when they are facing total annihilation. So what did I do? I wiped them of the face of the Earth. And it's not only French that were behaving this strange way. It was also the Russians, whom I disposed of earlier (wouldn't even give me education

for peace while I was taking city after city) and the Indians with whom I dealt later.

I think they have a general scale by which they value cities and techs.
So, once you have advanced in time, they will under no condition give you any tech for peace (they will sooner give you two crap cities). They must value their last city less than the bloody tech, so when they do their strange math and compare the two, well you guessed it right: It's better to disappear into oblivion than to strike a deal in which you give more than you get. At least on deity that is.

Frustrating.

Paddy · September 1, 2003, 11:22

My thoughts are that on Diety it is all meant to be the hardest it can possibly be for us....

So the AI will be stubborn and pig headed in its dealings with us...

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 12:50

I support the attempts at making the game more challenging. But please, not at the expense of reality. Now, tell me, who will be so stupid not to accept any peace treaty he was offered when 30 riders and 3 rider armies are at the gates of their last city?
The answer is: Any civ at deity.
This is absurd!

Dominae · September 1, 2003, 13:00

This was discussed heatedly a while ago in another thread.

I personally feel that it is quite unrealisitic for a civ to cough up all its techs just before its destruction. If you were playing an MP game, would you? I guess it depends on whether or not you feel generous, or at least do not hate the player who beat you. But I think there are many people that would just as well not give all their precious techs away when the game is all but over for them.

So in this sense, I very much appreciate that the AIs reach a point at which they do not simply give techs away when they're beaten. A civ with one city left has nothing to live for...how realistic would it be for them to teach technologies to those that killed their fighters, burnt and pillaged their cities, and destroyed their cultural achievements?

Dominae

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 13:10

Now, that simply is not true. I will never destroy any civ that is willing to act as my personal Great Library. I will even let it thrive; support it as my closest ally. What is a realistic response to an imminent destruction is an alliance with the destructor. Through this alliance, you can gain much more by gifts in money and techs than you could possibly have hoped to gain through continuous war. At least, you preserve yourself as an existing entity, and while you exist, there’s always hope of victory. If you are no more, you surely won’t win, but will show your beaten up face in the last screen.

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
I support the attempts at making the game more challenging. But please, not at the expense of reality. !

What reality, it is a game, there is merely a resemblance to reality.
They made the AI more resistant to extortion in a patch a long time ago as it was too easy to exploit. I think the may have gone a bit to far, but I prefer it to what we had.
Civ II was a great game, but it was far too easy to win and had too many exploits.

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
At least, you preserve yourself as an existing entity, and while you exist, there’s always hope of victory. If you are no more, you surely won’t win, but will show your beaten up face in the last screen.

Well there is something called dignity. Many would be obsequious and grovel, others would rather be dead.
I would prefer the AI not give easily. I do not want them giving up techs to anyone that can lean on them.

Anyway humans that were way behind would be eliminated if the AI knew how to play. How often do you se them with 2 or more times your troops and they lose. They have large numbers that they never send into the battle or they do it piece meal. Is this reality?

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I personally feel that it is quite unrealisitic for a civ to cough up all its techs just before its destruction. If you were playing an MP game, would you?
Dominae

By the way, I have a real life human multiplayer experience. It’s civ 2 MP Gold though, but the principle is the same. A friend of mine was on the same continent with me. We had a choke point border, but he was confined to a small peninsula while I had a huge continent for myself. Now, what would you have done if you had been in my friend’s position? Would you have had constant war with me, with absolutely no hope of success, or would you, as my friend did, have accepted my really lenient conditions for peace and continued to act as my vassal, still hoping you could join the space race?

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

They made the AI more resistant to extortion in a patch a long time ago as it was too easy to exploit. I think the may have gone a bit to far, but I prefer it to what we had.
Civ II was a great game, but it was far too easy to win and had too many exploits.

I agree that the AI shouldn’t pay tribute every turn just because I have one unit more than he does, BUT, when faced with an imminent death, I believe they should yield (I know I would). You see what is, well let’s say not unrealistic but plain stupid: They are behaving the same way when they have 20, 10 and only one city left.

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well there is something called dignity. Many would be obsequious and grovel, others would rather be dead.

What good did Saddam or his people have of his dignity? And the same applies to Milosevic and us Serbs too.
So, don’t tell me about dignity, I know how much good it can bring.

Dominae · September 1, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
At least, you preserve yourself as an existing entity, and while you exist, there’s always hope of victory.

Being beaten down to one city and hoping to win is akin to buying a lottery ticket "just this once" and hoping to get rich. Sure, there is a difference between "no chance", and "a really really very slim chance", but most people simply do not bother with the second. This is very obvious when you play MP games.

Quote:

Now, what would you have done if you had been in my friend’s position? Would you have had constant war with me, with absolutely no hope of success, or would you, as my friend did, have accepted my really lenient conditions for peace and continued to act as my vassal, still hoping you could join the space race?

This situation is quite different from the one you mention against the AI. In one, the player has some sort of power to leverage; in the other, the AI has been reduced to nearly nothing. Without going in to the strategy of being a vassal state when you have no choice, I think it's reasonable to assume that if a player feels he has no chance at the win, he or she will either help his friend win or go down fighting. Just because you prefer the first type of person (because it's more convenient in your game) does not make it "unrealistic" that the AI is more like the second.

Dominae

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 14:10

This time I fully agree with what you are saying. But if there are different types of people, why are there not different types of AI. Some of them should yield, assuring their existence, the others should not. Now, that would be something. And it should be random, not fixed to AI nationalities.
As far as I am concerned, I consider quitting in poor / hopeless positions in a multiplayer game a very impolite thing to do, which can change the balance of power and spoil the game for the other players. I never quit and fight to the last man. I’m also willing to become a vassal state whenever it’s necessary. And sometimes you can really win as a vassal state, take my word for it. Why would the AI not behave in the same way: Respond to threats by more powerful players, be it the AI or the human, with modest gifts and use the newly established ties to expand and prosper?
But yes, they haven’t programmed it correctly. Even the humble AI in Master of Orion 1 is better programmed.

Dominae · September 1, 2003, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
This time I fully agree with what you are saying. But if there are different types of people, why are there not different types of AI. Some of them should yield, assuring their existence, the others should not.

Yes, more extensive AI personalities is something I would have liked to see as well.

Dominae

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Anyway humans that were way behind would be eliminated if the AI knew how to play. How often do you se them with 2 or more times your troops and they lose. They have large numbers that they never send into the battle or they do it piece meal. Is this reality?

Sure, but when I'm facing destruction, I yield to threats. The AI on the other hand would never yield and would rather let you destroy it.

WarpStorm · September 1, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Now, what would you have done if you had been in my friend’s position? Would you have had constant war with me, with absolutely no hope of success, or would you, as my friend did, have accepted my really lenient conditions for peace and continued to act as my vassal, still hoping you could join the space race?

I would have made life hard on you till you were forced to take me out. If I had no real chance of winning I could at least be a pain in the butt. Why would I keep playing on as your vassal? Where's the fun in that?

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 15:40

But then you surely wouldn’t have won. My friend in this case, on the other hand, has had a real chance to win. Remember, this has not been a duel, for in a duel there’s no such thing as a vassal state – you fight until one of you quits.
This game ended in a real space race, initiated by my friend, who has built Apollo. The only problem he was facing was the fact that he had only 11 cities, compared to 48 of my cities. But, unlike me, he had factories, power, nuclear and hydro plants, libraries, universities, super science city with Shakespeare, marketplaces, banks, stock exchanges, port facilities and a bunch of caravans.
I even gave him SETI on condition he would give me two advances, a condition he never honoured, so I had to steal superconductor and plastics at the crucial moment.
He only needed another city to complete the spaceship ahead of me.
So, as you can see from the example, it’s sometimes beneficial to be a vassal state, since nobody considers you a threat and would not invest resources in a war with you. If you have a powerful ally who can protect you and will honour agreements, well it’s a win / win situation.

Kind of like a position in which Serbia is now compared to the US, don’t you think? We’ll even end up sending our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Liberia to support our “allies”.

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
As far as I am concerned, I consider quitting in poor / hopeless positions in a multiplayer game a very impolite thing to do, which can change the balance of power and spoil the game for the other players. I never quit and fight to the last man. I’m also willing to become a vassal state whenever it’s necessary. And sometimes you can really win as a vassal state, take my word for it. Why would the AI not behave in the same way: Respond to threats by more powerful players, be it the AI or the human, with modest gifts and use the newly established ties to expand and prosper?
But yes, they haven’t programmed it correctly. Even the humble AI in Master of Orion 1 is better programmed.

I am not sure I woudl agree to the concept that quitting is impolite. If the others did not want to see me bail out they should have come to my aid. Since they did not, they can take the consequences.
I would however player to the last unit I had and do as much damage as I could. If that meant trading everything I could to your enemies, thats what I would do.

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

Sure, but when I'm facing destruction, I yield to threats. The AI on the other hand would never yield and would rather let you destroy it.

I would agree they are often slow to yield, but I don't agree they never do. But again they do not have the luxury of programming an endless triage to make a better tactical play. They have a finite set decisions and they are limited.

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I would agree they are often slow to yield, but I don't agree they never do. But again they do not have the luxury of programming and endless triage to make a better tactical play. They have a finite set decisions and they are limited.

In a game I'm currently playing (Aztecs) an incredibly stupid thing happened, which is, nevertheless, happening all the times.

Stupid English, whom I have already beaten up and forced to depart of two cities, seemed to have recovered from the initial setback, but then got into war with their big neighbours: the Egyptians, who then signed alliances with everybody but me against the English.

Tell me if that's stupid or what.

BUT, when the same Egyptians requested gems from me in exchange for not destroying my poor civ with their army of knights, well guess what I replied.
I accepted their generous offer, of course.
Does that make me Egyptian vassal?
I don't care. Eventually, I'll deal with them one way or the other.

But, if I had rejected their outrageous demands, well the whole world could have just as easily turned against me.

Ljube · September 1, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I am not sure I woudl agree to the concept that quitting is impolite. If the others did not want to see me bail out they should have come to my aid. Since they did not, they can take the consequences.

Rest assured, if we ever play a game together, I will come to your aid in times of despair.

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I would however player to the last unit I had and do as much damage as I could. If that meant trading everything I could to your enemies, thats what I would do.

This is really not nice. You spoil things playing like this. Is your goal your victory or my demise?

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

In a game I'm currently playing (Aztecs) an incredibly stupid thing happened, which is, nevertheless, happening all the times.

Stupid English, whom I have already beaten up and forced to depart of two cities, seemed to have recovered from the initial setback, but then got into war with their big neighbours: the Egyptians, who then signed alliances with everybody but me against the English.

Tell me if that's stupid or what.

BUT, when the same Egyptians requested gems from me in exchange for not destroying my poor civ with their army of knights, well guess what I replied.
I accepted their generous offer, of course.
Does that make me Egyptian vassal?
I don't care. Eventually, I'll deal with them one way or the other.

But, if I had rejected their outrageous demands, well the whole world could have just as easily turned against me.

That is a familar story, but I am not sure what it had to do with my post you quoted. I never said they were smart, I said they have a limited list of responses, many not very good.

vmxa1 · September 1, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

This is really not nice. You spoil things playing like this. Is your goal your victory or my demise?

I thought we had already decide I had no chance at victory, so revenge is all I would have left to make me feel better. It seems rational to me. It is also much fairer to the others, rather than become a vassal. If you have crushed me, then by definition the others are my allies.
So I do not accept it as not being nice. As to your demise at that point, that is all I would have left.
If I had conclued I still had some outs, then I would not be going that route.
Do you think I should just take a drubbing and not take any retribution at all? If the players were no more competitive than than, it would not be worth oplaying them. I want people that are going down swinging.

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 02:02

With an uncompromising attitude like that you are sure to go down first. I don't play like that. I'm usually able to get out of a desperate situation by means of diplomacy. If this means becomming someone's vassal, well, in that case, let's see, well, compare the utter humiliation of being beaten with continued existance with real chances of victory, well, what will I choose?
Need I spell it out, when the answer is so obvious?

vmxa1 · September 2, 2003, 03:13

Would you make up your mind. Either I am a lame vassal or I am not. I cannot be beaten and have a chance to win at the same time. It is one or the other.
How can I compromise, I lost, remember? You seem to have lost your premise. Anyway I think it has been beaten to death. So how about I concede here.

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 04:10

OK. It's like this. You should never let yourself get in a hopeless position. If I'm weaker, I don't fight the stronger guy, but strike a deal with him. For instance, I let him trade with me. Then, if he's very strong, he'll be occupied with the others. I don't do anything that could possibly irritate him. I share science with him, and from time to time, request gifts from my gracious ally.
This strategy must be employed if you don't want to search for excuses for your defeat, or even worse, your total destruction.
Playing this way, you still have a strong chance in the space race.
By that time, you should be much stronger, so your "ally" shouldn't be able to punish you at will.
If you play it smart, you'll be completely outside of all major events and wars, developing and researching unimpeded.

If the AI in civ 3 could play this way, it would be much more of a challenge than it is right now.
For it is not logical to eliminate a submissive.

Gufnork · September 2, 2003, 09:37

If you have one city left and give all your tech to the agressor, guess what the rest of the world will do? Yup, they'd knock on your door asking for demands. This will continue until you say no and die. Might as well die immediatly instead of being the worlds *****.

And yes, everyone doesn't react this way. It just so happens to be the most annoying way for someone to react, thus everyone will react in that manner on Deity. Deity = as hard as it gets. They could have had a difficulty that fitted to your exact taste, but that would require a whole lot of difficulties since each would require his own (not to mention that you actually get better).