Threats are not useful at all - Page 2

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 11:19

OK. I agree with your points related to the situation when you have only one city. I get the picture, and even though I wouldn't react in the same way, I accept the general opinion that it's better that the AI won't give you everything it has and still be eliminated next turn.

But, if the AI played it smart, on the first sign of loss it would assume a low profile, just like I surely would in any multiplayer game.

That's the sole purpose of my thread: To see if threats are useful or not. My limited experience tells me they are not. And it's a sad thing, for it forces me to eliminate anyone with whom I had ever been at war. For that AI would under no circumstances forget it and will never give in to my threats. That behaviour irritates me and in my mind, I have no choice but to exert the final judgment.

vmxa1 · September 2, 2003, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
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.

My good man, I say again, you forget your premise. I did not play myself into this hole, you gave us the whole as a starting premise. Now you say I should not get into that hole??? It is not a real event, it is a theoretical scenario. You are repeating your self. Anyway what is the point of trying to sell me on your position. I told you what I would do given the scenario you presented. That is not going to change no matter how long you restate your ideas.

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 11:48

Obviously we didn't understand each other. Probably because of the language barrier.

I accept the general opinion that the AI should not give you everything once they are surely gone. I 'm even willing to correct my own attitude toward this. Hell, that's life. You learn something every day.

The only issue is: Assume they are losing, and losing big time, like lost a couple of cities and many units. Why don't they agree with my conditions for peace. They can't give me all of their techs, but they could give me 2 or 3 for peace instead of 1/2. This way, they are forcing me to keep attacking them the very next turn after we sign a peace treaty.

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

By the way, I like the image next to your name (called avatar if I'm not mistaken). Isn't it Klackon from MOO1?

Traelin · September 2, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
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.

If you're talking about the "Take this deal or suffer" option, then yes, it is useless (regardless of the level of difficulty). I've literally had 80% of the world's allowable military and they still refuse to gimme tribute. It's utterly useless and annoying. But you can extort cities, money, and techs out of them if you go to war with them, crush them and sue for peace. that's the only "workaround" I know of.

Traelin · September 2, 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Gufnork
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).

But I think his point is that the AI reacts in the same manner, regardless of how many cities it has. I've seen people argue in past threads that this behavior of non-capitulatory, non-tributory behavior is to prevent the human from taking advantage of the AI, then wiping them out ASAP. IMO this couldn't be sillier. Number one, if you ever want to do trading with an AI again, you better not break any sort of deals, no matter how arm-twisting they are (of course the exception could be free techs or money, in which case there is no deal per se). Number two, I as the player am more likely to crush you if you don't give me what I want.

IMO there needs to be some balance on this. Many a tribute could be remembered in AI memory as giving something for 20 turns, and if they are attacked right away, it constitutes breaking a deal. I mean if I give the AI a luxury for free, it's unavailable for 20 turns. Why not use a similar model for tribute? That way the silly hard-coded solution of the AI saying no to everything could be removed.

Ljube · September 2, 2003, 14:14

Couldn't agree more.

vmxa1 · September 2, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko

By the way, I like the image next to your name (called avatar if I'm not mistaken). Isn't it Klackon from MOO1?

Yup, right from the manual. You are correct on both accounts, it is called an avatar. Often they need to restrict the use to save band width.

vmxa1 · September 2, 2003, 16:23

Traelin I think most would agree they went to far when they attempted to stop the extortion, but I don't know how much they can do about it. By that I mean, if it would be possible to tweak it a bit or if it would need more code. If I have to choose between the way it was and the way it is, I take the way it is now. Now if the can come up with something in between, great.

Traelin · September 2, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Traelin I think most would agree they went to far when they attempted to stop the extortion, but I don't know how much they can do about it. By that I mean, if it would be possible to tweak it a bit or if it would need more code. If I have to choose between the way it was and the way it is, I take the way it is now. Now if the can come up with something in between, great.

Yep I agree with you on that. It was way too easy in Civ2 to extort. And it's virtually impossibly to do so at peacetime in Civ3. But I'd choose the Civ3 model over Civ2, if for no other reason than to maintain a decent level of difficulty. Hopefully an in-between method could be developed in the future.

yndy · September 3, 2003, 04:47

Is the question still valid or are you just ranting?

It has been documented that the AI would give the occasional World Map for 'Take this deal or suffer'.

I had 1 (one) occasion when I demanded a size one town from Russia and they caved.

It was Monarch difficulty and my armies were a lot larger then theirs. I had never fought them before but after they gave me that city I wiped them out of the face of the civ-earth.

Arrian · September 3, 2003, 15:35

"Take this deal or suffer" is garbage.

The best way to extort is to go into the diplomacy screen, click on current deals (I forget the exact wording) and click on "peace treaty." You can actually renegotiate peace. If they are scared of you, you should be able to extort things from them. If not, you will either have to settle for less than ideal terms, or go to war.

-Arrian

Ljube · September 3, 2003, 15:57

This is a great idea. I'll test it tonight. And it's active.

Arrian · September 3, 2003, 16:12

Yeah, that's it: active. You do have to be big & strong enough to scare them, but renegotiating peace can get you some goodies.

It may not result in you getting a bunch of techs and cities, but it will often knock the price of a tech waaaaay down, such that the deal is very much worth your while.

-Arrian

bongo · September 4, 2003, 03:22

You can renogotiote peace deals

cool, gotta try it.

Another tool in my 'kicking AI-ass' toolbox

Ljube · September 4, 2003, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, that's it: active. You do have to be big & strong enough to scare them, but renegotiating peace can get you some goodies.

It may not result in you getting a bunch of techs and cities, but it will often knock the price of a tech waaaaay down, such that the deal is very much worth your while.

-Arrian

OK. I tried it yesterday. But it didn't work out the way I expected. Even the puniest civs were reluctant to give away anything but world maps, a couple of bucks and a modest discount on the techs.
Nevertheless, it's better than nothing. Now I have a viable alternative to continuous warfare, or so it seems.
By the way, how strong do I have to be to actually get something? Do I have to be by far the strongest? Do they take into consideration if I could actually hurt them? In a game I'm playing there are stronger civs than mine: Egyptians (funny how they always turn out to be the bullies - quite opposite to civ 1 and civ 2), Chinese and scientifically advanced Greeks (Communism!) are all stronger, though not larger (I’ve already absorbed two civs).

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 09:25

Something else I've noticed about bullying the AI - it works a LOT better in the ancient age. It works ok in the medieval age. It doesn't work in the industrial age.

Industrial age techs are just sooooo expensive, I think they're over the limit of what the AI is coded to cough up instead of accepting death.

I've just beaten the crap out of the (former) #2 civ in my current Emperor game, and they won't give me Nationalism for peace. But they will give me all their gold (409g + 75gpt). In the ancient age, a comparable beat down would probably get me several techs and a city.

As for how strong you need to be, exactly, I'm not sure. The master of bullying the AI is, or was before Firaxis patched the way bullying worked, Aeson. He knew exactly how strong he had to be, and worked absolute wonders by extorting things from the AI.

-Arrian

Gufnork · September 4, 2003, 12:09

Nationalism is a special tech. It's the only tech where it's cheaper to research it than to buy it. The AI doesn't want you to have it, period.

I can't say I blame them.

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 12:21

Gufnork,

I'll grant you that Nationalism is special, and highly valued (a bit overvalued, I think) by the AI. So it might not be a good example.

What makes it seem worse is that I'm waaaaay past the point where nationalism itself is important. I've got Infantry and Arty (and so do they), and will have Tanks in 4 or 5 turns. So it feels obselete to me, but the AI doesn't see it that way.

That's fine. I'll deal with it. I'll have to spend 4 turns on it, and another 4 on commie so I can have my police stations. Blah.

-Arrian

Ljube · September 4, 2003, 13:33

Nationalism is always useful.

What if you don't have rubber?

TheArsenal · September 4, 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Something else I've noticed about bullying the AI - it works a LOT better in the ancient age. It works ok in the medieval age. It doesn't work in the industrial age.

Well that’s one way the human and the AI act in a similar fashion. I doubt very few human players respond to demands or coercion after the ancient age. (On the other hand, I am sure caving into a demand doesn’t create a game long sense of bitter vengeance in the AI, as it does in me when I am forced to give in. “Remember that map you demanded way back in 2640 B.C.? Well it’s 1930 and here comes the MA to make you pay for your arrogance!”)

That said, renegotiating peace during peace is an interesting concept that never occurred to me. Good tip.

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Nationalism is always useful.

What if you don't have rubber?

True. It also allows mobilization, in addition to being the pre-req for communism & espionage.

But I do have rubber

And I never bother researching espionage.

-Arrian

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Well that’s one way the human and the AI act in a similar fashion. I doubt very few human players respond to demands or coercion after the ancient age.

I won't give up tech. Ever. I'd rather fight it out, and if I lose, so be it.

So the AI does not act like me. It can't hit Ctrl+Shift+Q and start a new game (until I do

). It *is* concerned with its survival, and will cough up pretty significant tribute to make peace if it's taking a beating. Just not nationalism, apparently.

-Arrian

vmxa1 · September 4, 2003, 15:09

Nationalism is like many traits, it has uses, but so what. Most players will tend to skip it as they will chiv. That is not to say I would never research either, but I often skip one or both.
Let the AI learn Nationalism and make it cheap or free for me.

Edit: Let me drop the most players part, as I have no real idea if that is correct or not.

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 15:55

I only want it to get the police stations that come with communism. They make my empire more efficient, which is a big deal for me, and they help with WW, since I use Democracy (especially in this particular game, as I'm not religious).

If it wasn't for PSs, I'd ignore it completely. I never use mobilization, and rarely use riflemen (straight from muskets to infantry 9 times out of 10).

-Arrian

gunkulator · September 4, 2003, 16:36

Skip Nationalism? Mobilization is like a free golden age - well, half of one anyway. It can greatly reduce the time to conquer a medium to small neighbor that you've been waiting to take out. Without Rifles and mobilization, it must be tough going until Infantry. Some punk AI with Nationalism can make your life miserable.

Arrian · September 4, 2003, 17:00

Gunkulator,

My Ind Era tech path usually goes like this:

Steam Power
Industrialization
Electricity
Replaceable Parts
Medicine
Sci Method
*often, at this point, I will have several turns until ToE completes, and I will go get nationalism*
Atomic Theory
Electronics...
TANKS! (Grog wants 'em, bad!)

So I get infantry pretty quickly. There have been situations where I've gone for nationalism, fearing my muskets wouldn't hold off an attacker, but those times are rare.

I've never been fond of mobilization, probably because I haven't needed it. It drops your civ-wide culture production by half, and forces you to build nothing but military. I don't like that, particularly the second part. I usually build a mix of both, even in the middle of a war.

-Arrian

gunkulator · September 4, 2003, 17:24

I dunno. I almost always have some annoying aggressive neighbor hanging around, often with a resource or luxury I want. Constant war prevents trade so there's no choice but to grab their cities to get it. Most of the time, the AI wants peace pretty fast after you've taken some cities. Rifles help hold what you take.

I agree that ToE is a pivotal wonder. Not only does it boost you towards tanks, you often get them before the other guy - a huge advantage.

Still, waiting a few advances for Infantry may be worth it if you can keep out of war. I'd hate the thought of facing AI Cavalry with Muskets.

vmxa1 · September 4, 2003, 17:57

I know there maybe some rare cases for Mobilization, but I have never encountered them. I do it like Arrian, skip Nationalism and pick up all the skipped stuff as I get close to ToE being finished. I want to get as many techs before the ToE pops.

TheArsenal · September 4, 2003, 18:27

I also go straight for infantry. And I am not a fan of mobilization when I finally do get Nationalism. At that point in the game if I happen to need to go to war, I rarely need to turn all of my cities over to unit production (at the loss of culture no less). Maybe if Nationalism weren’t so close to Steam Power, came much earlier say, then I would value it more. But quickly laid rail lines and the ability to move instantly about your borders, does much to offset the slight defensive loss of not having rifleman.