IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.
I haven't really tried monarch or higher yet, because I think I need some more experience with the Civ3 basics, but I'm thinking of giving it a try. Are there big diferences here concerning my question?
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
The differences are frightening, to say the least. Once on diety, I fought off (successfully, just barely) a column of 48 Swordsmen in 200 AD. It was scary.
But Regent is okay. Just enough difficulty to keep you on your toes, but not those stinkin' uber-stacks.
The AI has less productive capacity on chieftain and warlord, compared to say... Diety. Much less. Thus, it has less troops (especially when you count the free units it gets on the higher levels). When the AI feels it has enough units to hurt you, it will definitely try - ala that 48 swordsman stack Trip mentioned.
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
You are going to be crying when you try the harder difficulty levels...
Agreed, much of the AI's war strategy is driven by available funds. Even on the higher levels, though, the AI is still missing the boat on some things.
In the epic Egyptian game, I should have been crushed by now, but the lack of artillery on the AI's part has let me turn the tide of the war.
From a "fun" perspective though, having 100s of enemy show up on your doorstep certainly puts you on the edge of your seat.
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.
Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
I once went into the Editor and told the French to buld more artillery.Originally posted by Theseus
Agreed, much of the AI's war strategy is driven by available funds. Even on the higher levels, though, the AI is still missing the boat on some things.
In the epic Egyptian game, I should have been crushed by now, but the lack of artillery on the AI's part has let me turn the tide of the war.
From a "fun" perspective though, having 100s of enemy show up on your doorstep certainly puts you on the edge of your seat.
When I checked what the French were up to when they invaded me, the AI had left ALL the cannon in their cities. Dumb. Before tanks arrive, artillery should be the prime offensive mover, as it was in the Napoleonic wars.
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war.
Allegedly there is no difference in the AI by difficulty level. I think there is increased aggressiveness on higher levels but they may be more due to the increased number of units the AI can produce than an actual attitude change.
What you are seeing is that the AI is moderatly handicapped on Warlord and just plain crippled on Chieftan. It sounds like its time for you to move up a level. Moving up two levels to Monarch could be a real shock. It took me three games before I won my first on Monarch and I won my second game when I tried Emperor.
Artillery was never the 'prime offensive mover', it was essential to attacking because it weakened the enemy so the rest of the army could finish it off. Imagine what would happen if someone was stupid enough to launch an attack with artillery alone...Originally posted by Coracle
I once went into the Editor and told the French to buld more artillery.
When I checked what the French were up to when they invaded me, the AI had left ALL the cannon in their cities. Dumb. Before tanks arrive, artillery should be the prime offensive mover, as it was in the Napoleonic wars.
I've seen them with what I'd call a fair number of attacking units. Once, about 12-14 units (a few swordsmen, but mostly longbowmen) from the Germans went rambling around some un-claimed territory in a cheiftain game I was playing once. Never found out what they were doing...Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.
Also, in a game, I had to deal with an onslaught of Egyptian war chariots, though my legions did pick them off pretty easily, it was a pain with the sheer number that came storming through.
You're a man- you can be replaced.
Until recent times (20th century and beyond) artillery was fairly unimportant. Cannonballs didn't explode, so the only damage they did was when they hit men as they flew across the landscape. Artillery is credited with less than 15 percent of all casualties in most cases (and consider the cost spent on artillery compared with regular infantrymen), which is very low. In some battles after 1810, Napoleon had as few as 50 guns at his command, while the Russians and others would have maybe 500 or more. That didn't stop Napoleon from crushing his opponents more often than not. Artillery was mainly used to demoralize enemy troops than anything else. Until explosive munitions were developed, artillery was only a support factor to other arms.
Trip, agreed. I very much apprecitate the jump from cannon to arty... in a way, one of the most reasonable matches to RL in the game.
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.
Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Unfortuneatly that is something you can always fix in the current editor. You can make any unit stronger, but you can't change the effects of it.
But are there more exact ways during the game to know when your army is big enough to kill one's another! Does it get less vague then, "compared to these guys, we've got an avarege army
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
Don't trust that comparison at all - it only compares numbers of units IIRC, including settlers and workers.
When you get spies in the enemy nation, then you can judge your military against theirs.
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
Yes: "compared to these guys, we've got a strong army".Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
But are there more exact ways during the game to know when your army is big enough to kill one's another! Does it get less vague then, "compared to these guys, we've got an avarege army
When you see that one, it is time to crush them!
Allthough on higher levels it is better to provoke the AI, then to just declare war....
Because War Weariness can bring your economy to a full stop...
True, but usually the AI doesn't upgrade, so if you have more units, you are really much better!Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Don't trust that comparison at all - it only compares numbers of units IIRC, including settlers and workers.
When you get spies in the enemy nation, then you can judge your military against theirs.
Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....Originally posted by Trip
Until recent times (20th century and beyond) artillery was fairly unimportant. Cannonballs didn't explode, so the only damage they did was when they hit men as they flew across the landscape. Artillery is credited with less than 15 percent of all casualties in most cases (and consider the cost spent on artillery compared with regular infantrymen), which is very low. In some battles after 1810, Napoleon had as few as 50 guns at his command, while the Russians and others would have maybe 500 or more. That didn't stop Napoleon from crushing his opponents more often than not. Artillery was mainly used to demoralize enemy troops than anything else. Until explosive munitions were developed, artillery was only a support factor to other arms.
O.K. but maybe I,ve got like 50 workers more, and he has got a much more advanced army. I still can't see whether that's true or not.
P.S. how can I see what's happening within other civs capitols?
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...
You've got a real problem if your name is Richard...Originally posted by campmajor!
You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...
I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself
you sound a bit schitzofrenic
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
Yes, this is Civ III. That means warfare is limited to attack VS defense values for each seperate unit.Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....What do you think this is anyways? EU2? Preposterous!
I was referring to the "Censuur"...Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself
you sound a bit schitzofrenic
I mean if your name is Richard, you are probably called D!ck, instead of ****.
Oh well, **** ****!
Point well taken, you ***** ****** ***** ******, and your *** can **** **** ***** me ()
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
Thought about it, still acnnot work out the richard-bit, please explain
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
I just sent you a PM. Hopefully the censor bot will not fill it full of *******************************************
*******************************************
otherwise it won't make much sense.
Ah, yes... read your PM. Make sense now.
I'm sorry, I am only familiar with the Dutch East-side slang.
Will be paying more attention in the future, thanks
ICH BIN EIN WARMONGER!!!
hi ,Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.
I haven't really tried monarch or higher yet, because I think I need some more experience with the Civ3 basics, but I'm thinking of giving it a try. Are there big diferences here concerning my question?
try to set the default level in the editor for the AI at deity , ....
that really make one go "zap" , .....
have a nice day
- RES NON VERBA - DE OPRESSO LIBER - VERITAS ET LIBERTAS - O TOLMON NIKA - SINE PARI - VIGLIA PRETIUM LIBERTAS - SI VIS PACEM , PARA BELLUM -
- LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA - one shot , one kill - freedom exists only in a book - everything you always wanted to know about special forces - everything you always wanted to know about Israel - what Dabur does in his free time , ... - in french - “Become an anti-Semitic teacher for 5 Euro only.”
WHY DOES ISRAEL NEED A SECURITY FENCE --- join in an exceptional demo game > join here forum is now open ! - the new civ Conquest screenshots > go see them UPDATED 07.11.2003 ISRAEL > crisis or challenge ?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks