Civ3 (PTW) is UNPLAYABLE in its current state

[gergi]

Let me start out by saying that the Civ series have long been my favorite games of all time. I can't even begin to recall the countless hours I've lost to Civilization, Colonization, Civ2, and a fair amount of time to Alpha Centauri. Now Civ3, on the other hand, I can't stand to play for more than an hour or two.

Many other people are going to complain about the problems with the multiplayer and gamespy but that hasn't been an issue with me. The upcoming patch with Direct IP connection will be a welcome relief though as long as we can specify the port the game will run on (80?! If you had to choose 1 port you NEVER should run on, it's 80!)

My major complaint is about the AI. I know people were complaining about the AI pre-PTW, but I just don't see improvement in the one issue that keeps me from playing the game. When I first bought Civ3, the day it came out, I found the AI to be annoying in that they always went to war. So I waited and tried each new patch as it came out. No patch made it better (I recall at least 1 that made it worse )

I cannot play a game without everyone declaring war on me. I can be the most powerful, I can be the weakest, I can be average... they all eventually declare war on me for NO REASON. I am not (usually) a warmonger. I would like to play a game where I can have peace with my neighbors. I offer to trade resources/maps/whatever but they usually aren't interested. I don't attack, I just build my cities and develop my land. And eventually, they will always declare war on me. I remember some game where I was friends with the French since early BC thru about 1700.... Some civilization landed on the main continent, made contact with the French, "French & Other Civ have a military alliance against us". Does that seem in any way realistic or fun?

So I gave up on Civ3. Now PTW came out, and my friends and I were ecstatic (I don't need to make comments about how the multi- should have been in orig Civ3). So I picked up PTW. And a buddy of mine and I have now played 2 games. Both games, on Monarch level, have become trials in diplomacy. Every Civ I know, is at war with me; Every Civ my buddy knows, is at war with him (We're on separate islands).

I don't even begin to understand why the civs are getting upset at us. I have been unable to sue for peace. As a matter of fact, the only way I've ever (in Civ3 or PTW) been able to sue for peace is by taking a city (or more) and demanding peace. THIS ISN'T FUN OR REALISTIC.

I have played many, many games of Civ3. The AI is unacceptable. Where is diplomacy? Trade? It doesn't do anything... Even if you can manage it, it's just buffer between wars. I don't mind... no, I expect some war but not like this. Civ3 is currently a WAR-GAME not a BUILD-A-CIVILIZATION-GAME.

I know there are those on the forums that say I just don't know how to play... I do. Some will say I just need to be as aggressive as the AI... why? Others will tell me I need to use some "quick-win" strategy, but I tell you that is NOT true to the legacy of Civilization.

In its current state, the # of computer opponents is = to the number of civilizations you have to fight. I don't want to play a game where the # of computer opponents is an indicator of how difficult the game is. And that's what it currently is. Each civilization should judge each other civilization on its actions. Not all ally vs the human(s).

Is Civ3 (Orig & PTW) supposed to be a war game or is it a civilization building game? If the latter, will there be a patch forthcoming to turn off the hidden option "Hate Humans"? To anyone that knows, please answer or forward my complaints to Firaxis.

I am truly disappointed and wish to know if I should return my copy of PTW and salvage $30 or hold out and wait for a patch.

[biship]

Yeah this happens to me too. Reguardless of being weak, powerful, or just on par, my neighbors always declare war on me. What do I do to provoke this responce?

Every game... the same gameplay.. expand until no more space, fortify, they declare war, I defend the attacks, eventually buy them back into peace... Most civs are annoyed at me for no reason - some i have never even met, or ones I am always fair too! I never threaten, or invade....

[Patroklos]

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

For one, you have to take into accout the phase of the game you are in when complaining about war. In the various expansion phases (i.e. ancient and industrial), civs are contending for territor and resouces and thus fight often. This is true to real life, as prior to 1500 everyone was at each others throat. Also, in the industrial age especially, the availability of new powerful units like cavalry through power curves into disarray, and an AI does take a change in relative power into effect when deciding to go to war.

I have to say that I can go for hundreds of turns without fighting a war, I often have to start wars to ward of boardom (especially in the modern age). It has alot to do with my expansion strategy, conquering my own contintent or at least getting a secure position. Also, if I see that a WW is about to start, which will almost invariably happen in every game around the industrial age, I find the way the wind is blowing and make a grand alliance. If I can't be at peace, I can at least be on the winning side.

It has also been my experiance that if I kick ass severly at some point, people will leave me alone after that (at least if I mind my own buisness afterwards). Trade helps too, I have always been of the opinion that a civ that is trading with you is less likely to join an alliance agaisnst you.

[gergi]

Patroklos:
I agree with your analogy with the "phases" of the game... yes, during the ancient times, Neighboring civilizations were often at each others throat. Counter-point example: in real-life, what benefit would the chinese have had declaring war on the carthaginians? Why go to the effort fighting someone half a world away? Yes, this happened to me in my last game. Japan, on the far side of a large continent from me (Mongols), declared war on me early. For no reason. More importantly, they never accepted peace and sent waves of warriors, spearmen, and archers at me across the globe for thousands of years. Not only that, they had to march thru a large Korean civilization just to get to me.

I could possibly understand if maybe it was because I was hoarding some strategic resources they neeced but I didn't have any resources (or was even close to any) except for Silk.

When you're most advanced unit is an archer or even a swordsmen, you don't declare war on a civilization so far away from you without some obvious gains to be found. It doesn't make sense.

And I've never encountered boredom resulting from a lack of wars. I imagine trade would help if they would ever trade. I'm so frustrated...

[vmxa1]

As was stated, at some point they must take land from someone or lose. It is a grow or die game. I do agree that the changes put in a while back to stop the strong arming of the AI have gone over the top. The idea that no matter how many cities I take, they hardly ever even ask for peace anymore. I have had them down to one city and they never even contacted me for a peace deal?

[Cagliostro]

I aggree partially - I managed to maintain peace throughout the last 2000 years without too much effort.(playing giant worldmap as the polish with 31 civs since the dawn of time, 1200 A.D. now, monarch level).

I don't give other civs anything when they come to threaten me (I don't think I say anything new, but in case someone doesn't know: When the AI threatens you and you tell them to take their threats elsewhere, they'll declare war, but if you just say "goodbye, that's it", nothing happens - bug (?)).

Further, I don't complain when they enter my territory - gave up actually because they'll never learn and I never enter theirs, because they allways go mad at me - even with non-military units - right now everyones using poland as some kind of trans-european highway, but as soon as I'd tell anyone to remove his forces, he'll instantly declare war ...

The part where I agree, is that since the beginning of the game, everyone is annoyed with me at best (except the polite iroquois which are stuck in the stoneage and one city, knowing only my civ, whilst I'm on my way to gunpowder...) - and I don't know why - I share maps & knowledge, trade lots etc., but everyone hates me.

I'm not even the most powerfull civ (rank 9 out of 32).
I fought wars in the very early period with the romans, germans and spanish and they all are furios with me since then - hell - that was 4000 years ago - and they where the ones who declared war on me back then - not vice versa...
All in all I'd say it's possible to maintain peace by exploiting bugs, but I think it's not cheating since the other civs "emotional system" is buggy at best - but it would be lots more fun if there where some more friendly, some neutral and some hostile civs - right now it's all the same

[ducki]

Originally posted by Cagliostro
I don't give other civs anything when they come to threaten me (I don't think I say anything new, but in case someone doesn't know: When the AI threatens you and you tell them to take their threats elsewhere, they'll declare war, but if you just say "goodbye, that's it", nothing happens - bug (?)).

I've had the AI declare war when I just say "goodbye, that's it."
I only use "Take your threats..." if I actually feel like war.

I really have to disagree about the playability of PTW, though.

I'm having a blast. I am not a warmonger.

What level are you guys having such problems playing? What game settings? Are you breaking any treaties or trade deals?

There's gotta be a reason that so many people are having such a blast with PtW and you guys are finding it unplayable.


Ignore MultiPlay for now.
If you buy a game that uses GameSpy Arcade for MP and you expect that to actually work at release time, you're fooling yourself. GameSpy will be acceptible around New Year's, probably.


So, how about posting a save or some screenshots? It seems odd that you are not starting early wars and yet everyone is Furious with you. No broken deals? No broken treaties? No hoarded techs? No hoarded Contacts? No Luxury or Resource monopolies?



Personally, I think PtW is much better than vanilla Civ. Nice AI tweaks, nice graphics updates, fun new Civs, fun new units. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Arnelos]

I have had little trouble pulling ahead of the AIs and winning the game, even when playing peacefully... this includes all the way up to Monarch level (when you get beyond that, it becomes largely impossible). I can only do it by "tricking" the AI, however... doing such stuff as "tech whoring" and other stuff...

I will agree that the Civ3 AI (without PTW) was a great deal tougher than Civ or Civ2 and a great deal more intelligently aggressive... such that people new to the game were turned off very quickly (I've had many friends who played civ2, but didn't want to play the fiercely competitive nature of Civ3 and thus gave it up).

My complaint is that hte Civ3 PTW AI, compared to the normal Civ3 AI, is simply ATTROCIOUSLY COMPETITIVE and in a manner where the AIs are very much aware that they are AI's and you are a human player.... PTW's AI is such that the AI players will trade each other technology apparently even at loss to ensure that the AIs remain in the technology lead from you, but will refuse to trade techs with human players unless they get 500-2000 gold a pop (3000-5000 gold in the later stages of the game).

Now, I'll grant that part making the AI players very cohesive against the human player(s) is to account for the fact that human players will be cohesive against the AI players. However, this is simply attrocious when playing in single-player... if you're playing in a 16-player game, the ONLY way to win is to go to war and conquer at least half of the AI civs (so at least there are less of them to trade tech to each other at a loss).

The key problem is the following:

The AI should NOT be able to discern between a human player and an AI player for the purpose of determing trades. The fact that the AI gives significantly better deals (ever more significantly by difficulty level) to other AI civs basically breaks the game if you're playing PTW in single player. It makes it impossible to win the game by playing entirely peacefully in single-player. Though it was tough, I could actually do it in normal Civ3... PTW has made it impossible. I can't even keep up in technology on Chieftan level in PTW, the AI is THAT AGGRESSIVE at trading techs to each other and denying them to the human player.

I find it perfectly ok to give the AI better productivity and a faster research rates at harder difficulty levels. Even making the AIs trade with each other more often at Monarch and above would be reasonable... but the virtual embargo on any human player even at Chieftan level is attrocious...

AS FOR MULTIPLAYER...

This says nothing for the fact that PTW is entirely uplayable for anyone attempting to play multiplayer internet games from behind a router (this includes myself). I would have hoped Firaxis wouldn't be so obscenely stupid as to not realize that much of their fanbase plays behind routers ...

[ducki]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I can't even keep up in technology on Chieftan level in PTW, the AI is THAT AGGRESSIVE at trading techs to each other and denying them to the human player.
...
... but the virtual embargo on any human player even at Chieftan level is attrocious...

I'm currently playing Monarch - I graduated when I got PtW - and I am not seeing any sort of trading embargo against the human player.

I honestly have to say I don't know what on earth you are talking about.

I am able to trade for techs with no problems.
If I have a trade network, I am able to trade resources and luxuries, no problem.

Are you guys 100% positive that you have not broken any 20-turn deals? That's the only thing I've seen that will put you in that position. Note: there is/was a bug wherein if you had a 20-turn deal going with an AI that declared war on you, you "lost your supply of X" - but you also took the reputation hit for breaking a 20-turn deal, regardless of the fact that the AI declared war and broke the deal, not you... but that's not PtW, that's Civ.

Again, I'm seeing a little bit smarter AI, but I'm definitely not seeing this semi-conspiratorial AI-dogpile-on-the-human you guys are suggesting. And I am a builder as much as is possible.



You guys are building enough military to discourage the AI from picking on you, right? Again, that's a Civ thing, not just PtW.

[osirus2626]

here are some of the things I do to keep wars to a minimum.

1. make sure not to break 20 turn agreements

2. keep your army atleast as strong as your opponents, even if you dont plan on attacking them.

3. try trading with them, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt

4. dont sign any mutual protection acts. it just forces you to go to war and may cause you to break treaties

5. dont raze too many cities, this seems to piss everybody off

6 right of passage aggreements seem to help make AI more friendly.

I just played a game on the 2nd highest level and war wasnt constant. I had a large war/city grab when I got Knights and then things were peaceful until late in the industrial era.

[vondrack]

Establishing embassies help improve relations, too.

[Captain THC]

I've never had a problem with this, although I do agree the AI in PTW seems much more aggressive, which I like. The AI must have been improved, because I'm playing one of the best games I've ever played currently as the Celts, I have a large empire with a great econoomy and production base, and all the other civs are actually keeping up with me, which is nice.

They've also been demanding stuff from me more, and I've had war been declared on me by a peaceful civ on more than one occasion in my current game. As soon as Arabia was wiped out (it's a regicide game), I started expanding northwards, and eventually borded some new French Settlements (I hadn't bordered them previously). Within a few terms, a large army of French Cavalry and Knights appear by my settlement, and in the next term, the French declared war, without demanding anything.

I must say, I like it. Makes the game more interesting. I really wish they'd say why they're going to war with you though. If they make another xpac, i'd really like to see them add that feature.

[vmxa1]

Like I said, the idea that they will not get mad at you at some point just because you were not mean is the problem. It is a zero sum game and they will get mad at some point unless you are very obsequious. There are only so many tiles and you have some of them and they want them. PTW has been changed with 104 to making the ai build smarter and hence it is stronger enconomically then it was. I have seen the AI annoyed with me on first contact.

[Cagliostro]

I also don't see any AI embargos - but usually I try to time my Techology sales in a manner, the AI players have no chance to sell them to each other (i.e. during my turn & when I decide to sell it to one AI player (usually as soon as I see the first of the other civs achieved it, or if I just bouht it from another civ), I sell it to everyone - even for ridiculous prices - if I don't take the 10 gold for chivalry, some AI player will definetely...).

As I said it's not too much of a problem to maintain peace for me, but I allways have a strong military (stronger than all my neighbours - if china or india would decide to really attack me, I'd be history, but the size of the map and slow moving units in the current age save me quite well for now...)

I can trade quite well with everyone but (allmost) everyone is annoyed from the first time I meet them - just an example: I met the hungarians first - first contact, they're annoyed, lots of trade, technology transfer, I respect their borders, they don't respect mine, they declare war on me if I tell the to respect mine, allthough my military is far stronger than theirs (and I never fought any war with them - when they declared war, I loaded a previous savegame and prevented it...) - I really wanted to make them some friend in my neighborhood, but they're annoyed for 5000 years now

- I never broke a treaty

- I have a strong military (but war is not my problem, as mentioned above)

- I trade as much as I can

- Mutual protection pacts are a joke, imho - as soon as you sign one , the AI player declares war on someone.
I plan using the same tactic for dealing with superpowers china and India in my game - sign a mutual protection pact with the one selling it cheaper and as soon as he did, making all his surrounders (and the other superpower) declare war on me (shouldn't be too hard, since I only have to say "peep" and they declare war) .

- I never raze citys - as soon as there's space available due to a razed citys, some AI moron settles on the rock it stood on before I can prevent that by my cultural expansion - so I keep them all, even if I don't want it...

- Right now, signing right of passage aggreements doesn't really work for me: They continuously penetrate my borders, declare war when I tell them to remove, get mad when one of my automated workers penetrates theirs and if I offer them a right of passage agreement, so they penetrate my borders legally at least, they want tremendous ammounts of money and tech for it, allthough I don't need to pass their country to get anyhwere (ok, I understand that the AI can't know that...)

The only thing I'm hoarding right now is my worldmap (for about 30 turns now), because none of the AI players knows about the american continents, north america is mainly unpopulated and I'm just changing that (and I prefer doing it without concurrence ) - but who cares - they were annoyed the centuries before, anyway...

Sorry for writing so much and repeating myself, but I type this while the AI players take their moves (taking about 15 minutes on an athlon xp 1800+ now )

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by ducki


I'm currently playing Monarch - I graduated when I got PtW - and I am not seeing any sort of trading embargo against the human player.

I think what he means is that the AI only trades among themselves, usually only trading with you as a last resort.(Not really an embargo, but you have to initialize all trades.)

[ducki]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

I think what he means is that the AI only trades among themselves, usually only trading with you as a last resort.(Not really an embargo, but you have to initialize all trades.)

I also haven't found this to be true.
Actually, with PtW, I'm getting more AI initiated tech trades.
So many that it's actually gotten a bit annoying, since I contact everyone almost every turn anyway.

Point being, I've experienced the exact opposite.
In vanilla Civ3, if I didn't initiate trade, it probably wouldn't happen.
In PtW, I spend an awful lot of time saying "Would you deign to listen to my counter-proposal?"
Even to Annoyed Civs. I guess they all want to make a buck and they all have a tech I don't have, so every couple of turns I'll get at least 2 AIs trying to sell me something.

Naturally, I don't trade during the AI turn, but I try to remember what they were willing to trade for and if I need it, I'll trade it and sell to any other AI that doesn't have it yet.


I dunno. People seem to be experiencing vastly different games, which is probably a testament to the breadth of the game itself. Maybe try a different civ to see if you are still treated with disdain.

[gergi]

Update: I've played now my 3rd fairly lengthy game of PTW. The AI is absolutely unacceptable. We're playing on the second easiest setting (Monarch, I think). I'm the Carthaginians and my buddy is the Germans. Pangea map.

Note: I quit playing around 0AD. So everything happened in BC.

Russians and I were separated from everyone by England. I was a mediocre power, Russia was a bit stronger (had a lot of cities).

Throughout the game, I never broke a treaty or 20yr deals (hell, never got a 20yr deal), I had one successful tech trade (w/ France), no resource trades.

England was friendly at first, France too, everyone else was hostile. Somehow the Romans got contact with me and declared war on me. Wasn't as issue at first because I never FOUND them. I have no idea where they were but I explored most of the continent so they had to be VERY FAR away.

England and Russian then spent the next several years demanding money from me. I paid them off, several times each. No I never did anything, I even attempted to trade with both of them.

I knew Russia would eventually declare war on me and they did. Luckily, I was very successful with my Numidian Mercs and defeated them time and time again. After knocking Russia out of the war, I met the Celts , who never even once spoke to me until a "We demand technology X" and declared war on me.

Then Rome pulled France (who was the only nation that had been fair with me) into a mil alliance. France pulled England into mil alliance. Russia got back in the fray. Egypt, who had been friendly, but weak, and i had never found them either, declared war on me. So now, I'm fighting everyone but my buddy the German.

NOTE: Not all the land had been settled (maybe 60%) and I was VERY FAR from everyone expect Russia. There was no gain to be had with a war with me.

Many, many years later, nothing has changed, and I'm basically slowly falling back before the French spearmen/archers, and Roman horsemen. I had nothing they could have desired ... I was too far away for them to desire my cities, no resources of note, I had broken no treaties or any other "hateful" things.

I read that the AI will not make peace if they are winning the war. This is FLAWED! But I couldn't take the war to them because they were so far away. So I would never "turn the tide" no matter how many of their soldiers I killed because they will also kill a few of mine.

It would have been better to have them come to me and say, we are winning this war, but we dont' really have anything to gain by continuing, why don't you pay us 5g/turn or something?

Wars are expensive... Takes away from yoru productivity. The AI should not be such warmongers for NO REASON!

Some people say they like the more "aggresive AI" ... I don't . War is a losing solution for all involved. ALWAYS.
Is there an option or a way to "pacify" the AI? Every single game I play of Civ and PTW has pretty much turned out this way. The only difference in my games is how long it's going to take everyone to declare war on me

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Arnelos
The AI should NOT be able to discern between a human player and an AI player for the purpose of determing trades. The fact that the AI gives significantly better deals (ever more significantly by difficulty level) to other AI civs basically breaks the game if you're playing PTW in single player.

I agree with you on this, that's why I changed it so that it works that way using the editor in the scenario I usually play.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by gergi
Update: I've played now my 3rd fairly lengthy game of PTW. The AI is absolutely unacceptable. We're playing on the second easiest setting (Monarch, I think). I'm the Carthaginians and my buddy is the Germans. Pangea map.

There is a bug in 1.04f where all MP games are played at Regent level, not the Warlord you apparently tried.

I will refute your theory that war is detrimental to everyone. It isn't, just to the losers. Why build what you can just take?

I often declare wars just to slow down the enemy economy, on the assumption that I can manage my empire better than the AI can his, especially if they are in a government form subject to WW.

I read that the AI will not make peace if they are winning the war. This is FLAWED!

Let's turn this around for a second. If you were winning the war would you make peace?

I don't think I would. I think that I'd press on and remove a competitor from the game taking his land and resources.

[Catt]

Originally posted by gergi
Some people say they like the more "aggresive AI" [. . . ]Every single game I play of Civ and PTW has pretty much turned out this way. The only difference in my games is how long it's going to take everyone to declare war on me

Maybe you should try a succession game with someone or find someone to critique your play through the early turns. I honestly can't fathom why all your games turn out this way. I have played many games with very little war (and a few without ever going to war) on Monarch, Emperor and Deity. The reactions you're seeing from the AI are not hardcoded -- it is a reaction to your early gameplay and tactical choices, I just don't know which choices.

In any event . . .

Originally posted by gergi
Is there an option or a way to "pacify" the AI?

Each civ has an "aggression level" which can be found in the editor, ranging from 1 to 5 (Germans rate a 5 for instance and are very aggressive). You could certainly try setting all AI civ's aggression levels to "1" and see if that helps out (although I think you ought to try experimenting with play stlyes to figure out why this happens to you every game).

Catt

[-proletarian-]

The reason you're being picked on so much by the AI is because you are weak militarily. It doesn't matter how early on in the game, how far away you are, if they have a stronger military than you, they WILL declare war.


This used to be my problem as well. I'd just build two defenders inb each city, and think I was all set. Of course, I was a magnet for them.....now by the time I've founded say my 4th city, I designate a high-shield city to be my "unit factory". I just pump out military units from that one city. By the time I reach 10 cities or so, I'll have 2 or 3 of these military cities. You need a strong military to discourage them from attacking you. You should be aiming for the "compared to them, we have a strong military!" message from your military advisor.


Believe me, I know what you're talking about, I'm not a warmonger either. But just because you're a builder doesn't mean you can just neglect the military side of things. That's just ASKING for trouble.....

[gergi]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


There is a bug in 1.04f where all MP games are played at Regent level, not the Warlord you apparently tried.

I just loaded an auto-save of the game and it said "Monarch" (which is the level I usually play Civ3 original on competitively, but not the level my friend and I wanted to play multi on... we wanted warlord)... is there really a bug that forces the game to "Regent"? Where did you hear/see this? Is a fix going to be included in the next patch?

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I will refute your theory that war is detrimental to everyone. It isn't, just to the losers. Why build what you can just take?

There are some gains for a war. But a war is an expensive proposition and no war would last "thousands of years." A more realistic solution would be to make a tribute state after a few decisive battles, after the 20turn limit was up, re-evaluate. If you have nothing to gain strategical from war, what's the point, take your gold and move on.

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I don't think I would. I think that I'd press on and remove a competitor from the game taking his land and resources.

See, i don't want to wipe out the opponents. I would prefer them to acknowledge my superiority with tribute of some sort. I just want to build a civilization and enjoy the diplomacy and nation-building. War is definitely a factor but it shouldn't be the only thing.

Anyway, what I really want to know is if the "always is Regent-level" is a bug or just something you pulled out of the air. My friend and I would like to play the game on Warlord level.

I appreciate everyone's comments. As you all can probably see, I'm truly frustrated.

[ducki]

I also don't understand why your game is turning out like this. It's odd.

Go take a look at my "Ducki went Regent..." thread at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=64951
and maybe use that as a template for how to get some great feedback/advice/analysis from the 'poly pros. I have nothing but praise for these boards and the guys that post here to help folks like you and me.

My thread wasn't about me having serious problems, just a general lack of knowledge at how to proceed.

Post some screenshots and a SAV file or two and as long as your post is even remotely intelligible and not full of inflammatory language, I can almost guarantee that you'll have plenty of responses.

I don't play MP, but if it's possible to do, I'd be glad to look at your game in SP mode - especially if you've got multiple saves, like 4000BC, 1000BC, 10AD would be good for showing the game in progress.

Don't give up, it seems that your situation is an anomoly and not the norm.

[jpinard]

The problem here however, is that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY and win. Military strength.

I thought this game was civilization. Where culture and technology could win the game for you. If all the races are set to passive, I don't believe they should warmonger on you like THEY DO.

I don't want to go to someone elses thread to have them tell me how to play the game. THis is supposed to be a agame of creativity and options. Right now it's not.

ANyway, the AI is cheating terribly. If I keep the AI far enough away from my cities it should not KNOW whether I have 2 or 10 units on that city... but of course it does, and as a human I do not...

[The Pioneer]

Well, in Civ 1 and 2 it was the only way to really win. Ok you had the space race but in Civ 3 you can also have other ways of winning the game. I like the UN victory and these ideas have been implemented in the game. Granted the game is far from perfect. No matter what road you choose to take, like in real life you have to have lots of power to back your words for which other countries will like you and others will hate you. Of course in real life there is a huge gray area that is difficult to implement in the game. Nevertheless, they tried and we should give them credit for that. Maybe in th enear future they will develop a "smart" game where the AI will be much more "human" like in its ways of making distinctions and taking decisions/actions.

So long...

[CJM]

Like some others on this thread, I have managed to play a peaceful game. After recently obtaining PTW I played through as the Carthagineans (sp?) without once going to war. Yep, the only military units I lost the whole game were warriors against barbarians early on. So it is possible.

However (and the reason I take pride in this win), such an occassion is rare. I can usually finish a game and win through the space race without being the lone target of the AI civilizations, though war tends to be inevitable with at least a few AI civs at some point. I'm not sure that I would characterize the game as unplayable as a builder, however.

In the interests of full disclosure, in the Carthage game I was playing was at Warlord, 70% water, Large Archipelago, 6 AI civs. Maybe the AI is more likely to declare war on you if they don't have to make an amphibious assault to do so? I should also note that I had a rather substantial military force.

my $.02,

C--

[jpinard]

Very interesting CJM...

[planetfall]

Gergi,

The We demand X,Y,Z is a red flag. The reason you get this is because something is wrong in game play. I don't play just builder, but it is possible to play just builder. From my game play, this seems to be the key:

1. Military must be at least avg to strongest civ. Caution don't rely on power graph as it includes non-military power which AI does not always use when deciding when to challenge you.

2. Firaxis tweaked the game to demand high trading rates. The higher the difficulty level the more aggressive the trading. Your choice is either to play the Firaxis way and check trading opportunities every 2 to 3 turns, or go editor and reduce AI to AI trading rate.

3. If you are weak, use MPP to use threat of gangup to slow down AI willingness to declare war. If MPP requires "war", then do builder warfare-- defensive, maybe conquering one city.

4. To end war you need any of the following:
4a-- lose cities and game,
4b-- gain AI cities,
4c-- defeat AI invasions, but no cities exchanged, i.e., stalemate.

5. You can also use military alliances to have two AI's fight each other. Just because you bribe civ X to fight civ Y, that doesn't not mean you have to take military action against civ Y. You will be at war and need to defend yourself, but you don't have to pursue offensive warfare. Goal is either to get bribed civ to inflict damage on civ Y for you or to get WW rolling in civ Y so they switch to a less powerful form of govt.

6. You need culture/UN/etc, other peaceful win options turned on. You might even try a game with Domination and Conquest win options turned off. I have not heard of anyone trying that. But if Conquest and Domination are not available, the AI should be less militaristic.

Finally remember what vmxa1 said, this is a zero sum, or balanced game. If you are not offering AI cities or land, what are you offering. They need an incentive to be peaceful: trades, gold, or diplomacy is all that is left.

How about posting some saves?

== PF

[WarriorPoet]

War is a part of the game-A PART OF THE GAME-now, if you had to code in complex diplomatic/trade relationships vs. easy production/military relationships for an AI...which would you choose? Thought so....

True, I've needed a much larger military in PTW than I would in vanilla civ III...but I've learned this and adapted. I've also abbandonned my build all wonders strategy, at least on any level above War Lord.

To get respect you have to smash some heads. Show the AI that you are capable of defending your land and resources at great expense to them.

I have a game on Monarch level now. I had the Celts and the Mongols to the North of me. The Mongol hordes were constantly testing my borders. I threw them off every time with decent military tactics of mobile defense. Eventually, I campaigned against the Celts. I fought smartly, and when I took a few cities, I made peace and built up for the future wars. When the Mongols realized I was too bitter for them, they went after the Celts. I wated...

Finally, I sent in about 30 units of mixed knights and medieval infantry....the Celts fell. About 5 turns later I had regrouped and attacked the Mongol hord still tied up in the northern region of the priviously celtic lands. It was a messy stalemate, but I had severely damaged their military strength, and I sewed for peace.

Finally, and I am still in the midst of this campaign (my push against the Mongols at the end of the Celt's destruction in the late 1100's, and now in the 1400's AD)
with a mixed force of Sapahi, cannon, and musketmen, I am beginning to end the Mongol menace for ever....and the north continent will be mine!!!

This is on Monarch, 11 AI, 70% water, Large Continent. It's how you play, and how well you can use your mental crystal ball. After you've played for a while, you'll know what is around the corner, and you'll be able to plan for it.

[TheOldSage]

Let's try a different approach...
Like most of you already noticed Civ3 games have real problems with the lag - even an average ping of 200 drives you crazy if you dare to play with more than 2 players. So in order to not totally miss out on the game, I try to host e-mail sets, which will PA-like play 1-2 turns a day (or depending on how fast the chain closes). This way up to 8 players can play at once and accelerated production might allow us to finish before the game becomes more playable on the net.

Spare 5 minutes a day and at least get some serious Civ3 gaming done by mail, and get challenged by human players !!!

Contact me at civ3PTW@yahoo.com and I will setup games after request!
TheOldSage