Some general strategy/gameplay questions

[Blake]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


Are you sure about this? I have seen a post in another thread that suggests it is the source of the points that matters not the number. For example, if you are getting 2 points from (say) Stonehenge and 3 points from a scientists, you are getting 5 points per turn, but only a 50% chance of a great scientist. Adding a second scientist would get you a great person earlier, but not change the probabilities. Has anyone checked this?

RJM at Sleeper's

To clarify:
You have the stonehenge in a city without any stored GPP points.
You add a scientist and let it run until the GP pops out.
There was 1 prophet source, and 1 scientist source, so a 50% chance of each.
If instead you added 2 scientists:
1 prophet source, 2 scientist sources. 33% chance of prophet, 66% chance of scientist.

It is the ratio of sources that matters.
And this is why the Heroic/National Epics give so many lousy artists despite being only 1pt.

[Brizey]

I think longbows jump over muskets because they are both from the same era.

[Verrucosus]

My own experience (expressed rather imperfectly in my earlier post) corresponds with Blake's: Generally, the probability of getting a particular type of Great Person corresponds to the ratio of the number of sources for that type (each scientist and wonder counting as a single source) to the total number of GPP sources.

However, I'm uncertain about how the calculation works when you add (or remove) sources after a certain number of GPPs has been accumulated. It seems clear that the probability needs to be interpolated from the values calculated for the time before and after the change is made, but I have not yet tested whether the interpolation is based on the number of turns or the number of GPPs generated before and after the change.

[Brizey]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
My own experience (expressed rather imperfectly in my earlier post) corresponds with Blake's: Generally, the probability of getting a particular type of Great Person corresponds to the ratio of the number of sources for that type (each scientist and wonder counting as a single source) to the total number of GPP sources.

However, I'm uncertain about how the calculation works when you add (or remove) sources after a certain number of GPPs has been accumulated. It seems clear that the probability needs to be interpolated from the values calculated for the time before and after the change is made, but I have not yet tested whether the interpolation is based on the number of turns or the number of GPPs generated before and after the change.

The final chances definitely change if you change the mix during the build. I fugure the probability is just straight odds based on the input points divided by the total points.

BTW, this is one place in the game that the did not take care of overrun micromanagement. I am pretty sure that all of your accumulated points are consumed by the creation of the GP, even if there should have been a few leftover.

[Shaka II]

Re: Re: Re: A few more questions, that have occurred to me since?

Originally posted by Gueron

So what happens if you bribe an enemy to attack a Defensive Pact partner, assuming it is possible?

In that case, is the Defensive Pact invalidated? Or are you able to attack the person you bribed, because he declared war on a Defensive Partner.

If you bribe an AI to attack your defense pact partner, I'm pretty sure you are drawn into the war, though you probably didn't intend for that to happen. I almost did that once when Catherine signed a pact with me. I noticed that Napoleon had attack Catherine as an option, and I had enough to bribe him. if you don't want that to happen, you have to cancel the pact first, before the bribe.

If you bribe an AI to attack another AI with a defense pact that doesn't include you, it works the same way. they are both drawn into war. I did that with great effect once by bribing Mao with 30,000 gold (in the modern era) to attack Ghengis. Ghengis' defense pact partner Tokugawa then attacked Mao. The two together had a stronger army then Mao by 50%. In 10 turns their armies were all down 50%. A good buy for me, as I became twice as powerful as any other civ in 10 turns. It also ruined their being pleased with each other. It drove a wedge between them that allowed me to take Mao's empire and win, though I didn't have quite enough for domination.

Originally posted by Gueron

[I]I ask because, in my most recent game (I was playing Aztec, Continents) Alexander asked me to attack Saladin, and I refused, because, thought I would have been happy to attack Saladin, I feared Alexander would then declare war on me, throwing me into a two front war, from one of my particularly weaker areas.

Always check the diplomacy screen when asked to break trade agreements or attack someone. You can do an F4 to open the diplomacy screen or any other screen, before making your answer. Often I do an F4 to examine the relationships, pacts, who I will offend if I attack their friend, etc., then I usually do an F9 to examine the power chart to see what I'm up against, also what kind of manufacturing to know how fast they can crank out units, and even culture even to know how hard it will be to take cities with strong culture borders. You can even click on the reveal map button on the lower right menu and check the map inset to see where the affected civ is. Assuming that you have V1.52 that is.

So a lot of information is available before making this decision, but it is an important decision. If you agree, you earn points toward a friendship, or sometimes for the civ who is annoyed with you, avert a costly war. Diplomacy is half of the game. You don't have to keep the same friends over the long haul either. Being an opportunist, turning against friends at some point, is often the way to success. Hopefully not in real life, but in civ it's OK.

Originally posted by Gueron

In that game, I was then asked by Saladin to attack Alexander, again refusing, though I would have gladly attacked Alexander (My three targets at the time were Saladin/Qin/Alexander, all of who were "annoyed" with me) and I was building up my military along the Arabian/Chinese front. I did end up attacking Saladin, at the request of Rome, and taking him down to one one-square island city (which I found only because I put a spy in the last city I knew about before taking it), when I finally sued for peace because I had no marines.

I try to avoid situations where many AI civs are annoyed with me. It hurts trade opportunities and can even lead to the situation where they all attack at once. Often I'll change to the religion that makes sense based on what the people I want to befriend practice, realizing that you'll get negatives from those who are not of that religion.

Eventually you learn what makes an AI go to war with you. You're weak, your cultural borders clash, you have the wrong faith, you traded with their "worst" enemies, and you refused to offer tribute are some of the big ones. That and your neighbor is Alexander and to some extent Napoleon. They don't need a big reason to attack. It's in their nature. The best thing to do is switch to the same religion as Alexander, so he'll attack someone else instead of you, while you go and make some great science discoveries.

[TheArsenal]

It is also possible to bribe an AI to renege on its Defensive Pact with another AI, and go to war with its former defensive partner. Expensive though, but sometimes important when Permanent Alliance is turned on and you need to sour a budding AI romance.

[Quillan]

If you convince your defensive pact partner to declare war on, say, Alexander, then the defensive pact will be canceled. Your former partner will be at war with Alexander. Everyone who likes Alexander will get a -1 diplomacy towards your former partner (You declared war on our friend), while you yourself will have a -1 with Alexander only (You brought in a war ally against us). You won't be at war with Alexander. Alex may declare war on you if he dislikes you badly enough, or your former partner may ask you to help, but his act of declaring war cancels the pact immediately.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If you put the mouse pointer over the GPP bar, it gives you a breakdown of the probabilities of various GP you'll get next.

Nevermind. Must be a brain-fart. I swear I saw that chart somewhere.

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Brizey
BTW, this is one place in the game that the did not take care of overrun micromanagement. I am pretty sure that all of your accumulated points are consumed by the creation of the GP, even if there should have been a few leftover.

Great people points do carry over.

[LodeRunner31]

Originally posted by Quillan
If you convince your defensive pact partner to declare war on, say, Alexander, then the defensive pact will be canceled. Your former partner will be at war with Alexander. Everyone who likes Alexander will get a -1 diplomacy towards your former partner (You declared war on our friend), while you yourself will have a -1 with Alexander only (You brought in a war ally against us). You won't be at war with Alexander. Alex may declare war on you if he dislikes you badly enough, or your former partner may ask you to help, but his act of declaring war cancels the pact immediately.

I have a quick question regarding relationship points. When you convince an AI to declare war on another AI, you receive a -1 "you brought in a war ally against us" score. So, they know what you did. Does the AI ever do this to you? If so, are you informed that so and so has brought a war ally in against you? Sometimes, I swear AI's are in collusion with one another against me. But, I suppose one of them is just being an opportunist.

[Shaka II]

I don't if that happens, but I suspect that it does. If the AI asks us to cancel trade or attck another civ, I can only guess that they make the same requests of other civs. But it seems only fair that we should get to know who is behind these actions.

[Quillan]

No, Lode, I have never been informed that an opponent has brought in a war ally, or convinced another civ to do anything against me. I can never tell if they're doing that just out of opportunism, or at the behest of another.

[Crossfire]

Well, when all 3 of your neighbors attack you on the same turn I would assume that someone bribed someone else to attack me. Unfortunately CIV doesn't tell you who instigated the attack. Sure would be nice to know though.

I believe Scientific Method makes Monastaries obsolete and you can no longer build them. However, they do continue to appear on your build list but are greyed out like you noticed.

[Gueron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A few more questions, that have occurred to me since?

Originally posted by Shaka II


If you bribe an AI to attack your defense pact partner, I'm pretty sure you are drawn into the war, though you probably didn't intend for that to happen. I almost did that once when Catherine signed a pact with me. I noticed that Napoleon had attack Catherine as an option, and I had enough to bribe him. if you don't want that to happen, you have to cancel the pact first, before the bribe.

Ah, but see, that was what I want. If I want to go to war with Qin, but I don't want to lose my defensve pact, I wanted to know a way of doing so. Machiavelli has nothing on this board.


I'll have to test this out after saving a game which I would like to use this option

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
Playing in a flat world is quite a change of pace. These map scripts are are more specific, so it should be possible to discuss strategy in more detail than for standard maps. I have played an "Inland Sea" map (also flat) and it turned out a very balanced game with all the AI civs at similar strength for much of the game. I don't recall reading any threads regarding strategy for a specific flat world, but there have been comments that Highland maps are rather challenging...

Highland maps are challenging. The mountain peaks section off areas in the manner of a maze. (You can specify "dense" peaks, which make some areas even more remote or, totally inaccessible.) Attack routes and trade routes are thus channelled. The lines of peaks create areas that resist exploration, promoting further the development of barb cities and empires. ("Raging barb" Highlands is a virtual killing spree. )

Large highland maps might keep civs separated for centuries, in the manner of archipelago maps. I played one game with six opponents, but only found one by mid-game. I abandoned the game shortly after because all I was doing was killing barbs and building up massive culture in between. But if you like that sort of thing...

"Cold" highlands hinders growth with little food; this is true of "cold" anywhere, but particularly bad in Highlands or Ice Age, IMHO. "Tropical" highlands yields vast choking jungle, as usual, but compounded by the "walling-in" effect of the peaks. If you want to boost your game difficulty without increasing it a full level, try your favorite level of difficulty with some of these. You'll get a bonus.