The "I think I might be losing this one, what do I do?" thread

[East Street Trader]

AU is the Apolyton University - a development I imagine of the old Civ2 Great Library thread. It is a place where threads and posts thought to have enduring interest is collected and, to some extent, collated.

Expansion and keeping up in the tech race are both challenging in Civ3 at Emperor level. I am afraid a part of the answer - early on at least (and, if you stay behind, throughout) lies in micromanagement. Facing the production edge of the AI civs there is no escaping the task of maximising your own more limited productivity.

Next, you pretty well must dominate your home continent. So stand ready to engage in early war with the objective of crippling or eliminating the immediate neighbours. Easier said than done particularly against some of the civs with an excellent early UU. But better to try and fail than not to try at all.

There is no one answer to the tech race. My experience is limited so far but the typical pattern in the dozen or so games I have played is that I fall badly behind, cling on by assiduously seeking trades, and then recover after I manage an extended period in one of the higher forms of government - Republic or Democracy.

That recovery may well only become apparent well into the modern era.

If you have managed to dominate your home continent the swordsman against rifleman problem is less acute. You will not necessarily be targetted by the overseas AI and if they do move against you it will be with dribs and drabs rather than by way of a large, well co-ordinated invasion.

Be willing to meet the AI civs demands - keep cash levels down. Trade off any advance you do manage to get first to all and sundry for whatever you can get. This way the demands made will be modest. War with one tends to mean war with all because your enemy will bring others in against you. So once your early attempts to cripple neighbours are done with try to avoid having war declared against you and, if that fails, keep seeking peace at every opportunity subsequently.

One tip is to let the AI move through your territory unimpeded. Because it is my experience that if you, say, block off the advance of a settler heading for some choice site you have marked down but can't yet colonise the AI will get pissed off very quickly. So don't do that unless you can stand for the civ concerned to declare on you.

So I suppose I am saying, play it long. Don't think that falling behind spells inevitable defeat. There have always been balancing factors built in to the civ games to cramp the A1's style when the human player is doing less well (as well as to beef it up once the human player begins to dominate). So it is perfectly possible to play catch up.

[East Street Trader]

Ah well, having now seen the posts above I see that the Apolyton University has a good deal more too it than the old GL thread.

I must get around to looking in on Civfanatics some time. I seem to remember looking in there a couple of times soon after it adopted that name. But that was a while ago. No doubt it has developed.

Seemed a bit of a duplication at that time, though.

[Gibsie]

Sounds like a plan to me, EST. I do actually already have a great leader but he's not much help at the moment, unfortunately.

Just checking, but are there any circumstances when an AI will remove his troops from your territory if you demand it, at Emperor level?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Gibsie

Just checking, but are there any circumstances when an AI will remove his troops from your territory if you demand it, at Emperor level?

I am sure there are some, I just can think of them right now.
Basicaly, if they send settler combos, that is one thing, but if they send incursion or invasion force that is another. If they are sending other than a single unit to scout and are not on their way to a city of thiers or going to attack another civ, you got a problem.

If they felt you were strong (in the first age and into the second) they would not be sending combat troops into your land.

When I see troops (read no settlers in tow) in my land I look to see if they are going to a land of theirs or headed to another civ. If not, I demand they leave as soon as they are in the best position for me to attack. Knowing they will decalre war. At least I get to hit them in a better time and place. Maybe U have some units that can rereat and I can inflict some famage at little risk.

I really don't think the level impacts this behavior. It just looks that way as at lower levels, they are less likely to be stronger than you.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
This seems to be the first (and second) clue that "I think I might be losing this one". I've found the most successful way of beating games like this is proper use of the little 'x' down in the corner.

Am I the first one to get Aeson's joke, or just the first one to find it funny!?

Aeson, Sid should get easier after the patch...


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Just checking, but are there any circumstances when an AI will remove his troops from your territory if you demand it, at Emperor level?

Definitely. I've had times when I wanted an AI to declare war rather than leave (thus letting me get the happiness bonus from playing the "victim" when I really wanted the war) and had an AI refuse to cooperatel. I'm also generally willing to order a relatively weak AI to leave when it accidentally finds itself in my territory after a border expansion; the risk of being declared war on under such circumstances seems small but not nonexistent.

As best I can figure it, when an AI is in your territory for the deliberate purpose of starting a fight, it will never leave rather than declare war. If it is just passing through, either to get to another AI or to send a settler through, it might or might not, but I'm not sure what the parameters are that affect its decision. My basic rule of thumb is, "Don't tell an AI to leave or declare war unless you're willing to accept a choice for it to declare war." [Edit: of course if the AI is clearly spoiling for a fight, there's no reason not to force the issue at a time of your choosing as vmxa1 suggested.]

Nathan

Edit: And I agree 100% with vmxa1's idea of

[Aeson]

If your military advisor says "compared to these guys we are strong" and possibly "average", and they amicable to you (Polite, Gracious), you can get away with demanding they remove their troops.

If you are weaker than they are in the military advisor's eyes, I think they will always declare war. Not sure on that, but it seems like it. It's a great way to get the AI to declare war when you have agreements you don't want to keep though, and aren't worried about exploiting things too much. (ei. "hey, I'll give you 300gpt for that tech, thanks! Remove your troops!" Free tech)

-----------------

I agree that Sid will get easier with the fix to the GPT bug. An AI with gold is a dangerous AI. You end up finding the world allied against you if you ever try to fight anyone without allying the entire world to your cause. Even then they have enough cash to buy someone off quickly for peace, buy their alliance against you, and then it's like dominos.

The only good part is the AI doesn't differentiate between the Player and other AI's much in this regard. Over the course of a game, the F4 screen has 90%+ red lines in the games I've been playing.

[Catt]

OT: I haven't played Sid yet and so this may be totally inapplicable given the described circumstances . . . but given the right map, playing with the "Most Aggressive" setting might actually hinder the AIs. Notyoueither started a thread related to that possibility with some interesting observations about the seemingly paradoxical results (mostly in terms of easy and "free" war happiness for the human and increasing WW for the AIs, IIRC).

Catt

[Aeson]

I figured it makes the 'free starting unit stack of doom' scenario more likely. I haven't actually played with it yet.

--------------

I forgot to mention this on asking the AI to remove troops. Even if you are much more powerful they will always declare war if at a certain level of furious. To take advantage of this, just demand something from the AI you want to declare war on you numerous times until they are very furious(after they get to furious, keep demanding a few times), and then demand they withdraw their troops. They will declare war, even if they're on their last city with no military to speak of.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Dominae
Am I the first one to get Aeson's joke, or just the first one to find it funny!?

Aeson, Sid should get easier after the patch...


Dominae

I did not see the post at the time, but NO I don't see anything funny about Sid. It just seemed like the sound adice I would expect from Aeson and I intent to heed it until the patch comes out.

[Theseus]

Funny, I had the same exact reaction... that ain't funny, it's SCARY.

Now, on the other hand, the very first part of vmxa1's first post on this thread...

Back on-topic, you troublemakers!! Who's got a problem?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Interesting idea for a thread...

Shame there is a huge wealth of genii posting here and not really any troublemakers yet.....

[GarP2]

A comment above reminds me of a question that I have asked before and never gotten a complete answer to:

East Street Trader said:

Don't think that falling behind spells inevitable defeat. There have always been balancing factors built in to the civ games to cramp the A1's style when the human player is doing less well (as well as to beef it up once the human player begins to dominate). So it is perfectly possible to play catch up.

I know that i read (somewhere official) that this was true in earlier versions of Civ, but have not been able to get it verified whether it is true in CivIII/PTW/C3C. I dont know what the balancing factors were, but supposedly the game got tougher if you were winning too easily and easier if the AI was winning too easily. It often seems like that is the case now. Is this or is this not true?

This may not be as off topic as it first seems, since I may be going along fine in a game, and all of a sudden one turn later, I'm losing because of a statistically Very unlikely series of outcomes.

Thanks,
GarP2

[ducki]

Theseus and vmxa1, you guys flatter and embarrass me, but thank you.

I really enjoyed posting those games and getting advice from you old pros, then making my own decisions - kind of like what the in-game Advisors could be, or what realworld Advisors are.

I've never had as much fun or worked as hard at playing a game as I did back then.

I've been thinking about graduating to Emperor once the patch is released and resurrecting that old bone. I could go ahead and start now(Monarch is too predictable and rote now) as Corruption really doesn't seem so bad once you get CEs, but I always feel so ... desperate and hopeless by the time Middle Ages starts that I give up.

I guess this ramble was just a nod of thanks to all the pros and oldtimers that helped me out and a 'teaser' hinting at a new ducki game thread some day soon.

And to all the strugglers, lurkers, students - POST YOUR PROBLEM GAME. These guys WILL help, WILL explain, WILL teach you how to be a better player. All you gotta do is ask.

[David Murray]

I have an Emperor game going as Rome; standard Pangaea, standard rules. It's some point in the early ADs. Just built the Great Library, but what do I do now? In this position, do I switch to Monarchy or Republic or Feudalism; do I concentrate on building a huge army of knights and medieval infantry, or do I try and keep up with wonder building and culture?

So many options! Help me out guys!