Alexman's curse -

[jshelr]

Sir's points are well taken. You often can't even stop fighting and go for an SS peacefully with a big tech lead since you can easily find yourself without any uranium in the modern era despite owning half the map. After a while, moving that 100 unit MA stack loses its appeal.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

quote:
Your campaign against the bug sounds a lot like jimmytrick's campaign against Culture flips (or was that Coracle?).

It was Coracle, and he got what he wanted, at least what concerns cultural conversions.

Actually, it was both. Coracle just stuck at it longer. jt moved on to other games.

I like resource scarcity.

[nbarclay]

In theory, if you could figure out who is trading resources to whom, you could probably sign an embargo with the civ that has the resource against the civ that is getting it and break the trade deal between the AIs that way. I've never actually tried the idea (indeed, I just came up with that particular variant a few seconds ago), but that might provide a peaceful way to get resources at least some of the time.

[alexman]

I could be wrong, but I think it it's not possible to convince an AI to sign a trade embargo against a trading partner, just like you can't make an alliance without already being at war yourself.

But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

[ducki]

But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

Or at least one example of rabid expansion making war for the painful ones unnecessary.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
...just like you can't make an alliance without already being at war yourself.

Sure you can, if the price is right. I've done it before. It's true that the AI sometimes refuses outright, but not always.

[alexman]

Really? You learn something every day. So does that automatically put you at war as well?

[Harovan]

Of course, trade and the embargo technique is only an option if

a) a civ has more than one instance of the resource (which gets less likely later in the game), and
b) you succeed to figure out who is trading what with whom (which gets the less accurate, the more civs are in the game)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

It was an exaggeration. But I'm sure you know what I mean, and how I mean it. Still you remain without resources pretty often, since the AI sees the resources from the beginning, while you don't. By the way: Raising the resources back to PtW level doesn't mean, that you always get all resources. Far from that, see many and many PtW games. It just assures, you can with good diplomacy trade for the resources, since (in most cases) there are enough instances on the map.

[alexman]

Yes, I know you were exaggerating. Just making sure others know too.

I should open a thread for this fast, before this thread with the ridiculous title becomes the official AU mod resource scarcity thread!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Really? You learn something every day. So does that automatically put you at war as well?

Yes. Now if only I could dig up a game to prove it...

[alexman]

Resource Scarcity thread created.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I played exactly three games with Conquests. All three were a chase-the-resource.

I haven't much weighed in on this issue, but I increasingly agree with SR.

I've had time to squeak in one screw-around game since AU 501, playing as Celts on Demi (hmmm )... can we say no iron? can we say no horses? can we say no saltpeter? can we say no coal?

Made for an interesting game, given GA goals, the tech catch-up, etc. As in denying myself Feudalism until the KAIs had entered the Ind Age!!

Resources are currently imbalanced, period, with too many far-reaching effects for both the player and the AI civs.

[nbarclay]

I'm curious: what was your logic in delaying Feudalism for so long?

[jshelr]

Maybe he wanted to keep his UU in play until he got a GA?