Threats are not useful at all

[Jaybe]

The only time for mobilization is in a desperate DEFENSIVE war, where you will not be taking another's cities (but maybe retaking your own).

[bongo]

True. I've toyed a bit with mobilization and came to the conclusion that it was very useful in some special condition that rarely occurs in my own games. Fighting a desperate defensive war to protect a small-medium(but well developed) empire is such a case.

In my typical game I have a well developed core that spits out units to fuel an ongoing (aggressive)war, lots of truly crappy cities and some that are crappy but will benefit from developement. Mobilization will make my arm-factories more productive but also stop development elsewhere.

[Ljube]

I never get to fight defensive wars on my territory.

If the AI demands something and can hurt me, I just give them what they want.

Obviously, playing like this, I don't need mobilisation at all.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
My thoughts are that on Diety it is all meant to be the hardest it can possibly be for us....

So the AI will be stubborn and pig headed in its dealings with us...

hi ,

not if you teach them a lesson or two , ......

have a nice day

[dexters]

Originally posted by ljcvetko


I agree that the AI shouldn’t pay tribute every turn just because I have one unit more than he does, BUT, when faced with an imminent death, I believe they should yield (I know I would). You see what is, well let’s say not unrealistic but plain stupid: They are behaving the same way when they have 20, 10 and only one city left.

Actually no. It's logical. The Civ III AIs are programmed to win, hanging around with a piddly few cities as a vassal to you isn't their goal in life.

In many cases, they would rather die fighting and make trouble for you by signing up in entangling MPPs rather than pay you what you think is "realistic". Civ III isn't a simulation. It's TBS. Get that in your head.

I thought the realism argument died a long time ago, but obviously people still can't get over it.

[bongo]

Some realism is nice as long as it doesn't intefere with the fun

What is 'smart' behaviour when the AI is getting a thorough beating? If it's down to his last city then he might as well give you the finger. Even if it will be his doom. If it still have enough cities to make a diffeence then it would be best to cough up and give you all his money. Which is pretty much the way it behaves today.

[TheArsenal]

I took a break from AU209 to try this out. Renegotiating peace treaty during peacetime was an effective tool (at least at Monarch level, playing as Persia with plenty of Immortals) and I was able to get a tech (Mathematics) and a small sum of gold. It had the additional advantage of locking Arabia in a 20 turn peace deal until I was ready to launch an attack on them. Again, a fantastic tip.

Originally posted by dexters
I thought the realism argument died a long time ago, but obviously people still can't get over it.

Despite all the civilization trappings that are built around the mechanics of the game, at its very core this is a game based upon moving pieces across a grid (more so for me, because I play with the grid lines visible), capturing and/or controlling the board (by force, diplomacy, culture or trade, doesn’t matter). Therefore, I have never looked at TBS as simulations of reality, but the logical extension of chess meeting current game technology, and Civ as no more than the ultimate chess game. Or Risk. Or whatever. I’ve always found demanding elements of “realism” at the sake of game play mind you, just as strange as questioning the realism of a pawn being able to “become” a Queen during a certain point of chess game.

[dexters]

Originally posted by bongo
Some realism is nice as long as it doesn't intefere with the fun

What is 'smart' behaviour when the AI is getting a thorough beating? If it's down to his last city then he might as well give you the finger. Even if it will be his doom. If it still have enough cities to make a diffeence then it would be best to cough up and give you all his money. Which is pretty much the way it behaves today.

I think the AI's main limitation in its current form is that it can't really make long-term plans. It reacts rather than plan. And the only memory it has is a series of attitde and reputation sliders that gets adjusted throughout the game to reflect your actions. So it's a very indirect way of keeping track of past turns.

The AI will often hate you for doing something, but it likely won't remember or know what that something is. Lacking this, the logical alternative is to have the AI be as stubborn as possible, to avoid it being exploited by human players. And I've seen that this stubborness can bring results. I've had one city civs bring down my entire Civ in war weariness because they entangled me into far too many wars far too frequently.
--------------------

One of the biggest criticism I have against Firaxis right now is that we're fastly approaching year 2 of vanilla Civ 3's release, and they're still just perfecting the multi-player stuff they promised us was going to be in Civ III 2 years ago, and the new content, while nice, is just window dressing.

There has not been any serious attempt at going into the code and rewriting how AI behaves and really improve it by making it remember key events and have limied planning capabilities (ie: Take revenge of X civ in 20 turns). It seems like the xpansion packs are all about milking the cash cow, going the easy route by adding a lot of superficial content, like new civs and new units, but not working on the under the hood stuff, which is now two years old and could use some serious upgrades.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by dexters


The AI will often hate you for doing something, but it likely won't remember or know what that something is. Lacking this, the logical alternative is to have the AI be as stubborn as possible, to avoid it being exploited by human players. And I've seen that this stubborness can bring results.

Yea, AI civ's destruction.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by dexters



One of the biggest criticism I have against Firaxis right now is that we're fastly approaching year 2 of vanilla Civ 3's release, and they're still just perfecting the multi-player stuff they promised us was going to be in Civ III 2 years ago, and the new content, while nice, is just window dressing.

That's why I stick to civ 2 MP.
It would be great to deny someone key resources, though.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by dexters


There has not been any serious attempt at going into the code and rewriting how AI behaves and really improve it by making it remember key events and have limied planning capabilities (ie: Take revenge of X civ in 20 turns).

Second best thing would be to have the AI that's been beaten recently (lightly beaten, lost a few cities) assume low profile and donate modest gifts to the master. This way, at least some people would refrain from erasing that one pathetic civ.

[Panag]

Originally posted by ljcvetko


That's why I stick to civ 2 MP.
It would be great to deny someone key resources, though.

hi ,

, lets see how you gona feel with C3C , .......

civ II is totally different then its younger sister , ....... its way easier also , ......

have a nice day

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Dr. A. Cula
It depends. If you make your demands, then click "Take this deal or suffer!", it only makes them angrier with you, but they don't give in.

This is not true. I've had them give in before using this option. You have to be significantly more powerful.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Feephi


This is not true. I've had them give in before using this option. You have to be significantly more powerful.

hi ,

that also depends , sometimes you can scare a bigger and better AI away , especially when he or she is involved in a couple of wars , far away , ......

have a nice day

[Paddy]

or you could just

leave their cities in ruins..........