An idea for the AI ICS...

[Dinner]

You could use the strategy that I use which is to immediately attack any civ that in nearby thus defeating or weakening your nearby competetors and giving your civ some much needed breathing room.

[The Andy-Man]

but this is silly for i do not want to do this. also add the fact that in Civ3 you NEED the AI civs otherwise you fall behind in tech by about, lets say, 3millenia.

And why should i HAVE to resort to war wheni like the pacifist game????


i just started a new game, just one last go, andi tried to enjoy myself, but in all my cities i had to churn out settlers, other wise i would have been landlocked with 5-6 poorly placed cities. Gone is the day when i could build a city, build a settler and then never need to build anymore from that city (maybe one more at the most). In Civ2 i could found capital, build settler, the capital then builds garrison then city improvments to = me money and science. the same to be done with all other cities. Civ3 DEMANDS i make settler after settler till there is no room left, them bui;ld more to colonise tht little 1 tile unocupoied island in some backwater ocean, serving me no use, just so the AI dont get ANOTHER corruption free city.

[TechWins]

the reason i said it was unfair was beacause, not every one used ICS in Civ2, so to try and prevent it in this way IS unfair to peaceful builders who are now forced to just churn out settlers.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Within my second game of Civ3 I became tired of it because I realized I was forced to expand incredibly fast. The first game I never even realized the problem that was the excessive AI expansion. However, that second game, I finally realized the crazyness of AI expansion. You can go back to threads back in November/December and see my number reason why Civ3 is bad, excessive AI expansion. I always thought that it wasn't fair that I had to expand in order to keep with the AI. In Civ2 I always tried to keep around 20 "perfect" cities, minimal military, and a killer science output until the end of the game when I had most of my research done (tanks and mech inf ready to be built in large masses). Once at that point I would start to mass produce tanks, mech infantry, and a few other modern units, then go on a large killing spree and take over the world. Whereas in Civ3 none of that is possible because of the excessive AI expansion and a few other reasons. Now I can handle that I can't go gain control of the entire in a limited amount of time, but the fact that I can't be a "perfectionist" for most of the game really hampers my experience in order to be succesful. In all reality, the least amount of "perfection" you put into your empire the better off you are. That is my biggest problem with Civ3, however, the problem can be solved to a degree...just try out Korn's Blitz Mod to see what I mean.

[barefootbadass]

I see no problem, the reason you have to expand is to gain territory for future resources. Its part of the game. There is nothing unfair about it and you can expand and develop a core of perfected cities if you plan well, designating different cities to different tasks. If you want to use strategies you used in civ 2 you should play civ 2. Complaining about HAVING to expand to keep up is about as ridiculous as complaining about having to have a superior military to defend yourself and deter if you want peace.

And the funny thing is is that the AI doesn't really even ICS. What an exageration. It just expands to fill the land available to it. Originally ICS was a term for placing as many cities as you possibly could in your land(to the point of having them on every other square) to make a powerful war machine and produce a stead supply of caravans, and you could do it in a fairly small space if you had to. Needless to say the ai had no chance against it and very few people in MP were able to cope with it.

[cassembler]

Perhaps I'm alone here, but
I LIKE the rapid AI expantion

On the higher difficulty levels (I'm fond of Emperor), the game is very hard, but to me that's a chellenge.

I might add that, to date, I've never finished a game of Civ3.
I quit when I ether know I'm too far ahead or too far behind.
Besides, early game is very fun.

[TechWins]

I see no problem, the reason you have to expand is to gain territory for future resources. Its part of the game. There is nothing unfair about it and you can expand and develop a core of perfected cities if you plan well, designating different cities to different tasks.

Yes, I'll agree that everybody is an at equal vantage point, but less strategies are now available with Civ3. The strategy all must perform, in order to be succesful, is abundant expansion. If you don't follow that strategy you will be tough out of luck because the AI excessively expands. Excessively in that the AI goes to great lengths to even acquire a worthless, one-tile island. I think, now you may not, that it is more fun to have many available strategies to win. Also, remember that I'm talking about general strategies here and not the specifics.

If you want to use strategies you used in civ 2 you should play civ 2. Complaining about HAVING to expand to keep up is about as ridiculous as complaining about having to have a superior military to defend yourself and deter if you want peace.

I'm not sure how you interpreted any complaining out of my post; I was merely making a statement...hence stating my opinion. Not in all cases should you have to have a large empire in order to be dominant, such as how this falls true with a real life military. Numbers and size are not always the key factor in a situation, try superiority of an item.

And the funny thing is is that the AI doesn't really even ICS. . .

I don't think anybody has referred to the AI doing ICS, however, the AI has been referred to doing excessive and over expansion. Therefore, your whole explanation of what ICS is quite worthless.

For reference in future posts, try not to take words/phrases/statement out of context.

I LIKE the rapid AI expantion

It may sound like I'm going back on my whole point on this topic, but I don't mind rapid, AI expansion; it's the excessive, AI expansion that botheres me. There comes to a point where "rapid" becomes "excessive". This line is crossed when the AI feels the need to go colonize (not neccesarily with colonies per say, though) the rest of the world, which would be small, desert islands and barren tundra, by 1000ad! If these useless cities were not built and some infastructure built instead the AI (and Civ3) would be amazing.

The only way for this to be fixed, though, is for Firaxis to realize that there are a few, glaring problems with Civ3, and if those problems were to be fixed Civ3 would be a masterpiece. As of right now, Civ3 is still a masterpiece in the making, and quite possibly a blind artist is doing the finishing touches...(a sincere plead to everybody not to take my words out of context)...Think carefully about the meaning behind this paragraph before going off on me.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by TechWins

I don't think anybody has referred to the AI doing ICS, however, the AI has been referred to doing excessive and over expansion. Therefore, your whole explanation of what ICS is quite worthless.

Umm, look at the title of the thread. Someone was thinking of it as ICS, and I was just pointing out that it wasn't. Not worth a lot, but I wouldn't call it worthless.

My point about civ 2 was really that you should form your strategies to fit the game. And it really does provide for a very wide range of strategies. Some are tougher to pull off than others. What is the problem with that? If you are going for certain types of wins, like domination, conquering, and score, mad expansion is essential. Cultural, space race, and diplomatic, are quite doable as a smaller empire, although easier with more expansion.

Hmm, and I still wouldn't consider expanding to fill available land 'over-expansion', or anything that in any way is restrictive of playing styles. You can win without expanding, in fact some people make a sport of trying to win with only one city, although that is tough, you have to get a choice start, but certainly if that can be done(I think it has only been done up to emperor so far, although a few deity OCC's have been close) winning would be possible with the 'optimal' number of cities, all well groomed and perfected.

[The Andy-Man]

i call it ics, cos the AI does what i consider to be ICS. churn out settlers till there no room left. and i was pointing out, that this limits my stragegy options for a solution to as popular stragegy i never used.

[Carver]

Originally posted by barefootbadass


If you are going for certain types of wins, like domination, conquering, and score, mad expansion is essential. Cultural, space race, and diplomatic, are quite doable as a smaller empire, although easier with more expansion.

You're gonna have a hard time winning a cultural victory with a smallish empire. You need more cities, with more temples and more cathedrals and more universities. This is what the game values in terms of culture and high score. And this is the problem with Civ3, everything is just quantity. This is not realistic or fun.

The early game settler rush is all consuming. This is supposed to be a strategy game. Strategy would be thinking about WHERE to build cities, not sweating your ass off trying to pop rush settlers to stop the AI advance.

This is why the only TBS game I've been playing lately is SMAC.

A possible solution: (an unrefined thought in progress so bear with me) ...what if the borders in Civ3 moved like those from SMAC? One city would create huge borders, but in order to hold them you would need to build more cities (eventually) on the periphery. Hence, with just a few cities you could establish a nice sized nation and peacfully build from there.

[The Andy-Man]

i prefered the SMAC bordrs, maybe have this lil fine tune: no one from another civ can build a city which overla[s yours (same goews to humans).

this stops an anoying sqaure overlap.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Carver


You're gonna have a hard time winning a cultural victory with a smallish empire. You need more cities, with more temples and more cathedrals and more universities. This is what the game values in terms of culture and high score. And this is the problem with Civ3, everything is just quantity. This is not realistic or fun.

Hence why I said(in the quote you replied to) that rapid expansion makes those kinds of victories easier, but they are by no means excessively difficult.

And when you get down to it, everything in other civ games and TBS, including civ 2 and AC is about quantity, in so far as it always makes it easier to win. The difference was that the ai basically wouldn't do it, which put you with a choice between restricting your expansion to have a moderately more competitive game or expanding as much as you want and having everything be even more of a pushover. This is just as much of a straight-jacket on your strategy as having the ai expand everywhere providing a reason to expand as well. Where do you draw the line?

Ideally you would want the different civs to interact and determine their course(expand, turtle, whatever) in game, based on the terrain and the actions of others in that game, and major events like being able to go to another island when they discover map making or something.

[The Andy-Man]

'Ideally you would want the different civs to interact and determine their course(expand, turtle, whatever) in game, based on the terrain and the actions of others in that game, and major events like being able to go to another island when they discover map making or something.'


excellent idea. the egyptians, the french and you start on the same continent. you have a little bit of grassland and lots of desert. so little expansion, the egyptioans have loadsa grassland and so expand until they reach the mountainous region that seperastes you both. the french have jungle and desert, so afe boxed in with small cities untill they expand on the littles islands just off the coast.

this would be fun. suggest it to firaxis. pros for egyptians, they get alotta big cities, cons not many rsources. pros for you, get a lott of oil later on. etc etc.

[macaskil]

I THINK you can use the editor to stop the AI (and you) building cities on deserts and tundra. This should solve the problem IMO.

However since national boundaries depend on cities you would end up with large areas of "no man's land".

IRL European powers spent the 19th C establishing "pop1" cities all over Africa, in order to

- eliminate native states
- claim resources
- deny territory to rivals.

By 1900 there was no part of Africa not claimed by a European power other than Liberia and Abyssinia.

To combat AI settlers

- either build cities everywhere yourself

or

- declare war and raze the cities

most of these AI cities will suffer corruption anyway. Why worry about them?