Yes - It's More AI CHEATING!

[C Chulainn]

Okay, I'm satisfied that it is possible that the Persians may have switched production in several cities all at once to pikemen and by the most outrageous coincidence they were *all* sufficiently advanced in shield production that they immediately finished. We'll give the game the benefit of the tiny lingering doubt. But nobody has yet explained how they were able to keep on producing immortals and knights with no access to iron and musketmen with no access to saltpetre. That still looks like a cheat.
Remember these two salient facts:
1. Nobody had spare saltpetre but me and England and the Persians had no contact with the English.
2. Although I didn't actually use Civ Tools to count the iron resources, as I did with saltpetre, neither the Persians nor their neighbours the Iroquois had any iron at all. The Zulus did, but Persians did not have a port city anywhere near them which could have received the trade.

[Keeper of Hell]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
But nobody has yet explained how they were able to keep on producing immortals and knights with no access to iron

It is more than likely that no one has explained this because you have not mentioned it even once. If you had mentioned it prior to this post, I'm sure that anyone would have been happy to explain to you (again) that if the production of the unit is started *before* the necessary resource is cut off, production can be completed or rushed. As you have not grasped this concept yet and show no signs of being likely to grasp it any time in the near future, I suspect that this whole thread is rather pointless.

Edit: To address your #1: If the Persians had contact with another civ that had contact with the English, they may very well have traded for contact with the English right after the declaration of war. Keep in mind that unless Persia continues to produce units that require resources they don't have, it should be obvious that the units you saw being created were simply started before the resources were cut off. As to #2: What do you mean that the Persians "didn't have a port city anywhere near them"? Distance makes no difference as to whether the trade route is open. If both the Zulu and the Persians have harbor cities, no matter how far apart they are, they can trade.

[narmox]

And once again Coracle shows his utter lack of judgement, and his obsession with putting down firaxis and the game even when it's not logical to do so.

I agree with the others, and I've done it often myself, continuing to build a unit even when I didn't have a resource anymore, cause I started to build it when I had the resource.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by narmox
I agree with the others, and I've done it often myself, continuing to build a unit even when I didn't have a resource anymore, cause I started to build it when I had the resource.

With the expection of combat, EVERYTHING is caultated right at the begining of your NEXT TURN.


Remember, its a TBS game not RTS.

[C Chulainn]

Didn't take long for the Firaxis Gestapo to get here and start hurling abuse...
The Persians HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE ENGLISH. This was not a pre-existing situation, this was what my foreign minister told me when I noticed the musketeer appearing. There was no way for Persia to get hold of the saltpetre.
As to the Zulu iron option, Zululand was on my other border: the Zulus may have had Navigation, but the Persians did not and so could only have traded over my territory... whether this is a cheat or not is debatable - could a human player trade with inaccesible ports because the other civ has Navigation? What constitutes a "body of water"? Any continguous water, or is the map divided up into sections of water?
In any case, the iron is explicable, if we accept the latter, or the "iron under a city" possibility. The "switch builds" explanation doesn't work as well with saltpetre, though: if the Persians had had Gunpowder at the outbreak of war, why would they have built pikes and not muskets in all but one city?
Having thought a bit more, I now think this could as likely be a minor bug in the program as a cheat - it can't recognise that an AI civ can lose a resource as it can with the Human player: once they have had saltpetre, the musketmen will continue in production.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
Didn't take long for the Firaxis Gestapo to get here and start hurling abuse...
The Persians HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE ENGLISH. This was not a pre-existing situation, this was what my foreign minister told me when I noticed the musketeer appearing. There was no way for Persia to get hold of the saltpetre.

I have found Foreign Minister reports to be false at times. If you want to make sure he had no contact with the English, try talking to him and see if you can sell him "Contact with English"

[vondrack]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
Didn't take long for the Firaxis Gestapo to get here and start hurling abuse...

Easy, easy... you were asked for the savegame. You apparently have one, since you are able to tell us various details people ask for, trying to explain what you experienced. Unfortunately, there still is no savegame available... if you want a precise answer, post the save. I am sure somebody will find out.

Originally posted by C Chulainn
The "switch builds" explanation doesn't work as well with saltpetre, though: if the Persians had had Gunpowder at the outbreak of war, why would they have built pikes and not muskets in all but one city?
Having thought a bit more, I now think this could as likely be a minor bug in the program as a cheat - it can't recognise that an AI civ can lose a resource as it can with the Human player: once they have had saltpetre, the musketmen will continue in production.

1) Perhaps because they were able to finish pikemen on the following turn, if switching the existing production, unlike musketmen.

2) Again: a resource is necessary to start building a unit, it is not needed to continue building it or to finish it. This applies to both the human and AI players.

Post the savegames from the turn before you declared the war and from the following turn. Then, you will get precise answers (or, we may determine there really was a bug involved and may then submit the savegames and an error report to Firaxis).

[C Chulainn]

Alas, I don't have the savegame anymore; I cleaned them all off the HD when I retired from the game. What I should have done was open Civ Multi-Tools as soon as war was declared to see what Persia was building and so on. I'm still very dubious about all this being strictly within the rules of the game, though...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
Replies to the doubters:
1. I knew how much gold the Persians had because it tells you when you go to the negotiation screen.

It does no such thing. It shows how much they have available TO YOU at that very moment. Then THEIR turn comes up and they have more money and may even trade for more.

2. There was no saltpetre underneath any cities; I used Civ Tools to check the number of resources just to make sure - 7 Saltpetre: I controlled 3, the English 2, the Zulus 1 and the Persians 1 (which I seized)

They can still finish what they started. Note they upgraded to pike not musketmen.

3. I saw the Persian cities with their defenders before and after the declaration of war. The pikemen all appeared instantly. Ka-boom.

I doubt this happened as described. Post a save. I have been playing since the game came out. Its never happened.

4. You can't finish what's started if you no longer have the resource; you get switched to a more primitive unit (seen it happen). Rushing would have cost the Persians money, which they didn't have.

You most certainly can. I have done it many times. Just did again in my latest game when my coal ran out for a couple of turns. I was able to finish factories and even the rails my workers had allready started. I have done the same thing with units in previous games. You do NOT get switched to a more primitive unit. You only think you saw it happen considering that no knowadgable player has or will agree with on that.


Post a save from the turn before and tell us what you did so we can check and the we can explain what REALLY happened.

By the way have you patched the game. There are some strange things that can happen in an unpatched game. None of those things however.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Mad Cleric
Hm, when I started playing this game about three weeks ago, I consider almost every move by the AI a cheap one or a cheating one of the rules, but now, I have learned that the AI only makes a few rule infractions, it just irritates me when the AI pop-rushes a unit from a original pop of one.

That isn't one of the the AI cheats. It plays almost entirely by the same rules we do. It DOES know where resources will apear on the map even before they have the tech. It does seem to know what units you have in cities. Those are the only known cheats no matter how many times Coracle pops up to troll. Coracle has NEVER posted a save game to support his claims.

Its possible that the AI knows what you are reseaching as well but it may just be that the foreign advisor routine that we also have access to is suplying the information. It would be hard for the AI to trade without haveing a clue about what you can do.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ethelred
That isn't one of the the AI cheats. It plays almost entirely by the same rules we do. It DOES know where resources will apear on the map even before they have the tech. It does seem to know what units you have in cities. Those are the only known cheats no matter how many times Coracle pops up to troll. Coracle has NEVER posted a save game to support his claims.

It knows the whole map, not just the resources, including the precise location of any building spots in and around your territory and the exact location of all your troops and noncombat units. It will navigate its settlers to city sites unerringly unless you place units to block potential build squares. If you do it will immediately turn and head for the next one even though it shouldn't be able to see your units since no-one has anything in range. Its ships are totally immune to sinking effects so it can colonise islands surrounded by ocean.

On the other hand, I'd agree with most of the posters here that the AI never cheats when it comes to resources or pop rushing. It is very efficient at switching its production immediately to military when it is threatened and it doesn't need to wait for a declaration of war. Just moving a significant number of units close to the border (and it does know where all your troops are) is enough to get its paranoia to kick in.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Grumbold


It knows the whole map, not just the resources, including the precise location of any building spots in and around your territory and the exact location of all your troops and noncombat units. It will navigate its settlers to city sites unerringly unless you place units to block potential build squares.

It will navigate those same settlers to places that I have ALLREADY blocked and they will turn back when they get within same visual range I have in the game. Because I have seen this happen I am sure they do not know the location of my units UNLESS they have a spy and steal my militarly plans with that spy. Something they don't seem to do.

If you do it will immediately turn and head for the next one even though it shouldn't be able to see your units since no-one has anything in range. Its ships are totally immune to sinking effects so it can colonise islands surrounded by ocean.

Well they don't turn back till they see in my games and I have seen AI galleys sink so you are wrong on that as well. You seem to be making the same mistake Coracle does on this. By the time you have the ability to cross the ocean with galleys you no longer have them. Hower the AI will still have the obsolete units so they will go to deep water as soon as it is possible. One game I still had galleys out exploring when I got the tech that the AI uses to do what you incorrectly label a cheat. I did the same thing as the AI does, except for the settler since the galley was too far away for it to come back to pick up a settler. I explored the middle of the ocean and even the polar caps with those galleys.

If I can do the same thing the AI can its not a cheat. Its right in the Civilapedia too that galleys CAN enter the ocean when the right tech is known.

[Grumbold]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I've blocked all open squares with slave workers and seen the settler/spear groups still some distance off but in my territory turn round. This is before espionage is possible.

The AI will also do anything to catch your workers, so you can experiment with "exposing" a worker at maximum move distance from their units. Even if they have to weave a convoluted path to get to them, which they would have to begin before they could spot the unit, they manage to do so. I sometimes use this to my advantage in the later part of the game to bait enemy units into places where they can be easily killed.

I've seen galleys in ocean before they had the tech and shadowed them to see if any of them would sink. I checked regularly to make sure I was still able to trade the seafaring techs to them. They didn't have them.

[Deathwalker]

The fact is the AI needs to cheat to stand a chance against most players But until the AI can be made more human it will have to cheat

[Ironikinit]

A lot of people have thought the same as you about the ocean-going galleys, Grumbold, but AFAIK it's always been a case of the AI civ having the technology, not cheating. If you can find an instance, post the save. It's not that most reasonable players really care if the AI cheats; as Deathwalker points out, the AI has to cheat to provide a challenge to experienced, competent players. The real issue is providing accurate information and countering misinformation so that players can successfully predict events in the game.

Many so-called "whiners" believe that those who correct them on these forums are in some way allied or emotionally attached to the company that makes the game in question (e.g. C Chulainn's "Firaxis Gestapo" statement). In some cases, that may be true, but generally speaking IMO, it's not so much supporting a company as fostering accuracy.

Thanks for reading.