Civ3 (PTW) is UNPLAYABLE in its current state

[ducki]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

I think what he means is that the AI only trades among themselves, usually only trading with you as a last resort.(Not really an embargo, but you have to initialize all trades.)

I also haven't found this to be true.
Actually, with PtW, I'm getting more AI initiated tech trades.
So many that it's actually gotten a bit annoying, since I contact everyone almost every turn anyway.

Point being, I've experienced the exact opposite.
In vanilla Civ3, if I didn't initiate trade, it probably wouldn't happen.
In PtW, I spend an awful lot of time saying "Would you deign to listen to my counter-proposal?"
Even to Annoyed Civs. I guess they all want to make a buck and they all have a tech I don't have, so every couple of turns I'll get at least 2 AIs trying to sell me something.

Naturally, I don't trade during the AI turn, but I try to remember what they were willing to trade for and if I need it, I'll trade it and sell to any other AI that doesn't have it yet.


I dunno. People seem to be experiencing vastly different games, which is probably a testament to the breadth of the game itself. Maybe try a different civ to see if you are still treated with disdain.

[gergi]

Update: I've played now my 3rd fairly lengthy game of PTW. The AI is absolutely unacceptable. We're playing on the second easiest setting (Monarch, I think). I'm the Carthaginians and my buddy is the Germans. Pangea map.

Note: I quit playing around 0AD. So everything happened in BC.

Russians and I were separated from everyone by England. I was a mediocre power, Russia was a bit stronger (had a lot of cities).

Throughout the game, I never broke a treaty or 20yr deals (hell, never got a 20yr deal), I had one successful tech trade (w/ France), no resource trades.

England was friendly at first, France too, everyone else was hostile. Somehow the Romans got contact with me and declared war on me. Wasn't as issue at first because I never FOUND them. I have no idea where they were but I explored most of the continent so they had to be VERY FAR away.

England and Russian then spent the next several years demanding money from me. I paid them off, several times each. No I never did anything, I even attempted to trade with both of them.

I knew Russia would eventually declare war on me and they did. Luckily, I was very successful with my Numidian Mercs and defeated them time and time again. After knocking Russia out of the war, I met the Celts , who never even once spoke to me until a "We demand technology X" and declared war on me.

Then Rome pulled France (who was the only nation that had been fair with me) into a mil alliance. France pulled England into mil alliance. Russia got back in the fray. Egypt, who had been friendly, but weak, and i had never found them either, declared war on me. So now, I'm fighting everyone but my buddy the German.

NOTE: Not all the land had been settled (maybe 60%) and I was VERY FAR from everyone expect Russia. There was no gain to be had with a war with me.

Many, many years later, nothing has changed, and I'm basically slowly falling back before the French spearmen/archers, and Roman horsemen. I had nothing they could have desired ... I was too far away for them to desire my cities, no resources of note, I had broken no treaties or any other "hateful" things.

I read that the AI will not make peace if they are winning the war. This is FLAWED! But I couldn't take the war to them because they were so far away. So I would never "turn the tide" no matter how many of their soldiers I killed because they will also kill a few of mine.

It would have been better to have them come to me and say, we are winning this war, but we dont' really have anything to gain by continuing, why don't you pay us 5g/turn or something?

Wars are expensive... Takes away from yoru productivity. The AI should not be such warmongers for NO REASON!

Some people say they like the more "aggresive AI" ... I don't . War is a losing solution for all involved. ALWAYS.
Is there an option or a way to "pacify" the AI? Every single game I play of Civ and PTW has pretty much turned out this way. The only difference in my games is how long it's going to take everyone to declare war on me

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Arnelos
The AI should NOT be able to discern between a human player and an AI player for the purpose of determing trades. The fact that the AI gives significantly better deals (ever more significantly by difficulty level) to other AI civs basically breaks the game if you're playing PTW in single player.

I agree with you on this, that's why I changed it so that it works that way using the editor in the scenario I usually play.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by gergi
Update: I've played now my 3rd fairly lengthy game of PTW. The AI is absolutely unacceptable. We're playing on the second easiest setting (Monarch, I think). I'm the Carthaginians and my buddy is the Germans. Pangea map.

There is a bug in 1.04f where all MP games are played at Regent level, not the Warlord you apparently tried.

I will refute your theory that war is detrimental to everyone. It isn't, just to the losers. Why build what you can just take?

I often declare wars just to slow down the enemy economy, on the assumption that I can manage my empire better than the AI can his, especially if they are in a government form subject to WW.

I read that the AI will not make peace if they are winning the war. This is FLAWED!

Let's turn this around for a second. If you were winning the war would you make peace?

I don't think I would. I think that I'd press on and remove a competitor from the game taking his land and resources.

[Catt]

Originally posted by gergi
Some people say they like the more "aggresive AI" [. . . ]Every single game I play of Civ and PTW has pretty much turned out this way. The only difference in my games is how long it's going to take everyone to declare war on me

Maybe you should try a succession game with someone or find someone to critique your play through the early turns. I honestly can't fathom why all your games turn out this way. I have played many games with very little war (and a few without ever going to war) on Monarch, Emperor and Deity. The reactions you're seeing from the AI are not hardcoded -- it is a reaction to your early gameplay and tactical choices, I just don't know which choices.

In any event . . .

Originally posted by gergi
Is there an option or a way to "pacify" the AI?

Each civ has an "aggression level" which can be found in the editor, ranging from 1 to 5 (Germans rate a 5 for instance and are very aggressive). You could certainly try setting all AI civ's aggression levels to "1" and see if that helps out (although I think you ought to try experimenting with play stlyes to figure out why this happens to you every game).

Catt

[-proletarian-]

The reason you're being picked on so much by the AI is because you are weak militarily. It doesn't matter how early on in the game, how far away you are, if they have a stronger military than you, they WILL declare war.


This used to be my problem as well. I'd just build two defenders inb each city, and think I was all set. Of course, I was a magnet for them.....now by the time I've founded say my 4th city, I designate a high-shield city to be my "unit factory". I just pump out military units from that one city. By the time I reach 10 cities or so, I'll have 2 or 3 of these military cities. You need a strong military to discourage them from attacking you. You should be aiming for the "compared to them, we have a strong military!" message from your military advisor.


Believe me, I know what you're talking about, I'm not a warmonger either. But just because you're a builder doesn't mean you can just neglect the military side of things. That's just ASKING for trouble.....

[gergi]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


There is a bug in 1.04f where all MP games are played at Regent level, not the Warlord you apparently tried.

I just loaded an auto-save of the game and it said "Monarch" (which is the level I usually play Civ3 original on competitively, but not the level my friend and I wanted to play multi on... we wanted warlord)... is there really a bug that forces the game to "Regent"? Where did you hear/see this? Is a fix going to be included in the next patch?

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I will refute your theory that war is detrimental to everyone. It isn't, just to the losers. Why build what you can just take?

There are some gains for a war. But a war is an expensive proposition and no war would last "thousands of years." A more realistic solution would be to make a tribute state after a few decisive battles, after the 20turn limit was up, re-evaluate. If you have nothing to gain strategical from war, what's the point, take your gold and move on.

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I don't think I would. I think that I'd press on and remove a competitor from the game taking his land and resources.

See, i don't want to wipe out the opponents. I would prefer them to acknowledge my superiority with tribute of some sort. I just want to build a civilization and enjoy the diplomacy and nation-building. War is definitely a factor but it shouldn't be the only thing.

Anyway, what I really want to know is if the "always is Regent-level" is a bug or just something you pulled out of the air. My friend and I would like to play the game on Warlord level.

I appreciate everyone's comments. As you all can probably see, I'm truly frustrated.

[ducki]

I also don't understand why your game is turning out like this. It's odd.

Go take a look at my "Ducki went Regent..." thread at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=64951
and maybe use that as a template for how to get some great feedback/advice/analysis from the 'poly pros. I have nothing but praise for these boards and the guys that post here to help folks like you and me.

My thread wasn't about me having serious problems, just a general lack of knowledge at how to proceed.

Post some screenshots and a SAV file or two and as long as your post is even remotely intelligible and not full of inflammatory language, I can almost guarantee that you'll have plenty of responses.

I don't play MP, but if it's possible to do, I'd be glad to look at your game in SP mode - especially if you've got multiple saves, like 4000BC, 1000BC, 10AD would be good for showing the game in progress.

Don't give up, it seems that your situation is an anomoly and not the norm.

[jpinard]

The problem here however, is that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY and win. Military strength.

I thought this game was civilization. Where culture and technology could win the game for you. If all the races are set to passive, I don't believe they should warmonger on you like THEY DO.

I don't want to go to someone elses thread to have them tell me how to play the game. THis is supposed to be a agame of creativity and options. Right now it's not.

ANyway, the AI is cheating terribly. If I keep the AI far enough away from my cities it should not KNOW whether I have 2 or 10 units on that city... but of course it does, and as a human I do not...

[The Pioneer]

Well, in Civ 1 and 2 it was the only way to really win. Ok you had the space race but in Civ 3 you can also have other ways of winning the game. I like the UN victory and these ideas have been implemented in the game. Granted the game is far from perfect. No matter what road you choose to take, like in real life you have to have lots of power to back your words for which other countries will like you and others will hate you. Of course in real life there is a huge gray area that is difficult to implement in the game. Nevertheless, they tried and we should give them credit for that. Maybe in th enear future they will develop a "smart" game where the AI will be much more "human" like in its ways of making distinctions and taking decisions/actions.

So long...

[CJM]

Like some others on this thread, I have managed to play a peaceful game. After recently obtaining PTW I played through as the Carthagineans (sp?) without once going to war. Yep, the only military units I lost the whole game were warriors against barbarians early on. So it is possible.

However (and the reason I take pride in this win), such an occassion is rare. I can usually finish a game and win through the space race without being the lone target of the AI civilizations, though war tends to be inevitable with at least a few AI civs at some point. I'm not sure that I would characterize the game as unplayable as a builder, however.

In the interests of full disclosure, in the Carthage game I was playing was at Warlord, 70% water, Large Archipelago, 6 AI civs. Maybe the AI is more likely to declare war on you if they don't have to make an amphibious assault to do so? I should also note that I had a rather substantial military force.

my $.02,

C--

[jpinard]

Very interesting CJM...

[planetfall]

Gergi,

The We demand X,Y,Z is a red flag. The reason you get this is because something is wrong in game play. I don't play just builder, but it is possible to play just builder. From my game play, this seems to be the key:

1. Military must be at least avg to strongest civ. Caution don't rely on power graph as it includes non-military power which AI does not always use when deciding when to challenge you.

2. Firaxis tweaked the game to demand high trading rates. The higher the difficulty level the more aggressive the trading. Your choice is either to play the Firaxis way and check trading opportunities every 2 to 3 turns, or go editor and reduce AI to AI trading rate.

3. If you are weak, use MPP to use threat of gangup to slow down AI willingness to declare war. If MPP requires "war", then do builder warfare-- defensive, maybe conquering one city.

4. To end war you need any of the following:
4a-- lose cities and game,
4b-- gain AI cities,
4c-- defeat AI invasions, but no cities exchanged, i.e., stalemate.

5. You can also use military alliances to have two AI's fight each other. Just because you bribe civ X to fight civ Y, that doesn't not mean you have to take military action against civ Y. You will be at war and need to defend yourself, but you don't have to pursue offensive warfare. Goal is either to get bribed civ to inflict damage on civ Y for you or to get WW rolling in civ Y so they switch to a less powerful form of govt.

6. You need culture/UN/etc, other peaceful win options turned on. You might even try a game with Domination and Conquest win options turned off. I have not heard of anyone trying that. But if Conquest and Domination are not available, the AI should be less militaristic.

Finally remember what vmxa1 said, this is a zero sum, or balanced game. If you are not offering AI cities or land, what are you offering. They need an incentive to be peaceful: trades, gold, or diplomacy is all that is left.

How about posting some saves?

== PF

[WarriorPoet]

War is a part of the game-A PART OF THE GAME-now, if you had to code in complex diplomatic/trade relationships vs. easy production/military relationships for an AI...which would you choose? Thought so....

True, I've needed a much larger military in PTW than I would in vanilla civ III...but I've learned this and adapted. I've also abbandonned my build all wonders strategy, at least on any level above War Lord.

To get respect you have to smash some heads. Show the AI that you are capable of defending your land and resources at great expense to them.

I have a game on Monarch level now. I had the Celts and the Mongols to the North of me. The Mongol hordes were constantly testing my borders. I threw them off every time with decent military tactics of mobile defense. Eventually, I campaigned against the Celts. I fought smartly, and when I took a few cities, I made peace and built up for the future wars. When the Mongols realized I was too bitter for them, they went after the Celts. I wated...

Finally, I sent in about 30 units of mixed knights and medieval infantry....the Celts fell. About 5 turns later I had regrouped and attacked the Mongol hord still tied up in the northern region of the priviously celtic lands. It was a messy stalemate, but I had severely damaged their military strength, and I sewed for peace.

Finally, and I am still in the midst of this campaign (my push against the Mongols at the end of the Celt's destruction in the late 1100's, and now in the 1400's AD)
with a mixed force of Sapahi, cannon, and musketmen, I am beginning to end the Mongol menace for ever....and the north continent will be mine!!!

This is on Monarch, 11 AI, 70% water, Large Continent. It's how you play, and how well you can use your mental crystal ball. After you've played for a while, you'll know what is around the corner, and you'll be able to plan for it.

[TheOldSage]

Let's try a different approach...
Like most of you already noticed Civ3 games have real problems with the lag - even an average ping of 200 drives you crazy if you dare to play with more than 2 players. So in order to not totally miss out on the game, I try to host e-mail sets, which will PA-like play 1-2 turns a day (or depending on how fast the chain closes). This way up to 8 players can play at once and accelerated production might allow us to finish before the game becomes more playable on the net.

Spare 5 minutes a day and at least get some serious Civ3 gaming done by mail, and get challenged by human players !!!

Contact me at civ3PTW@yahoo.com and I will setup games after request!
TheOldSage