AI cheats and strategies to counter them

[Arrian]

Ahhhh, I understand. Just drop the cities to size 2 and pump out a settler. End of problem. :shakes head and sighs:

160 Knights, yeesh. Watch out for the unit upkeep costs when you switch over to Republic... you've got one helluva big army.

You make the Golden Horde look like a couple of guys on ponies.

-Arrian

[solo]

Many thanks to Aeson for that summary of cheats and counters that we know of so far. It was something I was planning to do when this thread dropped off the screen, so players could have a handy reference. Care to be in charge of doing this again, when all is done, Aeson?

I haven't seen all the cities on a map disappear, as reported by WFHermans, but this had me ROTFLMAO. (Now I finally get to use that abbreviation having just recently found out what it means!). I've had AI's remain in the game after all their cities had been captured and was puzzled by this, so thanks to Sir Ralph for making sense out of what happened.

No one should take my remark about the AI seeming invulnerable to barbarian attacks too seriously, either. I'm sure the AI DO lose a battle now and then to the barbs. However, my Zulu story did not stretch the truth at all, and I stand by it.

[WFHermans]

Thanks Aeson and Sir Ralph for patiently explaining everything. So the surviving civ after losing its last city and subsequent destruction of every city was a pre-patch bug...anyway I would like the civs to live on until each and every city and unit has been taken or destroyed, and even then i would like them to be able come to make a comeback after a revolution, Even civ 1 had this, well that was different though, a civ could spawn a new civ,

Aeson: Do you consider becoming Communist after Despotism?

About the Barbarians, I had some luck fighting against huge stacks too. Maybe because I play only play Regent level where all civs are supposed to produce equally. But it seems they always go after my cities instead of the AIs. Did anyone ever see an AI city sacked by Barbarians?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by solo
No one should take my remark about the AI seeming invulnerable to barbarian attacks too seriously, either. I'm sure the AI DO lose a battle now and then to the barbs.

The AI suffers as much from barbarians as players do. I have personally seen an AI city being attacked by a "massive barbarian uprising" of 16 horsemen (restless barbs, IIRC) and taking it down to 1 spearman with 1 hp. I stood with a few swordsman guys nearby, because I just wanted to take the city anyway. It helped me a lot. Note, that all horsies attacked the AI city, no one attacked my soldiers. There's certainly no AI cheat with the barbarians.

[Aeson]

Communism

I really can't find a good use for Communism that isn't better filled by a different government type. I tend to have larger empires, and corruption is horrendous everywhere in Communism. Having 50%+ corruption in my "producing" cities is just insane. Definitely not worth the shield or two that "worthless" cities will produce. I try to only make one government switch the whole game when not playing a Religious Civ. If I'm done pop-rushing, but still have future wars planned, I like Monarchy. Otherwise the Republic is a good choice. Democracy really doesn't add much, and the threat of extra war weariness offsets its worth. I would have liked to see a government system like that from SMAC migrate to the Civ series, but oh well. As it is, Despotism is used to win the game, Republic/Democracy for score, Monarchy for 'show' (Military Might, Egotism, ie. be the King), and Communism for masochists.

[Willem]

Re: Communism

Originally posted by Aeson
I really can't find a good use for Communism that isn't better filled by a different government type. I tend to have larger empires, and corruption is horrendous everywhere in Communism. Having 50%+ corruption in my "producing" cities is just insane. Definitely not worth the shield or two that "worthless" cities will produce. I try to only make one government switch the whole game when not playing a Religious Civ. If I'm done pop-rushing, but still have future wars planned, I like Monarchy. Otherwise the Republic is a good choice. Democracy really doesn't add much, and the threat of extra war weariness offsets its worth. I would have liked to see a government system like that from SMAC migrate to the Civ series, but oh well. As it is, Despotism is used to win the game, Republic/Democracy for score, Monarchy for 'show' (Military Might, Egotism, ie. be the King), and Communism for masochists.

You might try adding your own. There's a thread around where someone has added Fascism. Some interesting ideas that I've incorporated into Dictatorship. It's sort of in between Democracy and Communism, with some of the aspects of a Republic. I've given it to three civs as their prefered government. I haven't played it out yet to see how it works though, no doubt I'll have to do some tweaking.

I've sort of been bouncing around with idea of a Utopian Socialist gov as well, or maybe Democratic Socialist, like some of the European systems. I'm not sure whether the editor gives me enough tools for that though.

[Aeson]

While I enjoy playing around with the editor, I think for strategy discussions on this board the default rules should be used. Otherwise we end up with "Hoplite Offensives Rock! Why use them for defense?" type threads where everyone goes WTF!?!?! because they don't know that the poster has switched his Hoplite's stats to 15/3/5. Even smaller changes have a subtle effect on overall strategy that over the course of a game make for huge differences... it's chaos theory. When posting on this board, I just assume the default rule set and judge strategies accordingly.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Aeson
While I enjoy playing around with the editor, I think for strategy discussions on this board the default rules should be used. Otherwise we end up with "Hoplite Offensives Rock! Why use them for defense?" type threads where everyone goes WTF!?!?! because they don't know that the poster has switched his Hoplite's stats to 15/3/5. Even smaller changes have a subtle effect on overall strategy that over the course of a game make for huge differences... it's chaos theory. When posting on this board, I just assume the default rule set and judge strategies accordingly.

Well terribly sorry for offering a suggestion that might make the game a bit more varied.

[Aeson]

I'm sorry if that sounded like I was insulting your suggestion, that wasn't what I meant at all. A great part of Civ 2 was the easy customization of the game, though I haven't done much so far with the Civ 3 editor. I just initially thought you were commenting on my analysis of the in game governments instead of the SMAC reference.

The SMAC system I refered to was an in game system. Through different advances you were able to change social, scientific, economic, and military agendas that would affect commerce, military abilities, research, and environmental interaction. It's been a while since I've played, but I think there were 4 options in 4 categories or something like that. Giving 256 different combinations that would make up the social system. Granted that only a handful of the combinations were truely useful, but still it was fun to experiment with. The Unit Workshop had even more options, ranging from armor, weapons, the base unit type, powerplant, and special bonuses. Literally thousands of possible unit designs were available.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm sorry if that sounded like I was insulting your suggestion, that wasn't what I meant at all. A great part of Civ 2 was the easy customization of the game, though I haven't done much so far with the Civ 3 editor. I just initially thought you were commenting on my analysis of the in game governments instead of the SMAC reference.

I just got the impression that you were hoping for more options and made a suggestion that might offer you one. A new government form is one thing that the default editor will let you add, so you don't have to be limited to just two modern ones.

Originally posted by Aeson

The SMAC system I refered to was an in game system. Through different advances you were able to change social, scientific, economic, and military agendas that would affect commerce, military abilities, research, and environmental interaction. It's been a while since I've played, but I think there were 4 options in 4 categories or something like that. Giving 256 different combinations that would make up the social system. Granted that only a handful of the combinations were truely useful, but still it was fun to experiment with. The Unit Workshop had even more options, ranging from armor, weapons, the base unit type, powerplant, and special bonuses. Literally thousands of possible unit designs were available.

Yes I'm familiar with SMAC. My favourite part was the workshop. I did a lot of experimenting with unit abilities, and had a lot of fun in the process. I've been tempted lately to go back to playing that again.

[Ismelstar]

Originally posted by Solo


In one of my own games I had a small island to myself. Just three tiles of it were beyond by borders, one of them containing a horse resource. The AI made a beeline for this but ignored the other two. Just as an experiment, I replayed part of that game, and parked a warrior on that tile early on, but left the other two wide open. None of the AI bothered with those other two. Backtracking again a few times, whenever I left the horse tile open, it was snatched up quickly by one of the AI, instead of either of the resourceless tiles.

In another game, where I was on a small island, I had an iron resource on it away from my borders, and sure enough, that was the unclaimed portion of the island that the AI went after first with their settlers.

Originally posted by Zachriel


The AI will settle all available spaces on the map, including what many may not consider promising terrain. It is important to spread your culture umbrella over every possible square of the map.

This is exactly the problem. I once was on a large island by myself. I had killed off (VERY early) the other two civs on the island.

The boat of another civ camie around the hook of my island, rather far away from the two open spots. I immediately covered the two open spots with warriors and the civ boat turned around! Even though there was no way for it to "see" that I had open land. In fact, the next turn I moved one of my warriors warrior off the empty spot and the civ boat turned back around and made a B-line for the open land.

I made sure I hadn't shared my maps with anyone and none of the civs had been to that part of my island. It seemed like the AI civs, know instantly where all available spots are on your land. But you have to sail meticulously half way around the world to discover empty spots on their land.

The above tactic could be used to a slight advantage, though. Every turn I would alternately move the warrior on and off that one square of land. The AI civs would keep turning around their boats every turn. I had three boats from three different civs held up this way, while I calmly sailed my galleys out to discover new islands to settle.

[solo]

Yes, when the AI do something tricky, you can often use their very predictable behavior to your own advantage, or for your own amusement, too! In the long run, they end up losing out by trying to take advantage of their extra knowledge.

[Encomium]

Tricky - or stupid??

Since 1.17 did not correct that Culture Flipping garbage (a town flipped with a garrison of ten units) I still have to raze. The instant I raze an enemy town/city nearby civs dispatch settler/pikemen teams to that spot even if they are at war with me!!!

So not only do some civs know stuff they should NOT know, but the one whose city was razed is so idiotic it keeps sending those settler/pikemen teams right into my military to get destroyed. I did that three times in a row (the stupid AI never learns) before it got so boring I quit the game in disgust.


Oh yes, this just happened. The instant I discovered Literature a few other civs began either demanding it or offering me insane extortionate deals for it (Territory Map for Literature). Not only should they not know I have it, but they shouldn't insult me with these ridiculous deals.

That crazy AI.

I'm going back to 1.16.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
Tricky - or stupid??

Since 1.17 did not correct that Culture Flipping garbage (a town flipped with a garrison of ten units) I still have to raze.

Many players, including myself, are able to manage culture. It may be your playing style. There are a variety of strategies to counter flipping, which have been posted in other threads.

[Arrian]

Imelstar,

Here's an idea, if you want to take advantage of the AI "must build more cities... any scrap of land will do... must build more cities" mindset:

Punch out a few privateers. Keep them in a coastal city near a spot that isn't worth settling. Move your warrior (or whatever) off the open spot. See AI send ship. Sink ship with privateer. Repeat. If your privateers get beat up, put the warrior back on the spot until you've healed them or built more. The AI will continue to build those settler teams, put 'em on boats, and send 'em around the world to settler that spot. It's not really going to drain them much, but it could be fun.

On culture flipping: I haven't had it happen once with 1.17. Razing is often the way I go, but for different reasons. They fixed the poprush/draft unhappiness penalty, but the AI still whips and drafts like a madman. You inherit that unhappiness when you take a city. So I tend to raze cities unless they have wonders, or I've been able to blitz them before the AI starts drafting.

-Arrian