Dirty tricks

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by jshelr
punkbass2000

Your comment above is appreciated. However, the game is relatively historically accurate when you do history on the 6000 year time scale. The fighting civs won. (Maybe the Iriquois shouldn't be in the mix since the Americans killed most of them and settled thier land. Ditto the Aztecs. But, OTOH, the game gives these civs a chance to reverse the real results. They didn't reseach in the Americas fast enough in real life before first contact. So, they got killed by superior tech. Sounds familar to a civ player.)

I'd like to see your attitude apply more in the post-industrial era. Unprovoked attacking past 2000 should be impossible for a democracy (somebody call George Bush, quickly) and cause big negative effects for other government types, IMO.

I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you're trying to clarify. My only guess is that when I said 'historically accurate' you either saw 'historically inaccurate' or thought that I meant so. Otherwise I am at a loss.

[jabberwockysr]

Artificial Military Strength

Someone else posted this on the "Americans" thread:

Build warriors to artificially increase your military strength to intimidate the AI

This is only a dirty trick after espionage, as before espionage the only way to compare strength is through the mil advisor, but once you have spies, no human would fear your 50 warriors when they have cavalry.
Of course this is an expensive trick to pull in republic or democracy without the free unit support.

Won't be using it myself, as I go straight to republic. It's irritating though to see that our military is "equal" when I have tanks and mech inf to their infantry and cavalry just because they have more units.

Edit: This used to (pre 1.29) look like it worked.

My gripe is that the AI overemphasizes number of units vs. strength. With 2-3 rifle/infantry per city it views it's army as stronger than the 10-15 tanks that I use to roll over them about a city a turn. Sure, with that number of defenders I lose some tanks, but I'm replacing my losses while they're not replacing lost cities. It just seems to me that defensive units are overvalued.

[alva]

Re: Artificial Military Strength

Originally posted by jabberwockysr
Someone else posted this on the "Americans" thread:

Build warriors to artificially increase your military strength to intimidate the AI

Wasn't this fixed under 1.29??

[alexman]

Not only was it fixed, it was actually never broken.

What they fixed in 1.29f was your own advisor's estimate. The AI always worked properly, according to Soren.

[punkbass2000]

Sorry, I haven't played in a while

[vmxa1]

well 129f was to improve it, but the advisor is still not making proper evaluation. Maybe a bit better.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by alexman
What they fixed in 1.29f was your own advisor's estimate. The AI always worked properly, according to Soren.

Enlightenment dawns.

Thanks alexman

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Artificial Military Strength

Originally posted by jabberwockysr
Someone else posted this on the "Americans" thread:

Build warriors to artificially increase your military strength to intimidate the AI

This is only a dirty trick after espionage, as before espionage the only way to compare strength is through the mil advisor, but once you have spies, no human would fear your 50 warriors when they have cavalry.
Of course this is an expensive trick to pull in republic or democracy without the free unit support.

Won't be using it myself, as I go straight to republic. It's irritating though to see that our military is "equal" when I have tanks and mech inf to their infantry and cavalry just because they have more units.

In a game where I did a lot of reloading (quite a while ago), I have seen the AI go from backstabbing my poorly defended capitol to walk back home and keep himself polite when I just upgraded pikemen to muskets. This made me think that the AI takes regard of true strenght, not just numbers.

[vmxa1]

It would seem to do some of both. I have seen it behave with deference when you get a new upgrade from many units such as Horesemen to Knights or cetain UU like Legionaires. This is why I try to keep upgraded and avoid dead end units like swordmen and archers. Yeah archers go to longbow, but that is a long way off and they are not a top unit when they appear.

[Theseus]

From the CFC chat on Friday:

"[17:41] <+Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> as to general AI changes... hmmm, they are more reluctant to trade away workers... will charge more for resources... that type of thing."

[jshelr]

"I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you're trying to clarify."

Sorry for being vague. What I noticed was that your comment favored builder over early warmonger attitudes "the power of war is a game breaker, which is why I've been going about peaceful deity strategies as of late."

I was just pointing out that the game, like real life did, favors warmongers in the BC years. IMO, the game is good in the ancient era, but it should respect your attitude much more in the modern era where it should be harder to be warlike without being fascist, in one form or another, at the same time.

[Konquest02]

Re: Dirty tricks

Originally posted by Dominae

2. Sign military alliances to get all your neighbours to go to war, ideally with both sides of roughly equal strength. Do not participate in the fighting, but declare peace with your opponents as soon as possible. This effectively allows you to focus on building up your empire, while the computer opponents are focusing on a difficult war.

I'd like to insist on roughly equal strength. On my last game, I was playing the French on Regent (with AU Mod 1.04) when the Persians declared war on me (I think they requested 12 gold... ). I did not feel like fighting a civ on another continent so I called Shaka (who shared the Persian continent). I signed an alliance with him.

Persia already went berserk on the Babs before I met them but they had a territory just a bit larger than the Zulus. Within 15 turns into the war with Shaka, the Persians had crushed them and took all of their cities.

I created a monster civ. They had one continent, huge military and a lot of cities (and fewer irrigations than usual !! ) I am planning to invade them the minute I get tanks. I can beeline for it so I'll be able to cripple them a bit by this time.

--Kon--

[Dominae]

Konquest02, I agree with you completely; I originally said "ideally of roughly equal strength", but I think this is actually a requirement for the dirty trick to really work. Like you said, creating a monster civ can be a nightmare.

However, I still think there is merit in the original idea that civs are too willing to go to war (or sign MPPs, same thing, really) when it won't benefit them in the long run.


Dominae

[Harovan]

A "dirty trick" I love against the AI is to hurt civs with ancient UUs, especially Greeks, by firing their GA in a time when in gives them the least benefit. If I see a rooming Hoplite with a scouting Warrior in the early game, I attack him. Sure, I'll lose badly, but the Greeks will have 20 turns of a completely useless GA. In the REX phase a civ doesn't need the additional shields, because the main product (settlers) needs both shields and food. But the GA does not give a food bonus. So the city needs as long for a settler as it would need without the GA, and the additional shields are wasted. I make peace ASAP and later can safely attack the Greeks with Knights without facing their GA in many and well developed cities.

[alexman]

Is it really true that the AI governor builds settlers even if the number of turns for them to be completed is less than the number of turns remaining for the city to become one more than their population cost (3 unmodded)?

If so, this is a very dirty trick indeed!

I hope Soren is keeping an eye on this thread. In addition to many of the dirty trick exploits, there are lots of problems with the city governor that he needs to fix. (Hint: irrigation+unhappiness = bad).