Civ Gold Questions

[Caesar Jon]

I have been playing Civ Gold for dome time and have been getting increasinly frustrated by the following:

1) The AI's are always mad! I can never get any diplomancy acomplished except if I'm a way ahead in techs. Is there any way to chill them out any?

2) It seems that many of you talk like it is very easy to acomplish a 2-3 turn tech advance but I can never get this unless I play on cheiften level. I have yet to beat the AI emperior level. Are the AI's just harder in the gold edtion?

3) Is their a url for faq on the gold edition?

4) Are there any patches for the gold that make it play like the 2.42 version which most of you seem to be playing.

Thank for everyone help. This is my first post but I have lurking for 2 years.

Jon

[Smash]

ok I'll have a lash

1.No.The MGE ai is more hostile than any other version.Takes a steady stream of gifts to maintain good relations.Pretty much every turn.Its good if you like warfare but not so good if you want something more "realistic"

2.Not harder just more hostile.The Super Science City(SSC) does most of a civ's research.This city has Collosus,Cope's,Sir Ike's and possibly Shake's(not as vital in non OCC games but good).
Caravans also make up a large portion of science.You get a beaker bonus equivalent to the amount of gold for delivered caravans as well as trade routes

3.I'm not aware of a faq but the subject of hostility has been discussed here.The latest player to get miffed by this is Lazlo.Search his handle and you find some threads about MGE ai.I should add,that I am in total agreement with his position.

4.No.The patches address multiplay bugs for the most part.No ai patch has been done that I know of.Don't expect one either.


MGE is probably the buggiest game I have ever owned.It is also the most heavily used game I have ever owned
[This message has been edited by Smash (edited May 23, 2000).]

[Empress]

I totally agree with Smash, civ II MPG is VERY addictive!!

[Ming]

1)No... they are just angry little campers all the time. As suggested, you do have to give them something every stinking turn... but in the long run, don't bother unless you REALLY need something they have.

2)The AI isn't really any harder. The only major difference is as you pointed out above.
To win at the higher levels... build caravans for trade routes... and when you have built enough caravans, build some more.

3)None that I've seen. But if you go the CivII section of this site, they have two strategy sections you can look at. Or just cruise the threads here... set your default to view all threads, or check out the Civ II Strategy Archives.

4)As stated, the latest patch available from this site or the Microprose site only fixes SOME of the bugs, but it won't make it play like the earlier version any more than it currently does. However, load it anyway. Besides fixing some terrible bugs, if you plan on playing MP, everybody in the game must have the latest patch.

Keep on Civing, and good luck!

[Smash]

SC-Call it whatever you like.I can answer yes to every one of your questions.

What? do have shares in Microprose or something?

stable?ya right.Thats why there have been so many patches.
[This message has been edited by Smash (edited May 24, 2000).]

[Steve Clark]

Oh that's right, you have the Mac version.

[Aurelius]

I haven't found any of the civ versions particularly buggy. But like Steve Clark, I have a PC. Aren't Mac Civ versions a recent event? That's what Smash uses to my recollection?! You guys are comparing apples and oranges... I'd say that PC Civ is a very smooth/stable simulation given the complexities of the game. And no doubt the game will evolve in artificial intelligence.

Still, if any version of Civ is unstable, it is MGE online--strange things happen there.

AU--oh yeah, there is no such thing as allied forever in MGE--AI's are ornery parasites.

[Sten Sture]

oops, I should probably mention that I have a few shares of Hasbro, the parent company for Microprose. But not because of Civ selling a ton of copies, obviously. So far I have made enough, after transaction costs, to offset the cost of a dusty copy of SMAC.

[Smash]

well, yes, the MAC version was butchered by some shoody company that did the conversion.They just translated without any knowledge of the MAC OS.

however,the first MAC version was supposed to equivalent to 1.3

1.3?Thats at least 3 PC patches

[Steve Clark]

Actually, I played without the 1.3 patch until very recently (I had forgotten about it). Ming (and the readme) said it tweaked some MP stuff, which is not applicable to me anyway. That's over a year's worth of civing right out of the box with absolutely no problems. So I can say that it has been the MOST bug-free game I've played, not accounting for some bad programming.

[Ming]

Steve... You must never have used a "go to" command then

Yes, more of the fixes were related to the MP application.

[Aurelius]

oh yeah, or perhaps we've all accepted the 'go to' bug as a way of life.

[Steve Clark]

Go To?!? You mean giving up control to the AI?? Why in the world would anyone let the stupid AI do something for you? So if one never uses this, is it a bug?

[rah]

Try moving large armies when there is a time limit, you learn to appreciate the go to command. Sometimes it burns you but sometimes its the only way to move all the troops. You also learn when it's most likely to do what you want and when it sill screw you up. Never when you're near the map wrap point.

RAH

[Lazlo]

quote: 3.I'm not aware of a faq but the subject of hostility has been discussed here.The latest player to get miffed by this is Lazlo.Search his handle and you find some threads about MGE ai.I should add,that I am in total agreement with his position.

From Smash

Thank you for your support! We are getting more and more!!

quote: If you are going to play an alliance dependant scenario that was designed for FW or CiC, using the MGE version you have a couple of options: 1) play by yourself in hotseat mode as allied civs. 2) edit the scenario to include language that sets the alliances every turn and corrects the attitudes - how this is done is spelled out in the Scenario League. 3) If you are playing as a civ that is overly strong, you may be able to reduce your implied strength by disbanding some extra military units. 4) Pretend the US nuked London in WW2.

From Sten Sture

I am especially interested in your second option. So you can change attitude levels using the events.txt? I did not know it. For one thing, it is not documented as far as I know!
I think this is the most viable option to go. Too bad you would have to edit all the scenarios!

To Steve Clark:

I am sorry to say that I do not completely agree with your definition of "bug". After some studying of the AI behaviour, I am compelled to say that it is a bug. In my definition of bug, bad AI programming is a bug. Or if you don´t like to call it a bug, well, lets call it "bad AI programming". Should it be corrected in a future patch? Yes!

I completely agree with rah about the go to command. That, for instance, is a thing that should work right. It really helps you in the game when moving large armies.

[Lazlo]

quote: 2) edit the scenario to include language that sets the alliances every turn and corrects the attitudes - how this is done is spelled out in the Scenario League.

Frome Sten

Sten, I have been looking through the page of
the Scenario League but I could not find info on that subject. Could you be more specific, please?
I have noticed that not all scenarios suffer from this syndrome of mad AI. 2194 days does not have this problem. What did they do?

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by Smash on 05-23-2000 10:56 PM MGE is probably the buggiest game I have ever owned. [This message has been edited by Smash (edited May 23, 2000).]

That has got to be one of the most absurd statements I have read here. Methinks you don't know what constitute a buggy game. Ask these questions:
Does the game fails to load properly?
Does the game fails to start?
Does the game starts but crashes on the intro?
Does the game crashes during play?
Does the game fails to load saved games properly?
Does the game prevent you from playing to the end?

At least my version of MGE on PC is probably one of the most stable games I have ever played.

Remember, bad AI programming are not bugs, but just that, bad programming. The game was developed, what, 5 years ago? There have been advances in AI programming since that time so it's unfair to make comparisons. One would hope that Civ3 would take advantage of those new techniques. Now, if want to see a buggy, unplayable Civ title out of the box, look no further than CtP, but that's another forum.

[Sten Sture]

Jon - good to hear from my old stomping grounds - I grew up in Fort Wayne and went to Taylor U...

1) I play regular Civ in the MGE version, I think it requires a little more finesse and it is more fun... I have also played several scenarios where the AI's blind aggression was a significant detraction - here's how I approach it:

The velvet glove - a strategic feint

The AI primarily hates you if you look overly strong or large - don't build more military units than you need or expand too rapidly in the early game. If your power rating on the diplomacy screen is mighty or supreme - you will get ganged up on. If your population is first or second they will gang up on you. If you have more money than them, they will gang up on you. If you have a lot more techs than them, they will gang up on you. If you demand tribute, they will declare war.

I try to explore a little at first and find a good capital city location that is in a defendable area, and make a couple of alliances very early in the game. The alliances won't necessarily hold, but they buy you time. If your civ is in a defendable area, it is much easier to keep your ally from encroaching on your cities. Block their infiltration path with non-military units like trade caravans or diplos so you don't scare your ally.

Basically you want to try to fool the AI into thinking you are weak, while you are preparing your civ to become strong. Using a well developed trade system is the best way to win in the long run, and it helps hide your strength if you rush build improvements or more caravans with the bonus proceeds.

The AI still attacks with the tactical finesse of an Iranian human wave, so if you find yourself at war with an AI civ, build a trap for them, like a fort on a mountain in their territory - they will spend their entire production every turn to subvert the threat of two musketeers in such a position.

If you are going to play an alliance dependant scenario that was designed for FW or CiC, using the MGE version you have a couple of options: 1) play by yourself in hotseat mode as allied civs. 2) edit the scenario to include language that sets the alliances every turn and corrects the attitudes - how this is done is spelled out in the Scenario League. 3) If you are playing as a civ that is overly strong, you may be able to reduce your implied strength by disbanding some extra military units. 4) Pretend the US nuked London in WW2.

2) Science advances: three things here - trade caravans, a science city, and trade specials. By focusing your development in a single city with several trade specials you should be able to rapidly improve your science results - try to have four specials in such a city, and build the Colossus, Copernicus, Newtons, and Shakes in that city ala the OCC challenge type cities - add a three trade routes to a big foriegn city, a library, and university early enough in the game and your reseach worries are over. Use surrounding cities to provide military units, and caravans to rush build the wonders. Specials that provide trade are generally regarded as the best in the long run, though remember that terrain under specials can be changed via irrigation/mining and that changes the special as well.

3) No url or faq, but there are is a collection of ideas made by Inca911 (?) that contain some info specific to the MGE version. Also at least a couple of the early OCC Challenge threads had some MGE vs 2.42 discussion.

4) The MGE 1.3 patch is available here at Apolyton in the Civ2 database, but it doesn't make the AI game play any different.

Happy MGE Civing!

[DaveV]

Regarding rah's advocacy of using goto in multiplayer to speed up your turn:

I use a dialup connection, and experience significant lag when I'm not hosting. In one game I tried using goto, hoping it would speed things up, but it still seems to have the same lag as when I move manually. Move, pause. Move, pause. Move, pause.

I know rah usually hosts and has a fast connection, so he may be talking about something different...

[Jim W]

quote: Originally posted by rah on 05-24-2000 08:43 PM Try moving large armies when there is a time limit, you learn to appreciate the go to command. Sometimes it burns you but sometimes its the only way to move all the troops. You also learn when it's most likely to do what you want and when it sill screw you up. Never when you're near the map wrap point. RAH

I'm presently playing an SP game where, if I send a naval unit along the top of the map with the Goto command, it rushes back and forth like an express bus until I grab hold of it between turns and turn it off.

On the other hand, there are other places on the map where Goto works marvellously well. It can occasionally save just that little bit of micromanagement.

Jim W

[Lazlo]

To Steve:
Steve, I agree with you that if a game that does not crash and is winable (is that the right word?) then we have to give it some concession. Yeah, CIV2 MGE does not hang nor does it prove impossible to win. BUT, in my point of view, it is uninteresting to play. Trying to handle a mad AI is not fun. And, after studying (I think I have said this sentence 100 times!) the AI for a time, I must conclude that it is not working right (I will not call it a bug so you won´t complain). Refer to the thread in community/general for moe details about this conclution.

This is not the first time that they screw up the AI with an upgrade. Same thing happened with MOO 2 v1.3 long time ago. But in that time Microprose did behave. They released a new patch (v1.31) that did corrected the problem.

To Sten:
Can you actually set in a scenario the attitude level between civilizations? How can you do it? As fas as I know, with the events.txt you can only make two civilizations to declare war on each other. How can you make them to be in good terms every turn, so alliances may work?

[Sten Sture]

You can set the attitude, treaty, reputation etc through the edit menu at the start, but I am not sure how to do it in midstream...
I am looking around a bit to find the details on attitude adjustment, it may have been in Possidente's scenario guide or perhaps it was a hex edit thing...

The way that Nemo does it is through the Negotiation command and Makeagression like this from RedFront

@IF
NEGOTIATION
talker=Anybody
talkertype=HumanOrComputer
listener=Anybody
listenertype=HumanOrComputer
@THEN

@ENDIF

@IF
TURN
turn=-1
@THEN
MAKEAGGRESSION
who=Germans
whom=Soviets
@ENDIF

@IF
TURN
turn=-1
@THEN
MAKEAGGRESSION
who=Finns
whom=Soviets
@ENDIF


However, since that eliminates the possibility of ANY negotiation, I am sure that would be unsuitable for you in general.

I will see what I can dig up over night, and if I can't find it we can check with the scenario experts out there.
[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited May 25, 2000).]

[Ming]

Well DaveV...
Yes, even the go to command experiences lag time problems. But still, at least you don't have to add the time it takes to instruct the unit to move. Plus, I sometimes forget where a caravan is supposed to go... so the goto command still speeds things up for me, even with the lag time

[Steve Clark]

Thanks for the clarification on GoTo. It is my nature to control outcomes, thus I have moved 100+ units one by one and will continue to do so. Probably another good reason for me not playing MP.

Lazlo: I have been involved in developing and managing software applications for nearly 20 years (including game design and testing). In my mind, I make a distinction between bugs and bad programming. I'm sure there are industry-standard definitions for these but I don't know what they are. Here's my view from experience: Bugs are problems within code that 1) causes the program to error, and/or 2) causes other parts of the program to error. Examples of these include the list I posted earlier (desktop crashes, install/load errors, etc.). In Civ2, it would be like someone opening a city window and have it hang or crash the program. Or like what I experienced last week, trying load a comparison game and having the program exit to the desktop. An example in MP would be the program causing the clients to go out of sync with the server (host). This produces alternate realities common in alot of RTS MP games. These are all bugs that could be fixed by patches.

Bad programming on the other hand are not bugs in the sense that it does not cause the program to error, it just does something illogical. This comes from 1) bad design and/or 2) lazy (or rushed) programming. GoTo appears to be an example of this. Does GoTo causes Civ2 to not work? No. GoTo does function, good or bad. Conceptually, if a programmer designs a function where actionA leads to actionB, but practically, it really should lead to actionC, that is not a bug but bad programming logic. Yes, this could be fixed in a patch but the danger is that by changing the code to go to actionC could cause 1) real bugs or 2) having to rewrite a substantial amount of code due to a cascading effect from changing this logic. Most tend to leave it alone, thus causing the gamer to ignore certain features (like GoTo) or work around them (diplomacy). Since some versions of Civ2 have no 'bugs' that cause the game to be unplayable (where you can't complete it or can't win), that is a good concession to make. IMO.

[Steve Clark]

While on the subject of GoTo, Firaxis just asked over in the Civ3-General/Suggestions forum if anyone use this. Probably a good place to put in your 2 cents about this.

[Sten Sture]

Lazlo et al:

Re: Alliance and Attitude adjustment via events files.

I looked around some of the old threads at the scenario league and checked their tips - I couldn't find what I was looking for. I could be mistaken... wouldn't be the first time. I also look through Possidente's scenario design guide and came up blank. I have a couple of scenario design documents that make no mention of what I was refering to either.

I think the only way to do it is to adjust alliances, attitudes, reputations, and patience using the scenario editor before beginning the game, (and use the same editor during the game if the AI gets too crazy.) Then make sure the events file keeps the intended multiple AI sides at war. That should prevent your alliance from disintergrating unless you make it happen. You can also use the events file to dissallow the AI from contacting you, while keeping your negotiating open with them so they don't make silly demands.

I can't access my civ files, since my drive crashed last week, but lets pick a scenario that gave people in MGE alliance trouble, check out the opening conditions, and open up the events file. Maybe we can figure out some basic preliminary steps to correct a few of them so they are playable.

How about the WW2 scenario that came with the game? I think it was designed for Conflicts in Civ, the first scenario pack, and presents alliance problems.

[Smash]

Ok.Here is why I think it is a bug.By any definition.Bear in my mind,I have the computer knowledge of an advanced Nintendo operator.


In the MP side of the game,you manually set your attitudes towards other civs.Human or AI.

When you take over an AI civ that is at war,you immediately are contacted and offered peace ETC.Much like when you make first contact.I assume this happens so you don't find yourself in the middle of war you know nothing about and, had nothing to do with, when hot joining.I believe that this process is having a detrimental effect on the AI making them reset their attitudes far more frequently.

So thats one effect that causes another effect.If true.IF

There was some discussion on which computer does what during a MP game in the MP forum.Since some code for MP must have been added,this may have some effect also.

Unfortunately,I lack the expertise to go in and tinker.But that is my "theory"