CIV 1 is more just.

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 18:11

I've had it.

Democracies that come banging on your head like they are Suleiman the Magnificent and refuse to talk to you even though THEY HAVE too.

AI that keeps demanding to get out of their territory (which they tend to forget that it's also yours - overlapping)

Crappy phalanx that bribe your dragoons.

Russians that sneak attack you and then continue to be are the favorite childs of the rest of the world and the list goes on.

I'm not talking about the «hidden AI cheats» like production speed up, knowledge of your city status etc.

I am talking about the godamn BLATANT cheats that are IN YOUR FACE in CIV 2.

Sure, I hated when they fortified next to my cities in CIV 1 but CIV 1 didn't have any reputation so I could just kick the lights out of them and still be welcomed in the AI's palace.

I am seriously contamplating to try and return to CIV 1. Has anyone tried it? And has anyone actually managed it?

Chris 62 · January 21, 2001, 20:02

I looked at it about two months ago, but couldn't bring myself to play it. Still like the music though.

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 20:06

Paiktis, what's your primary concern about civ2? (I know, the ai cheats, but what specific cheat bugs you more than a phalanx blowing up a battleship?)

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 20:16

quote:

Originally posted by SMACed on 01-21-2001 07:06 PM
phalanx blowing up a battleship?)

Point well taken

Maybe I haven't played CIV 1 for 2 years now and my memory deceives me. Was the AI blatant cheats (like AI democracy functioning like despotism in diplomacy, bribing of units etc) also there in CIV 1?

But even if they were, there was no reputation and you could ATTACK the AI democracy that kept refusing to see you without consequence, and all were equal when it came to reputation because it didn't exist.

It is outrageous to have the russians and the greeks next to me both in democracy and both attacking me without any drawbacks. They should be obliged to listen to me and OBLIGED to have peace. They are not. If I attack them during a cease fire (which should have been peace) I lose rep.
Is this just?
One more thing. I am in democracy so I don't have the power to tell the AI to get out of my city radious. They do.
New rules are good only if they apply to all. If not that's fine (since after all it is AI) but still the cheats should have been less blatant 'cause it really ruins the feel of the game.

Albert B · January 22, 2001, 09:28

quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 01-21-2001 07:16 PM
One more thing. I am in democracy so I don't have the power to tell the AI to get out of my city radious. They do.

Being in a democracy shouldn't have anything to do with telling the AI to get out of your radius. I do it all time in democracy. You just have to be at peace with the other civ. If you are at peace and they enter your city radius you SHOULD be able to force them out. The only thing is, I have had the problem in the past that although I absolutely know that I have signed a peace treaty with another civ, it acts like we are either neutral or at war and the 'ask to sign a peace treaty option shows back up on the diplomacy screen. If you can get them to sign again, you should be able to boot them on the next turn. (if they don't up and declare war on you instead...)

Ming · January 22, 2001, 09:49

quote:

Originally posted by Albert B on 01-22-2001 08:28 AM
Being in a democracy shouldn't have anything to do with telling the AI to get out of your radius. I do it all time in democracy. You just have to be at peace with the other civ. If you are at peace and they enter your city radius you SHOULD be able to force them out.

There are times when you are at peace with an AI while you are in democracy and the "remove your troops" option doesn't appear on the diplo screen. This just means that they are ready to sneak attack you.

And yes, it is annoying when the AI seems to have a short term memory on what it's relationship is to you.
I wonder if that is just a bug...

Albert B · January 22, 2001, 09:53

Also, there were definitely a ton of blatant ai cheats in civ 1 also. I have played in several years but some of the ones that immediately come to mind include...

...ai could initiate diplo talks with any unit next to any of your units, you had to take a diplo to one of their cities, hoping he didn't get killed along the way. Of course there wasn't much need for diplo talks with the ai then.

...ai received instant wonders, they never built them in a city the way you had to (there was some random factor to this)

...the ai recieved instant trade routes when they wanted, it NEVER built a caravan unit (is this still the case, I didn't think so but now that I think about it I don't recall seeing very many ai caravan/freight units running around)

...ai triremes were NEVER lost at see. When first beginning to play, you might see one pass by one of your cities and think its civ was close by only to find out they were across the biggest ocean you've ever seen. (also, is this still the case? I've never checked it but just kind of assumed this one to be true)

That's all I can think of now. If you want more let me know. I have a civ 1 stratagy book at home that lists a bunch more of these. I can look some up for you if you really care.

Bereta_Eder · January 22, 2001, 16:19

quote:

Originally posted by Albert B on 01-22-2001 08:53 AM
...ai triremes were NEVER lost at see. When first beginning to play, you might see one pass by one of your cities and think its civ was close by only to find out they were across the biggest ocean you've ever seen. (also, is this still the case? I've never checked it but just kind of assumed this one to be true)

This is a civ 2 phenomenon too. The point I am trying to make is this:
you give the populace civ 2.
The populace cheers.

You introduce new rules that make diplomacy more exciting.
The populace goes into delirium.

The new rules are NOT applicable to all and thus become automatically a huge fault of the game.

The populace (at least me) revolts and wants thy head in the nice little basket next to the guilotine.

As you pointed out: is the short memory of AI (i.e. the peace treaties become cease-fires) a bug?

I don't think so. It's intentional in order to make the AI tougher. That's alright but DON'T make it so BLATANT. I don't mind having my units bribed by everyone with a nice smile but when I deal with democratic governments I expect them to behave like it. That's the same as Cleopatra. She doesn't only need to be honest, she has to act like it too

SO my peace becomes cease fire and the untis are all over me. Can I at least attack them so as to get my production and food and trade up to normal levels?
No I can't 'cause I'll have a damn long time of anarchy or (the best case senario) I'll have a lower rep.

My point is: don't give new rules if their selective application turns them into faults. I'd hate something like that in civ 3. Really.

Wiglaf · January 22, 2001, 20:02

Paiktis -

You have to realize AI is very very hard to program. People, even with the cheats, go to OCC for a challenge.

I don't think the game really breaks the rules too much. Sure, it doesn't go into anarchy in demo, it can bribe with any unit, but that doesn't take away from a good experiance anyway. Better that then having a handicapped stupid AI fighting you.

Bereta_Eder · January 22, 2001, 21:21

quote:

Originally posted by SMACed on 01-22-2001 07:02 PM
You have to realize AI is very very hard to program.

Fine. I take that guilotine thing back

I can understand that for some of the wizards here, occ is the challenge. I can also realize that if I have read some of the tricks and strategies in Apolyton I'd be cruising through Deity no sweat!

Well, I don't! I like to discover everything on my own and suffer the consequences even though that may place me amongst the.. «plebeian» apolytoners

What I don't realize is what you mean by the AI being handicapped. If the game is not to follow its own rules I repeat THAT'S FINE - really. But as long as they are here they might as well cheat (how shall I put it?) discreet?

TCO · January 22, 2001, 22:55

Phalanxes SHOULD have a chance to kill battleships. The current FP/HP system gives way too much advantage to modern units. (acceptible for historical reasons but makes warfare too easy for humans who race ahead in science.

Zeevico · January 23, 2001, 02:27

How a battleship is (nearly) beaten by a phalanx:
"Sir, I've got a bunch of idiots in costumes bashing on are ships with swords). What do we do?"
"Ignore them. they'll get sober eventually."
2 hours later
"Sir we've sprunk a leak!"
"How big! Who did this?!"
"Those guys in costume"
"Minimum combat alert! get the cleaners"
"they're her sir"
"I want you guys to get these idiot out of our way. Understood?"
"Yes sir!"
at the scene of the attack, the cleaners, holding their brooms, are attacking the enemy
"Get out of here you drunks! Go on shoo!"
one of the brooms hit their target and the phalanx runs into their boats in terror. The cleaners, using their brooms, destroy the masts of the enemy ships in minutes.

Chris 62 · January 23, 2001, 05:38

quote:

Originally posted by GP on 01-22-2001 09:55 PM
Phalanxes SHOULD have a chance to kill battleships. The current FP/HP system gives way too much advantage to modern units. (acceptible for historical reasons but makes warfare too easy for humans who race ahead in science.

This is a question of playability vs reality. In all of civ's versions reality takes a severe beating. An example: Take the standard map of the world that comes with MGE. Now say you are rome and your city is in italy. You have a road net on every hex in europe. You want to send a legion(Mov factor 1) to the english channel during say,1 ad. It will take at least 3 turns, or 30 years! Another example: Your battleship during WW2 is on the US west coast(same map as last ex.). You want to bombard Japan. It will take again 3 turns,or 3 years! Even if it was monthly turns, it would be 3 months! A ship moving at ten knots can cross the Pacific in less then 3 weeks. In the previous example, a legion could make that march in 2 weeks! So the combat system is just as screwed up as the movement system. I just try to imagine that the legion unit is an whole army instead of a standard legion, or that battleship is a whole fleet of battleships, not a single one. As for the problem with the diplo cheats, I agree with paiktis22. This AI cheat adds nothing to the game.

Wiglaf · January 23, 2001, 18:45

LOL, Zeevico

My point exactly.

Blaupanzer · January 30, 2001, 11:53

Paiktis22, I haven't seen any real advantage in maintaining a good or better reputation in Civ II. The whole diplomacy thing still feels like an "add-on" someone played with late in the design period. I have valiantly put up with a ton of nonsense to keep my reputation clean, only to be told in the late game that the AI thinks I'll knife them in the back, etc. While this may look distinctly like real life in terms of the experience of the U.S., it doesn't seem to have any intrinsic fairness to it.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2001, 01:51

Peace is easier to achieve at least in the early centuries.

But the point is that the game will not follow some of its own rules so you have to break them.

It's not a situation that threatens the existance of western civilization but still it's irritating