Thread Tools
Old February 25, 2002, 12:41   #91
Heinrich IV
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 11
Re: Downloaded the patch on Friday...
Quote:
Originally posted by ShuShu
And I must admit I like this new model better. I play on emperor. I find I have manged to get and keep a tech lead, albeit only for a short time.
Hey ShuShu!
That`s just great to read! In my experience, though, I`ve never managed to stay at peace. They simply come for me, at the latest when all space on ym island/continent is taken. And since they don`t sell me military techs or resources I`m usually 1 step behind in units - and loose. Like 5:1 to 10:1 for battles - game over!

Since I went back to 1.16 it`s fun again, but I`d sure love to play with ICBMs and stck movement and fixed culture flips.....
Heinrich IV is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 12:54   #92
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
Small Islands are death
If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.

When you offer to buy a tech for cash, the AI will give you a big lump sum number. Counter the offer with the same value but as much as possible in Per Turn payments. They are far less likely to attack if they still have credits headed their way. The same is true for luxuries and resources.

Interestingly, the Great Library can appear to be a disadvantage as you will have nothing to buy!!! Then the cash goes to 'Gifts' or at least alliance payments.
ShuShu is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 12:58   #93
Heinrich IV
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 11
Re: Small Islands are death
Quote:
Originally posted by ShuShu
If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.

When you offer to buy a tech for cash, the AI will give you a big lump sum number. Counter the offer with the same value but as much as possible in Per Turn payments. They are far less likely to attack if they still have credits headed their way. The same is true for luxuries and resources.

Interestingly, the Great Library can appear to be a disadvantage as you will have nothing to buy!!! Then the cash goes to 'Gifts' or at least alliance payments.
Usually I play with many AI and end up with only 1 neighbour or with several one of which is militaristic - ouch! OK, I can sometimes get them to fight between them and leave me alone, but it soon comes to the point where I start loosing towns - they will go for my towns if I start outculturing them. So whatever I do, I loose. Maybe it`s the kind of map I`m playing (standart, 8 civ, random but almost always get only 60% land)
Heinrich IV is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:05   #94
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Re: Small Islands are death
Quote:
Originally posted by ShuShu
If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.
I find quite often having a military alliance with a civ that isn't even close to my enemy's territory is enough to ensure a short war. And the more I can get on my side, the shorter it gets, regardless of whether they're neighbours or not. Just a threat of a 3 front war is enough to make him think twice about dragging the conflict out. I also suspect that the AI civs have a memory of past alliances, and as long as I am at peace with my former allies after the war, then I'm generally left alone.
Willem is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:07   #95
belchingjester
Chieftain
 
belchingjester's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


They aren't allowed to sign per-turn deals they can't pay.
Soren, as others have noted, it's strange that they "would never make such a deal" when you're asking for 3gpt and they don't have the cash flow, but they have 60 gold in the bank and cleaning out their treasury is fine.

Are there plans to allow them to use their treasury to pay gold per turn agreements? It would make a lot of sense...

Saurus, thanks for the tip re: raising tax rate before negotiating. Soren, that's the flip side of the same coin. Logically I should be able to pay a gpt agreement out of my treasury, right?

Thanks for the insights - I understand a lot better now, although parts still don't "make sense" to me
-belchingjester
belchingjester is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:08   #96
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
I think I'd like to play a couple of games with the tech rate adjusted (Soren said Firaxis was looking at the tech advancement rate closely) before making a final judgement on the AI tech trading under 1.17f.

Like many posters have pointed out, it is certainly possible to gain a tech lead, it's holding that lead that has become very difficult (ToE really helps, of course, so it's easiest to hold the lead after building it). However, if one had enough time to take advantage of a slim tech lead, it would be worthwhile to attempt to out-research the AI. As it stands now, on Monarch, by the time I have enough knights to think about attacking an enemy, gunpowder has made the rounds. Another very slim window of opportunity exists between Mil. Tradition and Nationalism (unfortunately for me, that has been the time period where the AI has caught and passed me in both my post-patch games).

However, my main concern remains immersion (nod to Analyst Redux for setting forth this problem better than I did). The "human vs. united AI" feeling is a problem for me, and I'd bet a lot of other civers. As a matter of fact, one of the things I liked best about pre-1.17 Civ III was that it didn't give me that feeling, unlike Civ II. The other main thing I liked was the balance between warmongering and peaceful building (although warmongering remained very successful, and resulted in a higher score, the balance was pretty good). Challenging gameplay is important, and changing the AI tech trading was an attempt to increase the challenge. At the end of the day, however, immersion is more important than challenge. Why? Because one can always come up with personal challenges (score, OCC, launch date, combinations of the foregoing broken down by map size and type, etc.). After all, no matter what is done to help the AI, humans will figure out how to beat it.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:13   #97
belchingjester
Chieftain
 
belchingjester's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 51
Good display screens...
Many people have asked for a good "summary display" screen for everything that happens in between human turns. I think that would improve the flow immeasurably. I liked the screen SMAC had for messages - obviously this type of message collection would fit into the Civ3 GUI much differently.

This would avoid the check-every-turn tedium that now happens during tight periods.

Perhaps there could even be options for what types of messages one would like to see? I really liked the wealth of "display this message" checkboxes in Civ2 and SMAC compared to Civ3's options. Perhaps this is an "advanced menu" type of thing.

-belchingjester

Last edited by belchingjester; February 25, 2002 at 13:44.
belchingjester is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:18   #98
Random Passerby
Warlord
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 187
I see the people who are most strongly against the aggressive tech trading tend to have two traits in common:

1. They eschew any and all research.
2. They complain that they can't get any tech lead.

This is, of course, over-generalizing the issue, but still I find that well-planned research and tax distribution can keep you competitive at least on Regent and Monarch, and probably even higher if you're cutthroat enough. More importantly, it keeps everyone ELSE competitive. In my average game of 1.16f on the middle difficulties, the game's outcome would be set in stone by the early industrial age. In 1.17f, tech leads are shakier and comebacks are easier for both AI AND human civs.
Random Passerby is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 13:40   #99
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
Quote:
Originally posted by Random Passerby
I see the people who are most strongly against the aggressive tech trading tend to have two traits in common:

1. They eschew any and all research.
2. They complain that they can't get any tech lead.
Having read this thread, I disagree. #1 is wrong. In fact, the people who are complaining (myself included) are those who concentrate on research, in an attempt to out-research the AI. #2 is partially correct. The complaint isn't about getting a tech lead, it's that it is darn near impossible to hold it - even if you have a large, prosperous civ with all sorts of Wonders.

Yes, it is possible on Monarch (I will not speak to higher levels which I do not play) to gain a tech lead. Holding it is very difficult, no matter how big, rich, and wonderous your civ is. This is due to tech devaluation, coupled with the current incarnation of AI tech trading.

Look, I don't want it to go back to 1.16, where the game was essentially over at the start of the industrial age. I think Soren and the gang were on the right track with 1.17, but have overdone it.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 14:07   #100
Random Passerby
Warlord
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 187
I wasn't actually particularly serious about that... it just struck me as humorous the way those two propositions were being brought up by a couple people.

I still don't see any problem though. As per my usual luck, I usually end up stranded on some crappy island and end up with a small but densely settled and highly developed territory. With a little work, I can maintain only a very small tech lead, which seems about right to me. That even very large empires can only maintain a couple techs' lead, even late in the game when everyone else is foundering, also seems about right; I was never a big fan of how huge empires automatically equated to utter domination (OK, so with corruption this isn't necessarily true, but empires two to three times the size of the "average" civilization are still often small enough that they get considerable benefit from their added bulk).

In general, I think that the only real problem here is the pace of advance now... before, even with a laid-back game you'd often end up reaching new eras a couple centuries before the real-world benchmark, but now things are just silly. A generally slower but still mostly aggresively-traded tech race would probably be in order.
Random Passerby is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 14:33   #101
JeffNebraska
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3
Just to sum up again, it's not that it's impossible to have a good game, it's just that the ride up the science tree is simply not part of it anymore. The devaluing of the techs has made it impossible to do anything but scamper up the the tree at virtually the same pace as everyone else.

Think of it this way Soren, wouldn't it be less fun if every nation automatically got each tech on the same date (e.g., Alphabet at 3200 BC, Military Trad. at 800 AD). You'd agree that would REMOVE the science race from the game. The 1.17 system is inches away from that reality.

With a little work, that ain't much fun, all the nations are just about the same at all times.
JeffNebraska is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 15:10   #102
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
FACT I:
If you don't have much better economy then AI, trading techs to everybody is a good way to go. That way, you can discover next tech quicker by moving sliders to 80, 90%.
In fact, it's the only way to actuelly keep science lead, if having worse economy then some AIs.

I know from expirience (try playing builder type game on emperor)


FACT II:
If you have MUCH better econmy then AIs, then not-trading techs could be usefull.

Unfortunately having SUPER-ECONOMY might is not realy possibile in Civ3.

Why?
Ask Soren about corruption model.


FACT III:
In real world, most tech backward contries don't have 5% of USA GNP, so making real world vs Civ3 comparations is not OK.
In civ3 gold&science differences are much lower.

FACT IV:
AI knows FACTS I & II.

FACT III is irrelevant to AI.

When some AI trades tech, it befefits him most (read FACT I), not other AIs which get free tech.

So don't complain if AIs are plating best way they can.
player1 is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 15:12   #103
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
I think I'd like to play a couple of games with the tech rate adjusted (Soren said Firaxis was looking at the tech advancement rate closely) before making a final judgement on the AI tech trading under 1.17f.

Like many posters have pointed out, it is certainly possible to gain a tech lead, it's holding that lead that has become very difficult (ToE really helps, of course, so it's easiest to hold the lead after building it). However, if one had enough time to take advantage of a slim tech lead, it would be worthwhile to attempt to out-research the AI. As it stands now, on Monarch, by the time I have enough knights to think about attacking an enemy, gunpowder has made the rounds. Another very slim window of opportunity exists between Mil. Tradition and Nationalism (unfortunately for me, that has been the time period where the AI has caught and passed me in both my post-patch games).
You have a good point there. I think if the overall tech advancement speed was lowered, then this new aggressive trading may turn out to be just right in terms of being challenging. I've noticed myself that quite often on a huge map, that I'd be in the Industrial Age by the 1600-1700's. The whole timeline seems to be rushed, and the later it gets, the faster it goes. I think the Middle Ages especially should be taking longer than it is.
Willem is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 18:15   #104
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by player1
FACT II:
If you have MUCH better econmy then AIs, then not-trading techs could be usefull.

Unfortunately having SUPER-ECONOMY might is not realy possibile in Civ3.

Why?
Ask Soren about corruption model.
I have had "super-economies" on Emperor level in one of my recent 1.17f games. I was popping out tanks every turn, about 500 gold per turn. No other civs even had infantry yet. I quit that game and counted it as a win. So it is possible.

(I certainly don't do this every game, but it is possible!)
Zachriel is offline  
Old February 25, 2002, 20:03   #105
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel


I have had "super-economies" on Emperor level in one of my recent 1.17f games. I was popping out tanks every turn, about 500 gold per turn. No other civs even had infantry yet. I quit that game and counted it as a win. So it is possible.

(I certainly don't do this every game, but it is possible!)
Great, so real TECH lead is possbile.
And since you had so HIGH income&science you really didn't need to do any tech-sells (at the end).

Great!



P.S.
Post a save.
player1 is offline  
Old February 26, 2002, 13:28   #106
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
Of course a tech lead is possible, it's just very difficult to hold on to. I would like to see a saved game of that particular example, because having Tanks before the AI has infantry on Emperor level is pretty impressive.

Zachriel - how did you play that game? Did you go a-conquering early and often, or did you play more of a builder style? I'm curious, because it's my opinion that 1.17f encourages warmongering over building.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old March 6, 2002, 17:58   #107
exeter0
Warlord
 
Local Time: 06:51
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 118
It is possible but not very enjoyable.. and requires a very linear strategy.

I see that with 1.17f you rarely see the AI's engage in hostilities with each other... only the human player... at one point one AI civ (Babylonians) went to war with me and lo and behold it had an aggression pack with EVERY other civ... none of the other CIV's would even acknowledge my envoy.

Even the French whom previously had been polite with me and were very appreciative of the free gestures of Furs, Gems, Silk, Construction and Territory Map I hade given them over the last 20 turns.

If the game is balanced how did the French turn on me like that. (The Babylonians culture was 10-20% greater than mine.. would that make such a difference?)

I agree with those posters who suggest there needs to be minimum value on a tech to be traded. An individual CIV should value and protect a new found tech.

If the US developed the Warp Drive this year.. do you think that they would be trading it with any other nation the following year? Absolutely not.. not until they had developed and iplemented the techology themselves to ensure that by the time they sold it... they were already decades ahead. Not so in CIV.

I believe that 1.17f is a very quick fix way to increase the competitiveness of the AI... but it is scewed and is against the spirit of the game. It turns commerce and science into a liquidation sale... even though the game has 7 out of 12 profitable and thriving CIVs.

Of course I could adapt and develop strategies to beat it..I couldn;t be bothered. When you invest 30+ hrs in a game... you get tired of having to go back to the beginning and implement a new streategy or CIVEDIT custimisation... you start again and another game balance issue and... back to the beginning.
__________________
------------------------------------
Cheers
Exeter.
-------------------------------------

Last edited by exeter0; March 6, 2002 at 18:05.
exeter0 is offline  
Old March 6, 2002, 19:02   #108
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Of course a tech lead is possible, it's just very difficult to hold on to. I would like to see a saved game of that particular example, because having Tanks before the AI has infantry on Emperor level is pretty impressive.

Zachriel - how did you play that game? Did you go a-conquering early and often, or did you play more of a builder style? I'm curious, because it's my opinion that 1.17f encourages warmongering over building.

-Arrian
I usually have at least one war in the ancient era to soften up the neighbors. Then I build. Once the world is full, then the trouble starts, as the AI starts looking for opportunities to expand.

I often play defense, and keep building my technology and infrastructure. Most of the time, my riflemen and cannon can chew up enemy attacks with little loss. The AI just wastes its resources in futile wars of aggression. I attack only when it is of benefit to my people, and when the technical means are at hand.
Zachriel is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 11:44   #109
jabroni154
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 23
I have to concur with a vote towards the feeling of a me vs. the world flashback to Civ 1-2 with the new patch. I've played about 3-4 games (only two all the way through) and although I like the new changes to the workers/etc., the AI trading just seems waay to overpowered.

The games I have played have been on Warlord/Regent so I'm not playing on the higher difficulties. The classic example that I had came from the game I won as the Germans. The Greeks were cordoned off on the continent with myself and the Americans, about 4-5 cities remaining. War breaks out with America declaring war on the Greeks. I join in and get a force ready to go. A caravel makes its way up to a city and lands. The Greeks at this point had absolutely nothing (and I mean nothing) because I had been watching them fairly closely, spending everything they had on their military.

Long story short, the turn before my caravel lands, Americans make peace. My troops land and see hoplites. No problem, next turn, musketeers, WTF? Damn, they were at least 2 techs back before the war started. Oh well, higher casualties, charge the knight, lose, keep the pikeman. Next turn, they have Rifleman. WTF!!!! Pure BS there how they could have pulled that off. They were in the poor house and magically went from sub-gunpowder tech to getting Nationalism. In my mind, there was no real way such things could occur without a drastically over-powered world map as the Greeks had nothing of value to trade (I'd taken the extra resources away by pillaging and such) leaving only the world map to trade for value as they had no real gold source. Plus, this was on Warlord no less. Craptastic if you ask me.

I much preferred the pre-patch non-me vs. the world. The sentiments in the thread reflect pretty much what I have felt.

I would be a firm supporter of certain techs having a minimum value or even receiving an extra boost in terms of value. For example, any tech providing a better defender should get a huge increase in value. Perhaps the editor could include an option to have a factor for tech worth (something factored in besides the raw scientific output). It would seem to be a fairly easy change and for the stock Civ game, it could simply be 1 (i.e. no effect). It wouldn't seem to be too bad to put in but may be fairly tricky to balance. Certain techs should just be worth more and AIs should try to hang on to techs a bit longer to milk them for a little bit. Heck, I don't even mind if the AI globally checks to see what everybody has (in the omnipotent sort of way) to see how close other people are to see if it should be sold.

Also, put me down for supporting a minimum cost for a tech. Perhaps a minimum cost of 30-50% or so preventing the backward civs from leaping through too many techs too fast.
jabroni154 is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 01:50   #110
Txurce
Prince
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Santa Monica CA USA
Posts: 457
I agree that with 1.17f on Monarch, it is very difficult to build and hold a meaningful tech lead. At the same time, I've just won two space race games in a row with the new patch, and wasn't even remotely close to being a superpower. In addition, I rarely get to build a science wonder... maybe because I rarely get leaders.

My strategy is to expand as much as possible at first - sometimes this is very little - and then build infrastructure, Civ2 style. I only declared war in my last two games against the superpower, because I needed resources. The military end is made easy because the AI is almost helpless against a mobile rush and mobile defense. But even with the new patch, I hung close in the tech race, researching the expensive techs (which the AI tends not to do first) and then trading them. In the end in both games, I overtook the AI because I was more focused, researched the spaceship techs in the optimal order, and had the last one pre-built as I finished researching the last tech.

Again, this is not as much fun as 1.16. But you can win a tech race with 1.17, and do so with relatively few of the traditional aids.
Txurce is offline  
Old April 8, 2002, 06:57   #111
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
hi ,



okay , just in , .....;

we have tested this with a whole group , tech trading , the AI , seems to now more the we , ........ahem , like that was news , ..;

in 92 games , 1.17 the comp seems to trade techs for next to nothing , in half the games all civs started with no techs , result , one civ gets a tech and gives it away , lol , also it seems that the comp in 1/3 of the games is doing this ; everyone is reasearching a different tech , thus after x turns they have 15 different tech (if ya play with 16) and you only 1 , is life just not great , .....
in civ3 ?!!


have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old April 8, 2002, 14:49   #112
dojoboy
Mac
Prince
 
dojoboy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tansi (USA)
Posts: 519
Sincere Question
Why are you (general public) still playing 1.17? Also, I'm not reading much about UUs under the 1.17 tech trading system. I found this to be the most discouraging side-effect (edit: lose advantages quickly). I enjoy, sometimes, rushing the opponent early w/ impis, etc. Curious.
__________________
"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong. It's always right and never wrong,.....that's what I learned in school."
--- Tom Paxton song ('63)
dojoboy is offline  
Old April 8, 2002, 16:21   #113
IthacaMike
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by jabroni154
Long story short, the turn before my caravel lands, Americans make peace. My troops land and see hoplites. No problem, next turn, musketeers, WTF? Damn, they were at least 2 techs back before the war started. Oh well, higher casualties, charge the knight, lose, keep the pikeman. Next turn, they have Rifleman. WTF!!!! Pure BS there how they could have pulled that off. They were in the poor house and magically went from sub-gunpowder tech to getting Nationalism. In my mind, there was no real way such things could occur without a drastically over-powered world map as the Greeks had nothing of value to trade (I'd taken the extra resources away by pillaging and such) leaving only the world map to trade for value as they had no real gold source. Plus, this was on Warlord no less. Craptastic if you ask me.
Been there done that.

I was playing Babylon and found myself in a two front war with Greece and Germany. I managed to induce the Americans and Egypt to come in against Greece. The problem was that Greece was tiny and backwards. I sold Gunpowder to everyone I could and then _gave_ it to Egypt. I also gave them Horses and Iron. It was good to watch Alexander bleed as he slowly ground Egypt under. It gave me enough time to finish with the Germans and redeploy.

Maybe the AI did the same to you?

Mike G
IthacaMike is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:51.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team