AI quit studying???

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I just had a *VERY* weird game. (Standard size, continental map, 7
AI's, Regent)

Things were going normally up through about nationalism. If anything,
I was slightly behind on tech. I had the largest empire but not by
any great stretch. I switched to Democracy as soon as I discovered it
and I never changed after that.

Twice people tried to pick fights with me. In each case they took one
city of little importance (although I later hated it when I learned
one of those cities had oil--something I only got later by conquest.)
and I went and bribed everyone else in the world to go to war with
them--at which point they left me alone.

I got no oil. Going into the 4th era I decided I had to remedy this
situation even though it meant attacking with infantry. Fortunately,
the oil was only two cities across the French border. I took 5 French
cities and the Greeks took one. I made peace, the Greeks took one
more.

I returned to peaceful development and noticed that while the French
had infantry in our war nobody else in the world did.

I went for computers to get mech inf and then decided that since
nobody else had tanks I could take a breather--I went for genetics and
robotics. Still no threats in the world. I get Modern Armor and
start building up a strike force. Still no threats.

I decide it's time to use my army. France is on the end of an arm
with no other connection to the rest of the world, it makes them a
good first target.

No radar towers. My MA makes quick work of the infantry defending the
cities. *NO* losses on my part, it's all over in 4 turns. It would
have been 3 except he had no railroads. (No iron.) Ok, an easy
victory but I wasn't too surprised.

Note that at this point I have only half a dozen techs left to study.
Nobody else has infantry or tanks.

At this point my neighbors are Korea and Greece. Korea looks weaker,
I decide to stomp on them a bit. I take half of their empire and then
demand some techs (I skipped over some) and a city for peace. This
battle was even easier--MA vs riflemen.

Now, Carthage tries some extortion for some insane reason. I tell
them no way and they actually declare war. I give Korea a tech for
ROP (Carthage was on the other side of them.) and go munch on
Carthage. 4 turns later I let the Incas take out the last of them.
This time they had a few infantry, mostly riflemen.

I'm busy cleaning up things for a while, when the 20 turns are up I
cancel the ROP with Korea and then take them out in a single turn.
Still only riflemen.

Greece was my next target, they actually were doing a bit of studying.
I faced about 1 TOW infantry per city, the remainder a mix of infantry
and riflemen. That's not enough to stop 4xMA armies. Two turns and
there are no more greeks.

Persia took 4 turns to take out the main part of their empire, that
only because their cities were farther apart than normal for some
reason. Only my armies could attack on the turn they entered his
empire. Here I found few riflemen, even--most of the defenders were
pikemen. (Note: No saltpeter there.)

I couldn't get to the last Persian city so I left it be and started in
on the Inca. 3 turns, no Inca. I actually lost a MA against the last
city.

That's where it stands now. I've just about conquered the world for
the total losses of 1 MA and yet we were neck-and-neck going into the
industrial era.

Note, also, that I've found only about 3 factories in the whole world
other than my own.

Nobody had large armies, everybody had zero gold--my whole campaign
didn't get a single gold piece. Where in the hell did all their money
go??? It didn't go into science, it didn't go into armies, it didn't
go into improvements. I built every wonder of the industrial era and
on.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dnf8619mdhlqvrrpsrdnvnqp0e96gka252@4ax.com...
> I just had a *VERY* weird game. (Standard size, continental map, 7
> AI's, Regent)
>
> Things were going normally up through about nationalism. If anything,
> I was slightly behind on tech. I had the largest empire but not by
> any great stretch. I switched to Democracy as soon as I discovered it
> and I never changed after that.
>
> Twice people tried to pick fights with me. In each case they took one
> city of little importance (although I later hated it when I learned
> one of those cities had oil--something I only got later by conquest.)
> and I went and bribed everyone else in the world to go to war with
> them--at which point they left me alone.
>
> I got no oil. Going into the 4th era I decided I had to remedy this
> situation even though it meant attacking with infantry. Fortunately,
> the oil was only two cities across the French border. I took 5 French
> cities and the Greeks took one. I made peace, the Greeks took one
> more.
>
> I returned to peaceful development and noticed that while the French
> had infantry in our war nobody else in the world did.
>
> I went for computers to get mech inf and then decided that since
> nobody else had tanks I could take a breather--I went for genetics and
> robotics. Still no threats in the world. I get Modern Armor and
> start building up a strike force. Still no threats.
>
> I decide it's time to use my army. France is on the end of an arm
> with no other connection to the rest of the world, it makes them a
> good first target.
>
> No radar towers. My MA makes quick work of the infantry defending the
> cities. *NO* losses on my part, it's all over in 4 turns. It would
> have been 3 except he had no railroads. (No iron.) Ok, an easy
> victory but I wasn't too surprised.
>
> Note that at this point I have only half a dozen techs left to study.
> Nobody else has infantry or tanks.
>
> At this point my neighbors are Korea and Greece. Korea looks weaker,
> I decide to stomp on them a bit. I take half of their empire and then
> demand some techs (I skipped over some) and a city for peace. This
> battle was even easier--MA vs riflemen.
>
> Now, Carthage tries some extortion for some insane reason. I tell
> them no way and they actually declare war. I give Korea a tech for
> ROP (Carthage was on the other side of them.) and go munch on
> Carthage. 4 turns later I let the Incas take out the last of them.
> This time they had a few infantry, mostly riflemen.
>
> I'm busy cleaning up things for a while, when the 20 turns are up I
> cancel the ROP with Korea and then take them out in a single turn.
> Still only riflemen.
>
> Greece was my next target, they actually were doing a bit of studying.
> I faced about 1 TOW infantry per city, the remainder a mix of infantry
> and riflemen. That's not enough to stop 4xMA armies. Two turns and
> there are no more greeks.
>
> Persia took 4 turns to take out the main part of their empire, that
> only because their cities were farther apart than normal for some
> reason. Only my armies could attack on the turn they entered his
> empire. Here I found few riflemen, even--most of the defenders were
> pikemen. (Note: No saltpeter there.)
>
> I couldn't get to the last Persian city so I left it be and started in
> on the Inca. 3 turns, no Inca. I actually lost a MA against the last
> city.
>
> That's where it stands now. I've just about conquered the world for
> the total losses of 1 MA and yet we were neck-and-neck going into the
> industrial era.
>
> Note, also, that I've found only about 3 factories in the whole world
> other than my own.
>
> Nobody had large armies, everybody had zero gold--my whole campaign
> didn't get a single gold piece. Where in the hell did all their money
> go??? It didn't go into science, it didn't go into armies, it didn't
> go into improvements. I built every wonder of the industrial era and
> on.

Are they giving you the gold for techs?
They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with each
other...
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Tzar Sasha <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with each
> other...

That's a zero-sum game.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I assume this is Conquests, right?

In that case what happens when AI hits the 3rd era is this:

AI loves Nationalism so it reseraches it first.

Then AI loves techs allowing govts more than anything else, so it
researches both Communism & Fascism

Mean time human had picked other techs, and catches up and then
surpasses the AI. Even on a much higher level.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:04:56 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
<tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Are they giving you the gold for techs?
>They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with each
>other...

I'm not selling them anything, I like my tech lead. If they were
trading amongst themselves the gold wouldn't be disappearing.


Incidently, followup on this. I finished off Persia, leaving only the
Byzantines (the weakest of my opponents). They feel they are my
scientific equals, yet they are two techs shy of finishing the
industrial era and I'm on future tech 6. They also demanded oil,
although they didn't go to war when I wouldn't pay up.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2005 10:03:14 -0700, joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

>I assume this is Conquests, right?
>
>In that case what happens when AI hits the 3rd era is this:
>
>AI loves Nationalism so it reseraches it first.
>
>Then AI loves techs allowing govts more than anything else, so it
>researches both Communism & Fascism
>
>Mean time human had picked other techs, and catches up and then
>surpasses the AI. Even on a much higher level.

Except just about everyone was a Democracy before I took them down.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

AI reserach techs allowing govts even with no plans to switch to them
at all.
The exact opposite of human behavior which is any tech containing a
govt I'm not planning on switching too is worthless.

For that matter, the AI makes no long range decisions at all.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Putting civs between you as buffers doesn't really work with the AI.

The AI will just march thru that buffering civ towards the city of
yours it wants, often at full speed thorugh that other civs territory
since the AI loves RoPs.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 11:40:06 -0700, joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

>AI reserach techs allowing govts even with no plans to switch to them
>at all.
>The exact opposite of human behavior which is any tech containing a
>govt I'm not planning on switching too is worthless.
>
>For that matter, the AI makes no long range decisions at all.

That's not the answer.

We entered the industrial era about neck and neck. After that point,
AI research basically stopped. I went to the top of the tree and only
one AI ever entered the modern era.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 11:40:06 -0700, joncnunn@yahoo.com <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> AI reserach techs allowing govts even with no plans to switch to them
> at all.
> The exact opposite of human behavior which is any tech containing a
> govt I'm not planning on switching too is worthless.
>
> For that matter, the AI makes no long range decisions at all.

The AI doesn't have a sense of gratitude, either. I've got a situation
where Babylon is right to the south-east of me, and they're on their third
incursion ("get out" "OK") into my territory. There's nobody they're
going through me to get to, so obviously they're going to strike.
My solution was a novel one, I think... There's a natural easy to defend
4-wide natural boundry, and I have 4 or 5 cities on the wrong side of it.
I withdrew my troops, sold off all the improvements (temple, library, and
courthouse for the most part), and then - gave each of the 5 cities to
a different culture, not the Babylonians.

My thinking is that Babylonia would have to attack one of them, to attack
me. As they weren't at war with anyone, I think it's bought me some
time to ramp up my troops levels (which I've been neglecting because I've
been trying to secure my cultural borders).

So anyway. Two of these countries, had workers of mine next to the cities
that I -JUST- gave them. And both of the leaders got pissy about them
being there. So, the AI doesn't have a memory for that, it seems. Not sure
how or if that can be useful information to anyone, but I thought I'd mention
it.

A question about my "give away to many people" strategy here. My thinking
is that (a) they're all my people, so they may flip back by themselves
or at least not grumble when I re-capture the cities later, (b) having
the cities owned by not the enemy is always useful, and (c) they'd have
to declare war on two countries rather than just one if they want at me.
Does that make sense, or did I just do something foolish?

For what it's worth, this is vanilla Civ3, at next-to-highest difficulty
level.

Dave Hinz
 

wintermute

Distinguished
Apr 20, 2004
12
0
18,510
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 18:57:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On 20 Apr 2005 11:40:06 -0700, joncnunn@yahoo.com <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> AI reserach techs allowing govts even with no plans to switch to them
>> at all.
>> The exact opposite of human behavior which is any tech containing a
>> govt I'm not planning on switching too is worthless.
>>
>> For that matter, the AI makes no long range decisions at all.
>
>The AI doesn't have a sense of gratitude, either. I've got a situation
>where Babylon is right to the south-east of me, and they're on their third
>incursion ("get out" "OK") into my territory. There's nobody they're
>going through me to get to, so obviously they're going to strike.
>My solution was a novel one, I think... There's a natural easy to defend
>4-wide natural boundry, and I have 4 or 5 cities on the wrong side of it.
>I withdrew my troops, sold off all the improvements (temple, library, and
>courthouse for the most part), and then - gave each of the 5 cities to
>a different culture, not the Babylonians.
>

One thing to try is to wall off the 4-wide boundary with troops and
see if that stops the incursions. If it does, they're trying to get
through you, not to you. The AI knows where all your troops are even
if it can't see them, and if it's path is blocked it won't try to go
that way.

>My thinking is that Babylonia would have to attack one of them, to attack
>me. As they weren't at war with anyone, I think it's bought me some
>time to ramp up my troops levels (which I've been neglecting because I've
>been trying to secure my cultural borders).
>
>So anyway. Two of these countries, had workers of mine next to the cities
>that I -JUST- gave them. And both of the leaders got pissy about them
>being there. So, the AI doesn't have a memory for that, it seems. Not sure
>how or if that can be useful information to anyone, but I thought I'd mention
>it.
>
>A question about my "give away to many people" strategy here. My thinking
>is that (a) they're all my people, so they may flip back by themselves
>or at least not grumble when I re-capture the cities later,

Well, your citizens will convert to their nationality over time, but
you will get the culture you built up, if any, back when you retake
the city, and that will certainly help with the grumbling. Not sure
how long it takes for citizens to convert nationalities, but it does
take awhile. And they may need a majority of their own citizens in
the city for it to happen. Also, if your overall culture is much
greater than whoever you gave the cities to, the chance for the city
to flip back is much better.

>(b) having the cities owned by not the enemy is always useful, and

I reckon, but owned by me seems more useful. :)

>(c) they'd have to declare war on two countries rather than just one if they want at me.

Not necessarily. They could get ROPs with the other countries and get
to you just as easily if there's rails.

>Does that make sense, or did I just do something foolish?
>

Five cities seems like alot to just give away to me. How many cities
did you have total?

>For what it's worth, this is vanilla Civ3, at next-to-highest difficulty
>level.
>
>Dave Hinz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:17:48 GMT, Wintermute <Wintermute@cyberspace.net> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2005 18:57:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>My solution was a novel one, I think... There's a natural easy to defend
>>4-wide natural boundry, and I have 4 or 5 cities on the wrong side of it.
>>I withdrew my troops, sold off all the improvements (temple, library, and
>>courthouse for the most part), and then - gave each of the 5 cities to
>>a different culture, not the Babylonians.
>
> One thing to try is to wall off the 4-wide boundary with troops and
> see if that stops the incursions. If it does, they're trying to get
> through you, not to you. The AI knows where all your troops are even
> if it can't see them, and if it's path is blocked it won't try to go
> that way.

Right, that's where I retreated to. I _just_ traded for steam power,
so I am just starting to build a rail network, but it'll be 3-5 turns
before that's done enough to get instant movement.

>>A question about my "give away to many people" strategy here. My thinking
>>is that (a) they're all my people, so they may flip back by themselves
>>or at least not grumble when I re-capture the cities later,
>
> Well, your citizens will convert to their nationality over time, but
> you will get the culture you built up, if any, back when you retake
> the city, and that will certainly help with the grumbling. Not sure
> how long it takes for citizens to convert nationalities, but it does
> take awhile. And they may need a majority of their own citizens in
> the city for it to happen. Also, if your overall culture is much
> greater than whoever you gave the cities to, the chance for the city
> to flip back is much better.

I'll report if anything interesting or unexpected happens.

>>(b) having the cities owned by not the enemy is always useful, and
>
> I reckon, but owned by me seems more useful. :)

Well, they were surrounded by stacks of little red guys,
repeatedly. Keeping them was suddenly not an option (note lack of
rail).

>>(c) they'd have to declare war on two countries rather than just one if they want at me.
>
> Not necessarily. They could get ROPs with the other countries and get
> to you just as easily if there's rails.

Good point. Next time pillage the roads on the way out :)

>>Does that make sense, or did I just do something foolish?

> Five cities seems like alot to just give away to me. How many cities
> did you have total?

I should know, but I don't. 60 or 70 I'd guess. Huge map.
These are fringe cities that I was pushing the limits with. When
I passed that natural defensable chokepoint, I said "Wow, I should
stop there, but I've already got these settlers and ran out of other
places to expand", so...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

And it's quite obvious why trades of duplicate luxaries / resources is
always a positive sum game:

If not sold, the duplicate luxary / resource provides zero value to all
players.
When sold, the seller gets cash he wouldn't have gotten + the buyer
gets happiness he wouldn't have gotten.

But note that positive sum games doesn't mean there aren't extremely
bad deals that can be made.
You can still overpay for a luxary / resource and undercharge for a
luxary / resource.

Trades involving a techs on both sides of the ledger is also a postive
sum game in Civ III. (Both players advance)
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efid61h9pcmn31glt77alhu4ds0fd2iigo@4ax.com...
> On 20 Apr 2005 11:40:06 -0700, joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >AI reserach techs allowing govts even with no plans to switch to them
> >at all.
> >The exact opposite of human behavior which is any tech containing a
> >govt I'm not planning on switching too is worthless.
> >
> >For that matter, the AI makes no long range decisions at all.
>
> That's not the answer.
>
> We entered the industrial era about neck and neck. After that point,
> AI research basically stopped. I went to the top of the tree and only
> one AI ever entered the modern era.

It may be the answer. AI indeed loves to research that branch steaming
from nationalism. All those technologies result in no new city improvements
except police station, it means that for quite a long time AIs will have to
build extra military units and siphon all their income into newly built
units support costs. Normally W.W.I breaks out around this time, was it the case
in your game? It's a known problem with technologically backward AIs. No matter
how much you invest into those AIs they always remain in 0 gold state, because
they had nothing ele to build than obsolete militarily units and do not want
to disband them. This is common mechanism at regent level or below.

Besides, that love of nationalism branch allows the human to become the leader in
common science, build ToE, and eventually adanvce into Modern Era first.
Typically this situation is common on monarch-emperor level, or deity with the GL.

Again, as the game becomes more completed with increased complexity at later
technological ages, AI becomes less and less competitive and eventually AI
can no longer advance at all. My advice is to go one-two levels of difficulty upward,
since you can conquer the entire world with only one tank lost.
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message news:s19ej2-4d8.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
> Tzar Sasha <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with each
> > other...
>
> That's a zero-sum game.
>
> --
> Daran
>
> The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
> English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
> on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
> unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll

Shame on you, Daran, not as analytical a reply as you've always posted.
Trading luxuries for money is a _positive-sum_ game of course.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:24:36 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>It may be the answer. AI indeed loves to research that branch steaming
>from nationalism. All those technologies result in no new city improvements
>except police station, it means that for quite a long time AIs will have to
>build extra military units and siphon all their income into newly built
>units support costs. Normally W.W.I breaks out around this time, was it the case
>in your game? It's a known problem with technologically backward AIs. No matter
>how much you invest into those AIs they always remain in 0 gold state, because
>they had nothing ele to build than obsolete militarily units and do not want
>to disband them. This is common mechanism at regent level or below.

No wars to speak of, no massive armies. Other than capitals, no more
than 3-4 units per city.

>Again, as the game becomes more completed with increased complexity at later
>technological ages, AI becomes less and less competitive and eventually AI
>can no longer advance at all. My advice is to go one-two levels of difficulty upward,
>since you can conquer the entire world with only one tank lost.

I normally can't do that well--it's just the idiot AI stopped.

I've never survived the earlier part of the game one level up.
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

alex <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:s19ej2-4d8.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
>> Tzar Sasha <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> > They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with
>> > each other...
>>
>> That's a zero-sum game.
>>
>> --
>> Daran
>>
>> The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
>> English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
>> words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to
>> beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. --
>> James D. Nicoll
>
> Shame on you, Daran, not as analytical a reply as you've always posted.

I was in a hurry. :)

> Trading luxuries for money is a _positive-sum_ game of course.

Non-negative anyway. It's positive if the recipient is able to reduce its
luxury rate or put entertainers to useful work. The point I was making was
this wasn't a coherent explanation.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jokf615bh0us93qqihc5m56siq4kjnb0p6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:24:36 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Again, as the game becomes more completed with increased complexity at later
> >technological ages, AI becomes less and less competitive and eventually AI
> >can no longer advance at all. My advice is to go one-two levels of difficulty upward,
> >since you can conquer the entire world with only one tank lost.
>
> I normally can't do that well--it's just the idiot AI stopped.

They did not just stop, it is their usual mode of behaviour, belive me.
You mentioned yourself that one of them even made it to Moderen Era -
so they tried. The truth is that artificial intlligece programming
was always very weak so far, they cannot handle incresed complexity of the
game of civ3 in the end. I mean when all those new possibilities emerge:
mutual protection, airfare, nukes, etc. In general the level of difficulty
effecivly drops one level down with arrival of each of the four new
technological Eras.

> I've never survived the earlier part of the game one level up.

Early survival is a serious problem indeed. I tried to explain that early
AI is the most competitive AI, because whatever they invest in just pays off.
One way to survive early times is to be extra nice to your neighbors, always
pay the tribute (I know, it's irritating, but the sweeter is the eventual
payoff), sign ROP with everyone and trade a lot. Just give it a try - and
get an impressive endspiel.
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message news:atrkj2-rk3.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
> alex <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:s19ej2-4d8.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
> >> Tzar Sasha <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > They could also have been trading resources and luxuries for gold with
> >> > each other...
> >>
> >> That's a zero-sum game.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daran
> >>
> >> The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
> >> English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
> >> words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to
> >> beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. --
> >> James D. Nicoll
> >
> > Shame on you, Daran, not as analytical a reply as you've always posted.
>
> I was in a hurry. :)
>
> > Trading luxuries for money is a _positive-sum_ game of course.
>
> Non-negative anyway. It's positive if the recipient is able to reduce its
> luxury rate or put entertainers to useful work. The point I was making was
> this wasn't a coherent explanation.

Me was in a hurry too, I apologize for making my post to appear unduly harsh.
Your point was indeed a valid one, I just could not resist. Sorry.
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

alex <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Me was in a hurry too, I apologize for making my post to appear unduly
> harsh. Your point was indeed a valid one, I just could not resist. Sorry.

It didn't seem harsh; I took it as tongue-in-cheek. No offense taken.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

> And it's quite obvious why trades of duplicate luxaries / resources is
> always a positive sum game:
>
> If not sold, the duplicate luxary / resource provides zero value to all
> players.
> When sold, the seller gets cash he wouldn't have gotten + the buyer gets
> happiness he wouldn't have gotten.

In fact, all cash transactions are zero-sum. The only net benefit is that
enjoyed by the civ receiving the luxury.

There is one possible scenario in which a luxury trade could be of negative
value, and that is where a civ's last luxury of particular type is traded
away. Only the human player can do this voluntarily, but it can happen to
AI's who lose some of their resources during the duration of the trade.
(This happened to the Vikings during my current game. They traded furs to
me, but had some of them pillaged in a war. The trade with me went the
distance, but when I tried to renew, they had none extra.)

In this case the deal will be negative-sum if the recieving civ gains a
smaller marginal benefit than is lost by the originating civ.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:03:50 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>> I normally can't do that well--it's just the idiot AI stopped.
>
>They did not just stop, it is their usual mode of behaviour, belive me.
>You mentioned yourself that one of them even made it to Moderen Era -
>so they tried. The truth is that artificial intlligece programming
>was always very weak so far, they cannot handle incresed complexity of the
>game of civ3 in the end. I mean when all those new possibilities emerge:
>mutual protection, airfare, nukes, etc. In general the level of difficulty
>effecivly drops one level down with arrival of each of the four new
>technological Eras.

I've never had it happen so dramatically before.

The game I'm playing now there are some nations that have fallen by
the waysize. Japan, for example, didn't have Iron for a long time.
When I smashed the Aztecs they managed to slip a colony onto what had
been an Aztec square, but I soon cultured it and they lost their iron
again. Then they declared war on me for trying to plant a spy--soon
they were no more. However, the Iroquois have more MA than I do.

>> I've never survived the earlier part of the game one level up.
>
>Early survival is a serious problem indeed. I tried to explain that early
>AI is the most competitive AI, because whatever they invest in just pays off.
>One way to survive early times is to be extra nice to your neighbors, always
>pay the tribute (I know, it's irritating, but the sweeter is the eventual
>payoff), sign ROP with everyone and trade a lot. Just give it a try - and
>get an impressive endspiel.

I normally pay tribute when asked anyway--it's cheaper than going to
war.