The AI gets PO'd because, in theory, you can kick its scrawny AI butt in at will. In reality, though, science plays a big role in whether you're the Big Ape, so to speak. More often than not, I've been "supreme" with less than 60 combat divisions while at least two AI nations have had well over 100 divisions at technological parity (or slightly below).

Other variables go into the equation as well, but, IMHO, science and number of divisions play a big role in whether you're on top or not.

It would be a bizarre game if the supreme power found all the other civs were worshipful!

---------------

in real life powers number 2, 3 and 4 may all hate Number one, but there are usually lesser powers willing to join number 1, since its better to move up to number 4 than remain number 5 or 6, or sink down to 7 or 8. Thus US in cold war and even at its most hegemonic post cold war has had the sympathy to greater or lesser degree of UK, Germany, Israel, Taiwan Kuwait and others. USSR, while striving for hegemony in late '70s had friendship of India, which was more worried about number 3 China. Number 3 (?) France in 1850's and 1860's allied to number 1 Britain, out of opposition to number 2 Russia.

This does not happen in Civ2, for good reason. There is no value placed on coming in number 2, or even surviving if you lose. A loss is a loss is a loss. Only one player can win, so any player, human or AI, attempting to maximize chance of winning, should logically gang up on number 1 once he gets close to winning.

If the real world were a Civ2 game Taiwan would fear US hegemony as much as China does, Israel and Kuwait would fear it as much as Iran and Iraq do.

For a five-year-old game Civ 2 doesn't do that badly. Sure - we all hope for greater things from Civ 3 - but we may have to wait for Civ 30 for accurate cloning of human relationships!

-----------------

SG (2)

You need to have a science advantage to really make it work, though, otheriwse they keep giving you poxy sciences instead, which are not on your research path.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 01-02-2001 01:52 PM in real life powers number 2, 3 and 4 may all hate Number one, but there are usually lesser powers willing to join number 1, since its better to move up to number 4 than remain number 5 or 6, or sink down to 7 or 8. Thus US in cold war and even at its most hegemonic post cold war has had the sympathy to greater or lesser degree of UK, Germany, Israel, Taiwan Kuwait and others. USSR, while striving for hegemony in late '70s had friendship of India, which was more worried about number 3 China. Number 3 (?) France in 1850's and 1860's allied to number 1 Britain, out of opposition to number 2 Russia.

LOL, it is realistic, except in this game you don’t have media propaganda hiding what we all really think of the states, you get the unfiltered and ungarnished truth from your spies and civil servants.

In real life lesser powers are willing to let the big powers buy their friendship! They aren’t sympathetic, they are looking for a leg up as you observe. Teeming up with someone doesn’t mean you adore them, it means you need them or they need you or both (see France and Scotland V England right through the middle ages). Small civs aren’t going to be ‘worshipful’ towards you without a steady supply of gold and tech, just like in the real world. Look at the US’s payments to Chile, Panama, Vietnam (except ideologies aren’t always for sale), Israel, Saudi Arabia… The bigger and the more secure the Civ or the more ideologically different the more it takes to make it happy, see France for details. Their ‘worshipfulness’ is dependant on your supply of wealth not drying up.
Just Because India turned to the Soviet for help doesn’t mean it has soviet sympathies, it means it had a Red China fear.

That said I can agree with your analysis of Civ II diplomacy failings…

quote: Originally posted by johnmcd on 01-04-2001 11:09 AM LOL, it is realistic, except in this game you don’t have media propaganda hiding what we all really think of the states, you get the unfiltered and ungarnished truth from your spies and civil servants. In real life lesser powers are willing to let the big powers buy their friendship! They aren’t sympathetic, they are looking for a leg up as you observe. Teeming up with someone doesn’t mean you adore them, it means you need them or they need you or both (see France and Scotland V England right through the middle ages). Small civs aren’t going to be ‘worshipful’ towards you without a steady supply of gold and tech, just like in the real world. Look at the US’s payments to Chile, Panama, Vietnam (except ideologies aren’t always for sale), Israel, Saudi Arabia… The bigger and the more secure the Civ or the more ideologically different the more it takes to make it happy, see France for details. Their ‘worshipfulness’ is dependant on your supply of wealth not drying up. Just Because India turned to the Soviet for help doesn’t mean it has soviet sympathies, it means it had a Red China fear. That said I can agree with your analysis of Civ II diplomacy failings… SG- I never understood why the filthy Tories and Democrats shouldn’t get on given they are about the same place in the political spectrum, that the Tories prefer the Republicans is sickening. [This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited January 04, 2001).]

i'm sorry if i misled with use of term "sympathy" - i was trying to make a point about balance of power politics.

quote: Originally posted by johnmcd on 01-04-2001 11:09 AM Small civs aren’t going to be ‘worshipful’ towards you without a steady supply of gold and tech, just like in the real world. Look at the US’s payments to Chile, Panama, Vietnam (except ideologies aren’t always for sale), Israel, Saudi Arabia… The bigger and the more secure the Civ or the more ideologically different the more it takes to make it happy, see France for details. Their ‘worshipfulness’ is dependant on your supply of wealth not drying up. Just Because India turned to the Soviet for help doesn’t mean it has soviet sympathies, it means it had a Red China fear. . [This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited January 04, 2001).]

actually US did not make payments to Saudi, Kuwait or other Gulfies. In fact we have tended to pressure them to spend money to support our causes in the middle east (EG giving money to Jordan when it made peace with Israel) During the Gulf war we pressured Japan and South Korea to provide money to pay for the Gulf war. The Saudis, Kuwaits, Koreans and Japanese were not motivated by US subsidies, but by their power interests in the success of the US alliance system. Similarly Taiwan, Israel, Rep of Viet Nam were not "bought" - where else did they have to go? US money was needed to fully leverage these states military resources (like Netherlands subsidies to Sweden in 17thc, or Englands to Prussia in 7yrs war)

Now the US HAS used money to buy friendship - most recently in Egypt, historically during Cold war in Africa, and elsewhere. But this was directed precisely at states whose power interests did NOT make them natural allies of the US, unlike the cases cited above.

In civ i shoud be able to give money to a desperate ally for strategic reasons - and i should be able to buy off a neutral - but when number 5 is about to be destroyed by number 2, he shouldnt threaten war with me because im number 1 and havent given him money.

Imaginary scene
Place Westminster Time 1759
Mr Pitt, we have the Prussian ambassador.
He wants more money.
The Austrians are in Silesia, the Russians are at the gates of Berlin.
Pitt:Tell him we cant send another subsidy now. Tell him our fleet is about to destroy the French. When that is done the French money going to the Austrians and Russians will dry up. And we will be able to free up some money for Prussia - just hold on.
He says that Prussia resents our growing world power. He will remain friends only for money.
Prussia has declared war on us and made peace with France, Austria, and Russia, even though Russia is still in East Prussia and Austria has held on to Silesia.
Pitt: But that makes no sense.
Sorry, Mr Pitt, you wanted realistic diplomacy, you should have bought a different game.