 |
|
Brent
|
|
I vote Scenario Editing, not so much because of any specific way to improve it (I am very satisfied with the C3 editor), but because it's what I care about the most. One specific way to improve it would be AI to analyze the scenario you've made.
Things you didn't list: Quantity of premade scenarios. Quantity of premade civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I have to agree with Master Zen, the AI completely stinks. It can go up against even a fairly green player on even terms so long as the green player can defend themselves.
While the Civ III AI is a bit better at defending itself, the AI still isn't that great.
Of course the biggest change the AI could use is in the concentration of force and proper use of transports for an invasion (as Master Zen touched on). If it could just manage to attack correctly and with numbers, then it would be a more fearsome opponent. As it is now, the difficulty system completely relies on cheats, and everyone knows the no-cheat difficulty level is a joke. I'd like to see this changed.
As for comments about it being too difficult to program the AI, bah, I say. The AI can already find targets to go after, so how much harder would it be to teach it to wait until it has a sufficient force gathered before it attacks? The same goes with the transport issue. That alone is a massive issue.
Worker useage really stinks too, and part of that is because it is a bit unclear what the optimum strategy is to use workers, but the problem isn't insurmountable, the AI could still be improved here. (If I may toot my own horn, then the thread I started a few days ago--my Crazy Idea--would probably aid worker usage. Specialized cities means it is easier to know how to improve them).
I know, and I am sure Master Zen knows, that a perfect AI isn't feasible. Indeed, I am sure that at the higher difficulties there will still be some level of cheating. However, that doesn't mean that you couldn't get rid of the blatantly stupid and harmful things the AI does to itself. Even better, design an AI that will make some stupid and self-hurting decisions at lower difficulties, but these gradually disappear as it gets tougher.
All this would merely require time debugging the AI, finding out what is causing the stupid behavior, and making an algorithm to fix it. Getting rid of really stupid AI behavior that is caused merely by 1 or 2 factors, is not rocket science. I admit the AI would still probably have some stupidities not easily resolved, but I see no reason why most of Zen's list couldn't be fixed.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
better ai with fewer bonuses and cheats. Is it to be in xml as well? I would love to be able to download ai mods that would mimic other players. And I want ai civs to function more differently ala smac. Civ3, they play out similarly, just a bit more or less agressive. I want the civs to feel different. tighter spacing, looser spacing, heavy ag,heavy mine, etc etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Silpy
|
|
The USA's European Colony
Sep 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
I have three main compliants with the AI
1) They don't understand when they have old units. By 2000 AD they usally still have masses of Warriors and Chariots.
2) They don't seem capable of serious naval/air threats. I've never faced an AI with a airforce of more than 3-5 units.
3) They don't seem capable of using artillery.
The AI in Civ II seem better in use of air units than in Civ III!
Do other players come to the same concusions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I vote AI, but the Tech model for me is a very close second.
Research in Civ3 is silly because it's so easy to trade for techs. This means that it's not really important what you research, so long as you have something to trade to the AI at every few turns or so. The decision to research a tech for the abilities/units/etc. it unlocks is typically irrelevant, since you can just trade for that tech when the opportunity arises (and it always does). Ever get the the feeling that the Ancient era just blew by in a couple of turns due to the AIs swapping scientific secrets? And please do not get me started on how you can just go to war if you find yourself lagging behind in tech.
I would like to see a game mechanism that restricts the power of tech trading (including extortion). This would make the whole research part of the game a lot more fun. Any ideas?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's not that simple.
Suppose you find a target. The next question is, how much is a sufficient force? Then, you have to decide whether you have that available. If not, decide whether you want to switch the production of some cities to army units.
It's not like just moving N-K4. |
If the AI cheats and knows what you have in and around the City (as it does currently), then it should be pretty darn easy, now shouldn't it?
Otherwise it should do what any normal player would do, assume a somewhat tough fight against 3-4 units, and build an army large enough to supply 2-4 defenders after you take it, and give at least an 80% chance of victory (against the presumed opponent). Of course, there's no reason why they couldn't use the spy system to find out what's in a city.
As for switching production to military units, that shouldn't be too difficult, though production is another area that needs improvement. It does need some sort of priority queue, but if it doesn't have the troops to take a city, then it shouldn't be attacking (even if it can't figure out how to change its queues). It would be better off holding on to its current force for defensive purposes.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
This is a ridiculous question. I suspect you don't know much about programming. IF that is not the case, then maybe you should take on such an 'easy' task. |
So, you are saying that if the AI knows all the units in a city, then it will not be able to do a simple calculation to find out the sufficient force to achieve an 80% chance of victory (or higher)? That's is what is ridiculous. There mathematics involved are straightforward, and if you somehow think computers can't handle that, then you're just plain wrong.
For instance if 2 of Unit B is sufficent to defeat a fortified unit A in a city 80% of the time, and there are 4 unit A's in that city, then 8 unit Bs will be sufficient to defeat the force in that city 80% of the time (we'll assume the combat is one round, but multiple rounds only change the potential force involved--which can also easily be calculated if the AI assumes the opponent will switch everything to the defense of that city, that is the AI plays it safe).
Are you somehow telling me the computer can't do the combat calculations a few million times in a few seconds? Because you are quite wrong if you think that. I may not be an expert at programming, but I know my bit.
As I said, the switching of production in the AI cities would be a bit tricky (to balance), but it naturally isn't impossible to get a so-so to decent implementation. Heck, even keep the current one, but have it take into account numbers before it attacks. How the heck can you think the AI can't figure out its chances?
-Drachasor
Last edited by Drachasor on 02-07-2004 at 21:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
So, you are saying that if the AI knows all the units in a city, then it will not be able to do a simple calculation to find out the sufficient force to achieve an 80% chance of victory (or higher)? That's is what is ridiculous. There mathematics involved are straightforward, and if you somehow think computers can't handle that, then you're just plain wrong.
For instance if 2 of Unit B is sufficent to defeat a fortified unit A in a city 80% of the time, and there are 4 unit A's in that city, then 8 unit Bs will be sufficient to defeat the force in that city 80% of the time (we'll assume the combat is one round, but multiple rounds only change the potential force involved--which can also easily be calculated if the AI assumes the opponent will switch everything to the defense of that city, that is the AI plays it safe).
Are you somehow telling me the computer can't do the combat calculations a few million times in a few seconds? Because you are quite wrong if you think that. I may not be an expert at programming, but I know my bit.
As I said, the switching of production in the AI cities would be a bit tricky (to balance), but it naturally isn't impossible to get a so-so to decent implementation. Heck, even keep the current one, but have it take into account numbers before it attacks. How the heck can you think the AI can't figure out its chances?
-Drachasor |
Look, as has already been stated by several people, there are many, many more factors than what you are suggesting. Just for starters, what if amassing this 80% victory chance requires the deployment of all the military units the AI currently has?
There is clearly more to this than a simple combat calculator. IF that were not so, do you honestly believe SOren would not have implemented this ages ago?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I don't know why it hasn't been implemented, but when over the course of 10 or so turns the AI attacks the same city 5 or so times with one unit each time, then something is going wrong.
And yes, there are other factors, and certainly the AI already considers some units as relatively free to move about and others as not very free to move about (the later being city defenders). It seems to me that if the AI finds that it can't attack the city with sufficient force to take it, then it should probably not attack (especially if the attack requires declaring war). If it has decided it should really take that city or that it should go to war with you at some near point, then it should start building units for war. Certainly the AI shouldn't be attacking an city that can heal all of its troops in 1 turn if it doesn't think it can destroy most of the defenders....yet the AI DOES do this. That is something that isn't hard to stop, but could quite possibly dramatically improve the game. Suddenly the AI wouldn't be losing troops for stupid reasons, which means it would build up a sizeable force (for it is not tossing them away like garbage), and then eventually it would attack with that force.
Clearly something is currently a bit off, and it wouldn't be too hard to fix. Now, perhaps the reason why that isn't there is because there ARE a lot of other things to work on in the AI, and so sometimes less complicated details are missed. Afterall, if things can be "balanced" by making the AI cheat to a fantastic degree, then proper unit usage and other things can be ignored. I am merely proposing they aren't ignored to the same extent.
Clearly already the AI has some definition of the minimum number of troops it should have, all it needs now is to consider its war footin a bit more, and devote more resources to a war if it deems that war will be difficult. More complicated than current implementions? Yes, but it isn't impossible. It does require the AI to have some means to consider what city improvements and what cities are more important relative to when it can get an army out. I don't expect a perfect implementation of this, but I think it could be improved quite a bit.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
AI with personality would be good.
I want the manual to have more documentation on the editor and premade scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2004 08:56
). If you have to choose between cute graphics, awesome sound, or a more robust AI please choose the AI always. 
|