07-07-2004 19:59									#61
	Got spare money?

I would also point out that in that ISDG Firaxis were eliminated exceedingly early. Their programming is only as good as their skill at the game anyone?

	07-07-2004 20:03									#62
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No. It just means: Not every top Civ player is also a great programmer, and vice versa.

	07-07-2004 20:05									#63
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin My comment was kind of more metaphoric. If you choose the AI that performs best against other AIs it will probably mean it is employing tactics that are disliked, unfair, exploits etc. I got fed up with the Civ3:PTW ISDG because it turned into a game of winning through best use of exploits and through cheating than through best skills or tactics. In short I was saying that the winning AI is not necessarily the best choice of AI for a game.

True, but it isn't an unworkable problem. That sounds pretty awful about Civ3:PTW ISDG though.

-Drachasor

	08-07-2004 08:49									#64
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Does anyone have any good reasons to think a whole community couldn't outdo one person?

There is no shortage of people who think they can do better (I may be guilty of this as well... ). Perhaps someone who believes they can do better can apply for a job and go head-to-head with a staff programmer to see who stays.

	08-07-2004 09:18									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 There is no shortage of people who think they can do better (I may be guilty of this as well... ). Perhaps someone who believes they can do better can apply for a job and go head-to-head with a staff programmer to see who stays.

The point is that you don't need *one* person that can do better. Everyone in the community could be worse. The benefit of the community approach is you have an entire pool of people to think about a problem; entire pool of people to be creative about it.; an entire pool of people to watch for errors; an entire pool of people to refine the program. That is what makes it better than one person or a small team. Also, if someone in the community that wasn't part of the original project runs into some issue, then he can relay it to get fixed, or try to fix it himself (for the community AI code would be openly available) and submit the changes.

Open Source is powerful in the long run because of these facts. It starts pretty good, and gets better and better.

-Drachasor

	08-07-2004 09:48									#66
	Got spare money?

I agree that open sourcing is great (and I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the CtP2 project). I'm just afraid that a group effort is only as good as those coordinating the project and making the decisions on what goes and what stays. Also, the larger the group the more chaos that gets introduced into the system. I've seen too many well intentioned projects fall victim to these problems.

	08-07-2004 10:17									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor You aren't that familiar with how open source programming works, are you?

Please, do not display your programming "knowledge" here.

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Or is that you think there'd be basically no one interested in improving cIV's AI? I guess you are saying that CtP II had more programming fans than Civ does? I would inform you all that having a programmable AI would even *attract* programmers from the open source community.

1. Interest != ability and skill
2. Are you saying the CtP 2 AI is better than the one in Civ 3? In what way?
3. No. You need expert players to write better AI routines. Game-specific knowledge such as shortcuts and tricks are important.

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor While I am not diminshing the value of the people at Firaxes, I think you are cutting the cIV community a more than a bit short.

Since it looks like Civ 4 is going to target causal gamers, I do not see how it is going to attract geeks.

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor With all due respect to Firaxas, it isn't like they are experts in the AI field.

Not that you are.

	08-07-2004 10:22									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor The point is that you don't need *one* person that can do better. Everyone in the community could be worse.

That's not how it works.

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor The benefit of the community approach is you have an entire pool of people to think about a problem; entire pool of people to be creative about it.; an entire pool of people to watch for errors; an entire pool of people to refine the program.

OSS has been working so far because somebody in the community is better. esr himself stated that OSS works best for software with a huge user base (e.g. OS) and worst for specialised software (e.g. AI routines for a TBS game).

	08-07-2004 10:39									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by nostromo In other words, you either use ICS, or you lose.

Sorry, I never ICS, and most of the time I win.

	08-07-2004 10:41									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Enigma_Nova It would ROCK to have open-source, editable AI. Then we might have a chance of fighting a real opponent that doesn't take 24 hours to calculate its moves.

I hope they'll come with an open source editor, so that the big mouths here on poly will find out how hard it is to script a good AI.

Most of the wannabe AI-programmers will find out that when the AI finally behaves they want on situation X, the AI will behave really really ackwards in situation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M.....etc...
you get the point

	08-07-2004 12:45									#71
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You're agreeing with me, Cyber?

How dare you!

	08-07-2004 12:56									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger You're agreeing with me, Cyber? How dare you!

Yeah, now you must agree with me on the topic of the Bible, otherwise the standing won't be equal

	08-07-2004 22:22									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I wonder who voted in this poll. Most likely single players. The quest to improve the AI is a lost cause. I say they should better fix the combat and allow us MP players to enjoy the game. The AI, no matter how "good" it is programmed, is prone to flaws in design and hence human exploitation. So, if you want a full gaming experience, you should find a human opponent and try to beat him.

Actually they did a very good job with AI cheating and bonus in production. It's a far, far better way to improve the AI chances than to try and make it smart.

	08-07-2004 22:46									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko I wonder who voted in this poll. Most likely single players.

Most likely, since most of the people who play Civ do so in single player most of the time.

	08-07-2004 23:46									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ehh, I'll agree to disagree for now. I could continue the debate on the community improve the given AI, but it clearly isn't going anywhere, and it won't go anywhere.

We'll see what happens, and if I am wrong, then I'll own up to my error.

-Drachasor

	11-07-2004 01:49									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Here are my AI gripes:

1. The AI should know the whole map at the begining of the game and know the location of all the resources.

2. The AI needs to be able to adapt to changing situations.

3. The AI needs to mass troops effectively

4. The AI needs to be able to use the specialized units like Paratroopers and artillery.

5. The AI should upgrade obsolete units, not leave spearmen untill modern times.

6. The AI shouldn't place cities in stupid spots so much, like putting cities in the middle of a mass of Mts. and hills with only 2 or 3 farmable tiles so it can't grow, or put a city on tile away from the coast and so nut getting the food bonus from harbors on water tiles.

7. The AI should be able to launch huge invasion fleets.

	11-07-2004 02:29									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Silpy 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.

Well honestly I would not really care for this, were it not that those stupid spearman too often still beat my cavalry.

Yesterday I wanted to play a silly easy game on chieftain (kindergarten) level. And the f***ing game time after time beats me up with units less superior then mine.

A bunch of 9 cavalry demolished by 1 single musketman defending a city without taking any damage? get Lost!!!

yes, I know this is not always the case., but the fact that it happens is weird enough. I love the game, but this truly is the thing by far irritating me the most (together with the espionage lottery).

Yes, in real life also a man with a knife can kill a man with a gun, but usually this will be in silent missions, not in open combat. So when a the very same man with gun attacks the knife guy, this should be not an issue anymore.

So I think this part of the game needs the most attention of the developers. The combat system needs far more finetuning and realism.
Some issues:
* Attacking with superior (read "more advanced") units on less superior enemy units should make more chance on success in certain situations. And this of course goes for armies (an army consisting of 3 cavalry destroyed by 1 rifleman? duh...)

In Europe we know a game called "Stratego". Dunno if this is kown on the other side of the ocean, but for those who know: maybe the combat system could use a bit of the relationship between Marshall and spy from stratego.

* Why can bombers not wipe an entire city away? (same goes for artillery and ships). This makes no sense since when you drop enough bombs, everything buns out IRL.

* Same for nukes. Cities of (eg) 5 citizens or less should be blast away. Larger cities should be reduced to half or 1 third of their size.


Lots of examples can be given here, but ya know aht I mean.

Two other issues:
It makes no sense that when you don't attack, the attitude of other civs slowly decreases. Maybe 1 or to leaders should have this attitude, but not all of them. The only way of keping friends now is "buying" them? Of course the attitude could lower, but not further as neutral or something like that. And it especially makes no sense the when having war with 1 civ, through all treaties and mpa's you suddenly are in war with everyone, including civs that are 5 times smaller, which, IRL, would normally think twice before attacking such a large enemy.

Kind regards

	11-07-2004 04:38									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The reason why less superior units do better in CivIII more often than in Civ II is that there are fewer hitpoints. That means random chance allows the inferior opponent to win more often. More hitpoints makes the battle results closer to average. (Deviations tend not to be enough to kill a unit).

-Drachasor

	11-07-2004 08:22									#79
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor The reason why less superior units do better in CivIII more often than in Civ II is that there are fewer hitpoints. That means random chance allows the inferior opponent to win more often. More hitpoints makes the battle results closer to average. (Deviations tend not to be enough to kill a unit).

Which is why I like modifying the usual 3/4/5 hitpoints on the units to something like 3/6/9. Its been a while since I experimented with that but it works nicely.

	12-07-2004 12:15									#80
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 Which is why I like modifying the usual 3/4/5 hitpoints on the units to something like 3/6/9. Its been a while since I experimented with that but it works nicely.

Hmmm... sounds like a real cheat ;-) .
But what I really meant is that not just the power of the units should be more clear, but that the combatsystem should consider the circumstances.

Some examples:
A musketman unit under attack of cavalry in open field should stand no chance. Same in a city should stand a bit more chance. Against a city with walls, infantry actually is pretty useless IRL, so Civ should reflect this.

musketman against tanks should stand no chance at all. Rifleman against tanks should stand some chance (handgranates) but not too much.

Also bombing a city should cause more damage than now (what do they mean "bombardement failed"? If I throw some projectiles in a city it normally at least should hit something. That "Bombardement failed" thing only makes sense with precision strikes.

Rifleman and infantry should be of more value when attacking, they usually are the backbone of every decent army, doffensive as well as defensive. But again, depending on the situation.

When circumstances are becoming a more valid part of the combat system it gives room for players to play more strategic instead of stacking as much units as you can and then flood the enemy (and then get stuck at that single, nearly obsolete unit that just wont die).

When I have 8 units at the same tile, and I attack an enemy unit which resides alone on his tile, I attack with 1 unit. Ridiculous, I have 8. I should be able to decide at that moment how many units are part of the attack. Not specially build army units, but armies on the fly. Also when half my units then is destroyed I should be able to flee and thus keeping the rest of the army.

I know, I know, my fantasy is running away with me, but imagine a civ game like we know, but then with such a sophisticated combat system.

Kind regards

	12-07-2004 15:16									#81
	Tired of ads?

Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker. That said, it is arguably part of the game mechanic to prevent the most advanced nation steamrolling everything in its path. It allows players who are technologically behind to actually stand a chance.

Basically I think its a game balance issue more than a realism issue.

	12-07-2004 19:18									#82
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by tuckson Against a city with walls, infantry actually is pretty useless IRL, so Civ should reflect this.

But then Civ should also reflect that cavalry is even more useless, because they can't use their advantage (speed) during a siege. At that point, you'll need artillery (or dirty tricks). Hmm, could be interesting if we had that in Civ (and maybe artillery would be more useful than now. Cities could capitulate if you throw enough rocks / cannonballs / bombs on them. Or you could destroy their fortifications that way.)

	12-07-2004 21:03									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker. That said, it is arguably part of the game mechanic to prevent the most advanced nation steamrolling everything in its path. It allows players who are technologically behind to actually stand a chance. Basically I think its a game balance issue more than a realism issue.

While the combat certainly needs adjustment (BIG ones, in my opinion), balancing tech rates would become very important in keeping things balanced. Trailblazing in technolog is a little more expensive in Civ 3 than being 3rd or 4th to discover it, but it is still possible to zoom ages ahead of competitors.

More seepage of discovered techs to farther behind Civs should be added. People don't live in vacuums, after all. If one country is full of modern sewers, it doesn't take an enormous effort to figure out that sewers can be built anwhere.

This tech seepage would be realistic, and would help prevent the spearman/tank matchup.

	13-07-2004 15:38									#84
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It wasn't among the options, but I think it's not that unimportant too:
Better weighted, more realistic costs! If you compare how much money a new tech or a building or a unit costs, you'll find a lot of values which are way to high / to low. I'm talking especially about the espionage missions with their unbelievable costs.

	13-07-2004 15:46									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Max Sinister It wasn't among the options, but I think it's not that unimportant too: Better weighted, more realistic costs! If you compare how much money a new tech or a building or a unit costs, you'll find a lot of values which are way to high / to low. I'm talking especially about the espionage missions with their unbelievable costs.

Oh yeah... to mention the espionage costs. Ridiculous that some of those missions cost more than the contents of your treasury.

BTW, I think I mentioned it before, but bombing should be far more effective. I'm in a game right now and using 2 bombers to bomb a city. The only message I got until now frm those 2 bombers is "bombing run failed". Why...? Are these planes flown by blind guys or something?

	14-07-2004 14:15									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I hope they come back to a very-easy-to-use scenario creation capability, not like this "usine a gaz" of Civ3.

If not, i wont buy Civ4, and i'll pray that Firaxis Game devellopers, will burn in hell

I've lost my money with Civ3, i wont make the same mistake again.

	15-07-2004 09:40									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Thats a little harsh. The scenario editor isn't perfect but it is difficult to be all inclusive yet easy to use. I find it adequete but not terribly intuitive if thats what you mean.
I bought the game for the game , not the editor. I found the game to be worth the money (on the discount rack ). The editor was just icing on the cake, we didn't pay extra for it after all.
If you wait on buying Civ4 to be sure you like it there is nothing wrong with that. That is your choice, I'll also wait for the reviews and others opinions then perhaps buy it a few weeks after release. I'm sure if it is a flawed product they will be out the few dollars profit they could have had from us but I'm sure nobody will be burning in hell.

	15-07-2004 13:54									#88
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Odin 1. The AI should know the whole map at the begining of the game and know the location of all the resources.

Should?

	15-07-2004 13:58									#89
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker.

I am not sure what you mean. Surely more advanced forces had been beaten by less advanced ones in history.

	15-07-2004 14:05									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by tuckson Rifleman against tanks should stand some chance (handgranates) but not too much.

You must be kidding. Tanks are only good on flat, open ground. If the opposition is in a city, in broken terrain, on hills, on mountains, etc. Tanks eat it.

quote: Originally posted by tuckson Also bombing a city should cause more damage than now (what do they mean "bombardement failed"? If I throw some projectiles in a city it normally at least should hit something.

Um, do you know how many bombs landed in the countryside during WWII? A lot. Bombing wasn't very accurate. That's why when the Brits were going to bust some Nazi dams the bombers were almost skipping on water.