 |
|  |
 |
|
PrinceBimz
|
|
I have been playing on the easier levels and it was indeed fairly easy. So I tried the very hard level for the first time about 20 minutes ago. Yep thats correct 20 minutes ago. I figured some people said how easy the AI was so what the heck I give it a try on very hard. Well what was I supposed to do when the AI torn into each of my cities extremely early with Slavers? Then I had barbarians beating my settlers to death.
Besides I had watched the AI setup a fortification adjacent to my MAIN city. It built up a stack of 4 Archers in that fortification over a couple of turns. Then I was thinking, well it probably won't attack according to what others say. WRONG! It attacked alright, took over the city and headed straight for my other ones with a bigger army. Of course with the Slavers I could not build up a big enough army that quick to stop this. I did not have enough population, I did have the city to 6 but those Slavers brought it down!
All of this happened very early before I could have a chance to do anything! So what is this about the AI not attacking? I take it many must be talking about the easier levels unless my experience and position was rare. Maybe it was the way the random map was setup or something, I don't know. But I got the hell beat out of me because I could not do anything in that situation. I feel the AI is not NEAR as bad as others say it is because of what I seen here. Anyone else had an experience like this early in the game before you had a chance to do anything?
I remember even playing on one of the easier levels where the AI had sent Destroyers up and down my coast destroying ever net and improvement I had built! Of course I was surprised means I heard the AI don't use naval units. Anyway I was forced to build ships or planes to sink those Destroyers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ChaosSpeeder
|
|
Germany
Nov 1999 time: 05:14
|
|
In my opinion, the AI becomes weaker and weaker, the longer the game lasts. At the end, there are no more attacks.
try the frenzy ai, as a solution.
bye, Andre
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Steve5304
|
|
Racine ,WI USA
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
My Friend on Mplayer said that He had found a Bad String that makes the AI confused between Rivers Roads and ways to return home? That would explain why the AI goes nuts at a river/Road junction with there constant back and forth. I asked him for it but he didnt give.....ill keep on him but if hes right, that would certainly explain alot.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Howie
|
|
Madison, WI
Oct 1999 time: 05:14
|
|
I rarely post, but I have not seen this issue addressed, or I may have missed it.
I have followed the slic and non-slic AI improvments and have toyed myself. One of the main complaints I see repeatedly is that the human player makes gains and eventually "turns the corner" in the 1st century or so and then the game is boring. I have not seemed to encounter this. If fact, if anyone is "turning the corner" it is the AI that is wiping me off the planet.
Here are examples of setting in DiffDB from Alpha.
Beginner=
# % amount to multiply production cost by per age for ai
AI_MIN_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
AI_MAX_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
Impossible=
# % amount to multiply production cost by per age for ai
AI_MIN_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 ## JAW
AI_MAX_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.5 ## JAW
Obviously, smaller numbers benefit the AI as seen between "Beginner" and "Impossible" levels.
The same logic goes for the scaled bonuses over the ages. So why is everyone scaling the values to DECREASE the AI's bonuses as the game progresses. The reason the AI is falling behind is because the human is gaining while the scaled bonuses for the AI are DECREASING!
I have scaled my bonuses in the DiffDB as well, but in the REVERSE direction. My AI gets TOUGHER as the game goes on, making "Impossible" level live up to it's name.
Has this been covered before? Am I missing something?
------------------
-- Red Eyed Civer (Dooh! It's 4:30AM again!)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Alpha Wolf
|
|
Prince of the Barbarians
Feb 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Howie on 02-13-2001 11:49 AM
I rarely post, but I have not seen this issue addressed, or I may have missed it.
I have followed the slic and non-slic AI improvments and have toyed myself. One of the main complaints I see repeatedly is that the human player makes gains and eventually "turns the corner" in the 1st century or so and then the game is boring. I have not seemed to encounter this. If fact, if anyone is "turning the corner" it is the AI that is wiping me off the planet.
Here are examples of setting in DiffDB from Alpha.
Beginner=
# % amount to multiply production cost by per age for ai
AI_MIN_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
AI_MAX_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
Impossible=
# % amount to multiply production cost by per age for ai
AI_MIN_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 ## JAW
AI_MAX_BEHIND_PRODUCTION_COST_ADJUSTMENT 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.5 ## JAW
Obviously, smaller numbers benefit the AI as seen between "Beginner" and "Impossible" levels.
The same logic goes for the scaled bonuses over the ages. So why is everyone scaling the values to DECREASE the AI's bonuses as the game progresses. The reason the AI is falling behind is because the human is gaining while the scaled bonuses for the AI are DECREASING!
I have scaled my bonuses in the DiffDB as well, but in the REVERSE direction. My AI gets TOUGHER as the game goes on, making "Impossible" level live up to it's name.
Has this been covered before? Am I missing something?
 |
I'd be interested in seeing what numbers you use also. There was a thread awhiles ago that talked about these numbers. I went by the concepts there and changed the numbers until I achieved my goals of the AI always outproducing me, and it seems to catch up when behind, and its hard for me to catch up science wise. The last game I played is on 1700 and I'm behind by 4-6 advances, and havent been able to catch up. We all have about the same number of cities, so I achieved my goal but that doesnt mean I'm using the the most efficient numbers. So much of moding is nothing but trial and error.
------------------
History is written by the victor.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GAMEOVER
|
|
Washington dc, usa
Nov 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
COuld someone please explain to me step by step how to install the frenzy and diplomatic mods? I can barely turn my computer on and off, so i would appreciat ethe help.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gwap
|
|
Largs, Scotland
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Thanks. I think I'll be installing that
Another thing I recently noticed. They ask me money for improvements.
But I guess that the "I give you advance and you give me money" whereby the money never arrives is a hardcoded "feature"?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gwap
|
|
Largs, Scotland
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
I'm sure that if Firaxis keep half an eye on this forum they are bound to put an easter egg or two in for several of us in Civ3
(if(Apolyton_member){
disable_bugs();
}
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Steve5304
|
|
Racine ,WI USA
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Dale whats the big idea with the "Nader" Personality.Please Explain this one and why isnt there a Bush/Gore personality?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Galatea
|
|
San Francisco, CA
Feb 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Yes, I have. In a stack with tanks and artillery, my artillery was always front and center. Also, machinegunners stand by idle when they could use their ranged attack.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999 time: 23:14
|
|
I know that battle lines are supposed to be drawn by placing the strongest unit front and center. I would assume that range/flank factors become secondary when drawing up those lines, so it can be likely that due to the numbers, ranged units can end up on the front lines. The coracle/archer battle is actually logical from the standpoint of the computer, because coracles have a defend factor, so they automatically will go on the front lines, and the archers line up behind. Factor in the defend modifiers and those boats could of defeated the attacking stack.
Certainly not realistic, but the computer works with numbers, not realism.
One thing I discovered in experimentation is that range factors have to start at 15. A range factor of less than that will put those units on the front lines, so if you tweak numbers, you have to take that into account.
I think that machine gunners have a range of 10 in the default game, so bump it up to 15-20 and see what happens.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
herwin
|
|
Sunderland, UK
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Has anyone taken the comments here on the AI and other ideas and made the changes to the files? I'm not suggesting Diplomod or Frenzy but simply a set of default files tuned up a bit and with the known errors fixed.
------------------
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dale
|
 |
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000 time: 15:14
|
|
Hiya folks. I had some thoughts on the weekend about AI's and games and thought I'd share them to see how you guys feel about it.
Basically, I came to the conclusion that the AI in CTP2 is not really that bad. I mean, it does what it was programmed/designed to do. It does use all of its options that it has available strategically. Actually, after thinking about the CTP2 AI I'd hate to be playing it as my first ever TBS 4X game. I've been playing games since 1980, predominately high-end strategic, TBS empire-builders, war games and even RPG's. Now all of these games require at the least an adequate AI to make the game playable. How is an AI adequate? I think we can break that down into these areas: a) an AI needs to be able to think high-end strategy (the future/overall picture), nationalised strategy (attack/defense fronts/national modifiers), and localised strategy (city/unit level). This looks easy to do on paper, and because humans minds are attuned to thinking on all three levels at the same time, but what of a PC? Each single and individual command is another line of code. To set values is a line. To compare is a line. How many lines would be needed? Also, you must remember that each line of code takes CPU clock cycles. Sure, a clock cycle is measured in milliseconds/picoseconds, but we're talking about thousands of clock cycles to process here. For an AI to make an informed decision it needs to have up-to-date info which means processing as much current data as possible (and even past data as the case requires) BEFORE it'll even start to think about what it'll do next. The gaming world is demanding faster and better AI in games. Well, using all the above logic (who's going to dare say I'm wrong there ) contradicts this. To make a better AI we need to process more CPU clock-cycles. But processors are getting better and faster. This is where my thoughts led me to a debate question:
After many years of playing games which utilise an AI, does a gamers strategic thinking increase faster than the progression of processors and consequently AI adequateness?
My answer is YES. Quite simply, by looking over the last 5 years of strategy games, I've never really had a problem in defeating an AI. Sure, I may get beaten for a few games, then start winning and end up winning every game on the top level.
My conclusion is that I'd hate to be playing CTP2 as my first ever TBS 4X game, as I believe the AI would in fact be pretty hard. Which is why we occaisionally see posts from CTP2'ers who are being beaten by the AI on the less-than very hard levels.
------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tusky
|
|
An Ice Floe near Buckingham, UK
Feb 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Hear hear Dale.
I don't have quite the length of experience you do, but I remeber cutting my teeth on Kampfgruppe on my C64 back in the mists of time.
The human ability to react, change tactics and have several different options available is something the AI programming isn't able to compete with right now.
How often in Civ-genre games have you tied an enemy down on one of their borders and got them funneling units to the front like mad, and then crushed them with a tank-based army hitting them from behind ?
Is the Frenzy AI mod worth having ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kinjiru
|
 |
Nashville, TN
Jan 1970 time: 23:14
|
|
Along similiar lines, I believe it is due to the popularity of forums like this one that we will never (or at least for the next 6-10 years) see an AI that we, as hardcore gamers, are happy with.
Players get together on boards like this to share thoughts, tactics, strategies. We have the benefit of learning from everyone else that is playing the game. We adapt at an exponential pace. The best an AI can do is 'adapt' to one player's tactics.
Game companies could look at these kind of forums and then change the AI routines, but no company would keep spending the money required to do so. The game has been released and that is pretty much it.
The only place we might see some change on this front is in the massively multiplayer on-line games. In that situation, the game company is constantly monitoring and changing the game. Adapting the AI to the emerging player strategies might happen there. In the offline world, though , I fear that we are pretty much out-of-luck.
We are very fortunate that the developers are willing to support the mod community for that is where constant innovation on existing games will come from. The best we can hope for is that developers take it even further and put the AI engine in an easily modifable format.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I'm not sure about the technical aspects of what you guys are saying, but from the perspective of a regular player, I'd agree pretty much with the statement that the AI isn't very bad.
However, even though I haven't read many of the strategy posts, and I haven't beaten the civ2 and c:ctp AIs at anything beyond 'Prince', I'm still finding that the CtP2 AI is easier to beat. And it isn't that I'm using any fancy strategy, just doing my own thing and attacking cities when they bother me. So there's definitely something lacking here.
------------------
phoenixcager of the Civgaming Network.
Visit the CGN forums.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|