 |
| |
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
No, really. You made me curious. I keep reading about how the AI kicks ass, and I have to wonder if there's a different version of Civ 3 that those people are playing. Or whether it's just that "the AI is smart" sounds better than "I totally suck at the game, and got my rear handed to me even by the dumbest computer player in history."
Lemme see:
1) The AI will cheerfully build and send forward the most obsolete units it can possibly build. (Just look at how YOUR governors always want to build longbowmen and galleons, even in the 20'th century. The AI does just that.)
2) It also doesn't seem to apply _any_ combined arms strategy. Just sends everything that-a-way, and let the devil sort them. Each war I've had consisted just of a huge stream of individual units. (And obsolete ones at that.)
3) The only saving grace it has is that the whole game rewards mediocrity and mindless clicking, so even a dumb AI has a chance. Swordsmen and archers can defeat tanks anyway, so the AI can just cheerfully send an endless stream of swordsmen and archers at you. No matter how obsolete they are, the f***ed up combat system means they still can win.
4) Ditto for the science stuff. The whole system, complete with the max and min turn caps, means that no matter what, you can't fall behind too much technologically. Which is exactly what happens to the AI. Most of the time any AI opponent doesn't even build universities and research labs, it has a couple of libraries in the whole empire, is still a despotism (i.e., max 50% research), and has half the cities that I have. Yet it's only 2-3 tech levels behind me, whereas in Civ 2 it would still be researching iron working. (Not that it even matters, since it will send obsolete units anyway.) Again, it's not really been playing any better, it's just that the game system didn't let it fall too much behind.
5) It will mindlessly lose those hordes of obsolete units in wars all the way across the world. There'll always be a steady stream of units through my lands, because the Germans want to fight the Egyptians who are that-a-way, and the French want to fight the Russians, which are all the way over there.
6) Which brings us to another point, which is that the AI doesn't seem to even be aware of borders at all. Neither his, nor mine. It will cheerfully cross through my lands all the time, AND it will only object to my troops if they end up exactly adjacent to its cities. As long as I stay one square or two away from its cities, all's well. Briefly, the AI still thinks he's playing Civ 2 without borders. It's as if whoever coded the AI and whoever coded borders never even spoke to each other, much less try to coordinate their parts.
7) And to another point: that the AI never seems to have trouble holding on to a city all the way across the map. (Whereas for me corruption would mean I lose money just for having that city in my empire.)
8) It never seems to build too many improvements to its cities, presumably on account that it's always busy building obsolete troops instead. Most of the time I can see AI cities that are 100 turns old, but still have no cultural radius of their own. You'd think it could manage such concepts as "let's build a mighty economy to support our war machine and THEN conquer those pesky Babylonians, that aren't even my neighbours." Nope, it just stays stuck in an endless cycle of "must build more offensive units" and "got offensive units, must attack someone. Anyone."
9) It doesn't seem to fully master the concept of aliances, either. Situations where someone fights their allies' allies are more of a rule, than an exception.
And so on, and so forth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moraelin
No, really. You made me curious. I keep reading about how the AI kicks ass, and I have to wonder if there's a different version of Civ 3 that those people are playing. Or whether it's just that "the AI is smart" sounds better than "I totally suck at the game, and got my rear handed to me even by the dumbest computer player in history."
Lemme see:
1) The AI will cheerfully build and send forward the most obsolete units it can possibly build. (Just look at how YOUR governors always want to build longbowmen and galleons, even in the 20'th century. The AI does just that.)
2) It also doesn't seem to apply _any_ combined arms strategy. Just sends everything that-a-way, and let the devil sort them. Each war I've had consisted just of a huge stream of individual units. (And obsolete ones at that.)
3) The only saving grace it has is that the whole game rewards mediocrity and mindless clicking, so even a dumb AI has a chance. Swordsmen and archers can defeat tanks anyway, so the AI can just cheerfully send an endless stream of swordsmen and archers at you. No matter how obsolete they are, the f***ed up combat system means they still can win.
4) Ditto for the science stuff. The whole system, complete with the max and min turn caps, means that no matter what, you can't fall behind too much technologically. Which is exactly what happens to the AI. Most of the time any AI opponent doesn't even build universities and research labs, it has a couple of libraries in the whole empire, is still a despotism (i.e., max 50% research), and has half the cities that I have. Yet it's only 2-3 tech levels behind me, whereas in Civ 2 it would still be researching iron working. (Not that it even matters, since it will send obsolete units anyway.) Again, it's not really been playing any better, it's just that the game system didn't let it fall too much behind.
5) It will mindlessly lose those hordes of obsolete units in wars all the way across the world. There'll always be a steady stream of units through my lands, because the Germans want to fight the Egyptians who are that-a-way, and the French want to fight the Russians, which are all the way over there.
6) Which brings us to another point, which is that the AI doesn't seem to even be aware of borders at all. Neither his, nor mine. It will cheerfully cross through my lands all the time, AND it will only object to my troops if they end up exactly adjacent to its cities. As long as I stay one square or two away from its cities, all's well. Briefly, the AI still thinks he's playing Civ 2 without borders. It's as if whoever coded the AI and whoever coded borders never even spoke to each other, much less try to coordinate their parts.
7) And to another point: that the AI never seems to have trouble holding on to a city all the way across the map. (Whereas for me corruption would mean I lose money just for having that city in my empire.)
8) It never seems to build too many improvements to its cities, presumably on account that it's always busy building obsolete troops instead. Most of the time I can see AI cities that are 100 turns old, but still have no cultural radius of their own. You'd think it could manage such concepts as "let's build a mighty economy to support our war machine and THEN conquer those pesky Babylonians, that aren't even my neighbours." Nope, it just stays stuck in an endless cycle of "must build more offensive units" and "got offensive units, must attack someone. Anyone."
9) It doesn't seem to fully master the concept of aliances, either. Situations where someone fights their allies' allies are more of a rule, than an exception.
And so on, and so forth. |
I have to say, amen to nearly all you said. The trouble for the AI is that it's always playing the same, and seems not able to switch from "upgrade cities" to "build a big army and let's make this war as short as possible" and vice-versa. So it ends doing always half producting units, half improving cities, without being able to do one of them well.
And I VASTLY approve the cheesy attempt to hide the AI ineptitude by boosting the weak ones and put restraints on the biggest. Sure it helps having a more balanced world, but it's frustrating as hell.
Did someone told "it should be optionnal" ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Agreed. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why those dolts at Firaxis have been unable to replicate a human brain, a genius one, with computer subroutines. After all, Microsoft has done it routinely. As evidence, I offer the Word companion and wizard, Mr. Paper Clip.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barefootbadass
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I have to say, amen to nearly all you said. The trouble for the AI is that it's always playing the same, and seems not able to switch from "upgrade cities" to "build a big army and let's make this war as short as possible" and vice-versa. So it ends doing always half producting units, half improving cities, without being able to do one of them well.
And I VASTLY approve the cheesy attempt to hide the AI ineptitude by boosting the weak ones and put restraints on the biggest. Sure it helps having a more balanced world, but it's frustrating as hell.
Did someone told "it should be optionnal" ? |
The only thing I have seen that is smart from the ai is that it will try to pillage your roads to resources, but its not even fully smart with that, say it pillages some iron in mountains, next turn it will move the unit from that square so you can take it back, and if you protect your resources with forts and units, the ai can't do much of anything.
Weak units are not boosted they work exactly as the game intends. They work just as well for you if you use them so there is nothing cheesy about that, AND your newer units still work better(on average, which is good IMO, I like a little chance) than their older units. There is no reason that this should be optional, if you don't want this to happen you can edit the hp's for the units in the game so that the chance of an 'upset' becomes infinitesimally small.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Herder
|
|
He has a point and your silly analogies aren't really helping.
None of the items on his list are subject to technology ceilings and the gripes are pure playtesting and balancing gripes.
Clearly this game didn't get enough playtesting and balancing and it is showing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Helping what?. His points are utterly unoriginal and have been discussed to death. Firaxis can't win with these people. Release it, and all hell breaks loose. Wait, and the same crap.
Already, there are threads cropping up screaming, "Where's the damn patch!? Hurry up!" Jackasses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
What i hate most with the AI is that it have to build cities EVERYWHERE. Tundra and deserts does´nt mean a thing to it, it just build cities there all the time.
This might not be so bad in a normal game (does´nt matter much), but in a scenario this will really really suck. Sahara will be fulled up with cities because the AI only care about building cities there and nothing else.
Another hateful thing is the very idiotic and unlogical possibility to exchange connections. In history, a civ between to civs would earn from both, now it does´nt matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KaiserIsak
What i hate most with the AI is that it have to build cities EVERYWHERE. Tundra and deserts does´nt mean a thing to it, it just build cities there all the time.
This might not be so bad in a normal game (does´nt matter much), but in a scenario this will really really suck. Sahara will be fulled up with cities because the AI only care about building cities there and nothing else.
Another hateful thing is the very idiotic and unlogical possibility to exchange connections. In history, a civ between to civs would earn from both, now it does´nt matter. |
Another example of Civ2 thinking. Quite often, in Civ3, desert and tundra are the most propitious land available. Lots of strategic resources on these tiles. Read Vel's thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
benjy
|
|
London, UK
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
i dont know what the AI is being compared to here but i think its certainly an improvement on CivII. i got invaded by Persia last night - they bombed my coastal cities (i couldnt stop them because of the bug!) and then landed tanks. kicked my arse.
the romans on the other hand were fielding out dated units, but then again so was i - i coulnt afford to update them. maybe the AI couldnt thats why youre seeing old units??
the only thing i really hate is the implementation of the borders. i just had a roman settler build a city in the 2 square space between the borders of my capital and my second biggest city. and this is in the 1100s. thats rediculous. its like King Richard waking up one morning and finding Marseille a mile outside london.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
I think it's being compared to some nonexistent, science-fiction version of AI. Something envisioned by someone who learned how to write "Hello World" in VB and now calls himself a programmer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
benjy
|
|
London, UK
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
oh, and this happened on the opposite end of the continent to the roman border. i like to see the AI aggressvely pushing moving its borders, colonising open land, but sending a ship around the coast to bypass 25 Greek cities and building a city a 1000 miles from its nearest town is stupid.... i really hope they tone that down a bit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barchan
|
 |
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
As someone who's struggled and failed to write "Hello World" in VB (although I can do it quite easily in Word, thanks to Mr. Gates!), here's my worthless contribution:
The AI is actually quite canny about borders; whether or not the regard yours is a function of your relative diplomatic/military (diplotary?  ) relationship. If you're strong and it's weak, it pretty much keeps out and leaves fast when you threaten it. If it's the other way ‘round, it comes and go as it pleases and demands you leave as soon as you set foot on it's turf.
And I have seen the AI refuse RoP if you sneak attack its units. It might not be HAL, but it does have some memory of your past behavior.
I have to agree with Libertarian on the level of "AI" we should be expecting. Sure, chessmaster whatever-version-it's-at can kick butt. And yes, chess is a complicated game. But it's also only got 64 squares to move to, 16 pieces to move and set rules in how they move. This (I’m forced to assume) is much easier to program a machine to do than to plan, organize and execute something as complex as war against a human opponent. At this point in time, you might as well expect to be able to train a weasel to successfully snatch eagles from the sky.
I think the AI in CivIII is better than most strategy games I've seen, but it shouldn't be expected to outsmart human players. Overwhelm with numbers, yes. Surprise them with new strategies, sure. But be able to counter the human player with new and dynamic play over the long run? Not yet. Probably not for a while. Hopefully sooner than it'll take me to do any damn thing with VB, that's fer sure.... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Herder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
Helping what?. His points are utterly unoriginal and have been discussed to death. Firaxis can't win with these people. Release it, and all hell breaks loose. Wait, and the same crap.
Already, there are threads cropping up screaming, "Where's the damn patch!? Hurry up!" Jackasses. |
What do you find hard to believe about a customer that spent money on a product and finds the execution of that product to be disappointing?
The fact that these issues have been discussed to death only proves that his points are valid, whether you agree or not.
Nobody asked Firaxis to release a game that is heavily advertised (on TV no less!) and then not expect to be bombarded with requests to fix it?
Can't believe you would call someone a jackass that paid MONEY for a game and expect satisfaction. I hope you don't work in the Service industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
A tedious and loud tiny minority screaming the same crap without ceasing, taking over the forums by opening duplicate threads by the hour, and generally behaving like spoiled brats DOES NOT constitute the validation of any point. Their complaints were noted, logged, organized, and given to Firaxis from at least two different major discussion boards. Civ3 went platinum in three days despite the screaming nine-year-olds.
There comes a time to move on, dammit.
And as I said, those who complained that Firaxis released the game too soon are now complaining that Firaxis is taking too long to release the patch. Please explain to me why such people are not jackasses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
benjy
|
|
London, UK
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Barchan - i agree the AI is great at taking into account your reputation/military power regarding the violation of your borders. early game versus rome, they continually brought troops into my territory. i was very weak at this stage. mid game, i had a big bad army, and i didnt get any problems.
Herder - AI has been discussed to death, but i wouldnt say there's any particular consessus of opinion on it. some people hate it, some think its great, some think it does the job. i dont think the fact that its been heavily discussed proves any particular point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathray
|
|
High Wycombe
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf
DONT use governors then. I never do. |
Just like automation, governers are useful if you use them properly. I use them to control the citizen moods in all of my cities. Otherwise I either have to check on them every turn, or lose two turns of production every time a city goes into disorder (and also risk nuclear meltdowns).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
A tedious and loud tiny minority screaming the same crap without ceasing, taking over the forums by opening duplicate threads by the hour, and generally behaving like spoiled brats DOES NOT constitute the validation of any point. Their complaints were noted, logged, organized, and given to Firaxis from at least two different major discussion boards. Civ3 went platinum in three days despite the screaming nine-year-olds. |
Libertarian, if you've had your parents buy the game for you, lucky you. Or I don't know, maybe you've pirated it. But some of us actually spent our money on it.
I realize it might be hard to understand for your little "grateful puppy" brain to grasp this, but we're not talking free mods, we're not talking charity work on Firaxis's or Infogrames's part, we're talking something that's done for MONEY. So whether you act like a grateful doggy and wag your tail or not, no, you're not getting an extra bone and a pat on the head.
The whole "let's pretend we're happy and that there are no bugs, to make the developpers happy" fanboy idea is brain-dead. Because between you and those happy developpers there's one more link: the PUBLISHER. Who's out to make some money, and couldn't care less about anything else. (See how they had no conscience problems with slapping their German fans with a lawyers' bill.) And flaming fanboys like you are just giving the PUBLISHER one idea. You know what it is? It is: "hey, they're still happy to get a buggy unfinished game, with some quick hacks to cover for the total lack of AI. Maybe we can cut down on the beta-testing some more."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
The whole "let's pretend we're happy and that there are no bugs, to make the developpers happy" fanboy idea is brain-dead. |
It is also a strawman that is beneath any reasonable debate.
C'mere. Let me tell you something you either don't know or don't comprehend: THEY'RE WORKING ON THE BUGS.
Stop staring at me! Eat your checkers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
C'mere. Let me tell you something you either don't know or don't comprehend: THEY'RE WORKING ON THE BUGS.
|
Let me tell YOU something that you obviously don't understand: they should have worked on the bugs BEFORE releasing the game.
Same as when I buy a TV or a watch or anything else, really. I expect it to work NOW, not in half a year when they get around to patching it.
The customer protection laws DO apply to software, too, regardless of the BS in any license aggreement. In fact, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but HERE the law says that you can't renounce your legal rights in a contract, even if you actually wanted to. E.g., you can't sell yourself into slavery, no matter if that was your lifetime dream, if the law says you should have more rights than that. Likewise, you can't renounce your customer rights, regardless of what kind of contract or license aggreement you've had to sign/click/whatever.
So chew on this: the fact that we're "whining" instead of talking legal action, is already one heck of a lot of goodwill on everyone's part. A lot more goodwill than Infogrames had with their German fans, that's for sure. So if I only whine while still waiting for a patch... be happy it's only whining.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Moraelin has some very good points - the AI is not only eminently beatable, but in many ways less of a challenge than the Civ2 AI. I don't know how much you guys have played the game, but the AI blows...an utter inability to defend itself, an inability to recognize it's own self interest, an inability to trade properly, ad infinitum.
I consider the Civ3 AI at almost an alpha level release level - there are too many substantive problems to consider it beta level...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Good grief.
No software I've ever seen has been warranteed to be bug-free. Or for that matter, even warranteed to keep your computer from blowing up because you used it. No one can guarantee perfection in any matter whatsoever. And any government that has managed to make such a ridiculous law needs to have in place one hell of a litigation infrastructure.
The fact is that no one is taking legal action because no one has a legal leg to stand on.
The Pick any Two Law: Price, Quality, Speed
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2001 18:15
. The AI is a much more able foe.
|