 |
|
Hadrian
|
 |
Hamburg
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Sorry if this isn’t new.
I play Civ3 since 03.11. and I saw many thinks, but this is the only thing I cant explain without the supposition that the AI is cheating.
Is there a official comment from Firaxis about this?
Last edited by Hadrian on 05-12-2001 at 06:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nyl
|
|
Couldn't some of these things be explained by embassies? Couldn't the AI be paying to find out what's garrisoning your cities? Maybe they're not, I don't know.
I DO know that the AI yells at you if you keep submarines inside his borders. Mind you, I'm playing on Chieftan, so this particular AI has just discovered Galleons.
Also, I've seen some fishy behavior with an early rush, too. I go in and raze his capitol ASAP, with a couple warriors. My city has barely had time to get to population 3, and this guy has apparently already popped out a settler because 10 turns later he comes around with some warriors of his own out of a different city. Mind you again, this is on Chieftan, AND his original city wasn't exactly a gold-mine of food production.
-Nyl
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Terser
|
 |
Imperialist Running Dog
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Despite Firaxis' claim, the AI cheats on every level. Some of the more obvious ones:
--"Second chance" units/settlers/cities. Destroy an AI nation early enough and that civ will receive units, settlers, and perhaps even cities to start anew. The hilarious thing is, from what I've observed the units it receives are actually better than the one it starts with--I've destroyed a civs capitol (guarded by warriors) to the east only to have it reappear to the west within a few turns sporting archers! Shouldn't have to kill the same civ twice, or the human players should also receive a second chance.
--AI tiremes, galleys, caravels can go anywhere, anytime, with or without the great lighthouse.
--This is pure specualtion on my part, but the AI seems to know where resources are located, though it apprently doesn't allow itself to act on this knowledge without justification. There's been at least four occasions when I've went exploring and uncovered strategic resources in late game (where they make or break you). In these instances, during the AI's movement phase on that turn I was approached by at least one (in several cases two) AI civs suddenly wanting to exchange world maps. Coincidence?
--As mentioned above, AI can see your subs. Not sure if it can see them the second they enter their cultural borders, but I have approached enemy caravels with a nuke sub and have received a warning from the AI.
--Am I the only one who finds it peculiar that air superiority is broken for the human but not the AI players? I assumed that CivIII was bound by rules that applied to human and AI players alike. If that were the case, it seems rather odd that air superiority could be broken only for one.
I'm sure I've missed some...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dravin
|
|
North Pole, Alaska
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ColdWizard
in my games i can consistently get gold (lump sum or per turn, sometimes both) and maps from the AI for just my maps, playing on chieftain and warlord. |
Maybe there is an intimidation factor going on. *shrug*
Of course the AI may just be ****** in the head when it comes to what constitutes a fair trade. Come on, what human player wouldn’t trade luxuries to a friendly empire on a 1:1 basis?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
docken
|
|
Sydney, Australia
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said several weeks ago, the patch will settle once and for all just what advantages the AI has at different difficulty levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
Restarting civs isn't a cheat. If there's empty space in the world, a civ will restart, human or AI. Try getting killed, you'll restart too.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dravin
|
|
North Pole, Alaska
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
True, but when we both have multiple luxuries (3-4 extra) why the hell not? Anyway, I think that there comes a point in the game where the AI bargains not to its advantage, but simply to your disadvantage. (And no, the two are not one and the same, though they can be closely connected.)
If it was a strategic resource I could understand the steep deal, but when you have Furs or Ivory stacked 3-4 high in the warehouse why not trade for some wine? Hell, I’ve seen the AI refuse a 1:3 trade with luxuries!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dev
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pythagoras
Dont forget the fact that the AI will never fall too far behind you in the tech race. The AI just seems to get techs at random to stay competitive. That bothers me, my tech research is unfounded! |
hmm I doubt this is the case, with a decent starting position on regent level I usually outtech the AI between a half and as much as full era and that includes trading every tech the AI discovers to the rest of the AIs.
It's no secret that the AI gets bonuses above regent level so if that's what you're playing then that explains it.
/dev
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What do you consider a fair trade ? A trade where you get as much as you give in absolute, or a trade where you get as much as you give in relative ?
To make this more clear and take an example : if I have 100 gold and you have 50, then I say "let's trade !". I propose you 10 gold for 8 gold. It is a fair trade in absolute (I give you more than you give), but it's an unfair trade in relative (I give you 10 % of my gold, you give me 16 % of yours).
A trade has to be in absolute terms, or it lead to ridiculous results, like the one above.
See where is the logical flaw in the "A 1:1 trade is NOT fair if 1 civilization has 10 cities & the other has 30 cities. " ? |
I must agree with Pyrodrew. While your argument may be "logical", it has little relationship to reality or the game. Also, account for different personalities and perspectives, such as what you and I are displaying!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Socks
|
|
Canada
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Look, it's not a question of what a civ can afford, it's what the item is worth to that cix. A 1:1 trade with luxuries between civs of different sizes is unfair because luxuries confer a set advantage *per city*. In other words, unlike gold, the value of luxuries isn't fixed but is relative to the size of the civ. In fact, it's probably even more important to the larger civ than that, since it has more peripheral cities, further away from the capital, and its core cities are likely bigger too -- so they need the happy faces more. The AI is right to try to sell its luxuries for what they are worth to you. I have to laugh when I see people calling the trade agreements they consented to unfair. Obviously, you thought the high price was worth it or you wouldn't have paid it, right?
It works to the player's advantage, too. The larger civs are always willing to pay more.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2001 03:42
Attachment: 
)
that would explain why AS is broken for humans only
)-- and I found myself running LAST in the science race. 
|