 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by polymths on 05-03-2001 09:55 PM
Tiles will "age" slowly through time at a realistic rate. Some token workers will roam around to give the illusion that actual workers are working the land but in reality the tiles are simply "maturing" through time by themselves automatically. If these token workers are killed, then the maturing rate will slow until new token workers start roaming the land. But these token workers will not need to be managed at all but will just roam around aimlessly for illusion purposes.
As for city improvements and wonders, these will be awarded to the Civ at certain intervals of time based on the theoretical productive capability of the Civ, assuming that no other Civ already has that wonder.
|
I think the maturing AI city-area tiles sounds OK. But I cant say the same about the "awarded" CI:s and Wonders idea. Yes, the AI shouldnt have to "evaluate" what to build - it can just follow player-editable template-lists most of the time (until something triggers it to temporarily take over direct command). But the AI-civs must sure as hell work for a living!
By "work for a living!" I mean that there should always is a clear and 100% straight connection between exactly how many harvested city-area tiles and production-improving CI:s/Wonders an AI-empire currently have, on one hand - and what that same AI-empire is capable of producing in terms of raw shields, lightbulbes, coins; leading to new CI:s, units and Wonders, advancement in tech-tree and so on, on the other hand.
Above connection-ratio can be a player-favourable 0.9:1 ratio, a fair 1:1 ratio, or even AI-favourable 1:1.1, depending on what pre-game level you choose to play on. But that connection must be fair and crystal-clear - so for the love of God: NO free CI/Wonder give-aways. MOST civers is bound to feel heavily cheated by "free give-aways".
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 05-03-2001 08:49 PM
I just don't think that you can make it appear realistic. Especially in the military area. As I understand your 'attack patterns' description above, the game would actually Need good AI to execute them! There is no such thing as a limited set of preprogrammed attack patterns that will suffice for most circumstances. And if the military AI is not sufficient, then having the AI armies mature at the same rate as a good players' would do no good! The AI will still lose horribly.
|
I certainly agree with above.
--------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-04-2001 03:04 AM
"By comparison, the game AI (or any silicon-based intelligence for that matter) is 100% dead and non-experiencing (of course). It lives in a 2-dimensional "flat" world, figuratively speaking - by that i mean it cannot possible "overview" anything."
This is definitely not true. There are various ways to program some sort of overview into the AI, for example, using overlayed weighted fields of influence.
|
Urban Ranger; If you dont accept that artificial intelligence just cannot "experence" and "see" things in real-time, the same way as living intelligence can - then its no point for me to continue arguing. Besides, the problems surrounding artificial intelligence in general, is not just about how to evaluate and respond to constantly shifting world-data - its also about how to retrieve and digest that massive amount of data in the first place - you seems to believe that the latter is already given for free.
--------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Roman on 05-04-2001 08:42 PM
I disagree on this. Features should not be eliminated from the game just because the AI wouldn't "know" how to use them. Such features should merely be bypassed by the AI and should be assumed to be done at high (100%?) efficiency or simulated statistically.
|
Well, Im not much for statistically simulated-, or percentage probability AI-responds - or so called "fuzzy AI-rules". Sounds good in theory, but the results often stinks. Some percentage-probabilities is needed here and there, of course - but in general, they should be restrictive about it.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2001 09:00
|