 |
| |
|
|
Tamerlin
|
 |
Toulouse (South-western France)
Apr 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Would you care to bring up some examples of these blatant cheats? For a person with your experience, this can not be hard. |
I'am not considering myself as an experienced player. I suppose, hoping I'am wrong, you are trying to make a fool of me here, if this is really the case I'am really disappointed by the tone of this reply. Once again, I hope I'am wrong on this issue. 
quote:
There have been some very good threads about suspected cheats, made by some excellent brains, not parrots. They found 2 real cheats:
- The AI knows the location of all troups in the discovered part of the map.
- The AI knows the location of future resources; even though it doesn't know what it is, it knows that there is something. |
Am I wrong or is the tone becoming bitter and agressive ?
More and more disappointed...
Whatever the case you have partly answered yourself, the second cheat (the AI knows where the resources are and use the information) is difficult to accept when this AI doesn't have the technology to detect a resource. I don't care wether the AI can identify the said resource or not.
- The first cheat is also particularly unfair, I would be more satisfied if the AI used another mean to see where your troops are, like spies or other units.
- I'am certainly wrong but I have the feeling the resources are not evenly distributed and are more prone to appear near the starting location of the AI Civs, especially those needed at the beginning of the game when you can earn the biggest advantage.
The other "reported" cheats are perhaps not more real than the later one and are certainly coming from the imagination of the players. Actually, once again, I don't care at all. What I can see is that the AI is able to produce hundreds of military units and tens of settlers while keeping up the pace in the technological race, at least one of the AI civ. I suppose the AI is receiving some bonuses. What I don't like is that, because of this cheats or bonuses, the first part of the game (from the beginning to more or less 0 AD) is almost dictated by the behavior of the AI. You have to spew settlers and military units in order to build as many cities as you can and defend them. If you like to click everywhere as in a RTS game, great ! This is not my cup of tea.
Actually, I'am the kind of player called an "Empire Builder" (I'am not labelling myself like this as a parrot, I have read this in a magazine and I have no proudness in this  ), I prefer to build a few cities (twelve to fifteen maximum) and manage them as well as I can. I'am also trying to avoid wars though this is not always possible (and this is fortunate for the interest of the game). These are certainly the main reasons behind the fact I have never played Civ2 at a higher difficulty level than King.
I have the feeling the AI has been designed to use all the tricks many players have learned to use in Civ2. Unfortunately, I have never used those tricks because I'am just playing Civ like games to have fun with a challenging level of difficulty that suits the way I like to play (with few cities).
If I want to beat the Civ3 AI it seems to me I have to use all the tricks the players have designed to beat the Civ2 AI at the higher levels, a way of playing I'am not interested in.
In fact, I think Civ3 is a very good game that does not suit me and my tastes.
quote:
Yes... the AI in CtP2 is indeed... invisible.  |
I'am talking about modded CtP2.
About CtP2 and Civ3, I will never say one is better than the other (I'am not interested in this debate), I would rather say I prefer this one to the other as I'am only expressing a taste or an opinion based on my tastes.
Whatever your opinion on Civ3 or CtP2, I expect more respect from the people I'am in contact with in Apolyton threads.
Of course, if I have misunderstood what you have said in your reply or if I have misinterpreted the tone of your answer, I apologize in advance and will remove my subscription to this thread.
Last edited by Tamerlin on 20-07-2002 at 03:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
the first part of the game (from the beginning to more or less 0 AD) is almost dictated by the behavior of the AI. |
Although I admit that my first-hand experience with Civ3 is extremely limited, this is something that I can confirm and it's something I *really* don't like. The whole idea of Civilization is that there are many different ways to win the game and everyone can choose his own way. Some like to be an aggressive expansionist, some prefer being a diplomatic builder. In the highest levels of CtP2 you're also forced to adapt to the AI, but when you play one or two levels lower (or maybe when you're *really* good), you can also choose a very different path, one of building only a handfull of cities and relying on diplomacy, science and/or unconventional warfare to win the game. This is IMHO a *the* major problem with Civ3's AI.
I don't know how much the AI knows about strategic resources but that's a crucial part of the game. If the AI plays by a different set of rules here, that would indeed be a major fun-killer as well.
Of course, I already dislike Civ3 anyway for much more fundamental reasons (which I've mentioned more than often enough by now, so I won't bore anyone by repeating them) so it doesn't matter to me, but I can certainly understand and agree with Tamerlin's viewpoint that the Civ3's AI blatantly cheating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
I can enumerate a few of the more blatant & annoying cheats used by the AI in Civ3. The most obvious, which you've already mentioned, is how the AI knows were all of the resources are ahead of time. I remember the old "view all map" bug that could be used on save games with v1.16; I sat there and watched the AI make a bee line to all the resources on the map. From what I saw the AI didn't just know there was something there but knew it was iron/oil/what not. I've also stopped exploring out to see with ships because unless the island is visable from your landmass then the AI will get there first. It knows exactly where all the land is and doesn't have to waste time searching the vast empty ocean like a human does. If you don't believe me try trading maps with the AI several times during the game and you will see the AI will always find the land first then explore the empty ocean second.
The next most irritaiting cheat is how the AI gets two defending units in a flipped city while the human only gets one. I once tried to retake one of my cities which had flipped the same turn that the AI got a hold of it and I was able to sit and watch to make sure no enemy units went into the city. I sent my force to get my city but lost because the AI had one more rifleman then he should have had. At first I thought I was mistaken but then it happened again in a different game.
I also hate how the AI always knows exactly where each unit is on the map even units which are hidden in the fog of war. Try leaving a city in the center of your empire undefended and watch the AI make a bee line to that city while ignoring all the others along the way. How does he know that unless it is cheating? To experiment I reloaded the save and moved units into the city and took the units out of a second city. The AI avoided city #1 and headed straight for, the now undefended, city #2. I reloaded the save a second time and made sure both cities we're defended so the third time the AI went for the front line city (I guess we could call it #3) which is where I had been moving the units to in the beginning.
Each one of those experiments show the AI was using knowledge it shouldn't have had. That in and of itself isn't so bad but do they have to make it so obvious?
The other obvious cheats such as tech advancement rate, production bonuses, and how the AI prefers to trade amoungst itself can be edited so they aren't that bad. I just wish I wouldn't have to edit the AI and that someone would program an AI which will act like a human.
Last edited by Oerdin on 20-07-2002 at 21:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The next most irritaiting cheat is how the AI gets two defending units in a flipped city while the human only gets one. I once tried to retake one of my cities which had flipped the same turn that the AI got a hold of it and I was able to sit and watch to make sure no enemy units went into the city. I sent my force to get my city but lost because the AI had one more rifleman then he should have had. At first I thought I was mistaken but then it happened again in a different game. |
No. It gets only one defender just like the human player. But if the city is connected to its homeland with a road or a railroad, it will instantly move a second defender in, because the standard city garrison for the AI is 2. If this is not possible, it will, depending from the government, poprush or draft a second. This ain't cheats, because the human can do the same, even though he usually won't.
quote:
I also hate how the AI always knows exactly where each unit is on the map even units which are hidden in the fog of war. Try leaving a city in the center of your empire undefended and watch the AI make a bee line to that city while ignoring all the others along the way. |
You can use this to your own advantage, if you want. Just close the gap when the troops are close, and open another. But good players won't do this.
quote:
The other obvious cheats such as tech advancement rate, production bonuses, and how the AI prefers to trade amoungst itself can be edited so they aren't that bad. |
Bonuses aren't cheats. If you call them so, you must call also any human player on Warlord and Chieftain a cheater, because in these levels the AI gets handicapped and the human gets the bonuses. Since hexagonian played his first game on Warlord, he must be by your logic a blatant cheater. Say this hex in his face! 
quote:
I just wish I wouldn't have to edit the AI and that someone would program an AI which will act like a human. |
Such AIs are hard to program, and even though they might be possible (are they?), they certainly cost more than $35 per share.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
I just had a 'feeling' about Civ3, not very logical in the slightest - but that isn't the point. It was rushed out, so i didn't want to buy it out of principle, I'm not going to encourage shovelware publishers. That's really my beef with Civ3.
So the stories of people's experiences on the Civ3 forum, which were mostly negative from my point of view, came as no surprise.
And this is the crux - i actually don't need Civ3, i've got Ctp2 which does everything i want in this genre, and IMHO does it better than the rest and is changing all the time with new Mods and fan made files.
I won't even Warez Civ3 as i'm against software piracy which is part of the 'Civ3' problem - because of software piracy games publishers have had to adopt a much more cutthroat policy, so they have to shovel when push comes to shove. So our games get worse. So i buy less.And the cycle goes on.
If people love Civ3 then that is cool - i just know it ain't for me for all the reasons that Tamerlin and Locutus and others have mentioned.
Ctp2 isn't perfect, but i prefer it to Civ2 which was a classic, and at least there are some interesting things that people here are trying to do with it. I might be imagining it but it does seem that the regular guys here are all on the same wavelength when it comes to the kind of 'Civ' game we would all like to play.
CTP2 gives us that opportunity and given time it can be done.
So for anyone 'Pondering' about CTP2 and who maybe feels that Civ3 somehow missed a great opportunity then i'd say go get CTP2 - it's cheap, it ain't half bad and least we are a freindly lot and what you don't like you can try to change(or ask for help  ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
No. It gets only one defender just like the human player. But if the city is connected to its homeland with a road or a railroad, it will instantly move a second defender in, because the standard city garrison for the AI is 2. If this is not possible, it will, depending from the government, poprush or draft a second. This ain't cheats, because the human can do the same, even though he usually won't. |
It was the same turn so AI couldn't have pop rushed or bought the extra unit plus I could see every tile around the city so I know another unit didn't sneak in. AI got two units there is no other way to explain it. Like you I was sceptical but I've seen at least three different time now so I don't think the problem is me.
[qoute]You can use this to your own advantage, if you want. Just close the gap when the troops are close, and open another. But good players won't do this.[/quote]
I know I can over come the AI cheating because even with the cheats the AI can't think very well. The point is that the experiement proves the AI knows things it shouldn't.
quote:
Bonuses aren't cheats. If you call them so, you must call also any human player on Warlord and Chieftain a cheater, because in these levels the AI gets handicapped and the human gets the bonuses. Since hexagonian played his first game on Warlord, he must be by your logic a blatant cheater. Say this hex in his face! |
Bonus are a cheat/handy-cap used to make the AI more competetive. I don't mind because this can be controled with the editor or by adjusting the difficulty. Any time the gets something the human can't then it is a cheat. Like I said before I don't mind the AI cheating just don't beat me over the head with it.
In conclusion the AI cheats
1)By knowing the type and location of all resources even the ones it shouldn't be able to see.
2)AI knows the geography of blacked out areas it, or anyone else, has never been to.
3)AI automatically knows what is in my cities at any given time. Even when there is no possible way for it to have that knowledge.
4)Ai gets extra units above and beyond what the human does. This cannot be changed or edited.
5)AI gets bonuses and reduced costs for techs and units. This can be modified or edited.
Does all of this mean Civ3 is a bad game? No, just that Civ3's AI cheats just like every other games AI...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
The 2-defenders cheat neither I nor anybody else in the Civ3-Strategy forum has ever seen, despite of continuous playing. If you can prove it, please post a savegame in the Civ3-Strategy forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Bonus are a cheat/handy-cap used to make the AI more competetive. I don't mind because this can be controled with the editor or by adjusting the difficulty. |
Or to make the human competitive. So hexagonian is a cheater, because he got a bonus in his game. Just like every other player on Chieftain and Warlord level. Face the fact, hex.
quote:
In conclusion the AI cheats
1)By knowing the type and location of all resources even the ones it shouldn't be able to see.
2)AI knows the geography of blacked out areas it, or anyone else, has never been to.
3)AI automatically knows what is in my cities at any given time. Even when there is no possible way for it to have that knowledge.
4)Ai gets extra units above and beyond what the human does. This cannot be changed or edited.
5)AI gets bonuses and reduced costs for techs and units. This can be modified or edited.
|
1 - type of resource: proven "no", location: proven "yes". 50% true, 50% wrong.
2 - proven to be 100% wrong. The AI has no knowledge about the entire map. Why else would it send units exploring? To fool the human? Ever traded maps with the AI? You can even see where it made suicide galley tries.
3 - define "what". If can see if it is garrisoned. But it sees improvements only if it has an embassy, in which case you also can investigate its cities.
4 - What do you mean by this? On higher levels (Emperor and Deity) it gets a defined startup pack of units (see editor). During the game, it gets nothing extra.
5 - Again, on the lower levels the human gets the bonuses. Is this a cheat too?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
RE: Bonus Cheats
All games (CTP2-civ3 and others) use bonuses on the higher levels. This, IMO, is acceptable because it does make for a better game - the human can outthink the computer because it cannot plan long-term so bonuses compensate the AI.
To give you some idea how the bonuses are implemented, in civ3 for Deity, they run more along the lines of 200% bonuses across the board, higher happiness penalties for the human and probably a few others that I may not be aware of. Someone may have to enlighten us just what those bonuses are though, and in the interest of presenting the facts clearly, I'm asking someone to pick up the ball for this...
I can spell out the bonuses in Cradle for Deity though...
1. The bonuses run more along the line of 120-140% across the board, if the civ is ahead of the human player, and up to 500% if the AI civ is very far behind the leader (human or AI).
2. The AI starts out with 11 advances, the human 3.
3. The AI starts out with 3 settlers, and the human 1.
4. The AI start outs with 10,000 gold and 6,000 PW, the human 100 gold.
5. During the couse of the game, the AI also gets a continual PW boost (offhand I cannot recall what the number is,
6. The AI will upgrade units for free, whereas the human player pays gold for upgrades.
So from that standpoint, the bonuses in CTP2 are rather strong. IMO, numbers 1,3 are the most powerful ones. Number 6 may seem powerful, but it is easy to generate a lot of RB gold in CTP2, and the AI does not seem to do as much RBing as the human player, even with that extra gold in its fund - and I had increased the gold required for any RBing so the human player cannot depend too much on that strategy.
Nevertheless, I am playing civ3 at the moment, having played and modded CTP1\CTP2 rather heavily since 1999. I'm currently moved up to playing at Regent (ver 1.29 patch) in my current game. The things I posted earlier in this thread are still holding up in my current game though - both good and bad.
My issues with civ3 probably fall along the lines that there are inherent design flaws within the game. I do not like the tech researching format that actually rewards a player more if he saves his gold and buys it on the open market. And there is no incentive to even be the first one to reach a tech, because the game will then reward all the other players with a lower research rate in addition to the normal bonuses. This may appear similar to the CTP2 bonuses, but actually it is not, because the reduced rate in civ3 applies to the human player too and actually ends up handicapping the AI. In CTP2, the human player has to earn it, any way you look at it.
Lack of variety in Governments in civ3 is another weakness.
I've already mentioned the Railroad Sleaze, which, IMO, kills the game at the Industrial Age, at a strategic level. Simply adding another tier of Tile Improvements and reducing the infinite movement of RR would make the game more believable and put back the need to think about what a player needs to do.
I cannot say for sure that the civ3 AI knows troop placement - the enemy did seem to beeline a loaded galley to an undefended city in two of my games, but I moved a spearman into it a turn before it arrived this game and it still unloaded/attacked it. And I do not trade maps with any civs in my last 2 games, which seemed to put a damper on AI aggression. Funny, because in both games, I placed a high emphasis on exploration and peaceful expansion, so I have the bulk of my continent mapped out anyhow. So who needs maps anyhow???
And I have cultured flipped two AI cities and have a bead on a third one - several others are likely targets too.
It does boil down to preferences though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
I have the feeling the AI has been designed to use all the tricks many players have learned to use in Civ2. |
I think this comment is key: if you're a die-hard Civ2 player and have play this game totally to death for the last 5-7 years, I'm sure the AI of Civ3 is okay and allows you to play your own game. However, if you're just a casual player and have never managed to win an OCC game (which is probably 99% of all Civ players), Civ3's AI behaves dominates the early game, exactly as I, Tamerlin, centrifuge and others have noted. When this happens at Deity level, this is okay, a good thing even, but when it also happens on Warlord level something is wrong IMHO... Combine that with the fact that, judging from the posts here, the AI obviously plays by a different set of rules than the human player (although the degree to which these rules are different remains an open question, at least for the uninformed reader of this thread) and I can see how many people (mainly casual players) might complain about the AI - and how others (mainly hardcore civ2-ers) might like it.
As Dave said, in the end it all boils down to preferences... which leads me to booting up my good old modded CtP2 again
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Locutus, I'm also bored of covering all these points, I guess I'll not cover tham again till my interview, but I am yet to get a challenge as tough as in Civ 3. Yes, I got bored with Civ 2 ages ago, I found the AI there the same as Civ 1. I played my first Civ 2 game on King, hoping the AI has improved, I blew it to bits, played on Deity, blew it, and got disappointed by Civ 2 even more than I was (and I always was). I play Civ 3 only on Regent now, though might soon move up, but there I have been through big world wars, I've actually lost cities on my homeland, I've been conquered, etc.
CtP 2 still fails to provide this much of a challenge.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hermann the Lombard
|
|
Hoboken, NJ, USA
Jun 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
HD: Well said.
The AI cheats in every computer game I have ever played where the AI is a challenge to the human player. Anyone who can program an AI that can regularly defeat good players *without* bonuses would probably not be writing AI for computer games.
So it doesn't bother me that the AI has such bonuses in CTP2 and in Civ3 (Civ2, SMAC, etc. etc.). Often the bonuses open up exploits for the human player like the bait and switch defense in Civ3, based on alternating undefended cities (which may have been fixed; I haven't played since 1.17).
Right now I prefer Cradle to Civ3. I *like* Civ3 and fully expect to play it again, but I haven't played it since I tried Cradle (6 months ago now). OTOH, I haven't been playing much Cradle lately because I've been playing Caesar III, Pharaoh, and Zeus...with Emperor due out in the fall.
I'm willing to play Civ3 on its own terms, and I really enjoyed the diplomacy and culture, the UUs, the distinctive nature of specific civs (for example, some civs need to "make their play" early when their UUs are available, and that will trigger your one shot with a golden age). I liked the maps, which have a better feel than the CTP2 maps (deserts north of E-W mountain ranges, and so forth). But I thought armies were very poorly implemented (at least through 1.17), and combat--while improved from Civ2--was still one-at-a-time, all or nothing (for the specific unit, not the stack). A friend said it was like two gangs fighting in an alley 3 feet wide.
So go with your own preferences and enjoy! You can listen to us babble about OUR preferences and even why we have those preferences.
As always: YMMV!
-- Ed (HtL)
p.s. I'm hoping Vel joins us for a while, as he was a big part of why I enjoyed and was successful at Civ3 early on. I'm not an expert player, but I learn from the experts. I don't have time to make all the mistakes myself, either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cookie Monster
|
 |
New England
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
HD: Well said.
The AI cheats in every computer game I have ever played where the AI is a challenge to the human player. Anyone who can program an AI that can regularly defeat good players *without* bonuses would probably not be writing AI for computer games.
So it doesn't bother me that the AI has such bonuses in CTP2 and in Civ3 (Civ2, SMAC, etc. etc.). Often the bonuses open up exploits for the human player like the bait and switch defense in Civ3, based on alternating undefended cities (which may have been fixed; I haven't played since 1.17).
But I thought armies were very poorly implemented (at least through 1.17), and combat--while improved from Civ2--was still one-at-a-time, all or nothing (for the specific unit, not the stack). A friend said it was like two gangs fighting in an alley 3 feet wide.
As always: YMMV!
-- Ed (HtL)
p.s. I'm hoping Vel joins us for a while, as he was a big part of why I enjoyed and was successful at Civ3 early on. I'm not an expert player, but I learn from the experts. I don't have time to make all the mistakes myself, either. |
 Agreed! Armies in 1.29f have really been revamped. You can now blitz with them provided they are solely comprised of units that have that ability. An army of Modern Armor truely is devastating!
What does YMMV mean?
Finally, I like you tend to learn from the experts and then adapt their tricks to my own style of play. Can't wait to try out my strategies against live human's when PTW comes out!
Alexnm:
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2002 20:30
|