 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
Ever wonder why AI England is always laughable, while AI Egypt often dominates? Why Zululand rarely gets past the Middle Ages? Well, it’s more than just traits and UU. Ever wonder why the AI sometimes doesn’t have a marketplace in the industrial era, or why it doesn’t have factories well into the modern era? The answer is the build strategy that the AI follows in its cities.
Each civilization has a “build-often” and a “build-never” list. You can find this list under the civilizations tab in the editor. The build-never list is always empty, but the build-often list is as follows:
code:
Civilization Off Def Arty Setl Work Nav Air Grth Prod Hap Sci Wlth Trad Expl Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome (4) X X X X
Egypt (3) X X X
Greece (3) X X X X
Babylon (4) X X
Germany (5) X X X
Russia (4) X X X
China (2) X X X
America (3) X X X X
Japan (4) X X X
France (1) X X X
India (1) X X X X
Persia (4) X X X
Aztecs (4) X X
Zulu (5) X
Iroquois (2) X X X
England (3) X X X X
Off: Offensive Units
Def: Defensive Units
Arty: Ground Artillery
Setl: Settlers
Work: Workers
Nav: Naval Units
Air: Air Units
Grth: Growth Improvements
Prod: Production Improvements
Hap: Happiness Improvements
Sci: Science Improvements
Wlth: Wealth!
Trad: Trade Improvements
Expl: Exploration Units
Cult: Culture Improvements
X = build often
The number in brackets after the civilization name is its aggression level.
Looking at this list, it’s easy to explain why each AI behaves the way it does in the game. For example, England not only has bad traits and UU, but it also has Wealth and Naval Units in its build-often list. Every human player knows that a Navy is not really worth building on most maps, and that you should never build Wealth, even when you have nothing else to build! (It’s much more efficient to build a unit in a core city and disband it in a corrupt city than having the core city produce Wealth and rush-building in the corrupt city). Another example: Rome and Zululand produce units like crazy, at the expense of any kind of cultural improvements. They sometimes do well at the beginning of the game, but never last. Also, why don’t expansionist AI build scouts? Well, none of them except the Iroquois have the Explore Units in their build-often list. Why does France outperform their traits and UU? They are one of the few AI to have trade (marketplaces!) on their list, and don’t waste time building extra units.
Keep in mind that this list doesn’t mean that the AI doesn’t build other things. It builds other things, just at a lower priority.
I think the game could present a better challenge if the AI had build priorities closer to what we humans have found optimal. These build priorities are, of course, trait-dependent. Here’s a list of build priorities and aggression levels that I propose to make the AI better:
code:
Civilization Off Def Arty Setl Work Nav Air Grth Prod Hap Sci Wlth Trad Expl Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome (4) X X O X X
Egypt (3) X X X O X
Greece (2) X X O X X
Babylon (1) X X X X O X
Germany (5) X X X O X X
Russia (3) X X O X X
China (4) X X X O X X
America (3) X X X O X X X
Japan (4) X X X O X
France (1) X X O X X
India (1) X X X O X
Persia (4) X X X X O X
Aztecs (4) X X X O X
Zulu (5) X X O X X X
Iroquois (4) X X X O X X
England (2) X X O X X X
X = build often
O = build never
These are the build priorities and aggression that I would choose if I were playing those civs. I am not the best civ3 player in the world, so feel free to make suggestions on how to change these.
My philosophy was:
- Trade is a top priority for everyone. Everyone should build marketplaces ASAP.
- Some form of cultural build is a priority for everyone. Scientific civs get scientific buildings, Religious get happiness buildings, and everyone else gets generic the cultural flag checked.
- Nobody ever builds wealth.
- Production (factories) is a top priority for everyone. Subsequent builds go faster after factories.
- Industrious and builder civs get growth (granaries) as a priority.
- Militaristic and good offensive UU civs (Persia, Iroquois) get offensive units as a priority, and have higher aggression.
- Builder civs have lower aggression.
- Expansionist civs make exploration units a priority.
[Edit: removed useless bic file]
Last edited by alexman on 30-07-2002 at 00:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
Alexman, I don't know if I agree. Sure, sometimes I too find it annoying that certain civs do not produce well, don't trade well, or build loads of navy when there is no sea around. But, that also gives a wider spread in the game... the English will be better on archipelago maps then the zulu will, because they build more navy. In other maps the Zulu will be better, as they can take out large parts of the world before the others have a chance of bracing themselves.
Maybe making production a must build for all is a good idea if you look at it from one point of view, but in a mixed AI-map, having the difference will mean that certain civs will get a much bigger boost, and therefore will get more advantage then others. Just by destroying ancient civs (like the Romans or Zulu) they grow big, and menacing. If each civ would have the same production tastes, it would mean that all would be relatively equal in power, and therefore all keep about the same size. I think that in order to get better AI resistance, certain civs should not be given late game traits like trade or production.
Even the wealth option has some advantage: it will mean that certain civs will have more cash, cash they can spend on upgrades(!), techs, or making deals. Because this will always coincide with more trade buildings, it can become very powerful in comparison to other AIs. Putting all wealth to 'never build' seems a very poor decision IMHO, sometimes I use it too (never to rush buildings in corrupt cities, that is always done with spare cash floating around). I'm sure the AI will find some use for it as well.
No thanks, I appreciate the effort, but I think that having such diverse AIs will make it more enjoyable than the blendness you are proposing. Certainly if this means that certain AIs will belong to certain eras (the Zulu are ancient not industrial, while the Americans are exactly the opposite). I think better results will come from chosing the AIs carefully when playing, and so far the scenarios I've seen do that excellently: modern wars mean industrial civs, ancient wars mean ancient civs.
DeepO
[edited: too many typos]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
No... looking at it again, the only improvement I see you are proposing is giving the Persians a scientific need, instead of the Chinese. And even that is debatable: the Persians were, irl, not very scientific minded, while the Chinese were.
Maybe some shifting between the Culture things can happen, but I guess this was also thought out with respect to culturally linked starting positions. And the defense of the romans is most likely to get them to build even more legions, removing that would probably mean less attacks (how strange it might sound).
No, going over the list again, I don't see any need for changes. What should be changed (but I heard this was in the 1.29f patch) that all civs would like building improvements a bit more, which means that civs with production flagged would only build even more then that. I don't know how much of this is true, I have yet to play a 1.29 game into the industrial age...
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
A couple notes:
Trade = harbors/marketplaces/airports
Wealth = marketplaces/banks/workers, not just "Wealth"
Secondly, I would recommend rarely using the Never flags. If you test it a lot and it seems to work, maybe, but otherwise be careful...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
Soren, thanks for the clarification. It changes things a lot.
DeepO, good comments. I agree that this change is not for everyone.
If you like to see the AI build weird things just to give each civ a different flavor and to mirror their historical path, then definitely this change is not for you.
But if you prefer that the AI plays more like a human, and thus creates a greater challenge to the human, I think these changes would get you closer to that.
On top of that, I would argue that geography is the single largest factor in creating weak and powerful civs. It is very rare to get equal starting positions, so you will always get smaller civs eaten up by larger ones, with the larger ones becoming more powerful. But what if the large powerful civ has dumb build priorities? The answer is that he will be no challenge for the human. Builder and warmonger alike.
Making the Zulus start attacking everyone without any infrastructure is cute, but it is also suicide for them. They are like advanced barbarians. They hurt themselves as well as any neighboring, more balanced civs. Eventually the more balanced civ will win and will grow, but the real winner is the human player that stayed out of this mess.
As for wealth, you're right (especially after reading Soren's comments). It shouldn't be a build-never item, but it certainly shouldn't be a build-often item either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
I agree that geographical reasons have a large impact on how a certain Civ turns out, but my intuition tells me that in order to get killer AIs you will need the diversity on top of a good starting position. Sure, in certain games these two will be countering each other, but I fear that in those games were for instance the Germans get a good starting position, the original .bic will make sure it becomes a killer AI, while your changes will negate it in large as others are able to catch up.
This is my biggest concern, not the historical correctness. However, as you said, the Zulus are cute, as you'd expect them to be advanced barbarians  There is probably only one chance they have at becoming a late superpower, and that is to be so aggresive in the early game that they outpower the closest neighbours many times. They do build culture and factories, just not as often as the Germans.
Certainly, as I don't know the specifics, I can only guess at this... it is a gut feeling at best 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
A question to Soren:
In korn's blitz mod, some improvements were added that yielded only culture. The AI's actually chose to build some of them. How did they decide on that? Does every improvement that yields culture fall in the 'culture' category? |
At the beginning of the game, the AI preprocesses every unit/building to put them into multiple categories, such as trade, wealth, and culture. Thus, a cultural bank would be listed as both a cultural and a wealth building.
btw, these difference were meant to give the AI's personality... adding to the fun, not the difficulty of the game. If you want to build a killer AI, messing with these figures is probably the best place to start.
oh, and the AI does place a higher priority on shield-increasing building (known as factories and power plants to human...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
My guess is no. The game probably considers "production" improvements the ones that have a non-zero value in the production box in the editor.
Again, I think no. Just like for production, there is a "happy face" box in the editor. Marketplaces have zero there.
|
actually, the answer is yes in both cases...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2002 22:22
You do know that I was only trying to give constructive criticism, and had no bashing in mind, don't you?
|