 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DeepO

|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002 time: 06:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by alva848
lol@ DeepO: knowing where you come from I didn't think you would like these changes, cultural diversity and all that.  |
Yeah, sometimes you just have to have some conviction, and after that you try to find some 'proof' why you are right Indeed, I wouldn't like it if the Zulus start to build culture like crazy, let them overrun lesser civs in the ancient era, I'll gladly culturally flip their cities in the middle ages 
quote: But what you can do though, is when you are going to play a pangea map for example, is change certain things that won't be as important (build naval springs to mind offcourse), afterall Firaxis made this list to work on all maps.
| Certainly... only choosing the right civs for some scenario would be good. And if you set the starting positions, you can generally predict which of the civs will do good in all games, and which won't reach the middle ages...
BTW, good to see you gained your avatar today, I'm hoping to lose my warlord status tonight 
DeepO
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999 time: 05:21
|
|
Alexman, thanks for a stimulating thread. As a Mac user with no editor to access, I found your chart in the original post to be invaluable. Now Arrian and others are running in the right direction with it.
This sems to be the best way to create as killer an AI as possible, and one that can be tested relatively easily and quickly. On Emperor, the AI's 20% production edge could theoretically make it competitive, if its focus was on shields to produce beakers. It might put the human in a position where war is (once again) the only way to the top.
Does anyone think that emphasis on offensive units would make an AI more dangerous? Despite the fact that this is flagged for six civs, I rarely see the sort of mounted forces that people on this forum routinely assemble.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Chinese, Persian, and Roman civ traits got changed in last second before the game was shipped. That should explain the discrepancies in the AI Civ's build priorities with their civ traits.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
phunny_pharmer
|
|
Question for Soren-
Are all buildings with the 'wealth' flag rated equally by the AI. Will the AI choose ANY 'wealth' related building, or is it subject to some restrictions.
For instance, suppose it has the choice between an 80 shield building that produces 50% tax @ 2 upkeep, or a 120 shield, 50% tax 25% science @ 3 upkeep building. I think one of the mods had this scenario.
Now, which would a 'wealth' choosing AI build? Is there any way to *make* the AI build one more often then the other without using prereqs?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Theseus

|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
First off, I totally applaud the effort. As I've stated before, I think the challenge for any worldgame developer in meeting the needs / desires of the spectrum from builder to warmonger inherently limits the AI civs to a lower level of performance than I'd like to play against... thus, the search for ways to generate killer AI civs.
Thus far, I've tried approaches to this OTHER than going into the editor. In general, just using player settings, I've found that a) differentiated quality of starting territory and b) distance between civs seem to be the greatest factors. The strong get stronger, indeed. Where I've been frustrated is that often the successful AI civs don't push there advantage as much as one of us would.
My guess is that these build preferences are where the answers lie... this is actually much more important to me than most of the modding discussions I've seen thus far, which have primarily focused on units, buildings, and techs.
Some comments:
1) FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES
Alexman sort of went wild in re-setting build preferences. While I think thats fine for scenarios, I am mostly interested in improving the basic game, so I would tend towards minimalist tweaks. I also think that gameplay balance is incredibly difficult to manage... again, hats off to Soren and company, and it's my guess that just a few changes to build preferences will edge certain AI civs over into a killer state (again, predicated on their initial environment in a given game).
2) KILLER HUMAN CIVS
Basically, I want the killer AI civs that arise to play with a combination of the tactics / strategies that people discuss here and at CFC.
(I can just see it: "Oh no, it's a Horse-Samurai-Cav-Tank Army!!! %$@!@$@#@% Must be the Theseus code in the AI!!")
Seriously, I want the AI to do the same things we do... oscillate, don;t go offensive without barracks, upgrade units, attack along hills / mountains, follow Vel's fanatical insistence on Marketplaces, get Factories up ASAP, etc.
I'm not asking for a re-write of the code, but I think, with the patches to date, we can tweak build preferences to get there.
If I had to pick the things WE do that the AI civs don't, but that I think build preferences can help: Barracks (except I don;t know where these fall in the preferences), offensive land units, and treasury management.
3) WHAT ALREADY WORKS?
Before trying to make specific suggestions, I have a question for all: What AI civs already seem to be the closest to killers?
For me, it's been Egypt, France, Germany, and Greece...
What are their existing characteristics, and are there any commonalities? For instance, all four have a preference for Culture!! WTF? What role does that play in their successes?
Can we get some discussion on this point, before trying to reach a consensus on what changes might be most beneficial?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
Hmm,
In my experience:
Stong: France, Greece, Egypt and China (note 3 industrious civs in there)
Medium: Aztecs, India, Babylon, Persia, Japan, America, Russia & Iroquois (hmm, lots of religious civs)
Weak: Rome, Germany, Zulu, England
What do I notice? Well, without even looking at build preferences, 3 out of 4 "weak" civs are aggressive militarists with a mediocre 2nd trait. England just sucks. Three out of four "strong" AI civs are industrious, and all have medium-low aggressiveness ratings. In other words, they will attack only when they are stronger. Greece and China have UU's the AI can't help but benifit from, and France's is well-timed. Egypt's is really only powerful in the hands of the human.
Now, I have seen some of these civs in different categories in particular games. I've seen a stong India and a weak Greece. But I've never seen a strong Rome, Zululand or England. France, given time to develop, is almost always solid.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
After everyone's comments, I agree that a better approach to creating a killer AI would be one with smaller changes, at least initially.
Here's a revised table of build priorities that might work:
code:
Civilization Off Def Arty Setl Work Nav Air Grth Prod Hap Sci Wlth Trad Expl Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome (4) X - - X + +
Egypt (3) X X + + -
Greece (3) - + X X X
Babylon (4) + + X X
Germany (5) X + X + -
Russia (4) - X + X +
China (2) + - X - + +
America (3) X X X + -
Japan (4) X - + X +
France (1) + X X X
India (1) - + + X X -
Persia (4) X + + X -
Aztecs (4) X + X +
Zulu (5) X + + +
Iroquois (2) X + X X
England (3) X + - X X
X = original
- = removed
+ = added
In modifying the table, I followed these rules:
- Maximum of four build-often items per civ.
- Production a build-often for everyone
- Each civ needs at least one marketplace category (trade, wealth, or happiness)
- Take advantage of civ traits: Scientific->Science, Religious->Happiness, Militaristic->Offense (or Defense) and trade (cheap harbors etc), Expansionist->Growth or Explore.
- Don't change anything unless it violates one of the above rules.
Theseus, what do you think? Could we set up the next AU course with this, or a similarly modified AI build list? It would be interesting to compare notes on how the AI is affected by these changes.
Edit:
India: wealth instead of growth
Rome: culture instead of growth
China: culture instead of growth
Persia: wealth instead of trade
Edit:
Egypt: wealth instead of culture
Last edited by alexman on 30-07-2002 at 22:56
|
|
|  |
 |
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Theseus
* Why add Def to China?
|
China is militaristic. I thought flagging defensive units would at least take some advantage of their trait (and add variety). Perhaps they will build more barracks. I didn't add the offensive units flag because China is the only militaristic civ with low aggression. But maybe it's better to flag offensive units, as the AI makes enough defensive units as it is. I don't know.
quote:
* I thought Soren indicated that Wealth was good for some builds too... are you assuming that having both Wealth and Trade is overkill?
|
Initially I was proposing to put wealth in the build-never list, which is clearly a very bad idea. I started out with the intention of keeping Wealth flagged for some civs, but that would make them have more than four items in their list. Whenever there was a choice between a trade and wealth, I chose trade, because the latter clearly has more valuable builds, especially for militaristic civs.
quote:
* As I pointed out in an earlier post, Culture might be one of the key prefs... how about alternating Prod and Cult?
|
Culture and Production have very different builds. You clearly need both. On the other hand, happiness and science produce culture, so there is some overlap there. How about ensuring that each civ gets at least one culture-producing build-often category (culture, science, happiness)?
quote:
I'd love to get a minimalist approach to unit / building mods, maybe from Vel and those guys, and merge it with this.
|
I suggest player 1's conservative patch suggestion mod. He has made some brilliant tweaks that nonetheless keep the original Civ3 flavor.
If we start from a bic file instead of a save, we can use the same map to create two initial saves with different AI strategies. We could post both saves as part of AU102, and people could choose which one to play, if not both.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chieftess
|
 |
Baltimore, Md.
May 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm,
In my experience:
Stong: France, Greece, Egypt and China (note 3 industrious civs in there)
Medium: Aztecs, India, Babylon, Persia, Japan, America, Russia & Iroquois (hmm, lots of religious civs)
Weak: Rome, Germany, Zulu, England
|
I think it depends on the eras and starting locations, but here's what I've noticed:
Strong: Russia, Japan, Persia
Moderate: England, Aztecs (if they get a good stronghold), China, Germany (depends on their starting posistion too..), India, Iroquois
Weak: Greece, France, Egypt, Babylon (they can expand fast, but in my games, take out their capital and surronding cities, and they're toast), America, Zulu, Rome
While Greece and France have some of the best defensive units, I have yet to see the French USE their musketeers! I've used them with great success, since their stats are like 2 swordman in one.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|