 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
Well, yes it's brilliant, but I just used that title to get Soren's attention. 
So here's the question: Say we have two defensive units. Infantry, with both AI offense and AI defense flags in the editor, and Mech. Infantry, with only the defense flag. Say the AI builds an Infantry unit in an attack role because it doesn't have access to oil or saltpeter. What happens to that unit later, when it's time to upgrade (assuming he now has the necessary resources)?
a) Does it upgrade retaining an attack role, even if Mech Infantry doesn't have that flag set in the editor?
b) Does it upgrade to a defensive role, thereby changing the balance of the AI's offensive and defensive units?
c) Does it not upgrade at all, instead performing attacks against more modern units until it's killed?
PS. Note that this is not the case in the standard game. Mech Infantry actually has offense and defense flagged. But does that mean that there is a chance that the AI will actually build Mech Inf. instead of tanks for attack, even though they both require the same resources?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
the answer is b)... if MI's do not have an offensive flag option, then the only MI's the AI can have are "defensive" MI's.
Last edited by Soren Johnson Firaxis on 07-08-2002 at 02:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I think the AI is building Tanks on a bigger scale in 1.29f. But since Tanks are considered offensive weapons, the AI doesn't build many under Democracy and during peace time. Thus a human player has it very easy to backstab the AI.
I think the key here is to give AI greater emphasis on building more Tanks and fewer Infantries.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I think the AI is building Tanks on a bigger scale in 1.29f. But since Tanks are considered offensive weapons, the AI doesn't build many under Democracy and during peace time. Thus a human player has it very easy to backstab the AI. |
There's an old saying that "Those who wish for peace should prepare for war," or something like that. Meaning that a strong army is a powerful deterent of enemy agression. Nuclear weapons have been used almost exclusively in this fashion (thank goodness). Also, even "offensive" units have important uses in defensive warfare -- you can attack invading units in your territory. In fact, unless the enemy's offensive unit has a defensive unit protecting it, it is usually better to do this than simply to wait to be attacked.
So, in conclusion, even a peaceful, defensive democracy needs a balanced military, not just mainly defensive units. In other words, the AI is dumb.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnM2433
. . .So, in conclusion, even a peaceful, defensive democracy needs a balanced military, not just mainly defensive units. In other words, the AI is dumb. |
Right on the nose!
This AI is BRAINDEAD, not "brilliant".
I once was the number one power with China, on my border, a very close second. There were by then six other civs scattered around.
I decided to take out China and as soon as I developed tanks I went after him. (I had modded the game so I wasn't restricted by Firaxis' stupid unit values and too few units, but tanks were still the best time to attack then).
WHAMMO! I hit him hard. Did very well that first turn.
I then waited for the inevitable DEVASTATING COUNTERATTACK - made all the worse owing to the ridiculous and illogical UNLIMITED MP's of units on railroads.
That counteratttack never came!! Just a few paltry attacks with cavalry, some tanks, and no artillery of course. The stupid AI is too dumb to use artillery.
So, I continued to roll over China. It was easy, unchallenging, and rather tedious. All because of Soren's STUPID AI that thinks "the best defense is lots of defensive units". Soren obviously knows NOTHING about military strategy. Without OFFENSIVE units to counterattack you will LOSE, especially as the AI can't figure out how to use artillery offensively. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Coracle,
The problem is simply that insufficient time is spent refining gameplay versus all the other development tasks necessary to produce a game such as Civ3 in today's PC game environment.
The whole process is so big that it gathers momentum and goes out of control. Have you read what has transpired with Moo3?
Civ3 was a big money maker because of the marketing power of the Civilization and Sid Meier names. Firaxis only had to create a passable rendition of Civ. They didn't have to create anything new, good, or special. Whether they could have is debatable isn't it?
At any rate, Civ3 is what Civ3 is. I agree with you that the gameplay is, at its height, uninspired, and at its worse, unbelievably boring.
Maybe someone will create some decent gameplay and then build a game around it someday soon. Sid has done it quite a few times. Just because Jeff Briggs is not capable of such work doesn't mean we won't have anything to look forward to. We just need to be prepared to wait a few years or five.
The fact is that game makers can't live forever on past laurels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Well, I personally think the game is fun, or at least incredibly addictive. I haven't played enought to learn all of the AI's tricks yet, though. When and if that happens, the game will lose a lot of its charm.
But by then Play the World will be out, with multiplayer. That will be the real fun.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 01:28
!.... once again! 
|