 |
|
Jaholt
|
|
Solihull, England
Oct 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
Here is one thing that infuriates me:
The situation: An enemy has a fleet of ships approaching my coast. Some of my coastal cities are defended better than others. What happens? The fleet arives at the coast, doesn't land it's troops and moves on. Why? the city was well defended. The fleet arrives at the next city, does it land? depends again on the defenders. If this city is well defended, off goes the fleet again until it finds a less well-defended city. This is cheating!!
The point is that the enemy Civ shouldn't know if my cities are well defended or not. I don't have this knowledge when I do the attacking. And this happens before Espionage.
Anyone else find this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cidifer
|
|
by that logic we should know this also then.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cidifer
|
|
he said it was prior to espionoge though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
After having numberous problems with this exact scenario. All, I can do is offer some suggestions to use this "cheat" to your advantage. First, in theory it is possible to know where your enemies units are. It is under the espionage menu. Basically, reveal troop locations.
If you are fighting with an enemy that is landing from the ocean. Then have all of your coastal cities defended. But, have one city that is a few tiles away from the water, undefended. When the AI drops its troops off, they will go around your other cities and go directly for the undefended one. If you have railroad, then you can quickly move units to attack the AI units walking across your territory. Also, because it is your terrain, the computer AI is limited by how much it can move in a turn. So, you don't have to wipe them out right away. When I play, I will usually, leave one city purposely undefended. But this city is usually, located away from my border with the enemy. So, they have to go across some of my territory to get there. Meanwhile, my border or coastal cities are well defended. And, as the AI units move across my land, I can see them coming a mile away.
As far as computer cheating goes. I think that the cheat that bothers me the most, is that the computer knows where the resources are before they pop up. If you study closely where the AI places its cities, then you will see that early in the game, the computer will drop cities in some of the oddest places, sometimes in the middle of nowhere. That is because that is a future location for oil/rubber/uranium/ or whatever else, they may want. I think that this particular cheat is the worst one of all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Keeper of Hell
|
|
I would think that you'd be glad that the AI acts in this fashion rather than getting angry about it. You can obviously use this to your advantage- the AI's scatterbrained tactics combined with its knowledge of all your units causes it to do the stupidest things, especially when RRs come along. AI troops will march on (or in this case, sail toward) a badly-defended city. You, using the advantage of your roads or RRs, quickly shift defenders to this city, thus causing it to be a poor target for the AI. So, the hapless invaders set off for another badly-defended city, you shift your troops there, they change directions, and the cycle repeats. I've always wondered whether this of knowledge of troop positions doesn't actually hinder the AI more than it helps, considering how badly the computer puts the information to use.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cidifer
|
|
quote:
I would think that you'd be glad that the AI acts in this fashion rather than getting angry about it. You can obviously use this to your advantage- the AI's scatterbrained tactics combined with its knowledge of all your units causes it to do the stupidest things, especially when RRs come along. AI troops will march on (or in this case, sail toward) a badly-defended city. You, using the advantage of your roads or RRs, quickly shift defenders to this city, thus causing it to be a poor target for the AI. So, the hapless invaders set off for another badly-defended city, you shift your troops there, they change directions, and the cycle repeats. I've always wondered whether this of knowledge of troop positions doesn't actually hinder the AI more than it helps, considering how badly the computer puts the information to use. |
You know your the 4th person to say that, I think we all get it by now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jaholt
|
|
Solihull, England
Oct 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
Yes, you can lead enemy troops into a trap with an undefended city; and yes, you can shuffle troops from city to city to thwart a landing, but this is strategy you have to develop to counteract cheating. For me this is poor gameplay.
I wasn't aware that potential resources were grabbed by AI Civs.
Another problem: when I capture workers on enemy territory I have to move them manually to my own territory. This can be tricky. When an enemy grabs my workers, they instantly disappear! presumably teleported back to the enemy territory.
Does anyone know a solution to this? (apart from keeping all workers defended).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Well, the AI needs these cheats to provide a worthwhile challenging game against you. The only thing you can do to get non-cheating good competitors is to get PtW when it comes out.
I'll give the AI to CivVI to have these tricks and cheats, then I'll start expecting them to actually be intelligent like their name suggests.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
I really wish that CIV3 would be patched, and have the AI place a greater importance on cutting off resources or luxuries. Or launching suprise attacks on cities that have wonders. It is pretty much a given, that when you invade a enemy civ, you pillage their resources, then pillage their luxuries. Then if you think that you may not wipe them out completely, and before you have to sign a peace treaty, you might as well take their cities that have wonders in them. I think that this way of "thinking" would make the AI a little more realisitc, and everyone that had current maps, would have a better idea of what cities or areas of the map would be prone to attack, and defend them accordingly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gunter
|
|
OK, my god ...listen this:
I have just initiated middle ages:
There are no embassy in me with no one.I have no embassy in no one.
Persians land by sea,CHEATING A LOT ,avoid my first coastal well defended cities and attack my lonely city that have no defense ( usually I had 3/4 defending units per city ) .
I forgot to defend it after moving defending units to a close war with another civ.
WELL,HOW CAN PERSIANS KNOW THAT THAT SPECIFICALLY CITY WAS THE ONLY ONE ( AMONG CA. 20 CITIES ) THAT WAS NOT DEFENDED HAVING NO EMBASSIES AND HAVE NOT YET DISCOVERED SPY?
If you can explain me this I'll would be very happy,because from my point of view this is CHEATING,or at least is a big bug.
You surelly know better of me that some battles or some cities are not important but someotherelse are fundamental for the empire strenght.
Thanks
Gunter
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cidifer
|
|
People have already said that this is AI cheating. Since most people are smarter then the computer they need to let the AI cheat sometimes to make them harder, otherwise they'd be a total push over. It's like in certain FPS the AI can see you even when your in shadows and can basically see 360 degree around themselves. Just makes them tougher to kill.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gunter
|
|
This consideration take me directly to latest events in my current game.
I see too many times spearmen winning easily vs my fortified elite pikemen behind walls.
When I try with chivalry vs pc's pikemen I need at least 5 units to win.
If AI cheats knowing map,city units etc...what should make me think that AI does the same during battles?
In any case I consider CIV3 a piece of pure gold,above all considering Firaxis support,but playing poker vs opponents full of aces it's not funny,IMHO.
I'm playing at monarch level,I don't want to think what the AI could do at higher level,maybe during ancient times it attacks with moderrn tank and stealth bomber?????
I have never tried Deity level,I'm quite afraid about what the AI could " produce ".
Moreover....another AI cheat in my current game.
When I start a war vs Americans,the Romas attack me suddenly. ( of course there is no reason,no alliances between them,no past my bad actions )
I make peace with all,and after couple of turns I attack americans again,and Romans without having contacts with americans attack me again after few turns.
I have no words...
Gunter
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gunter
|
|
Swordsmen,not spearmen.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:23
|
|
quote: I forgot to defend it after moving defending units to a close war with another civ. |
Oops.
quote: When I start a war vs Americans,the Romas attack me suddenly. ( of course there is no reason,no alliances between them,no past my bad actions )
I make peace with all,and after couple of turns I attack americans again,and Romans without having contacts with americans attack me again after few turns. |
In what way is this a cheat? Sounds like the Romans were beligerant SOBs... which kinda fits, you know. Speaking of having "no reason" to attack you, what reason was it that made you attack America?
quote: When I try with chivalry vs pc's pikemen I need at least 5 units to win. |
It is a rather common misconception that the AI gets combat advantages. It does not (except vs. barbarians, since on the default AI level - Regent - there is a hefty barb combat bonus). You may have had some bad luck, you may have attacked a size 12 city across a river or on a hill, which would result in bad odds for your knights. Or you could just be remembering your defeats, as they are more memorable.
Swords attacking pikes behind walls should certainly lose more often than they win (walls = 50% bonus, fortification +25%, I believe. That makes the pikeman about a 5 defense, versus the attacking 3). It's not outside my realm of belief, though. It ain't exactly the famous "spearman defeats tank" episode, which I've had happen (I laughed and then killed the spearman with my next Tank).
As Warpstorm said, Soren Johnson has repeatedly explained that the AI does not have combat advantages, and I see no reason why he'd lie.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Gunter
|
|
Yes, I agree strange defeat are remembered better than strange wins,but the fact of romans was so :
---Conquering weak americans cities would gave me a good vantage in terms of expansion.Well, Romans did not tollerate my expansion politic,so without having contacts with no one they attacked me suddenly.
After peace with all,( I couldn't manage to substain 2 wars at the same time ) I attacked americans again.
Well, Romans always without having treaties and contacts with no one stopped again my expansionist politics.
This story has been repeated a thrid time,always with Romans fully isolated from the whole globe.
Then I was forced to make peace with them all,in order to avoid to loose.
How can romans could start attack just after I attacked Americans having Romans no contacts with americans and having me done no bad actions against them?
Well,after several turns below my 2 cities ( initially taken from americans and then conquered from Romans ) appeared coal.
This is a preventive war not only to obtain resources not yet appeared but also to stop my expansionist war,without knowing I was moving to americans,or..yes they knew it very well without contacts with americans,strange don't you?
This at least IMHO
Gunter
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|