 |
|
Dominae
|
|
The Zulu are "going down fighting". I see nothing wrong with that. The reason it seems so odd is that 1) the AI tactics are not as good as a human's, and 2) they're way behind technologically. So their attempt is quite feeble. But 'feeble' does not mean "not the right decision".
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
So are you arguing that the AI is weak because it refuses peace when cornered, or weak beccause it eventually caves in? I would think that the combination of these two is the main problem, a neither taken alone (although "fighting it out" would make for a better game, IMO).
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
We've all been through this before in many other threads, but I believe it is ridiculous to enter negotiations when a civ is that weak, from a gameplay perspective. A civ this weak has no reason to go on living, so to speak. Thus anything that is done with it is exploitative ("Gimme all your techs!", "Train my troops every 20 turns!", etc.). A human player would never negotiate under such circumstances, but would just quit. And if simply quitting is not an option, you can bet he or she would go down fighting. Thus we've come full circle.
Really, the real problem is that the AI is willing to give in when it has nothing to gain except for continued survival, which is useless in and of itself in a game.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dominae
Really, the real problem is that the AI is willing to give in when it has nothing to gain except for continued survival [...] |
Yet -- not to disagree with your analysis from a gameplay POV -- this sounds so very, very human.
-Oz
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
That's true Oz, but there are many real-life human behaviours that should not be included in a game AI. I personally believe this one of them, simply because the human player throws it out the window when he or she knows it's just a game. Other behaviours of this type include 1) unwillingness to play 24/7, 2) tendency to make gameplay errors, 3) willingness to hold grudges from previous games.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dominae
That's true Oz, but there are many real-life human behaviours that should not be included in a game AI. I personally believe this one of them, simply because the human player throws it out the window when he or she knows it's just a game. Other behaviours of this type include 1) unwillingness to play 24/7, 2) tendency to make gameplay errors, 3) willingness to hold grudges from previous games.
Dominae |
As I mentioned, I wasn't disagreeing with you from the point of view of what AI behavior makes for the best game; I merely found something ironic in a human-like behavior in an AI being a detrement.
Nevertheless, I would also suggest that's it's not beyond the realm of possibility -- however unintended by the AI -- that such Churchillian tenacity might nevertheless have some profound effect on the game. Examples which come to mind -- the enemy just beyond them has a critical extra set of turns to prepare for war. Or some Byzantine labyrinth of treaties and opinions of trustworthiness (the enemy of the enemy of the friend of my least trusted ex-allie's third cousin once removed is my friend) might result in the otherwise-presumably-doomed Civ having a bit of critical and timely help sent its way. Again, agreed, not statistically very likely -- but most interesting when it does happen.
... Or would you always have the women in the next room, coming and going, talking of Michelangelo?*
Best,
Oz
* For those of you utterly perlexed by this or who REALLY think I should give up these post-4AM posts, it's a reference to Dominae's tag-line.
-O.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
Obviously (I think), the terraforming activities of the AI are independent of the current government (all decisions are made on the raw output of a tile). This makes it easier to code, especially since there is no need to "go back" and re-improve a tile later on.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
I thought the AI simply irrigated fewer Grasslands in general. The Workers would then go back and change this if Food was lacking.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
So you're saying that the PTW AI never irrigates Grasslands before a higher government becomes available? So if you set up a test where the AI was lacking in Food to grow, and then gifted it Monarchy, it would only then begin build irrigation?
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
I just ran a test alexman, and you're quite right (as usual!). I did notice some odd things:
1. Immediately upon entering Monarchy, the AI goes back and re-does the tiles, regardless of how "useful" this is. In the screenshot below, the AI replaced most mines with irrigation, even when it was at size 12 already.
2. In the same scenario, the AI never built a Worker! It used the 2 it started with (Emperor level) to improve all the tiles, which took quite some time. I guess the AI obeys a limit on the number of Workers per city.
3. After I gifted Polytheism, Cleo's attitude went from Polite (10) to Gracious (17). Then when I gave Monarchy, it went down to 11. Huh? Does the AI know when the human player is "buttering it up", so to speak?
Dominae
Attachment: aitest.jpg
This has been downloaded 67 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
If they're going to categorically refuse all your proposals, why talk?
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|