AI Strategy to #1Superpower

[Pyrodrew]

I haven't played Civ3 in awhile, but I am tempted to play it again given all the new patches/enemies. The last I played I think was v1.17 or v1.19.

However, one thing I hated in the Civ3 AI was their cowardice to the reigning superpower. The beginning was great with rivals, threats, backstabbing and conquests. However, once I obtained #1Superpower status the enemy AI civs saw me as too big of a threat & would prefer to fight amongst themselves for minor "today" gains rather than focus on stopping their biggest threat (me) for the endgame win. That AI strategy is foolish and made me lose interest in Civ3 more quickly than I wanted.

Have any of the recent patches changed how the AI deals with a growing #1Superpower?

[vmxa1]

I would say no to that. depending on the level you were playing, you could move up to make it tke longer to become number 1.

I would also say C3C is a bit harder than vanilla.

[diablovision]

In my recent Regent game, the AI displayed a particular suicidal tendency that I thought a bit odd. If you can find a thread called "Is the AI Always So Suicidal", you'll find my experiences.

I'm not sure exactly what made me such a big target, even though I had the most advanced military in the world. I was at times 6 techs ahead, a full offensive generation ahead for most of the game.

Yet the AI attacked me 3 times at the height of my power! And all 3 times I was actually gearing up for an attack! One thing that might have made them triggerhappy is that I had several interior cities that were undefended. The AI made straight for those cities. Maybe it thought I was weak because I had undefended cities deep in my territory?

[Epistax]

About the undefended cities- I really like doing this. To me it makes so much more sense than an actual set of troops/tanks guarding every city every year. Last I checked that's not true anywhere in this country anyway. However the ability to mobilize is there, without subtracting a noticable amount of the population. My Civ equivalent is only to have a few cities have defense (once railroads are discovered) and to move troops to where they are needed.

[vmxa1]

I should have said that it is not always true about the AI not attacking top dogs.

I just had Zululand send a single Med INf to attack me and my city had an Inf army (4 units) and other stuff in it. I am #1 rank, not sure of strength. I mean they have about 600 units to my 220 or so (12 armies though).

So I am consider average to them, even thought they actually have no chance.

[Antrine]

Gosh vmxa1, would you not have more fun if the AI had about 300 units and say 15 top dog armies?

In CIVII the AI's automatically gained up on the top dog, unless you were allied to one of them. Under these circumstances minor allies of human can take a beating!

When you are ahead, all the AI's need to attack you at once in order to better orchastrate a fairer close to the game. If not, be noble, pick on them until they all together fling themselves at you! Not kidding of course.

(My ignoble opinion certainly and not meant to slame anyone)

[vmxa1]

I am often at war with most of the civs, that is why I am in Monarchy.

CivII was a great game and I had it ranked as #1 or #2 for years, but in truth it was a very easy game. At least in C3C you need some work to win. No stack killing.

[gnome]

I recall someone from Firaxis saying that they didn't include the end-game pileup on the top dog, because they got complaints about realism... basically, how does "Genghis Khan" know that there is a game going on that he is about to lose, and that he should therefore attack you.

I have been on both sides of this, bristling at the computer attacking me just because I was ahead, and also frustrated at it letting me walk into a win.

Maybe they should have an option for it, where you can choose whether the AI would act like a player trying to win a game, or run the same leader AI as for any point during the game...

That's not how the "Aggressive" option works is it?

[Pyrodrew]

I should have said that it is not always true about the AI not attacking top dogs.

Maybe I'll give it a shot. It's good to hear some people have surprises.

Originally posted by gnome
I recall someone from Firaxis saying that they didn't include the end-game pileup on the top dog, because they got complaints about realism... basically, how does "Genghis Khan" know that there is a game going on that he is about to lose, and that he should therefore attack you.

For the same reason you know how to win/lose. If they wanted only a simulation they shouldn't have ways to win the game. If there are ways to win a game all players should know about them & strive to win otherwise it's like a sports game where only 1 team knows how to score. I don't play a TBS game with 2-D graphics on squares for "realism". I wouldn't play chess for "realism" either.

I have been on both sides of this, bristling at the computer attacking me just because I was ahead, and also frustrated at it letting me walk into a win.

Maybe they should have an option for it

That would have been nice.

And yes, Civ2 was easier usually, but I expected the Civ3 AI to improved in all aspects compared to Civ2.

That's not how the "Aggressive" option works is it?

No.

[Theseus]

Pyrodrew, you might enjoy what I do in my "free time" games (i.e., non-AU or otherwise organized)...

Encourage the development of KAIs.

I do this through a combination of difficulty level (challenge yourself!), game settings (e.g., one or two less AI civs than default, 3B, and wet seem to be the best that work for me), and a few other tricks.

Even if you yourself become the dominant local civ, there is a good chance that there's an AI somewhere out there that is ahead of you or at least presents a heckuva challenge. See this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121136

The Babs are insane.