For a lead in... I have tried to remain objective about AI cheating in CivIII. I have tended to believe that it was a figment of imagination built upon poorly documented instances of occasional long shot odds. I mean, other than the way that AI civs always seem to miraculously settle next to resources that won't appear for Eons.
I'm also indifferent to the way the game plays as all the AI civs vs. me. I'm OK with that.
However, I just saw the belief breaker.
Pangea, full land, huge. I have spotless rep. Really. Never broke a treaty. Everybody except the Zulu (I'm executing them) is polite or better with luxury incentives to boot.
Bingo, the Babs break double treaty and attack from ROP rape - sorry, but the "how to beat the AI on builder" does not really work, BTW.
OK, I'm cool with that. I am a couple of techs ahead of everybody. Despite a land grab following AI wars I have AT LEAST 1 infantry in every city while no civ has an offensive unit better than cavalry. Cav, of course is very good. But how good?
How about, 11 cities attacked with single Cav vs. single Inf, for, what would you guess as results? Nope, you are wrong. 11 cities taken. Each single (1 attacker) cav captured or destroyed a city protected by inf. I'm thinking, what, 6 attack vs. 10 (doubled for fortified?) is less than 1:3 chance of victory. I should have lost 3 cities, maybe 4.
Remember now, that cav will not attack a pile of arty with a single inf guarding it. Suddenly, boom, every attack goes good.
Calling the number dudes out there. Can you give me the odds of this one? Aw, I know that it is impossible. Shoot, I just lost 3 tanks and a cav trying to finish off a 1 square musketman in a city. I did not whine (then) but maybe a little moan now.
I really don't mind a little AI cheating. But cmon. Oh well, I guess that I'll have to go make them go cry for their mommies. I'm going to win anyway, but this much desperation by the code is embarrasing.
AFAIC this puts the "does the AI cheat in combat" question out of reach.
Golden Bear (with his eyes wider open now!)
I'm also indifferent to the way the game plays as all the AI civs vs. me. I'm OK with that.
However, I just saw the belief breaker.
Pangea, full land, huge. I have spotless rep. Really. Never broke a treaty. Everybody except the Zulu (I'm executing them) is polite or better with luxury incentives to boot.
Bingo, the Babs break double treaty and attack from ROP rape - sorry, but the "how to beat the AI on builder" does not really work, BTW.
OK, I'm cool with that. I am a couple of techs ahead of everybody. Despite a land grab following AI wars I have AT LEAST 1 infantry in every city while no civ has an offensive unit better than cavalry. Cav, of course is very good. But how good?
How about, 11 cities attacked with single Cav vs. single Inf, for, what would you guess as results? Nope, you are wrong. 11 cities taken. Each single (1 attacker) cav captured or destroyed a city protected by inf. I'm thinking, what, 6 attack vs. 10 (doubled for fortified?) is less than 1:3 chance of victory. I should have lost 3 cities, maybe 4.
Remember now, that cav will not attack a pile of arty with a single inf guarding it. Suddenly, boom, every attack goes good.
Calling the number dudes out there. Can you give me the odds of this one? Aw, I know that it is impossible. Shoot, I just lost 3 tanks and a cav trying to finish off a 1 square musketman in a city. I did not whine (then) but maybe a little moan now.
I really don't mind a little AI cheating. But cmon. Oh well, I guess that I'll have to go make them go cry for their mommies. I'm going to win anyway, but this much desperation by the code is embarrasing.
AFAIC this puts the "does the AI cheat in combat" question out of reach.
Golden Bear (with his eyes wider open now!)
Comment