What AI habit or feature irritates you most?

[eris]

Many of the annoying things my own AI (governers. workers, etc) does I put down to an accurate simulation of the "People are stupid" effect that bogs down all human organizations. This problem has plagued leaders of all sorts throughout the ages. Civ III has wonderfully simulated that effect. In fact, for gameplay purposes, this becomes a reason NOT to micromanage, as you get to repeatedly ask the question that leaders often ask, "What did you do THAT for?".

Others have griped about the intrusion into one's territory issue and the double standard in that play. That is irritating that the AI gets to play by different rules on that issue.

The one that really gets to me is during REX. My scouts find a perfect place for a faraway city, something with bonus and resources or luxuries or whatever, a real good place to put the FP or at least establish a border. My settler/spearman pair works its way across the terrain, gets to the distant promised land, and just as they get there some foreign settler/spearman pair shows up out of the fog, has a one turn jump on us and beats us to that perfect spot. Usually I have to back off and take some second-rate position to establish border, etc. It is not a "bug" or anything, it is just a case of the AI playing well enough to drive me crazy. Sometimes I have started wars over it, not even at the best of times to start the war, just an immediate reaction to the nasty sly little trick the AI has just played. My reaction is deliberately hyped up for role playing purposes, but still, that can be so annoying that I offer it as my addition to this thread's content.

-Eris

[Darknes_of_Mind]

Maybe its just me, but moreso then the fact the AI can wander through your territory whenever it feels like it, i HATE when they bring a settler in, just to build a city in some little tiny gap in your borders in the middle of your empire. Often only to have the city flip, it is an annoying thing.

Also, when they bring units into your territory, and you demand them to leave once, and they dont, so you demand them to leave again, and they automatically jump to the spot they were going, on the other side of your borders, sometimes in the middle of your empire in that little whole, where they were going anyways, to build their damned city.


I think the auto remove feature, shouldnt move it to the closest unowned land, but should move units to the closest available space on THEIR side of the border.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Randolph
Failure to annex neighboring (AI) civs!! A huge AI civ will sit next to a much smaller civ for ages, when it should completely annex them. Even when they go to war they never finish the job. In fact it should be more difficult in general to get the AI to make peace.
On larger maps (and more civs) the game is basically over after you annex 2-3 other civs. Since the AI is so passive you're then twice the size of any other civ. This isn't a game you can win by just waiting in line to get killed.

Passive AI? I don't find that to be true. Sure, I played one game some weeks ago where right after Chivalry two civs were left as single cities on other continents, and the big AI civs let them live until I won by SS. But that was the first and only time I'd seen that. In most games, mine anyway, the AIs are rampaging destroyers of other civs. A few game back, I watched every civ on the planet (nine) take on the biggest nation in the game (and game point leader the Mongols) and go at them until they were no more. Certainly, the AI will stop wars sooner than I would, but start them up again sooner too (before 20 turns peace expires. Often the very turn after peace), and if it smells blood in the water - forget it - it will maul that civ.

[mrboo123]

In my games, the AI ALWAYS plant forset ALL over there nation! And have city size of 1 or 2!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Darknes_of_Mind
Maybe its just me, but moreso then the fact the AI can wander through your territory whenever it feels like it, i HATE when they bring a settler in, just to build a city in some little tiny gap in your borders in the middle of your empire. Often only to have the city flip, it is an annoying thing.

Also, when they bring units into your territory, and you demand them to leave once, and they dont, so you demand them to leave again, and they automatically jump to the spot they were going, on the other side of your borders, sometimes in the middle of your empire in that little whole, where they were going anyways, to build their damned city.


I think the auto remove feature, shouldnt move it to the closest unowned land, but should move units to the closest available space on THEIR side of the border.

You ever see "Bridge Over the River Kwai"?

Remember at the end, when the young British commando (Jeffrey Horne... I know his name as he is going to be my brother-in-law) is waiting to blow the bridge, and Alec Guiness and the Japanese general are tracking the cord down the river?

And William Holden and the older British commando start yelling?

KILL HIM!! KILLL HIMMM!!! KILLLL HIMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get the idea?

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by eris
The one that really gets to me is during REX. My scouts find a perfect place for a faraway city, something with bonus and resources or luxuries or whatever, a real good place to put the FP or at least establish a border. My settler/spearman pair works its way across the terrain, gets to the distant promised land, and just as they get there some foreign settler/spearman pair shows up out of the fog, has a one turn jump on us and beats us to that perfect spot. Usually I have to back off and take some second-rate position to establish border, etc. It is not a "bug" or anything, it is just a case of the AI playing well enough to drive me crazy.

i've noticed that this happens too frequently when I put my settler on an auto path to a location. no matter how far away it seems to be from the other civs, someone will get there 1 turn before i do. i wonder if this illustrates that the AI knows your moves that are planned out beyond the current turn.

[bongo]

Do you suggest that civ3 has mind-reading capabilities?

An alternative solution is that the AI, given it's excellent map-reading skills has seen that spot already and simply beats you to it? After all, you will never notice when YOU beat the AI to that nice spot.

[Randolph]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


Passive AI? I don't find that to be true. Sure, I played one game some weeks ago where right after Chivalry two civs were left as single cities on other continents, and the big AI civs let them live until I won by SS. But that was the first and only time I'd seen that. In most games, mine anyway, the AIs are rampaging destroyers of other civs. A few game back, I watched every civ on the planet (nine) take on the biggest nation in the game (and game point leader the Mongols) and go at them until they were no more. Certainly, the AI will stop wars sooner than I would, but start them up again sooner too (before 20 turns peace expires. Often the very turn after peace), and if it smells blood in the water - forget it - it will maul that civ.

Very interesting. I promise I'm not talking out of my ass, or about a single game. A few times I've had multiple AI s attack me at once after I've become powerful, but that can almost always be avoided with some diplomacy. I've certainly never felt my existence is challenged after I've annexed a civ or two. (BTW I play almost exclusively on emperor, so I don't think it's due to low difficulty)

Do you think it could be based on the player style? I have noticed AI vs AI wars are much more common after I've had a few wars myself. I tend to have very short (well prepared for), and decisive wars; maybe this leads to less worldwide strife? I also play MODs almost all the time (generally double your pleasure, or the ancient Mediterranean), but although I could see how that might make the AI use individual units less efficiently, I don't see how it could make the AI less aggressive.

cronos_qc: I'll try that

[I Am Jeff]

After an AI civ on another land mass declares war on me, it sends like 1 ship with 1-3 units on it and lands on me. And then it does this for a few turns before it gives up, with minimal losses to myself.

For example in my current game, I am about 1.5 times larger then the enemy civ and it declares war on me because I would not give them incense (that is another annoyance). So they send a Galleon with 3 units on it + an Ironclad. Then next turn they send another group like that. So you see every 6-7 spaces one of these groups. This leads to weak attacks because it can not coordinate the attack with all of its units. Furthermore, I am on a continent and they are to the East of me. They travel about 15 squares south, then like 20 West, and then another 10 north before they land. All the while I have my ironclads picking off their ships as they go by and when it is all over they landed less then 10 units over like 6 turns.

Another thing was with trading. In order to get the tech nationalism, they wanted Electricity, world map, about 800 gold, and about 225 gold per turn. Under any circumstances this is unacceptable and stupid. I could see maybe 2 techs for their one, or their tech for my tech and lump some of gold. BUT GEEZ, 225 gold per turn is outrageous.

My other grievances have been listed like the bunch of old units, the trespassing (to fix this I set up a sting of units so they can not get by), the lack of gold the AI keeps or the fact that the AI has like 10000 gold (I still do not know how they do that by the middle ages), the lack of artillery use, etc. etc.

[dexters]

Originally posted by bongo
Do you suggest that civ3 has mind-reading capabilities?

An alternative solution is that the AI, given it's excellent map-reading skills has seen that spot already and simply beats you to it? After all, you will never notice when YOU beat the AI to that nice spot.

Bongo has a point. It's called selective memory. You remember only what want to remember to fit a theory.

But I must say, I've noticed the "AI settling in a spot" before you get there.

Perhaps someone can try not using autopath and move their settler teams turn by turn. See if the AI still chooses the spots.

[TheArsenal]

But I must say, I've noticed the "AI settling in a spot" before you get there.

Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TheArsenal



Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

hi ,

well the AI can see the whole map completely with all resources and all before you do , .....

have a nice day

[dexters]

Originally posted by TheArsenal



Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

I really don't know about that since I don't play enough archipelago games.

But I think you fail to give the AI credit. The AI is very good at exploring. Because it is a computer program, it is very thorough with it too.

And yes, AI has an idea of where landmasses are, and where resources are. Although they can't see it until they have the right techs to use those resources.

[Roggan]

AND IT SAYSD
GOT OUT ON NOT U TEROGITY
HEHE

AS IT NOT MINE TEROGITY

[Kuciwalker]

I have an idea of where the landmasses are, so why shouldn't the comp? Just looking at my own continent/island, I can often tell where nearby islands will be.

Also, has anyone proven that the AI knows where the resources are? Couldn't it just be stupid enough to settle in bad terrain a lot, so it gets lucky a lot more often?