Announcement

**vmxa1** · July 30, 2003, 01:24

Killer AI comes from taking over a large land mass that the human is not on.

**Vlado** · July 30, 2003, 04:54

Well of course that's one aspect to it but don't you want the AI next to you to be a little more competetive as well. I think it's a bit dull when you see that you can outproduce the AI eventhough they have more cities then you. But that's just me, if you like the fact that you can beat him since he doesn't use his workers to the full extent, fine by me...

**Panag** · July 30, 2003, 10:54

hi ,

if you really want a killer AI make ones a mod inwhere the AI gets all the traits in each civ , ......

have a nice day

**vmxa1** · July 30, 2003, 13:53

If the AI did not have some of these weakness, we would not be playing at all. Not many will play on when they lose all the time. It is not all that easy to win on Emp/Deity now, if the AI was a lot better, I for one would not be able to win.
If you want that better AI, play MP.
So to answer you question, no I do not want a KAI next to me. I could deal with that civ, but the others would soon be beyond managing.

**Last Conformist** · July 30, 2003, 14:20

The ideal, surely, would be an AI that could play a decent human player to a stalemate at Regent.

**Don K Hotay** · July 30, 2003, 14:25

The AI needs alot of improvement, and if a killer AI could be created I'd be all for it; as long as bonuses in units and production was limited, if any given at all. Even when I'm on the road to victory on Deity, far ahead of the other civs, it's a bummer because despite such huge advantages, the AI fails to achieve even modest military victories by the late game.

**TheArsenal** · July 30, 2003, 15:09

Actually

Here's the thing - I say it often as someone who knows plenty of people playing this game but have never been to this site or any other.

The very demographic on these boards is skewed by the fact that we care enough about general knowledge and tactics to be here at all. But consider the number of copies this title has sold compared to number of poster/lurkers on all civ sites combined. The AI, on Regent, is kicking a lot more behind than you would think. So is Warlord. A good number of people want a mild, enjoyable challenge as a diversion. But they also don't want to feel like they're never progressing, and feel better about the game if there are at least a couple of levels of difficulty below them once they progress far enough to have a casual understanding of the game and its mechanics.

Keep in mind, for most (off these boards), getting their behind kicked by a game is not a stand back and marvel at the wonder of the AI tactics moment. It's a frustrating drubbing that will get the game shelved if it happens too often.

**Don K Hotay** · July 30, 2003, 15:57

I'm surprised when I hear people write they've been beaten by the AI on regent. Obviously it means I play the game way too much and far too seriously; quite religiously in fact. So sue me. Its a pretty damn good game.

The percentile of gamers that play as often and as seriously as I do should be accomodated as well, and I think by adding the divine and Sid difficulty levels in Conquests, the devs are trying to. However, there are only so many advantages the AI can be given before it becomes downright ridiculous, so if the new difficulty levels are to inch closer towards killer AI status, there had better be other improvements besides production and unit bonuses.

Quixote

**Panag** · July 30, 2003, 18:42

Originally posted by Don K Hotay
The AI needs alot of improvement, and if a killer AI could be created I'd be all for it; as long as bonuses in units and production was limited, if any given at all. Even when I'm on the road to victory on Deity, far ahead of the other civs, it's a bummer because despite such huge advantages, the AI fails to achieve even modest military victories by the late game.

hi ,

yes , yes agreed , but then the comp specs shall go way up and one shall need several gig's of space for game , ......

and then a whole bunch of people are going to start crying murder , .....

they should release a special edition at a higher price ( in order to cover cost's ) that has an AI of like 3 gig's to start with , ......

have a great day

**vmxa1** · July 30, 2003, 18:55

I think Arsenal is correct here. Many people are not beating Regent level and never heard of any fan sites.
If they could make Emp/Deity so exp players had trouble with the game without the bonus, that would be fine.
As it sits now, leavign them in and adding imrovements is not required.

**Theseus** · July 30, 2003, 20:53

There's been a fair amount of discussion and experimentation on this subject.

Ultimately, starting conditions have the greatest effect. It's not just that a given AI civ has great conditions (partially offsetting less than optimal Worker usage), but that it is near disadvantaged AI civs with BAD conditions (exacerbating poor Worker usage).

Traits do, of course, matter as well. Give the aforementioned advantaged AI civ IND and COM, and things are looking good.

Give it a UU that will trigger a GA out of despotism, and now we are talking.

Make sure one of the disadvantaged AI civs has a high aggression level... they'll do something to put the smell of war in the air.

__________________

BTW, I have no doubt that the AI routines could have been a lot tougher from day one, and that they've been tweaked in the patches and PTW, and will be in C3C.

I just wish that Firaxis had or will somehow adjust AI toughness for difficulty level, rather than just starting resources. The new aggression settings may help, we'll see.

**aneeshm** · July 31, 2003, 02:54

Instead of making the AI tougher to deal with by giving it bonuses , why not make it adopt to the player's playing style and strategies . It won't be difficult , if done in a very general sort of way .

Eg-What type of units are built , builder or warmonger , whether the player attacks with a SoD or with many groups , what wonders the player goes for , etc .

Then even seasoned players might find the game more challenging , as each time they play , the AI has adopted to them , and the older strategies would not work . The data , of course , would be collected over a number of games the player plays .

**Vlado** · July 31, 2003, 03:05

I would just like to have an AI that doesn't space his cities several squares apart, leaving plenty of unused tiles until the industrial age. I would also like an AI that has more then 0 gold in his coffers during the early ages and to see him take full advantage of the squares he's using, not just getting food only from his grassland...

**asleepathewheel** · July 31, 2003, 03:38

It might provide more of a challenge, to say, take a civ that has no inherent characteristics against civs with the x-bonuses. You would still get a GA through the UU, but with no special skills, I imagine the dificulty would be greater.

Announcement

Creating a killer AI

Creating a killer AI

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment