WTH is so special about the AI?

[Moraelin]

If you say so. Last I've heard, the consumer protection laws didn't have any paragraph that says "Computer software is excepted from these proviosions." Basically, if you can buy something at all, you do have certain rights.

And one more curiosity of mine. If being a "whining 9 year old is bad", exactly how is being a flaming 9 year old fanboy any better? No, really. In only _one_ thread, and in less than a day, I see no less that SEVEN posts from you, trying to ridicule or downright insult anyone who's not doing their patriotic duty to brown-nose Firaxis and/or Infogrames. That's only one thread out of many. If you think the "whiners" (a.k.a., people who've bought the game and have a legitimate complaint) should just get over it and do something else... how about fanboys like you? Don't YOU get bored of acting like the Holy Defender of Everything Firaxis? If we should somehow give up on account that these complains have been posted before, hasn't YOUR crap been posted to death before?

Just some food for thought.

[Herder]

Well said Moraelin.

The board is here to discuss, whether fanboy or dissenter. Perhaps some people don't have the time to peruse every thread on the site or perhaps some people don't agree with a poster on all issues and wants their topic to get specific attention.

Whatever the case, its their perogative.

I like Civ III *some* mind you. Early game is great. There are issues with the late game and that indicates to me the game was rushed.

Can we agree the game was rushed? I think that is something that we can all agree on. It is unfinished. Deny that.

Product Rushed = Defective Product.

What part of that equation did you miss? If my TV was missing a knob that would indicate to me that the product is incomplete. And somehow, in some crazy scheme, you think people are whiners. Go go crazed fandom.

This was a spruce up and re-ship civ II project IMO. Too bad they reduced a lot of features.

[Frito]

This is really stupid...If you don't like the game and post your a "whining 9 year old", if you like the game and post your a "brown-nosing fanboy".

Maybe we should have a Civ3 forum for kids??

[Libertarian]

Can we agree the game was rushed? I think that is something that we can all agree on. It is unfinished. Deny that.

Okay, I deny that. It has a couple of bugs. That doesn't mean it's not finished. By your definition, the software we're using to communicate with one another isn't finished. In fact, no effort of man has ever been finished.

That would include your own efforts. I think.

This was a spruce up and re-ship civ II project IMO. Too bad they reduced a lot of features.

That leaves me with the impression that you thoroughly do not understand this game.

Don't YOU get bored of acting like the Holy Defender of Everything Firaxis?

I've posted my complaints as a matter of record. I just didn't post them in every thread and open two threads an hour making sure that every living human saw them.

I don't get bored defending peers who sleep at their desks and work all night writing software that entertains and edifies me, nosiree I don't. Not that they've ever acknowledged or thanked any of us who've supported them. Nor have they responded in kind to the mindless and barbaric attacks on their character and skills from the drooling jackals.

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Good grief.

No software I've ever seen has been warranteed to be bug-free. Or for that matter, even warranteed to keep your computer from blowing up because you used it. No one can guarantee perfection in any matter whatsoever. And any government that has managed to make such a ridiculous law needs to have in place one hell of a litigation infrastructure.

The fact is that no one is taking legal action because no one has a legal leg to stand on.

The Pick any Two Law: Price, Quality, Speed

I think someone tried to sue Origin a few years ago for the incredibly buggy release of UO. They lost.

I like the AI.

Guess what, building cities in desert and tundra is a good idea. The concept seems to evade a lot of people. There are valuable resources that can be found there in the late game. And then you will complain about how you never get any oil.

The AI is great at expanding and playing to the nationalities strength. Egyptians and French sit back and build, the Zulu are very aggressive.

I would like to see the AI use air units and artillery better with ground units, but I see defensive units paired with offensive units quite frequently. You all must be playing a different game because the AI attacks with large groups in my games. On the defensive the AI is a little weak, it needs to be improved.

I will explain this one more time and if you pessimists just don't get it, YOU ARE HOPELESS:

With the resource system there will be times when you don't have the latest, greatest unit. To prevent an entire empire getting annihlated by three tank units they changed the combat. The modern armor will still win over a spearman 95% of the time. All you are doing is griping over one or two losses. Your gross exageration does not fool me.

All the rules are the same for the AI as for you (with one exception i will speak of later). Face it, you just suck at civ 3.

It seems to me all you are griping over is the name of the unit. Would it be better if the name of the spearman was changed to poorly armed militia at the start of the modern age?



IMO the only thing worth griping about is the air superiority bug. This just ruins the late game. It just blows my mind. You don't even have to do any real searching to find it, you just have to play the game. It will get fixed in a week, hopefully.

[Libertarian]

An excellent and well balanced post, Green Giant. It's clear that you aren't biased either way.

I agree with the Air Superiority bug. I would also add no stack movement and no sentry mode to the list, as well as the annoying order of sprite activation. I would like to see that more sensibly ordered by proximity.

[Raleigh]

Gee I know I am not a deity player but I must really suck because even with 4 nations against the Iroquois we can't seem to destroy him (true he is the largest power but some of us are nearly equal).

Also, I don't understand all the whining behind the 4/32 science rating. I preferred the old system too, but it's not like pouring 90% of a nation's resources into science to eak out that 1 turn diffrence is going to make or break your game, so what is the complaint? Also, that excess trade you would have pumpted into science still equals cash, so it's not like it is wasted.

[Dravin]

I think the AI really should learn to keep it units upgraded better, facing Horsemen and the like when you know they have the upgraded unit and the resources for them seems a little weird.

I think the AI has some quirks, not that it's broken. But then I've only play 4 games (2 Cheiftan/2 Warlord) so it's possible I'm missing something.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Frito
This is really stupid...If you don't like the game and post your a "whining 9 year old", if you like the game and post your a "brown-nosing fanboy".

No. If you simply like the game, good for you. Feel free to post what's great about it and us whiners missed. In fact, please do. That was the whole reason why I started this thread. As I've said in the very first paragraph, I'm curious. I did post a list of MY observations of what the AI does wrong, and I'd be happy to see your own list of what it does right, or what items on my list are wrong. That's what a discussion is all about.

What I call a brown-nosing fanboy is the kind of person who makes it his personal crusade to flame and try to suppress anyone who doesn't sing praise to the game. Without posting any useful info. Just for the sake of a jolly good flame.

I mean, really, it's not like I even said that the game is BAD because of that AI. I don't mind winning. Saves me the bother of looking for cheats, really I have completely other reasons to be disappointed in the game, and those I've posted already in other threads. The AI is just a curiosity of mine. I keep hearing "the AI is great because the first time I played I've had my donkey handed to me", but my observations of what the AI actually does... simply don't match that.

And, yes, I know that no game has the AI of a human chess master. Nor even that of an old chess program for the Commodore 64, for that matter. Chess has had lots of people (including mathematicians) over lots of years to develop the algorithms, while games usually just have a couple of designers trying out their quick ideas. I know that very well. But some do actually manage to give an illusion of acting reasonable. You know, at least LOOK like they do something smart. Like for example, from a different genre, the marines from Half-Life didn't really act like an intelligent and highly trained human marine team, but did manage to at least look like they're flanking you and stuff.

[Libertarian]

Actually, even the computer that beat Kasparov is a strategic moron. For chess, computers lack the ability to "see over the horizon". The only way IBM was finally able to beat the world champ was to make a computer that was so fast, it could look at and analyze a bazillion positions per minute. Unlike the human, the computer examines moves even if they are ridiculous and worthless.

So, there's very little "AI" in Big Blue. It's mostly just "BS".

[Moraelin]

Green Giant, you must confuse me with someone else. I don't mind the computer's building lots of cities. Sure, go ahead, colonize that desert. As for national priorities, those are actually based on premade lists of what to do. Just run the editor and you'll see a "build often" list of checkboxes for each nation. It's that primitive. But even that I don't mind too much. Hey, if it at least manages to create an illusion of acting smart, it's ok. Games are all about illusions in the first place.

The point is that the AI doesn't seem to grasp some very basic concepts, like upgrading its units when it already can. Or like at least building 10 tanks instead of 20 archers. Sure, I'll gladly defeat those 20 archers, but it kind of makes me wonder.

Or again, it seems to have zero concept of borders. Yes, even when I'm a super-power sprawled all over the continent and it has 3 cities tucked in a corner. It will cheerfully march all over my lands, as if the borders weren't even there. If I ask it to get those units out, it will. And then it'll come back again the next turn. And again. Asking them to leave is just a waste of time every turn. Some times they'll ask for right of passage, but whether I accept or refuse, it still doesn't matter. I usually accept just to save frustration.

Or by mid-game it seems to enter a phase when some people will be itching to go to war, at all cost. I've had civilizations with 3 cities declaring war on my super-power with 30 cities. How do they get THAT idea?

I guess one day the Zulu advisors go to their king and go "sire, our economy is in ruins, our army can't even afford an upgrade from spearmen, and we have one library in the whole empire. I propose we declare war to the Americans. Then they'll have to conquer us, and we'll get to live well, like they do." Or?

And again, they'll seem to cheerfully accept an alliance with anyone against anyone, as long as they do get to go to war. I usually actually depend on that. When someone declares war on me, if I act before they get everyone else joins in on their side, I can send half the continent's armies on them to keep them busy. I don't even have to contact everyone myself. I just contact someone, say, the English and pay them to join me against the Zulu. Then the English bring the Romans, the Romans bring the Russians (which are still also fighting me), the Russians bring the Greeks, and the Greeks bring the French. And then everyone is cheerfully fighting everyone, and I pick the weakened nations one by one.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Moraelin


In fact, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but HERE the law says that you can't renounce your legal rights in a contract, even if you actually wanted to. E.g., you can't sell yourself into slavery, no matter if that was your lifetime dream, if the law says you should have more rights than that. Likewise, you can't renounce your customer rights, regardless of what kind of contract or license aggreement you've had to sign/click/whatever.

Uhh, I'm not sure what area of the woods *you* live in either, Moraelin, but in the United States at least (where the EULA was written, BTW) you can and actually do renounce legal rights all the time in a contract. Frankly, the whole concept of a contract is that you agree to limit and/or renounce your legal rights. For example, if I sign a contract with Firm A as an exclusive supplier of my widgets, I have renounced my legal right to supply Firm B with my widgets as well. Standard clauses in many consumer contracts involve giving up the legal right to sue the manufacturer/supplier for certain damages and the right to choose your legal forum; many contracts either specify that if you do sue the other party to the contract it must be in such-and-such state or, if in your own state, shall use a particular state's laws. Also, many employment contracts forbid you from disclosing a firm's confidential information to other firms once your employment is over. Heaven forefend! You just signed away your First Amendment right to speak freely to another person! Quick, call the United Nations!

True, there are some contracts that are void ab initio, such as the slavery example you mentioned. But I hardly believe that anyone feels, regardless of how bad or buggy they think CivIII might be, that they've entered into anything tantamount to a slavery contract with Infogrames by purchasing a $50 computer game.

[Dis]

everyone on this thread is wrong. felt better saying that

funny how you guys say civ2 ai was better. When was the last time you played civ2? Civ2 Ai blew donkey balls. Civ3 isn't much better. All of those are valid points. But the ai is slightly improved. It needs a lot of work though .

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Agreed. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why those dolts at Firaxis have been unable to replicate a human brain, a genius one, with computer subroutines. After all, Microsoft has done it routinely. As evidence, I offer the Word companion and wizard, Mr. Paper Clip.

True, true. Microsoft has indeed succeded in replicating a human brain in Windows 95 etc. A pity it seems to have been the brain of a moron with epileptic fits.

Robert

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Venger
Moraelin has some very good points - the AI is not only eminently beatable, but in many ways less of a challenge than the Civ2 AI.

do you actually believe the above quoted sentence or is it the fact that you were only 9 back in 1996 and the AI looked comparably more difficult?