Yet another AI CHEAT - Technology

[Quokka]

I think Willem hit the nail on the head, the English are also Expansionist and probably got techs from goody huts, and Soren put the spit polish on the reasons, tech trading. Hard to argue with the creator.

As for the difficult traders, the ones I have noticed that are the worst are Cleopatra, Elizabeth, Joan and Catherine. Women are always harder to deal with, demanding irrational trades. Who says this game lacks realism?

[Arrian]

That's funny, I find Joan to be a pretty good trading partner... but a bit irrational about warfare (I've been sneak attacked by her multiple times). Elizabeth is a manipulative, backstabbing wench, and was deliberately coded that way, IIRC. Catherine... well, a bit prickly, but not as bad as many of the others. I've never had noticeable difficulties with Cleo. The male leaders I have issues with are Bismarck, Shaka, and Tokugawa.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's funny, I find Joan to be a pretty good trading partner... but a bit irrational about warfare (I've been sneak attacked by her multiple times). Elizabeth is a manipulative, backstabbing wench, and was deliberately coded that way, IIRC. Catherine... well, a bit prickly, but not as bad as many of the others. I've never had noticeable difficulties with Cleo. The male leaders I have issues with are Bismarck, Shaka, and Tokugawa.

-Arrian

Cleo drives a hard bargain when you're trying to trade with her. I think she's the toughest trader I've come across. Rather easy to make peace deals with though, or so it seems to me.

[Ironikinit]

Bismark and Catherine are the worst, IMO. Shaka's bad, too. Cheapskates, that's what they are. Bismark's a hoarder, too.

I have had probs with Joan not wanting to give a good deal on luxuries, tho. Usually she's my favorite ally, her and Cleo.

[TheDarkside]

The only rant I have on the AI cheating is the fact the AI knows the locations of strategic resources regardless of their tech... For example, I just started playing a new game, and I noticed England's first 2 cities were in pretty poor places... one was in a hilly area with no grasslands or food bonuses, while two cattle would be accessible if it settled just a little closer to it's capitol, while another city is way off in the middle of no where amidst plains and just one square away from the coast (it woulda been alot smarter to settle along the coast since it was so close and alot of it's tiles in city radius are ocean tiles anyway.

The answer was solved later in the game as we discovered horseback riding and iron working... the city in the hills was right next to iron whil the other city was built next to horses. Now, the funny thing is, even before England discovered iron working, it built a road on the hill with iron in it, even though at the time, it looked like a road to nowhere.

[kring]

How do you know exactly what techs they were researching while you were working on your research.

Increasing the scouts to 4 works for all civs.

They could have found a goody hut tech with one of their scouts. A very reasonable explanation, esp since the AI is slow to find goody huts according to all the posts I have read, as well as personal experience.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
The only rant I have on the AI cheating is the fact the AI knows the locations of strategic resources regardless of their tech...

I usually don't blame the AI to cheat (although it seems to), but I have noticed the same once with the Iroquois. They were heading with a settler and a military unit to a small patch of desert 3 tiles from a border city of mine. As far as I know, it's useless to ask them diplomatically to leave (why?), because they answer blue-eyed, that they will, and continue to go through your land. But I didn't like this (it would have narrowed the space for this city) and so I blocked them with a row of horsemen. They insisted to head in that direction by all means. It was a poor patch of desert, no chance even to have a size 2 city for long, and it was about 30 tiles away from the iroquois homeland.

I got tired of it and decided to send my own settler. Later in the game I saw there a saltpeter. The Iroquois did not have saltpeter at all, and it was my only one, even though I owned a lot of desert and hills.

It may be a lucky coincidence and not a cheat, but it made me think.

EDIT: Ah, I forgot, and the funniest thing was: Later the Iroquois attacked me. Guess what city they attacked first?

BTW, Soren, if you care to answer once more: You said, that the civ leader moods (trader, may be bully, etc.) are coded. Do you mean hard-coded or can it be modded? That would be important for Civ-Expansion-Packs.

[Unregistered]

Two observations:

I've seen ai galleys sailing across the ocean. I've also seen them sometimes sink when left there. Ending a galley's turn on an ocean square is *not* a guantee that it will sink!

& yes, I believe the ai 'knows' where the resources are before they have the tech. Soren has said before that in order for the ai to compete half-way decently that this was necessary. & I for one can live with that. I'm *much* smarter than the computer after all.

Cheers!

[Encomium]

RULES

Speaking of AI cheats. . .

There are RULES. If I play my chess program I can go up in level and face a more complex and smarter AI. It will take longer to evaluate moves, of course.

If I bought a chess game and the next higher level decided to give bishops the movement values of a queen, for example, or allow pawns to capture pieces both in front and at a diagonal, I would be outraged,

I am equally outraged that Civ III's AI not only still makes dumb moves (building Wonders when being invaded, for instance) but it CHEATS. Rival civs share tech info, get free techs, get trade benefits, and other cheating perks beyond suchas combat bonuses.


Sid, you disappointed us.

[MonsterMan]

Sir Ralph: In my current game, the Persians had chosen a nice spot for a city two tiles away from a Horse. So I sent my settler there and put a city right next to the resource, stealing it for 'eternity'. You won't believe what a provocation this was to them... nevermind the fact that they already had two Horse resources :-)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
Sir Ralph: In my current game, the Persians had chosen a nice spot for a city two tiles away from a Horse. So I sent my settler there and put a city right next to the resource, stealing it for 'eternity'. You won't believe what a provocation this was to them... nevermind the fact that they already had two Horse resources :-)

Yea, sometimes I also steal the AI's resources/luxuries that way. Although I never noticed that to change the AI's mood toward me.

If it's for sure, that the AI knows the resource locations earlier, it could be made an exploit. If the AI insists to settle at a certain patch of land, there is likely to be a resource later. If they just turn around when they are blocked, and try it elsewhere (as some of the settler/spearman shuttles do), there's probably none.

[Murtin]

Re: RULES

Originally posted by Encomium
There are RULES. If I play my chess program I can go up in level and face a more complex and smarter AI. It will take longer to evaluate moves, of course.

Now, why did I expect you to moderate your criticism after coming up with such a comparison?

I agree with you, of course. I'm outraged at the stupid AI too. I mean, how hard could it be to make an accurate evaluation when you're dealing with only one move per turn, on a world 64 tiles big, with merely 6 types of units, and a maximum of 32 units total??

...and dammit FIRAXIS, you haven't even provided this chess game with stacked movement!

[Quokka]

Chess is far more complex than Civ3 but they have programs that beat the World Champion. In Chess every move is critical and directly affects the rest of the entire game. Failure to move a galley correctly is hardly disasterous to your game.
I'm not condoning the unusually lucky AI just trying to think of some possible explainations. Some are farfetched to me but statistically possible.
That said I think the AI just maximises its opportunities. It seems hugely unfair sometimes but I have seen AI galleys sink in the sea and ocean. I have also seen it cross 15 tile oceans. I wonder if the production % bonuses on the higher levels are also applied to random number events. The AI does have access to all the number calculators so it might just pick the highest percentage path and get away with it. Or it may just deal from the bottom of the deck.
I think most people are agreeing that the AI does have foreknowledge of Resource placements. This can also benefit Human players. Just follow the out of place Settler/Defender team with a few units and take the city after its built. Then move a Settler of your own to that spot. Of course you have to go to war for the Resource but for me that is what most of them are about anyway. Not a perfect method as sometimes you fall victim to good old Settler Diarrhea.
The one thing I can't explain is the apparent tech trading on my turn. I go to Rome and see what they'll give me for Literature. Not enough so I try the others first to maximise my gold. Sell it to 3 others and then go back to Rome to offer it again because they did offer their World Map and they'll get it next turn anyway. WTF they no longer need Literature but want Currency instead. They couldn't get that earlier in the turn, and I know they don't have the GL because I'm just selling Literature to everyone!

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Quokka
Chess is far more complex than Civ3 but they have programs that beat the World Champion.

Peeling the layers of sarcasm of my previous post, my point was exactly the opposite. Considering the sheer size and the much more complex ruleset of Civ, I'm not the least surprised that Civ III lacks an AI that is hard to beat purely by virtue of its own intelligence. I'd gape in awe and amazement if it didn't.

The one thing I can't explain is the apparent tech trading on my turn.

Hasn't that been covered by the fact that techs get cheaper to research the higher the number of civs in possession of it? Your giving Literature to everyone else might have decreased the development cost of Literature to the point where the Romans' existing amount of research already covered it.

[Quokka]

Peeling the layers of sarcasm of my previous post, my point was exactly the opposite. Considering the sheer size and the much more complex ruleset of Civ, I'm not the least surprised that Civ III lacks an AI that is hard to beat purely by virtue of its own intelligence. I'd gape in awe and amazement if it didn't.

The sarcasm was noted and ignored. Chess is a more difficult and complex game than Civ.

Hasn't that been covered by the fact that techs get cheaper to research the higher the number of civs in possession of it? Your giving Literature to everyone else might have decreased the development cost of Literature to the point where the Romans' existing amount of research already covered it.

Doesn't cover it at all. Sure the tech gets cheaper but why would they get it on MY turn? You only accumulate research on your own turn, same as production. You never produce or discover anything on a AI turn do you? Their research total might be sufficient but they shouldn't get the tech until the start of their next turn. The gripe is that the AI gets it or appears to get it on MY turn. The whole point of trading it to everyone on the same turn is to make sure you can sell it at all and avoid exactly what you describe from happening.