An idea for the AI ICS...

[The Andy-Man]

The AI over expansion is very unfair imo. But thik a better thing to do (he says hoping some Civ progamer sees it) would be to keep the settler price the way it is, and to have an AI expansion on the lvl of Civ2.

another idea is the bring back the Civ2 method.


the whole point wa to stop player ICS, but that was an individual thing, not everyone did it (i sure as hell didnt, it was boring), so why should i have to pay for some one elses strategy? I mean, i dont like to ICS, but in Civ3, if i played how i wanted to, there would only ever be enough room for me to build 4 cities

i say, bring back the old way or just stop AI over expansion and le people make there own minds up like before...

[Capt Dizle]

The whole model needs to be tweaked. Right now excess shields are lost. Coin isn't. To make perfected cities more valuable than a bunch of small ones should be the goal to counter ICS. Larger, more developed cities should be able to have multiple build queues, and when sufficient shields are available, 2 of a unit should be able to be produced per turn. Rush buying should be curtailed. This would add a lot to the game.

[The Andy-Man]

well, the thing is, in Civ2, i ofund that about 10-15 well developed cities were a phenonamal amount more useful then 100 lil 2pop ones.


in Civ3 i dont have the option to work on them nice and slowly cos soon the AI will have surrounded my first city by 3750bc

[pauli]

play on bigger maps. it helps a little.

that said, i would love it if leftover production automatically wrapped to the next unit. i'd also love it if something could be done about the ai's obsession with vast tightly packed empires made of irritatingly tiny cities.

[Dida]

The best way to deal with this is that, the amount of gold and shield you get will be scaled by the population of that city. The bigger the city, the bigger the factor.

[The Andy-Man]

but, the AI just dumps a city in very little square it can fit one. i mean, the huiman player could never do that, and if he could corruption would kill the city off and make it useless anyway.

[tmai]

IMO, this is one of many things about 'AI' behaviour that should have been configurable. The current hard-coded 'AI' expansion is nothing more than a stupid floodfill algoritm. There's nothing strategic or intelligent about it, and it really brings the game down to an utterly stupid rat race.... game after game it's quantity over quality.

I wonder what the programmer was thinking when he wrote that. Something like 'All our pain are belong to you'?

[SanPellegrino]

I can't agree with most of your points, especially the idea of draining the AI back to civ2 level. The only thing that made Civ2 boring for me after few years was the weak AI. I didn't use ICS but got usually way more cities, the AIs had hardly more than 10.

You are right, only spreading like mad is not intelligent or a wise strategy, but the ones with are brains are you, that's part of the challenge. You got better military tactics, a better judgement of the position, you can play them against each other, if the AI wouldn't even spread it would be pretty boring soon.

Until there is a Civ AI programmed over years by several companies and fans like chess programs, there is no chance for a witty Comp-Opponent.

[Worthingtons]

I wonder what the programmer was thinking when he wrote that. Something like 'All our pain are belong to you'?

[player1]

In CTP series AI ICSed on diffulty level meduim or higher, but on lower it tried not too build more cities then human player.

[moi]

Re: An idea for the AI ICS...

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
The AI over expansion is very unfair imo.

why? is it too hard for you? how is it "unfair", the ai builds settlers and founds cities the exact same way you do. maybe you should try a lower skill level.

[yin26]

I still find it the epitome of irony that in 'fixing' ICS by having a settler take 2 pop, Soren also cranked up the Settler Diarrhea(TM) to such a degree that City Sleaze is worse than it EVER was in Civ2.

Seems he missed the forest for the trees.

[Dienstag]

There's nothing inherently unfair about the AI's settler strategies (that I'm aware of, anyway). But it sure is un-fun. I have a game going as China on Marla Singer's truly cool huge world map. It's fun, but seeing a wall of new cities from 9 different Civs relentlessly sweep across Siberia was the most sickening thing I've ever seen in a Civ game. Yin's Settle Diarrhea(TM) was exactly what happened; the settlers kept coming, and as soon as someone built on the first available spot, the rest just squirted further east.

I vote for a TOTAL rework of how territory is acquired and cities founded. That's CivIV talk so I'll stop there.

[tmai]

For the human player it's not hard to beat the Settler Diarrhea(TM). It's not a difficulty problem, the problem is with the playing style :-

In order to keep your wannabe empire's future secure you will have to beat the diarrhea by doing a map floodfill yourself. Settler infestation is obligatory. And it's a very stupid little algoritm, unworthy to a human player - tedious to perform and annoying to observe. It's brings the human player down to the 'AI' level, leaving little room for the well-lubed empires of wannabe builders and technocrats. An utterly stupid playing style is enforced upon the player.

As it is, the more or less strategic part of the game only starts when the entire map is filled with red, green, pink and yellow dots. And with most maps that's when the modern age tedium kicks in.

[The Andy-Man]

the reason i said it was unfair was beacause, not every one used ICS in Civ2, so to try and prevent it in this way IS unfair to peaceful builders who are now forced to just churn out settlers.

and i never said change the AI, just the AI ICS.