Lots of Features AND Smart AI

[nato]

Short Version:

Just because a feature is in the game, doesn't mean the AI has to use it, or even should use it. Let it ignore the fancy stuff completely and excel at the basics ... but still provide the fancy features for the human player to use. For expansion packs, add new interesting features for the player to use, but don't bother the AI with it.

Long version:

Why not design the game so that there are many features, but the AI simply ignores the complicated ones that it could not make intelligent use of?

Artillery is what made me think of this. The AI was actually weaker because of its poor use of the concept, than if it had ignored it altogether. But artillery is a great game feature, and not including it would have lessened the game.

So keep interesting features, but let the AI ignore it!

The obvious complaint will be that this gives the human player options and an advantage the AIs won't have. This is very true ... however ...

Human and AI players are already inherently different! They already "think" completely different, "see" the map completely different, and make decisions completely different. Giving the player some extra capabilities is really a minor detail, as long as you are careful that they are not too powerful compared to not having them, like SMAC's vaunted "chop and drop" tactic. Having a feature the AI lacks doesn't mean it has to be overwhelming.

Again consider artillery. Even when AI didn't have it, it could still compete, just by being smart and efficient with the basic tools it does have. Further, it is sure to have advantages the human doesn't.

Imagine if you didn't have artillery, or some other non-basic feature. You could still put up a good fight. And if you got cheaper units than the artillery guy, its not really clear who has the advantage. It changes AI cheats into AI advantages compensating for your extra options.

Yes, it is very good to make human and AI players as similar as possible. I fully realize and want that too. However there are two problems:
1. It can never really happen anyway because the AI is a computer and you are a human
2. It is not worth trying to achieve this if the cost is fun and interesting game features.

I would much rather win because I made smart decisions using somewhat complicated features to overcome an AI who was a master of the basic features and had advantages with them. This would be much more satisfying than overcoming an AI who has the exact same tools, but can't possibly be as smart as a human like me.

Therefore I say add some complicated features in expansion packs! Give the game the complexity that people miss from SMAC and Civ2! Just don't bother the AI about it ... let him remain excellent at the basics.

This will add features, make good blurbs on boxes, quell complaints, and add a lot for multiplayer, where its all humans anyway. And it should make programming new features less difficult, because the AI doesn't have to worry about it at all.

This way you could get the best of both worlds.

Thanks for reading.

[Ijuin]

Regarding the AI not using features such as bombardment properly, I would suggest that the AI be changed to use artillery and air units in a simpler, more defensive manner. Instead of asking the AI to use such units to atack the player's cities, the AI should simply build artillery and fighter units and leave them garrisoned in its own cities as defense against the player's attacks.

In Civ III, any time an enemy unit attacks a unit that it stacked with an artillery unit, the artillery gets a free turn of bombardment to counterattack, which softens up the attacking unit (I forget whether the artillery gets to counterattack once only, or once for each defending artillery unit). Also, a defending fighter aircraft assigned to Air Superiority has chance of intercepting, and thus preventing, a bombardment by enemy aircraft within its intercept range.

If the AI were to merely create artillery and fighter units and leave them stationed in cities as defense, it would make things much simpler on the AI than forcing it to figure out how to use them offensively. I, for one, would enjoy seeing my first attacking unit forced to advance through enemy fire when I attack cities.

[nato]

Well the artillery was just an example, not my real point. But what you say is kind of what I mean ... the AI is stronger by not trying to do too much.

About the defensive fire, the AI does use artillery for that to my experience. It just builds way too much for that one purpose, and it is a waste of shields and all gets captured (this may have changed with 1.21). Like I said though, the artillery was just an example.

Welcome to Apolyton, btw.

[Skanky Burns]

That will create more exploits.

For example, the AI never uses artillery. The human does. So for every battle the human initiates, they could potentially be attacking 1hp enemies, whereas the AI would always be attacking 3, 4 or 5 hp units.

If you give the player more advanced options, but tell the AI to ignore them, then the AI will always be at a disadvantage.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
That will create more exploits.

For example, the AI never uses artillery. The human does. So for every battle the human initiates, they could potentially be attacking 1hp enemies, whereas the AI would always be attacking 3, 4 or 5 hp units.

If you give the player more advanced options, but tell the AI to ignore them, then the AI will always be at a disadvantage.

The AI never uses artillery now. If you remove that option from the AI, it will concentrate on other things. Instead of the peicemeal artillery you see now. I have yet to be hit by artillery when the AI attacks.

[nato]

Exactly Tuberski! The AI will give a better game by focusing on the things an AI can actually do.

And like I said in my original post:

Giving the player some extra capabilities is really a minor detail, as long as you are careful that they are not too powerful compared to not having them, like SMAC's vaunted "chop and drop" tactic. Having a feature the AI lacks doesn't mean it has to be overwhelming.

[Tuberski]

Sure nato,

We already have several advantages over the AI that they COULD use but don't. So get rid of the things the AI doesn't use, it will use what it has more effectively.

[Evil Robot]

Agreed.

[Capt Dizle]

Who cares about the AI?

Walks away shaking head.....

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Who cares about the AI?

Well, someone must, or else this thread wouldn't be here. Most people like playing single player...

[nato]

Who cares about the AI?

Walks away shaking head.....

If you mean you only care about MP, then that was a really dumb post.

A major thing holding back features for MP humans to use is that the AI must be able to use it. Letting the AI ignore complicated features would allow those features to be put in, and thus available for MP. This would be one of the best advantages because it would improve MP a lot.

If you didn't mean you only care about MP, then it was an even dumber post because it makes no sense at all.

Guess I'll shake my head too.

[Capt Dizle]

Soren and folks dumbed the game down to enhance our single player experience. In other words, to help the AI.

I actually agree with Nato about the need to add back features and complexity to the game. But Nato says:

"A major thing holding back features for MP humans to use is that the AI must be able to use it."

This is untrue. Soren, probably working on orders from Sid to make the game as lite as possible, is the one that insists on the AI being able to use things. In other words, dumb it down.

The reason you won't see added complexity is that Firaxis is not the company it once was. Shallow games with little replayability is the goal, so that you will buy another game soon.

[Grumbold]

Peeling away unnecessarily complex features of a game so that the AI does not have to deal with them I can understand. In some ways it has made Civ III more challenging to play than previous Civ games. Unfortunately something as fundamental as artillery seems to be going too far. If the AI can't use it even halfway sensibly then I believe they should keep working on it until it can. That aside, allowing the AI to build artillery and encouraging it to do so when it has no idea how to use them is certainly worse than telling it not to build them at all.

[Deornwulf]

Perhaps the answer would be to give the AI units and basic abilities unavailable to the human player. Not necessarily as cheats but as advantages unique to the AI to make single play as exciting as possible.

As nato stated before, the AI will not think as a human so quit trying to force it to do so. Along the same train of thought, quit "adjusting" the game to force the human players to play the game exactly like the computer. Every uniquely human action is not an exploit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I wish it would be considered, but in light of numerous comments now from Sid himself, he considered SMAC a failure because of its complexity. From a market acceptance (read huge sales) POV, he feels that SMAC turned people off from TBS games due to its

a) SCIFI genre game

and (driving a dagger thru my heart)

b) it was too complex thus affecting gameplay

In hearing the second comment it makes one wonder whether he means Firaxis couldn't code a credible AI to handle the complexity thus game challenge is a problem, or did he mean the unwashed masses never took to the game because it was too complex.

Looking at it this way one starts to understand how CIV3 came into being. It succeeded addressing both points but left the advocates of SMAC and to a lesser extent CIV2 feeling a bit left out/deserted.

Just my two milliwatts

Og


PS. Since CIV3 seems to be a commercial success (at least short term) Sid prolly thinks his read on the market was the right one. (i.e K.I.S.S.)