When is firaxis going to fix.....

[miike]

I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments including the people that thought that my ego was keeping me from learning how to play the game. I know how to play the game and win the game. The fact is this. Firaxis released a below average product. And they need to fix it. You can call me all the names that you want too, but the fact is this CIV3 just is not that good. If the programers allows the computer to cheat, they are not challenging the players, they are weak programers. A while back people used to use a standard that timed how long it took people to beat a game. They would say that it took 100 hours to play a game. In theory the longer you took, to beat the game, the deeper the game was. Well, programmers got around that, by making some incredibly hard challenges that took luck to get around. That does not mean that the game is good, that means that the programers wanted to drag out the game. Letting the AI cheat and barter unfairly is not challenging. That is lazy programming. So go ahead and say all you want to about me, that does not change the fact that CIV3 is not very good.

[notyoueither]

miike. I don't think you deserve to be flammed, but I'll ask you this. In what way does the Civ3 AI cheat any more than Civ or Civ2? I think less, but maybe that's just me.

I can only recall one TBS that I've ever played that the AI got no cheats in. Warlords. That was a great game and had immense replay value. It could even be finished in an evening easily. But it's not Civ.

[miike]

Ok case in point. I am on the northern part of a continent. I go to war with my neighobor to the south. He loads up a galley and sails up the coast towards my cities. He drops his units off and they move inland. Between other cities. I watch him go. Because he is on my territory, and I have rails everywhere. I just let him go. The AI moves past 3 other cities that are closer and attacks a city with only one defender. The other cities that he passed had more then 1 defender or 1 defender and a few attackers. Somehow the computer knew exactly which city was the least defended. I have seen this happen numerous times. The computer moves past cities or units that are closer to attack a poorly defended city or unit in the heart of your territory. Know that is why I really miss the zone of control that was used in SMAC and CIV2. Of course, you could say that the programmers had to get rid of ZOC when they knew that they were going to allow the AI to know exactly where your units where. On another point. Isn't it obvious that the computer knows where resources will pop up when that tech that leads to that resource has not been discovered. Next time you play a game on a huge map. Check out the computer territory after a while. I swear I have seen the AI make roads that lead out to no where, but in the future that tile will produce oil or rubber or something. Just look around, and you will see why the computer places its cities in such oddball places. I have played this game quite a bit. And I know what I see.

[notyoueither]

You're entirely right miike. You have mentioned two of the AI advantages (cheats) that we have been discussing around here for some time now. I could defend why they are there and claim that they are necessary, but that would be pointless. Suffice to say that Soren seems to think they are necessary, obviously since they are in the game.

However, the game is what you make of them. As for the AI vectoring for your weakest cities... I make a point of not having any cities that are noticably weaker than all the others. When the AI does launch an attack I meet it at as early a time as possible. That is what I would do with any invasion.

As for city placement, yup. And they will never give up that city with resources unless it is taken from them by force. Whereas they can be coaxed out of other poor cities sometimes. OTOH I would never give up any Desert or Tundra city myself, because I know that I will need them for Oil. No Oil, no joy.

In other words I fight fair and I react to the game the way I would if my opponent were a flesh and blood OvB, rather than a pixelated version of him. That way I do not take advantage of weaknesses that I know are there. Weaknesses that are in Civ, and Civ2, and...

[miike]

Isn't it better to target cities that have wonders or resources squares. I specifically go after all the resources tiles early on so that the enemy Civ gets weaker. I also will go after specific cities that have wonders. Just in case. They should have programmed the AI to do that instead. Now that I think about it. One other thing really bothers me. When I attack the enemy civ I will usually do so, starting at one end and working my way through them. Along the way the enemy civ is attacking my attackers. After I take their capital, the enemy civ stops attacking me all together and uses its attack units to defend. It seems that after the enemy civ loses its capital it gives up totally. Not really a complaint or a bug, just weird.

[Ethelred]

After I take their capital, the enemy civ stops attacking me all together and uses its attack units to defend. It seems that after the enemy civ loses its capital it gives up totally. Not really a complaint or a bug, just weird.

I think its more that by then the AI doesn't much in the way of attacking units left. I haven't finished a game yet with the 1.21f patch but I suspect that it might be a bit different now that Soren has given units dual strategies. Now they are more likely to attack with defensive units if those are the best remaining attackers.

[notyoueither]

I suppose that Soren has not programmed many advanced target selection procedures. Determining whether to go for the nearest (to them) city or the distant city with the only Oil or a Wonder would be to assume that the AI has a choice and has beaten you so thoroughly that it can pick targets with impunity. I agree with the criticism that picking the weak distant city is a flaw that could and should be addressed. It's rather a waste of force.

I think rather that the value of the AI we have paid for is struggling to defeat us in the field on the frontier. Once it has you at a disadvantage it will likely just roll you up in a relentless fashion.

I have said before, I would love to play the AI that can beat me in the field given roughly equal forces, but that is a verrrry long way off. For now, I will settle for one that can give me a challenge and occassionally surprise me by defeating me in a single campaign.

[Captain]

how about an AI that commits suicide? not to spam this with another thread. just since you're talking about the ai priorities anyways, can anyone explain why it might do that suicide routine?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I think its more that by then the AI doesn't much in the way of attacking units left. I haven't finished a game yet with the 1.21f patch but I suspect that it might be a bit different now that Soren has given units dual strategies. Now they are more likely to attack with defensive units if those are the best remaining attackers.

I just saw the Babs land four riflemen near a town of mine. They all attacked. Three were destroyed and one reduced to one hit point. I killed it next turn. Whatever Soren did - IT AIN'T VERY SMART.

[Civ Old Timer]

To the Captain and others who suggested I take closer look at the editor: thanks.

I have done that and removed resource requirements for all units. Just to see what happens. I'm usually reluctant to do these things as I worry about the game balance being off in some way that I hadn't anticipated. If this doesn't work, I will probably try to see if I can make resources more plentiful.

I like having resources in theory, I'm just quite convinced that their impact on the game is too severe. I can illustrate my line of thinking by saying that I also play with Civ specific abilites turned off. Why? I don't think it's fair or right that players should have different abilities "hard coded." Your fate should depend on how you play. To my way of thinking that is what strategy games are about. Too many random factors and it becomes more of a dice game than a thinking game. Life can often be like that. A game is a nice chance to have more of a fair shake. That's why I like TBS better than real time, which I find frantic and no fun whatsoever.

I know, I know, lots of people have different views. The civ units add colour and so on. But I want to know that I won or lost because I played well or didn't. I don't want winning or losing aided or hampered by units or critical resources.

Just my two bits. Anyone feel the same? Or am I just really weird? On second thought, never mind about that last part...

[Jon Shafer]

I agree for the most part. However, being historically correct is also something that should be taken into account as well. The German Panzers had a great advantage over the rest of the world's tanks (perhaps aside from some of the Russian T34s and other heavy armor), as well as the British Ships of the line (Man-o-war just sounds dumb to me ) in their time. Perhaps this is making things less strategically oriented along with the inclusion of resources, but in the end, as you've done, you can simply eliminate these things. So in the end, it depends on your preference: historical accuracy compared with strategic equality. Personally, I like a mix of both.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I can illustrate my line of thinking by saying that I also play with Civ specific abilites turned off. Why? I don't think it's fair or right that players should have different abilities "hard coded."

I take it then that you are not planning to buy Master of Orion III when it comes out? Race specific talents is a major part of all the Science Fiction Civ type games.

[nato]

Just my two bits. Anyone feel the same? Or am I just really weird? On second thought, never mind about that last part...

Well, not me. I myself really love strategic resources and civ specific units/traits. I think it is a major part of the fun and an improvement over Civ1 and 2. Thats just me though, whatever is most fun to you is always the correct thing.

If you were trying to make it more similar to Civ1, and maybe recapture the magic, your changes are obviously very good steps. Recapturing the magic is hard though.

No Oil, no joy.

I thought that was pretty funny. I agree with NYE's posts.

[Panag]

hi ,

so much for the AI's "thinking" , .......maybe the AI use a kind of intel we dont know about , ......how many times have we not seen the ai running for a place , even ready to go to war for that place , ....the aswer , after fission , its got uranium , ....grrrrr , ....

have a nice day

[Willem]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
notyoueither -

not to belabour the point, but if you like Pepsi and I tell you I don't, will I need to carefully think about how "some people might respond harshly when something or someone they like is slagged"? It's only a drink, or a bit of software. We have different opinions about it, but you might still be an ok person. So the game or the drink don't need to be defended. It doesn't have any feelings.

I've said this before to someone else, so excuse me for repeating myself, but to many people here, Civilization is more than just a game, it's something of a passion. A good analogy would be European soccer. It's just a game as well, but people will riot in the streets if their team is insulted or belittled in any way.

I need to check out that editor...

Yes, do that. There were a number of things I didn't agree with in the game, but I managed to resolve most of them by fiddling around in the editor. There's enough capabilities in it to keep anyone busy for awhile. It may not be great for creating scenarios at the moment, but there's lots of potential for modding, especially combined with the MultiTool. The game has a great deal of potential for customization, far more than Civ 2 IMO.