Human/AI equality

[Cyclotron]

Ok, it is a known fact that the AI will never be as good as the human player... that's fine, that's what mp is for. But it strikes me as odd that Civ3 incorporates some features that can obviously not be handled by the AI the way they are handled by the computer player. Examples:

The UN vote. You will never, ever catch me voting for anybody but myself. I want to win, period. All human players want to win. If the AI even wants to be competitive, it needs to want to win as well. While a diplomatic victory may be interesting to have, no human would ever cause another player to win in their right mind. I always turn off diplo victory because of this... it seems like an obvious advantage for the human player.

Privateers. So the AI ignores my colorless units; that's what they are designed to do. I, however, always know who is attacking me. Colorless units are fun for the human (assuming you make them a bit more powerful than 1/1), but a waste of time for the AI. Why?

Reputation. A lot of people express frustration about the AI remembering things from 4000 years back. Well, why shouldn't they? I certainly do! "Realism" may dictate that the AI should have long term memory deficits, but a better AI needs to be on the same level as me. If I play in mp, I expect fully that a human player will remember what I did 4000 years ago.

My point is this: People talk a lot about making a better AI, and reducing AI cheating. I think that AI cheating will always be necessary, but a great way to minimize the AI crutches is to get rid of the above human crutches. The above features are obviously meant to bolster realism, but the human player never cares aobut realism for himself... he wants to win. The AI should act likewise.

[Arrian]

The UN vote isn't necessarily a boost for the human. If you screw up and allow an AI to build the UN, they will all vote against you. Game over.

As for the other two points, yep, I agree, although the AI may simply look at the privateer's stats and decide it isn't worth building. And the truth is, that's usually true. I've had some fun with privateers, but I've never gained much real advantage from using them.

-Arrian

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Arrian
I've had some fun with privateers, but I've never gained much real advantage from using them.
-Arrian

You're lucky. I've never even really had any "fun" with privateers, and I increased them to 2.2.8 (the movement is in keeping with how I modded the rest of my sea going vessels...) They still invariably lose to Frigates and Galleys.

As for reputation, I agree that as a human, I definitely remember what the AI did to me 4000 years ago. Hell, in the game I started this morning, I discovered the French next to me and was elated. "You'll get yours, Joanie! Especially after what you did to me last time!!" Maybe the AI should carry grudges into subsequent games, too.

UN - I leave it on, just for the challenge of needing to beat the AI to building it. I still wish they would beef it up somehow. I actually added the "+1 trade per square" for the city in which it is built; this to reflect the increased activity surrounding the facility. Just felt something was needed other than the voting.

And no, the AI will never be as good as a human. But it still presents a lot of good gameplay. With the 1.21f patch, this game has finally become the only Civ I play.

[Cyclotron]

Okay, I understand that the UN can be a boost for the AI if you let them get to it first, but nobody ever does that if they can possibly help it. Besides, I don't want to lose to the nicest Civ... I want to lose to the best Civ (if I am going to lose). If the AI really played to win, it would only vote for itself, all UN votes would be inconclusive, and there would be no need for the UN.

Fortunately, Firaxis has already taken steps to eliminate Human bonuses. Thus, the removal of the Eiffel Tower form Civ2, which was basically a brainwash of the other Civs.

[jshelr]

I would be interested in knowing how many have actually experienced the AI building the UN and voting to end the game. I only remember once, and I have not made building the UN a priority, although I never purposely violate diplo protocol. The main thing of interest at that stage is getting to modern armor asap.

[Arrian]

The Eiffel Tower was useless. I played on Diety in CivII, and no matter what you did, the AI's all hated you after about 1750. So the ET was a piece of junk.

Stuie,

Privateers are 2.1.3, I believe. Well, it has been my experience that that results in a roughly 1 for 1 death rate when attacking caravels and frigates, and of course a better rate vs. galleys. If you build up fleets of them, you can actually hurt the AI's navy. But that requires that you be strong enough to afford producing those units - and accept that they are throw-aways.

-Arrian

[Inverse Icarus]

i thought privateers were 1/1...

anyway, about reputation: i think the current global suitation should superseed any reputation factor. i mean, in todays world we just let Russia join NATO, the orginiaztion made to destroy it.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Arrian
Privateers are 2.1.3, I believe. Well, it has been my experience that that results in a roughly 1 for 1 death rate when attacking caravels and frigates, and of course a better rate vs. galleys. If you build up fleets of them, you can actually hurt the AI's navy. But that requires that you be strong enough to afford producing those units - and accept that they are throw-aways.

-Arrian

Well, I modded them to be the equal of a Frigate with no bombardment. Guess I've only tried isolated use of them. I really wish there were more to do with (actual commerce raiding, for instance... maybe blockading...). My biggest problem is your final point: They are throw-aways. Privateers seem like a good idea that didn't meet its potential.

[MiloMilo]

I gotta agree with Uberkrux on this one. Even when I get backstabbed by an ai civ, if I recover and then overtake them, and turn them into a small ally, I will be very nice to them. In my current game I have strictly followed protocol, declaring war before attacking, etc. But I started out shoehorned into a very small space, and in the course of stretching a bit, I starved down a few cities to move them a square or two over, to get that river or hug some coast. Now it's 5000 years later and those civs, to whom I routinely give money, techs, cities and resources to counter my big rivals, are still furious at me! If I give someone Mil. Tradition, horses, and saltpeter, which they use to fend off an invasion by a much larger civ (not to mention committing troops of my own), they should start to like me, no? At some point the past should become water under the bridge. Maybe with each new age?

W/r/t the UN, you're always picturing yourself as winning. What if the ai built the UN and you were still the 7th-biggest civ around, dependent on other for resources etc.? Would you vote for yourself? Or your friendly superpower neighbor, to help it beat the Empire of Evil?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i thought privateers were 1/1...

anyway, about reputation: i think the current global suitation should superseed any reputation factor. i mean, in todays world we just let Russia join NATO, the orginiaztion made to destroy it.

I'm pretty sure they went up to 2/1 with the 1.21 patch.

Err... the organization made to defend against it, Uber. Anyway, I can see both points. From a "realism" standpoint (which really helps immersion in the game), relations/reputation should be more fluid, which would allow for cooperation between former enemies. But then again, one wouldn't want the AI to be too easy to dupe (oh, don't worry about that backstab in 1000bc, sure, you can have a RoP). Heh.

-Arrian

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Stuie

As for reputation, I agree that as a human, I definitely remember what the AI did to me 4000 years ago. Hell, in the game I started this morning, I discovered the French next to me and was elated. "You'll get yours, Joanie! Especially after what you did to me last time!!" Maybe the AI should carry grudges into subsequent games, too.

Dude, you play too much Civ

[Cyclotron]

I want reputation to act like how I regard enemy civs. The AI should realize that there are benefits in trading with me, etc., but it should be wary of me if I have attacked it before. If I was bad to it in the past, it should shy away form giving me such things as techs, cities, and RoP. I just want the AI to act like it wants to win, just like I do. The AI should not stop all trade with me just because I attacked it one, but it should also not forget what I have done in the past.

[Coracle]

Re: Human/AI equality

Originally posted by cyclotron7
. . .Privateers. So the AI ignores my colorless units; that's what they are designed to do. I, however, always know who is attacking me. Colorless units are fun for the human (assuming you make them a bit more powerful than 1/1), but a waste of time for the AI. Why?

Reputation. A lot of people express frustration about the AI remembering things from 4000 years back. Well, why shouldn't they? I certainly do! "Realism" may dictate that the AI should have long term memory deficits, but a better AI needs to be on the same level as me. If I play in mp, I expect fully that a human player will remember what I did 4000 years ago.

My point is this: People talk a lot about making a better AI, and reducing AI cheating. I think that AI cheating will always be necessary, but a great way to minimize the AI crutches is to get rid of the above human crutches. The above features are obviously meant to bolster realism, but the human player never cares aobut realism for himself... he wants to win. The AI should act likewise.

Realism and Civ 3 are mutually exclusive. At least Civ 2 gave the appearance of realism a lot better.

Privateers are a waste of time for anyone (same with subs) as their actual purpose is to attack MERCHANT SHIPPING - not enemy warships, something Firaxis is incapable of understanding. I've edited both those units into more useful units months ago.

The AI? In Civ 3, although it does some things smarter than in Civ 2, it does some things dumber and is sooo predictable, especially in warfare. Those dummies will always be suckered in to where there is a resource or undefended worker. It will send settler/foot soldier combos right into my territory even when at war; I destroy them easily, and then the stupid AI sends more. There is no excuse for this SLOPPY PROGRAMMING.

Reputations? Don't make me laugh. Most of the time I get blamed by the stupid AI for stuff I didn't do or should not get blamed for. Here's another example:

1. 100 AD. The braindead Culture Flipping border flips over my garrisoned fortress and resource and I am expected to leave . I won't. So the stupider Aztecs (about only 2/3 my power) demand I leave, and when I won't I'm a warmonger.

2. The stupid AI Aztecs who pushed for this war get their clocks cleaned with my Iroquois Mounted Warriors, but despite losing city after city won't make peace except on a treaty for treaty basis. So I exterminated them.

3. It is now 1200 years later, 1200 years after the Aztecs ceased to exist. I make contact with the Romans on another continent, but they won't deal with me, insult me, and claim "the Aztecs told us of your perfidy" - a good trick since there are no Aztecs. Maybe they had a seance.

It's just ridiculous.

I suppose you'd think in the real world it would make sense in the 20th century for China to still hate Greece for having wiped out Troy over three thousand years earlier. It makes no sense at all, just like the Diplomatic AI.

[FrantzX]

It's still alot better that the Civ II or SMAC AI.

[dexters]

Re: Re: Human/AI equality

Originally posted by Coracle



Realism and Civ 3 are mutually exclusive. At least Civ 2 gave the appearance of realism a lot better.

As all strategy games should be. I wouldn't want to play a game that emulates real worlds, because in real worlds, no ruler has reigned for more than 100 years. In Civ III, you get thousands of years. Why aren't you whining about being unrealistic? In the real world, no dictator, no matter how powerful, get the free run at an Empire. There are always interests putting pressure and subverting the power of the leader. Imagine a game in Republic or Democracy where a city refuses to build something you want. Hey, let me tell you, that is realistic. But that's not going to work for a game. There are no terrorists or guerillas in Civ III, a real fact faced by world empires that I suspect If implemented "realistically" would bog the games down to an unplayable crawl. I want a game that distills the fun parts of empire building into a game. If I want the real thing, I'll go join the army and actually command units.

To be quite frank Civ 3 has more of that than Civ 2. Declaring War is an event. The AI, despite your ranting about how stupid it (sorry, saying it a hundred times wont change anything) is a lot smarter than the Civ 2 AI. The overpowered Navy in Civ 2 was righfully scaled back and is infact more realistic than the Death Star navies that can bombard coastal cities to nothing, with 100% accuracy and have players land token troops to immediately take it over.