ai, not so dumb

[dexters]

Just because you think you're playing against the computer doesn't mean the computer AI is one player controlling all the AI civs.

The AI can be built in modules where on module acts independently of another and I have reason to believe that's how the AI works here.

And Carlos, why do you insist your experience must be correct while writing off other people's experiences as "bad luck"? The AI can be bought. Heck, I can be bought if the AI came calling with tons of gold. The fact of the matter is, you don't know why the germans defected. It might have been the result of the peace treaty with the Egyptians and the Germans and so incentives to boot. Usually it's just poor management on your part.

Diplomacy means consistently keeping relations fresh. Giving free techs in the stone age, doesn't mean they'll still be your ally 500 years later.

[delfino]

Originally posted by dexters
Just because you think you're playing against the computer doesn't mean the computer AI is one player controlling all the AI civs.

How come? It has to be! Unless the programmers have gone to the extent of really perfectioning the computer players behaviours in a faction that they actually act differently. I believe it is not the case with CIV3.

The AI can be built in modules where on module acts independently of another and I have reason to believe that's how the AI works here.

Could you please add some data to your answer in order to support and exchange further views?

And Carlos, why do you insist your experience must be correct while writing off other people's experiences as "bad luck"? The AI can be bought. Heck, I can be bought if the AI came calling with tons of gold. The fact of the matter is, you don't know why the germans defected. It might have been the result of the peace treaty with the Egyptians and the Germans and so incentives to boot. Usually it's just poor management on your part.

Sorry but you are reading words that I never wrote. Never wrote that my experience is the only correct one. It is just another experience. The AI can be bought to an extent. The Germans defected because at a stage in the game, and based on the fact that the human player is the enemy; it was necessary to reunite the branches of the computer palyer in order to provide a challenge and attempt to overcome the human player's edge.

Diplomacy means consistently keeping relations fresh. Giving free techs in the stone age, doesn't mean they'll still be your ally 500 years later.

That I agree. However in the current case I am afraid that it seems you are jumping to conclusions. I had kept my relations on an extremely friendly basis with the Germans since I first met them untill well into the industrial age when the game reckoned that soon the Egyptians would fall and it was necessary to keep the human player on his toes.

Anyhow, I believe that it is clear from my posts that I am in no way complaining and in fact accept such events as a natural characteristic of the game.

all the best
carlos

[vondrack]

AI really is not dumb in Civ3

I do agree with reefer addict that the Civ3 AI is pretty smart (considering the fact that it's just an ARTIFICIAL intelligence, not a real one). Those that complain of the AI civs ganging up on the human player probably are a bit too egocentric... do you happen to check the diplomacy screen from time to time? I have seen AI civs ganging up on another AI civ SO many times that I do believe that they really act as independent entities.

Just try asking yourself the key question: What would I do being them (my opponents)? If the human player is the greatest civ (and likely to win the game), the AI civs are likely to gang up, trying to stop him from winning. However, it is not because he/she is human, it is because he/she is the leader. I have seen this done to me (when I was the leader) and I have seen this done to AI civs (when they were #1... I enjoyed being part of the coalition... ). The winner of the game shall deserve to be the winner only if he outwits, outfights, out-whatever all of his opponents, that is 100% fair.

Another example is when there is a weak or weakened civ... then, the AI civs also tend to gang up and finish it off. Again, I have seen this done to me, but I have seen this done to AI civs as well (and not just once!). This is again very logical - if your opponent is weak, you are likely to gain new territory, elite units etc. If you gang with the other attackers, you not only strenghten your position, but at the same time, you weaken that of the other attackers, effectively stopping them from grabbing too much new land. This behaviour seems very logical to me and I really bow to the programmers - I would rate the AI as "cunning" sometimes.

I must strongly disagree with those that insist the whole game is about the AI civs trying to defeat the human. Out of my experience, it is far from that... unless you are the current leader, likely to win the game, that is...

The actual tactics used in the wars is a different story. There, the AI really has nothing to be proud of... I almost always win (or not lose) my wars with significantly lower losses than my enemies, because of better unit micromanagement. But I do not really think this is something Firaxis did bad... it certainly is extremely difficult to match the real human intelligence when it comes to something as complicated as Civ3... and where the AI lacks the intelligence, there it excels in spotting the weak links... I make a single mistake and the AI always uses it to the fullest extent.

delfino: you must have been doing something wrong, since it really is pretty easy to gain AI allies (or, at least, prevent them from becoming your enemies). Just be generous - if you do not need that extra Spice, give it for free! If you have an obsolete tech the other civ still lacks, give it for free! And do not forget that they are not (nor they should be) driven solely by their gratefulness... even if you always treated them nicely, there may be a strong reason (money, great new tech allowing a wonder etc.) making them change their minds. I have been able to secure very strong coalitions against even the most powerful attackers, if I had something to bribe the other AI civs with.

Do not try to fool yourself - you would most probably behave the same. This game is not about being fair and nice to everybody... this game is about winning it! You (and every AI civ as well) will do whatever necessary to win it. That is how it should be.

[Panag]

Re: Quesiton for panag

Originally posted by AIL
Do you mean in the settings where it means standard AI-Level? What is it for? I always thought that's just to determine what is the default setting of the Difficulty when you play this Mod...

hi ,

it lets the AI start with more units , and it makes the game more difficult , ....

so , editor , default AI level , in the place of regent , deity , or an other level you want , .....

have a nice day

[alexman]

Re: Re: Quesiton for panag

The AI default level means that they play at that level for corruption calculations, barbarian bonuses, unhappiness, et cetera. So setting it at Deity, actually makes it easier for the human player.

[AIL]

Sometimes I act just as illogical as the AI!
French is the 2nd biggest Civ besides the Japanese but other than Japan or me (Rome) they don't live on a seperated small continent.
I knew that it shall be prior to prevent em overwhelming their not so mighty neighbours...
Then they declared war on the Persians and begun taking their cities... After a while they asked me to join in and what did I do? I joined in! Well Persia was a wreck anyway so it would'nt make such a big difference if France got all their cities or if I get some of em... But what could I have done else? I was to weak to help persia and I just spent all my money on other Civs for helping me in a sensless war that was initiated by me not giving Furs to the Japenese...

[Panag]

Re: Re: Re: Quesiton for panag

Originally posted by alexman
The AI default level means that they play at that level for corruption calculations, barbarian bonuses, unhappiness, et cetera. So setting it at Deity, actually makes it easier for the human player.

hi ,

easier , ....... , .....it goes from down to up , with up the higest level , .......

easier , ....nope , just more intresting , .....

have a nice day

[delfino]

Re: AI really is not dumb in Civ3

Originally posted by vondrack
I do agree with reefer addict that the Civ3 AI is pretty smart (considering the fact that it's just an ARTIFICIAL intelligence, not a real one). Those that complain of the AI civs ganging up on the human player probably are a bit too egocentric... do you happen to check the diplomacy screen from time to time? I have seen AI civs ganging up on another AI civ SO many times that I do believe that they really act as independent entities.

I really have to perfect my English!! For XXXssake who is complaining? Rather like your generalization of egocentric personalities. Far from my intention to elaborate on your beliefs.

Just try asking yourself the key question: What would I do being them (my opponents)? If the human player is the greatest civ (and likely to win the game), the AI civs are likely to gang up, trying to stop him from winning. However, it is not because he/she is human, it is because he/she is the leader. I have seen this done to me (when I was the leader) and I have seen this done to AI civs (when they were #1... I enjoyed being part of the coalition... ). The winner of the game shall deserve to be the winner only if he outwits, outfights, out-whatever all of his opponents, that is 100% fair.

On this one we agree.

Another example is when there is a weak or weakened civ... then, the AI civs also tend to gang up and finish it off. Again, I have seen this done to me, but I have seen this done to AI civs as well (and not just once!). This is again very logical - if your opponent is weak, you are likely to gain new territory, elite units etc. If you gang with the other attackers, you not only strenghten your position, but at the same time, you weaken that of the other attackers, effectively stopping them from grabbing too much new land. This behaviour seems very logical to me and I really bow to the programmers - I would rate the AI as "cunning" sometimes.

The fact that the weakest computer civ is finished off is again a way to strenght the other ones. The word "cunning" could not be farther from my description of the CIV 3 programming.

I must strongly disagree with those that insist the whole game is about the AI civs trying to defeat the human. Out of my experience, it is far from that... unless you are the current leader, likely to win the game, that is...

Then please tell me the purpose of the game. If it is not its purpose to defeat, or at least present the maximum challenge possible to the human player then what it is? I am almost sure that when I exit CIV3 after an humiliating but deserved defeat, the other civs do not keep on discussing about it and plotting new strategies.

delfino: you must have been doing something wrong, since it really is pretty easy to gain AI allies (or, at least, prevent them from becoming your enemies). Just be generous - if you do not need that extra Spice, give it for free! If you have an obsolete tech the other civ still lacks, give it for free! And do not forget that they are not (nor they should be) driven solely by their gratefulness... even if you always treated them nicely, there may be a strong reason (money, great new tech allowing a wonder etc.) making them change their minds. I have been able to secure very strong coalitions against even the most powerful attackers, if I had something to bribe the other AI civs with.

I sure have been doing and will keep on doing many things wrong. Thanks for the coaching.

Do not try to fool yourself - you would most probably behave the same. This game is not about being fair and nice to everybody... this game is about winning it! You (and every AI civ as well) will do whatever necessary to win it. That is how it should be.

Never did. Never will do. I am sure I would do the same or worst if I could. Anyhow, thanks for your patiente even if did not add something new to what I already knew.

all the best
carlos

[vondrack]

Re: Re: AI really is not dumb in Civ3

Carlos,

Sorry to see that you took my post personally. I was not addressing just you (with the exception of that one paragraph at the end of the post). What I wanted to point out was that the way the AI civs behave is perfectly okay and simulates how human players would probably behave, if playing Civ3 in multiplayer.

Originally posted by delfino
I really have to perfect my English!! For XXXssake who is complaining? Rather like your generalization of egocentric personalities. Far from my intention to elaborate on your beliefs.

Well, I should have put the "egocentric" word in quotes... by using it I was pointing to the fact that many people notice very well that the AI civs ganged upon them, while easily missing the fact that the AI civs did the same to each other many times before.

Originally posted by delfino
The fact that the weakest computer civ is finished off is again a way to strenght the other ones. The word "cunning" could not be farther from my description of the CIV 3 programming.

Wouldn't it be easier and more straightforward, if the AI civs just give up fighting each other, peacefully build up their military first and then jump at the human player all at once? By fighting among themselves, they DO weaken one another - at least considering their overall combined power. Even if the winner gets stronger, he will not get as strong as if he and the other AI he defeated avoided the war altogether.

Originally posted by delfino
Then please tell me the purpose of the game. If it is not its purpose to defeat, or at least present the maximum challenge possible to the human player then what it is? I am almost sure that when I exit CIV3 after an humiliating but deserved defeat, the other civs do not keep on discussing about it and plotting new strategies.

What I meant was something a bit different... The key point is that my experience shows that the AI civs behave independently and NOT as one team. Every single AI civ does its best to win the game on their own - their goal is apparently to win the game, not just take part in a concerted effort to prevent the human player from winning. It is not the everybody-against-the-human scheme, which is what I thought you suggested in your posts. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Originally posted by delfino
I sure have been doing and will keep on doing many things wrong. Thanks for the coaching.

...

Never did. Never will do. I am sure I would do the same or worst if I could. Anyhow, thanks for your patiente even if did not add something new to what I already knew.

Sorry, did not intend to offend you with my previous post.

My intention was to express the belief that the AI civs do not have a "secret plot" from the very beginning, doing their best to prevent the human player from winning. IMHO, they do their best to win and treat the human player just the way they treat one another among themselves (with the exception that the AI civs probably know best how to bribe one another... which is what the human does not know THAT well, as the exact inner mechanics of the diplomatic part of the game has not been revealed).

Considering the fact that I am convinced the AI civs do not act as a team, but as individual players, the way they decide whom to fight and whom to join makes me rate them as "cunning" or "smart" (sometimes... and pretty foolish at other times, sure).

Best regards,
Radek

[Theseus]

I'm with vondrack... the AI civs are not cooperative, but instead act like a pack of dogs.

Just the way I like it.

[Akka]

Originally posted by delfino


Because the game should be able to resort to all means to defeat the human player! If that encompasses that all the opposing civs will unite against the human player, that is what they will do.

all the best
carlos

Why would the game should aim only at defeating the human player ?
It's completely dumb. Kills all feeling of immersion and history.
That's really a powergamer vision, not a roleplaying one.

[Zachriel]

Keep in mind that on higher levels your wealth is discounted, making you the poor beggar at the bargaining table. Frankly, it's hard to get any respect on Deity level, so it appears that everyone is picking on you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Why would the game should aim only at defeating the human player ?
It's completely dumb. Kills all feeling of immersion and history.
That's really a powergamer vision, not a roleplaying one.

That's odd... the meaning of AI is "Artificial Intelligence." Who's intelligence? A human's. So, does that mean that AI is meant to imitate a human? Yes it does.

Why would you want your AI to purposefully act less intelligent, and less human-like?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Keep in mind that on higher levels your wealth is discounted, making you the poor beggar at the bargaining table. Frankly, it's hard to get any respect on Deity level, so it appears that everyone is picking on you.

hi ,

hmmm , this seems to happen only with certain people , ......

have a nice day

[delfino]

Vondrack

Do not worry I never take anything personally! We are here just to discuss and exchange views on a game we like (at least I do)!
If not by other reasons, at least the game is good because it allows many people to experience different features and have diversified readings on what apparently are the same common grounds.
It was good to read yours and other poster's answers and I hope we will continue to share our opinions in a CIVilized way, even if they are opposite.

Akka Le Vil
Never been called a powergamer before, thanks for the cumpliment.

all the best
carlos