It's just sad that the AI is not so good

[Capt Dizle]

Despite the bragging the AI is just not up to par. I find it kinda sad. I know I'll be flamed to **** and gone but it doesn't change the facts.

A simple barrier of infantry, two to a tile, will cause an invasion force of a hundred or more units to turn and sulk home. Invade with a transport full of armor and despite the fact that the AI has a full RR net and 250 units, it will only defend a city with a handful (3-4) of units. The AI has no ability to support attacks with air and artillery support. Heck, it can't even support a defensive position.

Firaxis turned Civ into a wargame and claimed the AI was great. But it's not.

The only real impediment to military conquest is the inability to use enemy road and rail nets.

I guess some of you are easily satisfied or something.

[Fitz]

Yep, I'm very easily satisfied.

*Flames jt*

I think that the AI isn't perfect, in fact it is a long shot from it, but it is an improvement over my favorite game, SMAX. It defends better and attacks better.

I must admit that Firaxis needs to do a much better job with the AI and dificulty levels. As an example, if they took just a few of 'Polys best players, watched them play a few games, and started incorporating their strats into the hardest level, you would have a game that was designed for the public to play on standard levels (and not give up in frustration) and allow power gamers to really be challenged on higher levels, all without giving obscene advantages to the AI.

jt, I assume you are just trying to get some of the negative parts of CivIII to show up on the thread list?

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

me thinks me smells a troll.

[Capt Dizle]

Not really Fitz, I am just sad that after 10 years of Civ development this is the best we have. On the one hand we had SMAC with its marvelous complexities and replayability. Now, in the name of competitive AI, we have lost all of that and have in its place an AI that is no more competitive. It makes me sad.

Sure, it can be tough to overcome the AI on higher levels with all the bonuses but in the end the AI is just as stone dumb as it was before. There really wasn't any reason to pursue that line of development if they lacked real expertise in AI programing.

Any old wargame ported to the computer has better AI. At least, any I ever played.

The AI from Gettysburg performed 100% better than the Civ3 AI. At least it placed its cannon properly to support attacks, and did attack.

It's agonizing to play a long game and then invade a Civ who will only use 1-2% of its forces to counter the beachhead.

[Capt Dizle]

AW64, is it not possible for someone to express genuine disappointment.?

[Arrian]

-Arrian

(who really whishes there was a "snicker" smilie)

[Coracle]

I expected an improvement in the AI reflecting the over five years since Civ 2 was developed. Instead the impovement seems more like five WEEKS.

The Civ 3 AI, as has been described here numerous times, is predictable, dumb, weird, and easily fooled. It doesn't learn. It has to cheat in many ways, some obvious and some subtle, in order to have a chance against the human.

I am tired of SLOPPY PROGRAMMING that always has some idiiotic military go after that undefended worker or cannon left as bait, or always launches a pathetic raid on my coast, or can't even use artillery offensively.

The stupid AI is why Firaxis no doubt came up with, as a late "fix", preventing the human from using existing roads when invading - totally unrealistic, as is too much of the game.

Speaking of fixes, massive corruption was a fix (so-called) for a much too fast tech tree development.

The Diplomatic AI is equally idiotic blaming you for stuff you never did to screw up your reputation (another AI cheat), and being so dumb it refuses numerous FREE resources added on to a tech deal owing to your reputation. No sane leader would ever do that - only Soren's AI.

[jshelr]

JT's "attitude" is being used to get you thinking. I'll be the good cop.

The AI is an accomplishment to be proud of. But it is not the final word. It can be improved. We are playtesting it, and we should report its shortcomings so they can be improved. There have been lots of improvements already as the patches moved along.

But JT is basically right. The AI is not aggressive enough to beat even a dramatically outgunned human player in the late game. (In cases where you don't simply roll over the AI, you can defend much better than the AI can attack. Your economy can be made better than the AI's almost every time. And you can beat a confused AI research strategy to the SS nearly every time.)

No one expects the AI to be as good as we are, perish the thought. And it would be of little interest to post ideas on these boards about a game that didn't look like it had great potential. Personally, I think the start of the game is hard enough, especially with the option to move up in difficulty level. But, at least after steam power, and probably earlier than that, the outcome of the game is essentially determined, even though there are hours and hours and hours left to play.

I believe a thoughtful discussion of AI tactical and strategic errors that people have seen, especially if confirmed by a number of others who have seen the same thing, would be valuable input. Frankly, I've been impressed by the response we have already seen to comments made in recent months.

[Arrian]

Now THAT was constructive. And I agree - the AI can always be improved. I was laughing at JT's tone.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

1. AI will invaribly advance through gaps in defensive positions.
AI will often retreat when such gaps are closed. AI will not attack strongpoints.

Solution: Change the pathfinding so that the AI will be able to differentiate between impassible terrain and troops that can be killed. Add variable routines so that the AI will sometimes attack strongpoints rather than bypass or retreat.

2. AI does not use artillery and air support to soften strongpoints.

Solution: Instruct the AI to build and use artillery in mass. Instruct the AI to build airfields and support offensives with air support.

3. AI does not utilize RR system properly for defense. AI defends passively and does not use artillery or air support for defense.

Solution: AI should be taught to aggressively attack invasion forces (leaving a random chance of delayed or passive response to prevent yo-yoing.)

4. AI grabs workers.

Solution: Reduce AI tendancy to grab workers.

[Capt Dizle]

5. AI does not recognize threats.

Solution: While impossible to teach the AI to "see" threats the way humans do, it should be possible to flag certain things and link up AI reaction. Example: A fully loaded transport within one turn of landing troops should provoke some kind of reaction from the AI if it has been spotted. Can surely teach the AI to line coast with units to require marines (which would give the marines a purpose in the SP game).

[Capt Dizle]

6. The AI is predictable.

Solution: Randomize. Even stupid responses can be effective, but predictable responses seldom are. Don't force the human to play poorly to simulate meaningful conflict.

[Capt Dizle]

7. The AI does not upgrade.

Solution: Upgrade. This should be first on the list and is the most unforgivable.

[Capt Dizle]

It should be noted that combat AI is different from the overall AI. Generally, I think Soren has done a decent job with the AI overall, but insofar as combat, it seems he spent little time. We know from their admission that they played very little in the later stages of the game so it is quite understandable that the AI breaks down in the late game.

Still time to fix it.

[Capt Dizle]

And the reason I am talking about this stuff is that v1.21 is much better than v1.07 and Firaxis deserves some credit for the work they have done. Just don't tell them I said that.