Vote: Should the map-generator be scrapped?

[Ralf]

Firaxis should scrap the map-generator!! (NOT the map-editor) Maybe i am swearing in church now, but please read it through and give it a thought, before you answer this post.

I think the virtues of a map-generator (= random, non-foreseeable maps) can easily be obtained by other means, and that the drawbacks is pretty big:

- Often ugly and unimaginative islands- and continent-shapes/ terrain-distributions. The "feel" is often "lifeless" and "mechanical", in some hard-to-finger-point, kind of way.

Instead they should add a player harddisk-based map-archive containing around 20+ nicely hand-edited maps (shipped with the game), in all variants and sizes, that have real "earth-quality", in terms of the overal feel.
I addition to this, either Firaxis, or some hardcore civers (Apolyton, or anyone) can setup a huge hand-edited internet-based Civ-3 map-archive.
Nowadays, with cable- and above internet-connections, any such archive, almost feels like a second hard-disk. Besides, map-files are relatively small, so even those with 56K modems should not have problems.

------------------------------------ edited:
Since some people only read the subject-line and quickly skim through the first post only, before they reply - i feel compelled to edit this part, originally from the my third post in this same thread:

"Come to think of it: I think i rather put my emphasize on the "invisible AI city-placement idea" (read below and second/third post about this idea). Nice hand-edited maps can - after all - ALWAYS be added later, regardless if Firaxis decides to include (or exclude) a good map-generator.

If most civers really wants that map-generator - well, why not? Maybe the "invisible AI city-placement" idea can be implemented in such a map-generator as well? So much the better!"
--------------------------------------------

- Also, consider the problem of moving around AI-controlled settlers on totally unknown random maps.

To cure this, Firaxis should add the ability for us map-creators to manually pin-point any potential AI city placements, on the map (these are later invisble for the human player). The AI can then ONLY found cities on these pre-designated spots, scattered all over the map (the human player can found his cities anywhere he wants).
The AI must produce the equivalent amount of shields for a settler (no cheating), and then wait a few turns (this simulate the settler-journey). Then, voila! A new AI-city has been founded! No physical AI-settlers aimlessly moving around on the map, anymore.

The AI dont have to "evaluate" and "choose" anymore (which it does pretty badly, anyway). This is already taken cared of by the human map-constructor (which he generally does much better). All the AI-civ has to do is to regurlary check up if these originally empty locations isnt already occupied/overlaped by any other AI-player, or by the unknown "wild card" here: the human player - before expanding himself.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 25, 2000).]

[Nikolai]

If I have understood you right, you want a map with pre-designed city-locations for the AI?

After a short time you(the player) would know these locations, and then use a new map; so long, all good. But in the end, I think this will limit the game to much! Some of the meaning with these maps(in my eyes), are that you start with a world which you don't know how is, exactly as the humans around 4000 B.C.(or when Civ3 will start)! In example, if you start with the world map, you soon(if you know the world map good enough) find out where you are in the world, and where you should expand to succeed in the world.

But, if you instead uses a random map, you don't know where you are and where to expand, before you have explored the world around you, as it was in the real world!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai on 12-24-2000 09:39 AM After a short time you(the player) would know these locations, and then use a new map; so long, all good. But in the end, I think this will limit the game to much!

You have not understood me right, Nikolai. These pre-designated AI city-spots are, rather densely (but still irregularly) scattered - literally, all over the map. On average, every every 5:th square in every direction - the map-creating player has the final go. Its up to him.
The nice point is that each AI-city spot is designated exactly there most human players would have founded such cities, anyway.

With the old Civ-2/SMAC "move around city-founding AI-settler" solution, these AI-cities are definitely NOT optimally placed at all. Time and time again, i have stumbled across late-game AI-civs, with very inefficient AI-city placements, and with lots of unused fertile map-squares outside any city-areas, but still within their borders. Havent you? Now, THATS the problem with the old system.

Also, very important. With my suggested solution:

ANY AI-civ can start randomly from ANY pre-designated spot, and expand randomly in ANY direction. Theres NO pre-designated AI capitol-city starting-points whatsoever, and also NO pre-designated non-tweakable AI expanding directions/strategies either

Read above again, perhaps - because its very important in order to understand this idea correctly.

Also, with this idea implemented - the AI can be tweaked to found 3-4 cities in one part of a big island, then wait extra long in order to simulate a 5:th settler journey, all the way to other side of that same big island (any 6:th and above AI settler are still produced in the mean time, of course).
Then, we suddely have two "city-centras" in each part of that island, and they know can start to expand inwards, towards each other. This human-player method is more or less impossible for the AI to mimic, with the old system. But with this new system, it shouldnt be that difficult anymore (at least not in tweaked scenarios).

Also, just to clear things up: Once that any AI-city has produced its settler-equivalent amount of resources, and the simulated settler-journey countdown have started - that same city, immediately starts to build something else. The AI-city DONT have to wait until the new city is founded (of course).

quote: But, if you instead uses a random map, you don't know where you are and where to expand, before you have explored the world around you, as it was in the real world!

With a constant stream of new hand-edited maps, partly from Firaxis future scenario-packs, but MAINLY from hundreds and hundreds of Civ-fanatics all over the world - whats the problem???

Maybe theres still a need for AI-settlers, but they should concentrate on connecting cities with roads, build fortifications and such.

Finally, what about AI-civs expanding beyond oceans?

Well, above "invisible pre-designated city-placement" idea, could easily be conditional. In order for any AI-civ to expand over the oceans, they GOT to have the necessary techs and available ships.
As long as any AI settler-journey is simulated across any ocean, those ships used are faded out; Not available for any other AI-use.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 24, 2000).]

[The Kaiser]

I too maybe reading this wrong, but it reminds me of the invisible caravans of Civ1.

I might be a little idealistic, but I feel that the computer should be able to explore the map for itself and then colonize the regions it finds. Which judging by SMAC it isn't terrible at doing already.

If the computer knows pre-defined city locations, what's the purpose in the exchange map feature?

You might not have the resources to colonize an area yourself right-away, but rather choose to blockade a Island etc from opposing Civs. Surely this strategy would become redundant?

Like I wrote earlier, I don't think the A.I. does a bad job at the moment, but it could and will be improved for Civ3.

[eNo]

I like the map generator, it's pretty good in SMAC. I don't like the premade map idea because wading through 25+ user made maps for that one decent one is not something I think will be fun. Plus I don't like having extra files on my computer. I delete unused scenarios, maps, saved games pretty quickly after the original install.

If Firaxis could write a generator that was more continent oriented then the landworms (which were quite bad in CivII), that would be great. I don't have to play ferry master as much then.

[CornMaster]

I have to say that I don't really like this idea either. A map generator that DOESN'T string all these land masses together like:

  @@@@@@@@@@@@@           @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

          @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   @@@@@@@      @@@@@@@

        @@@@@@@@@   @@@@        @@@@@@@@  @@@@@@

      @@@@@@   @@@    @@@@@   @@@@

                           !!!

                            ^

                            |-------I hate this!!!!

These are 2 different landmasses and should be seperate!!
Also a map generator that could make different land features a little better. Like forest in the desert and swamp, hills, and mountains everywhere!!!

But I like Ralf's idea for scenario creation only. This would allow us editors predefine what the AI can do. And this would be nice.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
Civfanatics.com Civ 2 Multiplayer Ladder!
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-24-2000 02:28 PM [quote]I might be a little idealistic, but I feel that the computer should be able to explore the map for itself and then colonize the regions it finds. Which judging by SMAC it isn't terrible at doing already.

Your kidding, right? I not sure you have read my second reply, so i repost a small part of it below:

"With the old Civ-2/SMAC solution, these AI-cities are definitely NOT optimally placed at all. Time and time again, i have stumbled across late-game AI-civs, with very inefficient AI-city placements, and with lots of unused fertile map-squares outside any city-areas, but still within their borders."

Isnt above reason enough to convince you? Is CTP-2 any better? Its a mathematical problem - and in order to do something drastically better, and more effective - the whole "navigate physical AI-settler" solution have to be bypassed. One way or the other.

If its one area, the AI is particularly weak in, it is the AI unit-pathfinding area.
Then it comes to military units, its doesnt matter that much, because (unlike chess) some bad AI unit-moves doesnt mean the game is over. It can always be repaired later.
However, the ability for the AI to place its cities on optimal map-locations, and make the very best of any existing map-area, is absolutely crucial in order to survive against any half-decent veteran civ-player.

quote: If the computer knows pre-defined city locations, what's the purpose in the exchange map feature?

The computer dont "know" how these pre-defined city-locations looks like, and neither how to get there - and it doesnt have to. Thats the whole point, Kaiser.
These AI-city locations have already been optimally pre-designated by the human map-constructor, thus relieving the AI-programmer, both from any strenuous AI settler pathfinding- and city-area evaluating work.
All it has to do, is to compare numeric bird-distances (without bother with directions), and preferbly choose the closest one - a task it can do much more easily, i think.

quote: You might not have the resources to colonize an area yourself right-away, but rather choose to blockade a Island etc from opposing Civs. Surely this strategy would become redundant?

Yes, i guess it would. But, is it really such a big problem considering all the AI-advantages, plus all the player scenario-editing advantages? Besides, is it realistic to "blockade" a huge empty continent?


ENO and CORNMASTER:

Come to think of it: I think i rather put my emphasize on the "invisible AI city-placement idea". Nice hand-edited maps can - after all - ALWAYS be added later, regardless if Firaxis decides to include (or exclude) a good map-generator.

If most civers really wants that map-generator - well, why not? Maybe the "invisible AI city-placement" idea can be implemented in such a map-generator as well? So much the better!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 24, 2000).]

[CornMaster]

Let me say something again. I think Ralf's idea would be AWESOME or A MUST for scenario creation. It would allow creators to limit at AI to an area. And should also be able to implement it for humans too!!! Then we could have like total control of where cities can go and empires!! (Of course this would be the option of the creator and would have to serve his purpose)

I can just dream of the scenarios I'm going to be able to make with this awesome editor and the feature listed here. *drool*

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
Civfanatics.com Civ 2 Multiplayer Ladder!
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Theben]

No! This is a horrible idea. Many players, including myself, enjoy exploring random maps. Having to wade through pre-generated maps will not keep me as long.

What needs to be done is to improve the map generator and AI, not use soley pre-made maps. If you're thinking HOMM3, all you need is a good editor. But a great random map generator is a must!

[Rollo Tomasi]

I really think this is a great idea. I wish I could have something more to add

[Ralf]

THEBEN and CORNMASTER:

The idea of skipping the map-generator has been dropped (read my response to eNo and Cornmaster). Instead im thinking of ways to merge the map-generator with the "pre-designated AI-city-placement" idea. Below is a rehased cleanwrite from one of my previous posts, months ago:

"Infact, once the continents and the terrains of the map is generated, the map-generator then could continue in calculating potential 21-square AI "city-places" (or rather "city-areas") locations from up-left to down-right, shoulder-to-shoulder over the whole map. Only those areas who had its central square on terra-firma would be account for.
The map-generator should be able to calculate average values from from all 21 tiles in each AI city-area. The lower food/resource sustain threshold-values for such AI-city generated places should of course be manipulatable by the human player - giving him some control over what the map-generator AI should accept, or not.

Above by itself however, would give rather bad results because small 6-10 square island/capes would often be left out, and also not less important: the general AI-city distribution would be relatively squarish and unimaginative (= plain ugly). The shoulder-to-shoulder generation of AI city-areas should therefore be alloved to overlap, disjoin, disfigure each others areas max 1 square-row (the outer 12 squares - the 9 inner ones are untouchables). in random ways.

Also, (important!) this first map AI city-place sweep is followed by a several additional sweeps that distributes all the potential AI city-places in an alltogether different fasions. If these new sweeps finds any potential city-placements that has a better food/resource sustaine-value then the previously designated one, 1-3 squares away - the new one automatically overrides any old weaker AI city-placements.
Finally, any second and above sweep coustal city-places should most often override any previous sweep 1-3 squares-away inland city-places. The reason for the latter is that the terrain on small/medium-sized island can be utilized much better, if coustal city-places have high priority."


CORNMASTER:

Glad you like the idea! Once that one have really understand the BIG potential possibilities, that this idea offers (especially for advanced scenario-builders, working with scripts), theres little that one can have principally against it. As always; Firaxis must make the game very tweak-able and configurative:

- The user can choose to play on randomly generated maps, with pre-designated AI-cities only.

(Like i said before: ANY AI-civ can start randomly from ANY pre-designated spot, and expand randomly in ANY direction.)

- The user can choose to play on randomly generated maps, with pre-designated AI and human player cities.

(In above alternative; the player dont have to manually guide any of his city-founding settlers. He just produces the equivalent amount of settler-shields, an waits a couple of turns - again, simulating the settler-journey - and voila! A new player-city has been founded on an pre-designated city-spot. The player can of course manually guide his city-founding settlers, Civ-2/SMAC-style, by choosing the first alternative, if he prefers that.)

- The user can choose to play on hand-edited and scripted scenario maps, there...

1: the scenario-creator can choose to pre-designate AI-cities only, or both AI-cities and human-player cities.
2: the scenario-creator can choose how many global city-placements is allowed, and where they shall appear.
3: the scenario-creator can script where each AI-Civ (or HP-Civ) shall found any new cities.
4: the scenario-editor can script when, each AI-civ shall found new cities. HP decides for himself, of course.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 25, 2000).]

[FALVES]

I'm glad to see you dropped the idea of skipping the map-generator, Ralf, you were making a lot of people angry , and besides I think the map-generator doesn't exclude the idea of the player harddisk-based map-archive containing around 20+ nicely hand-edited maps, you can have both in the game.
On the other hand, I think that the idea of supressing the AI settlers isn't the right direction to go about the terrible choices the AI does when choosing a place to settle, if it would be like you say, it would take forever for you to completly destroy an empire, you would be destroying a city in a place and the AI would be already creating a city in another place.
I think that you could still use the idea of potential AI city placements, but in a way that the AI would still have to build settlers and send them into the world looking for those sites, or maybe the solution simply lies in improving the settlers AI, afterall the guys at Fireaxis need to earn their paycheck right?

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by FALVES on 12-25-2000 07:42 AM On the other hand, I think that the idea of supressing the AI settlers isn't the right direction to go about the terrible choices the AI does when choosing a place to settle, if it would be like you say, it would take forever for you to completly destroy an empire, you would be destroying a city in a place and the AI would be already creating a city in another place.

The AI-civs would STILL have to produce the settler-equivalent amount of recources, in order to expand (and settlers/engineers are not that cheap, by the way). If any AI-civ confrontes a nasty onslaught by the human player (or some other AI-civ) - that AI must first of all priority its defence and produce new military units of course. Any additional AI-cities doesnt just pop-up automatically, without any produced food/resource conditions.

quote: I think that you could still use the idea of potential AI city placements, but in a way that the AI would still have to build settlers and send them into the world looking for those sites,

I guess, if these city-places where rather densely distributed all over the map (every 5:th square, or so), such Civ-2 style AI-settlers, would occasionally bumb into them. Put what about the lost scenario-creating advantages?

The whole foundation of this idea, is based on the fact that "AI pathfinding" is an area, where the AI is particularly and notoriously WEAK. Its not a question of "lousy programmers" - its a question of mathematics. Heres a comparison:

- Chess have a tiny 8x8 = 64 square world. Compare with Civ.
- Chess have few variables: Only 2 square-types and only 6 "units" (game-pieces). Compare with Civ.
- Chess doesnt deal with added varables, like diplomacy, economics and improvements. Compare with Civ.
- Chess has very few and rather simple rules. Compare with Civ.

"If any of above factors (world size, possible variables and rules complexity) - not to say all of them, is added to, the AI:s ability to "analyze several moves ahead" and "follow a game plan" (or in this case; guide a settler to a pre-designated spot) is severely limited."

quote: or maybe the solution simply lies in improving the settlers AI, afterall the guys at Fireaxis need to earn their paycheck right?

Your asking too much of them, Falves. Read above.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 25, 2000).]

[The Kaiser]

Yes the AI is not brilliant at picking the best sites to colonize and build city's, but neither are Civ's in the real world.

Ever hear about Christopher Columbus's first major colony Isabella. Total disaster, could hardly have picked a more worst site! The place is just ruins today.

So I don't think you want a perfect AI that can always pick the best site to colonize. Let's face it when you first start the game, unless you take the time to explore with your settler we could all probably wish we had placed our Capital a few squares to the right or left. Or if your in the middle of the game and exploring a new continent with just a settler, you perhaps will settle for a less than perfect City site rather than explore further and risk losing your settler somehow. This is what I feel the AI does on occasion, just to get a toe-hold on some new territory it discovers.

What do think however, is that the AI can tend ignore large tracts of land or Islands at times for no apparent reason. Even when it appears they have explored the area. But I don't see this as a reason to once a Settler is built, "teleport" the settler to one of these pre-defined "settling zones". The AI must be made to physically take the unit there on a boat, which affords a blockading strategy I previously mentioned.

In summary, I don't wish for the AI to be perfect always picking the best city locations and a uniform space between each city etc, that would not be realistic. But it should be taught to explore new territory's better and try to exploit them when found. But this it should do through FAIR MEANS and not by CHEATING, which I feel some of your ideas let's the AI get away with.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-25-2000 10:09 PM Yes the AI is not brilliant at picking the best sites to colonize and build city's, but neither are Civ's in the real world. Ever hear about Christopher Columbus's first major colony Isabella. Total disaster, could hardly have picked a more worst site! The place is just ruins today.

Im NOT talking about "the real world" in this thread, Kaiser. Im talking about the very unbalanced, and very real AI vs veteran player city-expanding differences in the GAME, for crying out load.

Your using historical arguments, to defend the idea that the AI:s significantly weaker city-placements abilities should remain unchanged. I dont get it??? Do you also believe that most veteran players use historical arguments, in order to choose similar, less effective city-placement game-strategies?

quote: Let's face it when you first start the game, unless you take the time to explore with your settler we could all probably wish we had placed our Capital a few squares to the right or left.

Im NOT talking about the placement of any single capitol city, or any single settler on new islands, in this thread. Im talking about the general trend here. Im talking about the rather uneven, and very unbalanced tendency for significantly weaker, and significantly less efficient AI city-placement strategies, throughout the entire game.

If an AI-civ and a civil improvement-minded veteran player, starts out on each medium-sized identical twin-islands - the late-game output difference, between those two islands is around 50-100% (often more), in favour for the human player. Thats pretty much, in my eyes!!

quote: The AI must be made to physically take the unit there on a boat, which affords a blockading strategy I previously mentioned. But it should be taught to explore new territory's better and try to exploit them when found.

Didnt you read the chess-analogy, in my prior post? Perhaps you read it, but you didnt understood it?

quote: But this it should do through FAIR MEANS and not by CHEATING, which I feel some of your ideas let's the AI get away with.

In what ways has the "pre-designated AI city-placement" idea, anything to do at all with "AI cheating"?? These potential AI city-locations, is only placed where any good civ-player would have placed them anyway, if they where in the shoes of this or that AI-civ.
The problem, Kaiser, is instead that any veteran-player has a ridiculously huge cheat-advangage over the AI-programmers, in such non-linear, extremely multi-optional and open-ended games like Civilization. If theres anyone who gets away with anything, it is the veteran civ-players - not the AI-programmers.

I dont want to go though explaning the AI-problems in new words, one more time - so, i just re-post a part from a letter, i previously have sent to Firaxis (and from which i got a positive and understanding return-answer, by the way). I have already posted this months ago, but because there are so many newcomers in this forum lately, i think its OK to duplicate it below:

"First of all, i DO agree what many AI-improvements can be done, in order to raise CIV-3 above CIV-2. I just think we average Civ-fanatic should be a little more aware of the built-in limitations in so called "artificial intelligence".
Artificial Intelligence has ONE major advantage over humans, and that is a huge advantage in pure numbercrunching capability. AI-Programmers can use this to setup a bunch of expressions, conditions and variables - then letting a flood wave of oncoming tasks fall through a logical boolean maze, and repeatedly getting relevant and speedy task-solutions.
By comparison humans alone compare rather pathetically (but only in terms of speed, that is).

There is a snag, however (that tips the scale heavily back in favor of the human player):

Considering today’s computer- and programming-technology, above approach only works really outstanding if the world is relatively confined (like the 8x8 square-world of chess), the variables are simple (only black and white tiles/pieces, and only 6 of the latter) and the rules are few and distinct (I don’t know how many rules chess has, but they certainly aren’t many, and there is nothing fuzzy about them either).
If any of above three factors (world size, possible variables and rules complexity) - not to say all three of them, is added to, the AI: s ability to "analyze several moves ahead" and "follow a game plan", with "intuitive" and "long reaching" tactical maneuvers, is SEVERELY limited.
To rub salt into the wound most Civ game-sessions take place - not in 100% known setup-enviroments (like in campaign games) - but, instead on random computer-generated maps, not previously analysed by the AI-programmer.

Thankfully, no one asks for an IBM Deep Blue-AI in the upcoming CIV-3 game anyway. Still, many of the upgrade-suggestions found on Civ-forums often ask for the impossible - an almost human AI, that "schemes" several moves ahead, and then moves around hordes of coordinated army-units, with tactical brilliance.
Why is it impossible (and perhaps also unnecessary)? To understand this we have to come to grips with the principal difference between human (living) intelligence and artificial (dead) intelligence:

What the human Civ-player can do (and the AI simply cannot do) is to literally OVERVIEW (experience) the game situation, and, within a blink of an eye, sort out huge parts of not-so-promising strategic/tactic solutions, and instead concentrate directly (and only) on those very few plans and ideas that actually DO seem promising.
We can describe this as a "bird eye sort out" ability, something unique the living (in our case; human) intelligence.

By comparison, the game AI (or any silicon-based intelligence for that matter) is 100% dead and non-experiencing (of course). It lives in a 2-dimensional "flat" world, figuratively speaking - by that i mean it cannot possible "overview" anything.
In practice this means that if a Civ programmer tries to create something "almost human" in terms of AI-software, he is forced to write an AI that meticulously analyzes and evaluates all the myriads of possible combinations of choose-, build-, upgrade and move-possibilities that each and every individual game-turn has to offer, no matter how irrelevant or less promising 95% of these possibilities are.
The reason for the latter, is (again) the lack of an living "bird eye-sort out" ability. Because of this, the programmers has to gather ALL possibilities BEFORE they can let the software evaluate and rank any appropriate countermeasures.

Also - he has to program it to analyze each-and-every of these combinations; at least 3-4 game-turns AHEAD! (or "deep", using chess-language). Again, remember that the AI cannot "overview" anything from above. To compensate it has to take the "flat world" approach in order to gather constantly changing game-situation data. Like in computer-chess.
This is (as we all know) not that difficult to achieve then it comes to a relatively simple and clean-cut strategy (perhaps more tactical) game like chess. But, in a MUCH more complex and option-divided game like CIV-3; the massive amounts of calculations involved to mimic any hardcore human Civ-veteran playingstyle is absolutely staggering and mind-boggling. Today’s programming-technology is simply too primitive, and our home computers are, at present state, just too slow to achieve anything near this.

Thankfully however, the AI difficulties for the upcomming Civ-3 isnt necessarily so struggling that it first seems. There are basically two reasons for this:

One is that above comparison with chess is - to a certain degree, misleading. Chess is in some ways a very different beast than Civilization. Then playing chess it can be enough to do one (1) bad tactical move in order to loose the entire game. Provided that the opponent is good enough he can exploite that single rash mistake ruthlessly and grind you into submission. In this respect chess (at least on the higher levels) is perhaps a 95% tactical game and only about 5% strategical.
Playing a turnbased computer strategy-game like Civ is a different story. If the human (or the AI-) player makes a few unadviced unit-moves - so what? Nothing that drastic will happen, that cant be repaired in later stages of the game.
One could argue that Civ is a 95% strategical game, but only about 5% tactical (give or take). Above is actually good news in terms of AI-developing. This means that the Civ AI developers can concentrate most of their efforts on tinkering with the overall strategical logistics, rather then wasting (to much) time on trying to mimic the human pathfinding and unit-moving tactics.

I have ALWAYS won the games over the AI primarily as a result of better logistics (= better resource management + more effective unit-improvement and city-improvement/placement strategies). Strengthening the AI:s ability to handle the overal strategical LOGISTICS are the key to a better Civ AI. To summarize it in one famous semi-quote:

A successful AI civilization "marches on its belly" (Napoleon Bonaparte)"

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 26, 2000).]