Current Status of PtW

[player1]

As for cheats at Emperor+ levels they are designed to make game chellengable for those who find fair Regent game too easy. (most average playes, do get crushed at Regent)

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Verto
Does PtW have the problem of tanks being crushed by cavalry?

Can tanks be beaten by ATTACKING Cavalry? Yes, tanks are vulnerable, but it will usually take multiple cavalry to defeat a tank: Cavalry 6 attack vs. Tank 8 defense (8.8 defense if standing, not fortified, on plain terrain).

A tank unit is even vulnerable to Knights/Longbows/Immortals, but again it will usually take several to take down the tank. If you were to take a batch of tanks to an overseas invasion into the enemy heartland without adequate defensive support, you could expect to be overwhelmed out in the open. I've been there, done that; and it was NOT pleasant.
It WAS however, a lesson learned.

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by gergi
From what I can tell, most people on the forums disagree with what I think about the AI but every last person I know personally agrees with me.

Depends on what you ask. I don't think anyone disagrees with your wish for better AI, but I think many disagree when you imply that the AI is broken, since as JimMac wrote: It is the best that exist for a TBS game.

First off, the "bonuses" and "weaknesses" attributed to the AI depending on difficulty level should never have been implemented. The AI should be BETTER, not get advantages, on the harder levels. Vice-versa for easier levels. I realize this has been the status quo for all Civ games since the beginning but I have always thought it was a cheap way out from developing a more sophisticated AI subsystem. I don't mind this as much as the rest of the problems as I always play on the level where they are given the fewest advantages/disadvantages (King or Regent).

As above, I don't think anyone disagrees that this is preferrable, but asking for something that is essentially impossible to create with current AI technology within a few year and with reasonable cost. Its like saying that you wished they fixed current state-of-the-art cars, since you think a non-pollutin car being able to fly would be better.

At a high level, I believe the real problem with the AI is that it was designed to expand at all costs. This in turn causes most of the problems as I see it. First and foremost, is the lack of any concept involving friends/enemies. You are just territory that they wish to expand to... and they will try whenever they perceive some "weakness". Usually by ganging up on you with the other AIs.

It is pretty much a given that each and every AI will go to war with you without pretext or reason at least once a game. You can be allied with an AI for thousands of years, then one turn, they ally with another AI (even one they were just at war with), and attack you. Completely unrealistic. Even less fun.

There's also no concept of peaceful existence. You can be the most powerful civilization on earth, willing to trade and be friendly with everyone, and they will all still hate you. Sure, I understand the jealous/envy aspect but it shouldn't be as overwhelming as it is in Civ3. In the real world, the US is the most powerful nation but there are quite a few nations that are quite friendly with the USA (Iraq not-withstanding ;-)).

This would be meaningful in a game where noone is meant to win, but in a game where all should play to win, you have to attack the leader. Do you argue that other player's shouldn't attack the leader when playing Risk as well?

I could go on but I really don't think it matters. I'm in the minority in these forums but I've given up on Civ3. I'm glad you enjoy it but personally, I'm looking for a Civ replacement. Civ3 is just not fun to play.

Don't you like this type of games, or do you play any other TBS game where the AI is, in your opinion, fixed? If so, which game is it?

[David Murray]

The greatest problem as I see it with Civilization is the fact that there are so many units to build (a good thing) but a lot of them aren't worth building (a bad thing). Marines, for example, have a very limited use. Unless you can't physically land your tanks next to a city from a transport there is no point in having marines. I have never found a use for paratroopers. Guerillas are simply an upgrade for medieval infantry and are only good for garrisoning cities. Destroyers are barely worth building when you get battleships. I have never used stealth bombers or fighters because the space race is usually well underway by the time that the necessary research is available. In fact, despite the brilliant array of units, especially during industrial and modern times, there isn't much point in building most of them. PTW does nothing to address this.

[vmxa1]

theNiceOne good job. The fact that one does not care for a particular game is fine, but the complaints were very weak and not thought out.
The idea that one would make a different AI for each level shows a lack of understanding about the business of writing applications.

Really sad to talk about not wanting to gang up on the human. If one ever played cutthroat card games for money like Hearts, Pinochle, Whisk and such you better figure out who is the best player and attack them or you are in for a rough day.

I think people come to this board and forget that most players do not get help from here or other sites and are struggling at Warlord or Regent. They are not looking for a better AI.

[gergi]

To theNiceOne,

Depends on what you ask. I don't think anyone disagrees with your wish for better AI, but I think many disagree when you imply that the AI is broken, since as JimMac wrote: It is the best that exist for a TBS game.

I will grant this it is one of the most SOPHISTICATED AIs that exist. They created a system where everything in the game world influenced the decision making process of the AI. In other words, they have lots of variables that they introduce into the AI routine. In theory, this would create a better AI. Unfortunately, the AI routine, not the variables, is the problem.

As above, I don't think anyone disagrees that this is preferrable, but asking for something that is essentially impossible to create with current AI technology within a few year and with reasonable cost. Its like saying that you wished they fixed current state-of-the-art cars, since you think a non-pollutin car being able to fly would be better.

You are incorrect about current AI technology. There are many, many games out there where the AI plays better or harder difficulty, without relying on giving "bonuses" to the AI. Firaxis chose (poorly in my opinion) the advantages/disadvantages-for-harder-difficulty instead of a more realistic AI.

Lastly, I have studied AI at the graduate level. I am no expert by any means but I do know what I'm talking about.

This would be meaningful in a game where noone is meant to win, but in a game where all should play to win, you have to attack the leader. Do you argue that other player's shouldn't attack the leader when playing Risk as well?

But the problem manifests itself whether you are the strongest, weakest, or anywhere in the middle...

But Civ3 gives no benefit to civilizations at peace. I enjoy a game that involves diplomacy. Even Civ2 had this because you would make money thru trade (like in real life!). The only "trade" in Civ3 is the resources but it's much easier/simpler for you to acquire the resources yourself, thru expansion and war.

There is only one strategy in Civ3. Expand and conquer. There is no way to be a peaceful nation and prosper thru commerce. There is no way to be a peaceful nation and prosper thru science. There is no way to be a peaceful nation and prosper thru land cultivation. Developing your cities, trading, and research are all tools for conquering your neighbors before they conquer you. Where's the diplomacy?

Don't you like this type of games, or do you play any other TBS game where the AI is, in your opinion, fixed? If so, which game is it?

No AI is perfect. But I can't think of a turn based game where the AI was worse. Again, I haven't seen an AI that was more sophisticated. But I haven't found one that was as single-minded (about war) and less fun to play against. I'm a huge fan of Civ, Civ2, Master of Orion 1 & 2, Masters of Magic, and most other famous TBS games. And of all those, Civ3 is the only one I haven't enjoyed.

And to vmxa1,

I think people come to this board and forget that most players do not get help from here or other sites and are struggling at Warlord or Regent. They are not looking for a better AI.

You misunderstand. I AM looking for better AI. I CHOOSE to play on Regent because it's "equal". I've played deity level several times and won over half of them. But it's not fun. The way the AI is implemented, Civ3 is just a pure war game. And there are much better pure war games.


Again, very few on these forums agree with me. And every one I know personally does agree with me. I suspect this is because the people who frequent these forums are fanatic Civ-boys. I used to be myself... until I got fed up with the Civ3 AI.

[Verto]

I agree with alot of what you're saying, gergi. It does irritate me how on many games, instead of increasing the intelligence of the AI to make it more difficult, it is just given unfair advantages. Civ3 is still a great game, but I was hoping that multiplayer would help take it to the next level, providing the challenge and randomness that only a real human opponent can provide.

Thanks for the input, I've decided to get PtW, and hopefully I'll be able to play it online without too many problems.

[Jaybe]

In response to gergi's arguments, a large remedy would to remove 'real estate' from the scoring formula. Replace it with some measure of accumulated gold or per-turn gross income perhaps. Of course, this would have to be matched with basic AI reprogramming towards achieving those ends.