Best AI I have ever seen hands down!

[Coracle]

That Stupid AI

Originally posted by XOR
More on the AI:

The AI doesn't just know where your units and cities are, it does know which units you have in your cities.

For example, it will chose to go to cities less defended and if you have a city defended with 5 offensive units (swordmen), the AI will want to attack that instead of one defended with 2 defensive units (spearmen). It's a bit silly, it counts swordmen as not being defensive even if those swordmen have the same defense as spearmen.

The AI is often "silly", and its strict splitting of units into "offensive" and "defensive" is equally simplistic.

For the Firaxis apologists who think this AI is so good, I say this. It sure helps to be able to see the entire board and know where every unit is. A lot of those AI cheats sure help make it look "smarter".

AI stupidities? Plenty.

I once attacked large China just as we got to tanks. My invasion force was not counterattacked, except a few pitiful attacks on the first turn. China did quickly develop tanks, but at no time did it attack. Why? The dumb AI considered China "defensive" and therefore didn't build
any offensive units. Result? I rolled over China. The AI does not even know the "best defense is a good offense".

The stupid AI insists on wasting settler and foot soldiers by sending them into my territory towards an open tile even while still at war with me. And it doesn't learn. They pass right by my military and I get a couple of free workers each turn. Boring.

The AI attacks in predictable ways along predictable and easily channeled invasion routes. It does not invade by two or more routes; it just bunches everything into one big stack and marches right at you, even across grassland which is great for the defender to counterattck them on, and to concentrate to defend against. Very thick-headed by the AI.

Settler Diarrhea/Rapid Early Expansion is another AI stupidity. Those crappy little towns thrown up everywhere and anywhere can never be productive and cannot be defended in war. No doubt the AI gets another cheat with freebie settler units; they could not afford to waste units like this otherwise.

The dumb AI cannot use bombardment units offensively.

And on and on. Bottom line: this AI does NOT reflect over five years of development between Civ 2 and Civ 3; it also has been sloppily programmed in various ways.

The AI?

[Coracle]

Oh yes, let me add. . .

One of the more irritating aspects of Civ 2 was building Wonders at the wrong time - such as during an invasion.

I had expected that would have been corrected in Civ 3. Nope. Some civ is facing a serious massive invasion, but promptly starts build not just a Wonder but a HAPPINESS Wonder!!

Even if they finished the Wonder it wouldn't help them militarily. But they never came close to even getting a third of the way to building it before the entire civ was conquered.

"Hey! There's two stacks each of two dozen Mounted Warriors invading us. Let's start building The Hanging Gardens!". How stupid.

Stupid AI.


As for Settler Diarrhea/Rapid Early Expansion:

It is an intensely annoying unrealistic concept, especially as practiced by the cheating AI. It is a thick-headed heavy-handed concept poorly implemented. The AI, if smarter, could have done other things to counter a human trying to do it. There could have rules changes, also.

One sad result of this nonsense is there is nothing left to explore before we even get to caravels - making the game more tedious and boring than it should be after the initial expansion. One of the best parts of Civ 2 was the amount of territory left to explore even into the Industrial era - more accurate especially when we factor in natural resources.

[Coracle]

The AI and the "Signs" phenomenon

There is a movie called "Signs" that has caused INTENSE debate in forums such as the IMDB message board or the Rotten Tomatoes forums. The debate rages between those who find the movie ILLOGICAL, STUPID, and a RIP-OFF, and those who think the others just can't understand the film and its alleged "symbolism" and "message". Interesting debates you can check out.

I FIND THEM SIMILAR TO WHAT GOES ON HERE about the AI and game in general.

There are those of us who find the AI illogical, dishonest in various ways, and generally disappointing. Most of those who feel that way have of course long ago left the forum for more pleasant pursuits.

There are also those who LOVE this turkey. They will say the rest of us "can't understand it", or we're missing something, or haven't learned it as well as they supposedly have.

Well, whatever.

It just seems those who defend the AI make a point to try to convince us how clever THEY are in being able "understanding it" so well. Blah blah. (Deep O comes to mind first).

Let's face it. The AI isn't terrible, but it is flawed, has sloppy concepts, and should have been a lot better. And don't tell me I "haven't taken the time to understand it".

[Ethelred]

Re: The AI and the "Signs" phenomenon

Originally posted by Coracle


Let's face it. The AI isn't terrible, but it is flawed, has sloppy concepts, and should have been a lot better. And don't tell me I "haven't taken the time to understand it".

You don't understand it.

Your constant mindless blathering about mostly non-existent cheats is a clear indication of this. The only known cheats are the AI knowing the resources and apparently knowing the units in a city.

Also the AI is now often attacking on multiple fronts. Try the 1.29f patch. You might as well since you seem to still be playing a game you loath.

[XOR]

The AI IS great, it's just that there are still a few untied ropes about it. Like defending resources, overwhelming coastal fortresses and sams, re-planning invasions and so on.

I will give credit, however, to the fact that the AI once totally pulverized my invasion force into a continent that was entirely owned by the Zulu when they had railroads. I had 2 fortified armies in a city I took and the Zulu seem to have left each and all of their cities with barely 1 infantry as defense and sent a huge stack of like 100+ infantry (NOT EXAGERATING! IT WAS LIKE 2 FULL MINUTES OF COMBAT!). I had like 2 fortified 4-elite-infantry armies, like 10 more infantry, like a dozen cavalries and 14 artillery. It was a mess, after all that combat I lost the city and WW caused like 80% of my people to be sad, all my cities would have to starve like hell if I just gave them enetertainers, and my science was already at a slooow 30% because I give some to the luxury slider each time I go to war. In the next war later on, I bombed their unprotected oil supply and my tanks dropped them like flies while I unloaded anywhere along their coast because they could not rebulid their navy w/o oil.

[XOR]

It does not invade by two or more routes; it just bunches everything into one big stack and marches right at you, even across grassland which is great for the defender to counterattck them on, and to concentrate to defend against.

So far, I have seen it send these groups of troops:

1- A couple of defensive units to pillage, they pillage resources, I dont know if they also pillage everything they see. I havent had this done to me because I always protect my resources. (Even if I never knew the AI would try to pilage them if I left them unprotected).

2- A stack of offensive units with at least 1 defensive unit.

3- It builds a stack like the one in #2 and sends it to reinforce the #2.

4- If you have a weakly protected coastal city it will pack a ship with some units and try to send them to that city. If you have a city that is only defended by "offensive" units, that will likely be the target city.

5- When it has modern units it will send a MI and a Radar Artillery to pillage bombarding. I have only seen it done once, but it kept doing that for several turns, until the MI was destroyed and the arty capped.

6- It will send 2 or 3 separate groups of ships. One was already mentioned. Another 1/2 groups of ships (I dont know on what it depends, sometimes it will be one, sometimes 2) will try to bombard tile improvements on your coast, if you just dammage their ships a bit with cannons/arty they will go home.

Another "smart move" from the AI is that when it decides to retreat and take a defensive stance, any troops they still have on your lands will pillage their way while they leave. Since you know that's what it means when this happens, you know you already have the AI pulling out and on the defensive. At that point it wont invade you anymore, it will just try to make your conquest a bit harder by increasing their defenses and conscripting/poprushing as many units as they can.

When an AI has multiple enemies it seems to try to attack all of them, and it stays in the offensive if it still has offensive units. So to be able to witness this you will have to be the only enemy they have and wait for them to come at you. You also have to be very negligent in defenses to see them come for your undefended coastal cities, your undefended resources and all that.

[bulldog]

Civ 3 AI is good, almost very good. It is the best AI I have seen in the games I have played (although in all honesty, I don't play that many games). It is WAYYYYY better than Civ 1 & 2 and lot better than many games which claim AI to be their strength.

In my last game, I was unpleasantly surprised when Egypt, who I had an ROP with (and who was the biggest dog around) sent 7 or 8 pikeman though my territory, eventually they almost surrounded my capital (which was near the Egyptian border). They then declared war and proceeded to pillage all my roads bar one that I had just built, i.e. they were practising Capital Isolation.

I freaked out and rushed every knight I had to the capital to destroy the pikeman. Those remaining, retreated to a mountain just outside my capital which the Egyptians then tried to use as a fortress to lay siege to my capital. I am holding steady but I've just seen the arrival of some Egyptian cavalry so it's going to be a tough battle to get through.

I don't care whether the CIV 3 AI is a "true" AI or a rules based engine, but it definitely gives me a greater challange than any of its predecessors.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by XOR


So far, I have seen it send these groups of troops:

1- A couple of defensive units to pillage, they pillage resources, I dont know if they also pillage everything they see. I havent had this done to me because I always protect my resources. (Even if I never knew the AI would try to pilage them if I left them unprotected).

2- A stack of offensive units with at least 1 defensive unit.

3- It builds a stack like the one in #2 and sends it to reinforce the #2.

4- If you have a weakly protected coastal city it will pack a ship with some units and try to send them to that city. If you have a city that is only defended by "offensive" units, that will likely be the target city.

5- When it has modern units it will send a MI and a Radar Artillery to pillage bombarding. I have only seen it done once, but it kept doing that for several turns, until the MI was destroyed and the arty capped.

6- It will send 2 or 3 separate groups of ships. One was already mentioned. Another 1/2 groups of ships (I dont know on what it depends, sometimes it will be one, sometimes 2) will try to bombard tile improvements on your coast, if you just dammage their ships a bit with cannons/arty they will go home.

Another "smart move" from the AI is that when it decides to retreat and take a defensive stance, any troops they still have on your lands will pillage their way while they leave. Since you know that's what it means when this happens, you know you already have the AI pulling out and on the defensive. At that point it wont invade you anymore, it will just try to make your conquest a bit harder by increasing their defenses and conscripting/poprushing as many units as they can.

When an AI has multiple enemies it seems to try to attack all of them, and it stays in the offensive if it still has offensive units. So to be able to witness this you will have to be the only enemy they have and wait for them to come at you. You also have to be very negligent in defenses to see them come for your undefended coastal cities, your undefended resources and all that.

Good post.

[XOR]

To see some of the things in my post I had to go to a war on an alliance with another AI against another AI. When I fight against the AI I will usually crush it's units too fast (from the moment I see them) to see what they do with them for the next 10 turns, either that or they destroy my units and I lose "visual" of their units after that, but when I have an ally the units of my allies dont get crushed so fast, so I get to see what they do for several turns.

[problem_child]

^bump

[TheBenjamins]

I don't think enough has been made of the importance of diplomacy. I have come to find that, on the harder levels, a good diplomatic strategy is the key to survival and ultimate victory.
For instance, if two civs form an alliance against you, unless you're a dominating force in the world, you'd better find yourself some allies! Even if if means paying them ridiculous amounts of money, it will pay off tenfold in the long run. I have survived many a game by paying off other civs to go to war with my enemies.
This serves two purposes:
1. Opens another front in the war, keeping your enemies off your back.
2. Creating good will with other civs and keeping them on your side. This keeps them from declaring war on you as well.
It is the nature of the AI to all gang up on one civilization. Don't let it be you!
In the game I'm playing now, at first most of the world was allied against me, and for no good reason. By bribing other civs to become my allies, I have turned things around completely, and now we are all ganging up on the Persians, who were once the strongest civ by far.
I have done this enough times now to know it works. Remember, don't be afraid to bribe other civs to come to your rescue. The money you spend will be pocket change compared to what you stand to lose.

[Theseus]

And if you don't get those alliances, the AI enemy will!

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TheBenjamins
I don't think enough has been made of the importance of diplomacy. I have come to find that, on the harder levels, a good diplomatic strategy is the key to survival and ultimate victory.
For instance, if two civs form an alliance against you, unless you're a dominating force in the world, you'd better find yourself some allies! Even if if means paying them ridiculous amounts of money, it will pay off tenfold in the long run. I have survived many a game by paying off other civs to go to war with my enemies.
This serves two purposes:
1. Opens another front in the war, keeping your enemies off your back.
2. Creating good will with other civs and keeping them on your side. This keeps them from declaring war on you as well.
It is the nature of the AI to all gang up on one civilization. Don't let it be you!
In the game I'm playing now, at first most of the world was allied against me, and for no good reason. By bribing other civs to become my allies, I have turned things around completely, and now we are all ganging up on the Persians, who were once the strongest civ by far.
I have done this enough times now to know it works. Remember, don't be afraid to bribe other civs to come to your rescue. The money you spend will be pocket change compared to what you stand to lose.

I love this aspect of the game. My favorite part of the game is when I am at war and have a buffer state inbetween the warring civs. I like to flip the buffer to my side when the enemy has a thin trail of units in the buffer, making for easy consumption by the 3rd state. then I sweep in a few turns later, using the ROP, and I can attack without fear or retaliation. pretty sweet. And Both my enemy and "ally" are weakened and ready for the kill.

OTOH, its a real ***** when the buffer won't agree, and I have to find an alternate way of attacking, ships, etc. because they will declare war on me if I go trapsing through their territory.

I love the game within the game.

[0rb]

Culture-Flipping has been an ongoing event in much of history.

All the examples listed above are the obvious ones, similar to the way Civ3 presents it. But the vast majority of culture-flipping is done gradually over a period of years. Examples of that can be found anywhere large numbers of people exist.

The most obvious current example would be how many countries complain of "american cultural values eroding their own". I've no interest in debating the validity of this, but the effect of it goes far beyond what Civ3 denotes as 'trade'.

For this reason, Culture-flipping is quite valid. To be "accurate" however, it should probably be reflected in a shift of peoples nationality in a city over a period of time. Again, I have no interest in figuring out the logistics of how that would be accomplished without tearing apart the whole city/nation concepts Civ3 has in place.

The problem culture-flipping has at present is it's "dramatic" nature. 9 times out of 10, this happens in a subtle way.

Many would argue Canada is US-North. There are geopolitical distinctions, but the difference in cultural values are minor... (I hasten to add that I'm taking a world-view here. From a north america perspective the differences are noticeable; tho less than some would make it imho)

I could on. Matter of fact, I will...

Nations who can "relate" to one another are likely to be interested in acquiring the same things, have similar beliefs, etc, etc, etc. This is osmotic-culture-flipping.

In the real world is something called "brain-drain", where many people move to a richer country to gain a better standard of living. This is also a form of culture-flipping.

Actually, I better stop. I got stuff to do.

My point tho, is that culture-flipping, tho somewhat primitive, adds to the game a VERY REAL event that is ongoing. It's problem is that in Civ3 it is presented as clear-decisive-moment, when it most commonly occurs slowly over a long period of time, and without most people even noticing that it's happening.

later
0rb

ps ~ the comment about China kicking out the Mongols does not invalidate culture-flipping. The Mongols DELIBERATELY tried to avoid being assimilated by the Chinese and went to great lengths. They were obviously very familiar with culture-flipping. And even then, they failed. Kubilai broke away from the Mongol tradition; the results of which were described by Marco Polo. Granted the revolts in the mid fourteenth century certainly ended with the Mongols being ousted, it was not due to fear on the part of the Chinese that they would be absorbed into a Mongol culture.

[dexters]

^bumpage