Best AI I have ever seen hands down!

[DeepO]

Nomad, no problem, the main reason why we all are on this board is to learn... as long as you keep on open mind I'll gladly help.

I played Civ I and II extensively too, and there one of the biggest problem was that from a certain point on all AIs will gang up on you. Civ III really breaks away from this, so try it. Some ideas:

When you're mediocre in power, and are planning on attacking a larger Civ, sign MPP+ RoP with their neighbours (shouldn't cost you too much). This will keep them busy, so you have an easier time conquering them. After 20 turns, stop the MPP and try to make peace to all Civs that you had to declare war on (who attacked your MPP partner)

When you are more powerful, form alliances. If AIs think they can gain some advantage, they will do it relatively easy. If they are noble MPP partners to your enemy, the chance is much lower they will join.

Keep an eye on the relations between different Civs, and try to remember who was once in a war with some other. This will make it much easier to get cheap treaties.

Try to assess the different trades (e.g. when German does not have oil but is producing tanks, where does it come from?), and try to disrupt these by either alliances, MPPs, embargoes or by taking out resources/luxs that the Germans use to trade with. This can make warring look too easily

Certainly try to keep a good reputation when learning the diplo-tricks. It is not always your own fault when your reputation goes to waste (something that could still be improved a little), but if you go about declaring war on MPP partners, nobody will want to trade with you, or be your pal. Nuking is of course a sure way of getting whole the world against you, so do this with care (if at all).

About flaming, and responding to flaming: don't get scared away too easily, this board is one of the best I visited over the years. But, don't ruin your own reputation by being easily provoked, it is not allways the case that people flame you on purpose... giving everyone a bit credit means in general that you'll receive it as well. Or at least that is how I see it

DeepO

[Nomad_oWn]

First, you can find obscure case examples of every possible argument you want to make.

However, you lose track on the primary issue in this thread is "Is this the best AI that I have seen hands down!"? My opinion is that its not.. given my opinion at this point may not be worth much on this particular game, but that in no way should take away my voice on the topic.

I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you on really any topic. I value far more constructive discussion on the game and its subtle details.

My main issue with you was that your response was more a personal attack than a constructive counterpoint, so I responded in kind.

[BigRed515]

Awright, take the high road after insulting me three posts running.

Anyway, I do think Civ3 has a very good AI, one of the best I've seen in my limited experience with Empire-style games. AIs (or, more appropriately AI scripts) operate in a completely different way from humans, and gettting them to be competative in games that do not have brute mathematics at their core is quite an accomplishment.

The AI in Civ3 uses its strength to its fullest, namely its unlimited attention span and ultimate efficeny in the ReX phase. The AI is also able to recognize the importnace of luxuries and reources in both a strategic context (i.e. cutting off the reources first) and a diplomatic context. The AI recognizes the imporantce of alliances and embargoes, and will make them independant of human action. On the reverse side, the AI will also appreciate diplomatic actions taken by others that have no direct effect on them, such a broken RoPs or alliances. Finally, the AI seems to be good at gaugeing their strength in respect to other players and will (in most non-Catherine cases) modify their diplomatic and military behavior to suit suvch an imbalance (demanding tribute, not giving up if your military can't do serious damage, even if you've taken a couple weak frigne cities).

Sure, the AI is hard. But it's not only hard because it can make things more efficently than you. SoDs are intimidating, but an AI embargo on you after you broke a deal, even when the embargoing AIs were not affected in the least, is impressive.


(btw, last IR point I'll make, WWI and the Napoleonic Wars are not "obscure case examples")

[player1]

Originally posted by Nomad_oWn
However, you lose track on the primary issue in this thread is "Is this the best AI that I have seen hands down!"? My opinion is that its not.. given my opinion at this point may not be worth much on this particular game, but that in no way should take away my voice on the topic.

Hmm...
Not best AI that I have seen?

So what Civish game had better AI then one in Civ3.

I realy don't know such game.

[DeepO]

Well... from one point of view (a purely technical view, I admit), Black & White has better AI... but before you have a hart attack, let me explain: B&W is a bit of a Civish game (research, peaceful expansion, war), and will actually learn. Not only do you have to train your creature, but the game will adapt to your play style, and counter it. When playing a lot of hours, the game becomes more and more difficult, and you'll need to constantly adapt your tactics... as a result there is no difficulty level.

I admire that technically it was a great advance for game AI, but immediately must say that while the concept was sound, the actual implementation of it was still too poor to be fun. Okay, the predictability of the AI was lower than in civIII, but this was more an issue of doing more 'stupid' things to see what the human would fall for, what might be a good tactic. And even if so many manyears went into the development of the AI, it was not nearly as complex enough to give you the real immersion feeling it should have given you.

Sure, newbie players were amazed, but hardcore players (as I consider myself) were bored after just a few months of play, and became upset because lionhead did not deliver on its promise to make the AI (and all the rest of the game) open source. A big disappointment for me, but still I consider it one of the most promising AIs around, and can't consider the 2 years debating the game before it came out a waste of my time.
I haven't tried the expansion, supposedly its AI was improved.

No, Civ III's AI is one of the best around, because it is both up to date, and finished. Improvements are always possible, if you have double the budget, you will create a better one, but it is more then adequate

DeepO

[Nomad_oWn]

Well, as I said I'm really making a prejudgement without exhaustive gameplay. There are two things that I see in "lazy" AI design. 1) PC playing outside the rules 2) ganging up.

I would list under point 1) as improved LOS, limitations or penalties ignored, and impartial resource allocation.

In CIV3 I see some evidence of these things; how can the AI be on his 3rd or 4th starting city and I be on my second? How can an AI with only a 2 city advantage send multiple new units against my cities defenses nearly every turn during war, when it takes me 4-8 turns to build a spearman and about 10-12 to build an archer? How come I can never capture an enemy scout yet my scouts happen to run into enemy units with great frequency?

The only reason I jump to conclusions here is that I know from experience that CIV2 did these things.

I think the "ganging up" thing has probably been run into the ground and in some rts games I would expect this behavior. As was said though, this is a civilization game and I would expect more of a varied reaction from civs and I think its unrealistic for a civ to turn from polite to hostile in only a few turns and brief interaction. In addition, if you play against 10 civs having 6 of those decalare war on you before AD is a bit much.

I would agree with alot of what has been said about AI: There never has been true AI in games, AI has practical limitations based on performance and particularly in multiplayer, CIV3 and the other CIV games have solid AI.

Most every game out there draws on some of what I call limitations in AI now and in most cases its acceptable, but I don't think we should make excuses for game designers by allowing them to continue with the same lazy "equalizers".

As far as the games that I think have better AI its hard to compare since you risk comparing apples to oranges. However, on a very basic level I would say that XCOM-ufo defense, and Heroes of Might and Magic 2 provided the best AI that I've played against. Even those games used some shortcuts like unfair LOS and a resource bonuses and the dreaded "gang up" technique.

I really don't want to beat up a game whose previous versions converted me forever to strategy games. Especially when I do think CIV3 is a good game. I hope my mind changes on the AI being the best of all time but for now I'll just try to enjoy playing and learning the game. Maybe I just need to hire a secretary of state that will give in once in awhile when a civ "Demands" a tech ;P

[BigRed515]

In CIV3 I see some evidence of these things; how can the AI be on his 3rd or 4th starting city and I be on my second? How can an AI with only a 2 city advantage send multiple new units against my cities defenses nearly every turn during war, when it takes me 4-8 turns to build a spearman and about 10-12 to build an archer? How come I can never capture an enemy scout yet my scouts happen to run into enemy units with great frequency?

I asked myself these questions when I started playing on monarch and above, because it definitely seems like the AI is cheating.

However, I think a couple of these things can be explained within the mechanics of the game:
1. The AI builds cities more efficently than any human ever will be able to. It's like having a pre-planned build order in Starcraft, it knows exactly what to build at what time in what order and what tiles to move its settlers through to found cities to make the most mathematically efficient expanse of cities possible in its region. It knows this because it looks at the map and does the computer equivilent of getting out a sheet of paper, calulating all the build times, then looking at the map with grids on and caluclating where the city Xs will not overlap and the mot resources can be used. Oh, and it has a nasty penchant for poprushing whenever possible.

2. The AI builds more units than humans early on because it knows it can and still keep up the Rex race. Oh, and it has a nasty penchant for poprushing units during a war.

3. Chances are they have more units floating around, and if they are non-expansionist they send around warriors.

As someone who's not the best, but who can hold his own on Monarch and sometimes Emperor, this is what I've observed:

I've found that the stronger you are (and the less militaristic the AI), the less likely sudden mood swings are. Constant trading helps with this too. I usually open the trade menu every few turns to gauge where I am in the tech race. If I don't need to catch up, I'll give the AI a little gold. Those that aren't planning on attacking me tomorrow will usually change moods for the better because of it (never seems to work on Shaka or Tokuagwa, however). Oh, and never refuse a tribute payment demand coming from anyone but those who are "Polite" (and I usually give into those as well to keep the few freinds I have)

The Great Library really helps with this "I'm not weak, really" approach. If you are not only smaller (which is inveitable early on due to AI Rex), poorer (if you do your own research), and weaker (I usually don't build extraeous offensive units early on) but also behind in tech, the AI starts to think you might be a good target for a "free territory from the small guy" war.

The other side of the equasion is that if you are too strong and have fought too many wars, the AI will fear you and try to cut you down to size whenever it thinks is possible.

In the happy medium area, though, you'll find instances of AIs fighting and one side asking you to join their alliance, or AIs offering things to you out of the blue for techs, maps, or reources/luxuries.

At the higher levels though, you're right. Diety and Emperor AIs have so many advantages you need to be Aesonic to go through an entire game and not fear being completely wiped out sooner or later.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Nomad_oWn


I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you on really any topic. I value far more constructive discussion on the game and its subtle details.

Then why are you doing exactly that?

I didn't flame you. If I had flamed you everyone would have noticed. There would be no doubt. Well unless someone is to dim to notice. I do tend to make obscure flames upon occasion.

This game has much better AI than Civ 1 or Civ 2. Vastly better than any RTS. Of course it is often predictable. I am predictable. I will attack the weakest civ I can get at. Or the one I am most annoyed with. I will try to hinder the leader. So does the Civ 3 AI.

If you are playing the original unpatched game the AI has improved. Download and install the 1.29f patch. The AI can still be manipulated of course. Sheer random actions is not a sign of a smart AI. Its more a sign of poor AI.

This isn't Civ 2 so you will have to adjust. The AI is much smarter. They don't have to cheat to do well as the AI civs had to do in the previous Civ games where the AI often didn't really build the things they had.

If you want to play the AI straight up play on Regent. Below that you get an advantage and above that the AI does. The AI is the same on all levels except for the level of aggression which goes up with the level.

[Nomad_oWn]

Ethelred


Sorry that wasnt directed at you. I play on monarch and Ive been trying to give in to most trades and give small tributes. So far noone will ally with me and no matter how much i tribute noone goes beyond polite.

I'll reserve further judgement until I can get some more games in. I'm sure its just a matter of finding a happy medium with attacking and sucking up.

BTW, IMO wc3 as an rts is at least its equal in AI. Though its strength lies as much from the AI's ability to multitask as anything else.

[Nomad_oWn]

BigRed515

Thanks. You make some valid points and good suggestions. I started on Monarch. Perhaps I shoulda learned the new aspects of the game by playing on a lower difficulty level first.

[DeepO]

Some valid comments here... let me add mine to the thread.

The reason why the AI seems to out produce you is that in CivII, it became custom to use REX like strategies (ICS etc.). The only way to counter these is to have the AI do the same. Which makes the circle round: now the humans are forced to REX on higher levels, only to keep up...

Doing so, I find it relatively easy to keep up with the AI expansion on Emperor, while out expanding them on easier levels. Depending on starting position, some Civs will still do better then me, but most won't. And even then, this only happens until you nearly reach the OCN (Optimal City Number, look for corruption threads to learn more about it). It more or less is a limit for the AIs, after which they will focus more on building up, instead of expanding. At this point, if there stil is open grounds left, it is easy to out expand the AIs. Other techniques of course are to hamper them in their expansion, attack settler teams, take cities, etc. In most of my games I'm number one in worldsize when hitting the medieval era (on Emperor).

The bonusses are mild in comparison with CivII, but of course the AI is given bonusses. The state of the art in AI is just not near human intelligence, certainly not for such hugely complex games as Civ. Even for something simple like chess a supercomputer the size of Deep Blue was needed to beat the world champion.

However, it is fully possible to get even on production, and if your cities are taking 4-8 turns to build a spearman you either have to build more cities, or improve them more. In any case, avoid long wars, these will most of the times favor the defender, whether it is you or the AI. Make short, decisive strikes, make peace, and find yourself another target. By the time you build up reinforcements, your attacking troops have moved to their borders, and the fun can start again

The ganging up simply is not true. You have all the choice you want, diplomatically speaking, and once you understand the system (as it is complex enough to keep you occupied for months), you will always do better then the AIs. But as said (both by yourself and others): give yourself some time to learn it, Civ III is a game with long shelf life.

DeepO

[Theseus]

I'm glad to see that everybody settled down.

Let's remember, there is no spoon. Or rather, this is not an AI.

Civ3 is an incredibly nested series of If/Then statements. The only 'learning' is in Soren's own direct observations in playtesting and in feedback here, at CFC, and elsewhere, and shows up in the patches and future XPs.

One can argue with some of the I/T rules, but they are what they are.

Are they the best I/T rules for a world-game? Yes, as far as I know.

Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to be the I/T master.

And remember, YOUR own I/T rules are subjugate to Civ3's, regardless of what you think about RL history.

You're living in Firaxis' house.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Theseus
You're living in Firaxis' house.

... and enjoying it

DeepO

[Ethelred]

I almost never even try to get a litteral ally. I get a MPP. Its cheaper and less restrictive. All you need to do is NEVER attack the enemy on their own territory untill they have done so to you. An attack on a unit in the Civs own territory is needed to activate the MPP. The usual trick is to set out a worker without a defender near you targets border and then annoy the heck out of them. You can even declare war on them as long as you don't launch an attack on their territory. Of course if the target Civ doesn't have an MPP with anyone you don't have to be so carefull but you still need to be attacked on your territory to activate your MPP.

Sometimes the AI will ask you to join an alliance. If they are willing to pay its not a bad idea to do that. Especially if the the target civ can't attack you.

Don't break your treaties if you want a good rep. Wait till the twenty turns run out and then you can terminate them without prejiduce.

Monarch puts you at a disadvantage. If you are having a hard time you may want to try a lower level. Chieften is so easy you can develop bad habits so don't play on it much.

Chieftan = AI pays double to build
Warlord = AI pays 110 percent
Regent = AI and you both pay the base rate
Monarch = AI pays 90%
Emperor = AI pays 80%
Deity = AI pays 60%

There are also starting unit bonuses for the AI on higher levels. Its a big advantage on Deity. I haven't played a game on Deity myself. Four on Emperor. Two wins and two losses, well I didn't finish that last game and I am calling it a loss but I might have pulled it out. I doubt it though.

Trade with the AI civs. They like that. On Monarch you will have to pay more the other Civs though as the AI bases its charges on what YOU have to pay for the item. For instance it costs you more to learn Monarchy then it does them because that 90% cost bonus applies to research as well.

About the line of sight. As far as I can tell the AI sees the same as the player does. I have watched the AI moveing around my borders trying to plant settlers in spaces I have allready tied up. As soon as they reach the same range as I need to see they turn back. I consider that a clear indication that the AI does not have special advantages on seeing territory or units.

The AI does have some special advantages though. It knows the resources position on the maps before they have the tech for the resource. I am pretty sure they have to actualy mapped the area but they may have a knowledge of the resources even before they have done the mapping. That point is not certain.

The AI knows what things cost you. There simply is no way for them negotiate without that knowledge. The leader may not know it directly though. It could be its using the same subroutines that your own Foreign Advisor is using. Your Foreign Advisor definitly knows things that you don't.

The AI may also have some knowledge about what units are defending the cities. How much is what is not certain. I am pretty sure they know the top unit even if they can't see the city. I am not sure if they know about the number of units. Again that part is not certain.

Other than those items the AI appears to be playing the same rules as the human is. There may be a few other items but no one has proof and most that claim such things have been shown wrong if they post a save of the game.

Try learning on a lower level. I lost my first three or four games on Monarch after I moved up from my one game on Regent. That game I won so decisevly that I thought I could handle Monarch. Wrong. I had to learn much more carefull balancing of my early builds and expansion to do well on Monarch. The move to Emperor was much easier.

I don't think I am going to play Emperor after I install the latest patch. Its just not as fun for me since I like to play a builder game and not a warmonger which is a bit easier strategy on the higher levels.

[Nomad_oWn]

Ethelred

Great stuff, Thanks! That helps alot.