Does the computer cheat?

[Whammy]

It just seems to me the computer in the early parts of the game is able to expand very fast, and built a ton of units while still upgrading it's city improvements. As the game goes onto past the ancient era the computer suddenly gets stupid, it doesn't expand much beyond it's huge # of units it produced in the early game amazingly, and doesn't upgrade those units either. Having the computer have 20 units that can attack me, while I have maybe 1 spearman in each city, and he's also building wonders makes me go hmmm.....

[MadWombat]

The AI cheats at Monarch and above. At regent, it doesn't. Below regent, it cheats in your favour.

[Nakar Gabab]

They have to cheat, and yes, at lower levels. On Warlord I was constantly frustrated because I'd attack the AI while it still had 1-2 cities of 1-2 population (in the first *10* turns, mind!), kill their spearmen(!), raze/take their cities... and suddenly see two warriors and a spearmen escorting a settler to the OTHER end of the continent.

I don't know how much it cheats, but at least in one sense, it cheats bad.

[Whammy]

Kinda gay if you ask me...I hate a cheating computer, because it takes out some complex strategies, in favour of the just rush till you drop. The AI in this game is downright terrible. If it was a smart AI, then Emporer wouldn't be difficult because the computer cheats, it would be difficult because the computer was smart and agressive.

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Whammy
Kinda gay if you ask me...I hate a cheating computer, because it takes out some complex strategies, in favour of the just rush till you drop. The AI in this game is downright terrible. If it was a smart AI, then Emporer wouldn't be difficult because the computer cheats, it would be difficult because the computer was smart and agressive.

It's not the best solution, but how many games of this type with great AI have you heard of besides the chess computer Big Blue? To me, even if it cheats, the AI is a quantum leap over Civ2 and especially, CTP2. At least the AI in this game does something, anything, proactively, even if it does it unfairly in some ways. Think of it as the AI using cheat codes against you.

I'd submit in every game usually one or two superior strategies come out for beating the game, and unfortunately in this one it just happens to be slaughtering citizens and mad rushing units and buildings. I'd imagine it'd probably be the preferred strategy in multi-player too, so maybe the AI is more human than you think in forcing it.

[MadWombat]

Uhm, if you want better AI, why not try writing one? It's not as easy as you seem to imply. I would say that the AI does quite a good job really. It builds units and uses them appropriately, it conducts reasonably intelligent diplomacy (ok, so that could use some work), it expands aggessively, it tries to get a tech lead, works to build a trade network... Really a very good job. *shrug* Certainly it could be improved, but basically, without cheating, an AI is always going to be somewhat behind a human, simply because humans are more flexible.

Still, it WOULD be nice if there were some way to script or program our own AI modules. As a student currently taking courses in the area, it could be interesting to be able to try writing some behaviours to see how they perform. =]

[Whammy]

I would say the old KOEI games I used to play like Genghis Khan and Romance III had better computer AI, MOO II I found more challenging as well. I would guess if I played more war games I would easily find games with better AI. In all genres AI is improving, in this one, well with game at least it's disimproving. I didn't play Civ 2, but I can say that the computer must have been downright stupid. I see no qualities of intelligence from this AI. It's stupid in it's negotiations, which gives it a very artificial feeling, which then creates no loyalty from me. Sorry, funny little quotes don't cut it. It's war strategies are very basic and stupid. It makes tons of stupid little mistakes....stupid stupid stupid! That's all I think of when I watch the AI work. I can beat the computer everytime so long as my area is good with the same simple strategy.

[MadWombat]

Whammy:: Start a thread on how you would like to see the AI improved. Make sure that you include specific suggestions, not, "Make the AI better in negotiations," but, "Change the amount the AI values x at to y." If you want the AI to perform better in a war, try sketching the behaviour you think would make it better, and then post it. Maybe it'll even get implemented.

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Whammy
I didn't play Civ 2, but I can say that the computer must have been downright stupid.

Yes, it was. MOO II had a better AI than Civ II, but I'm almost positive that the AI cheated on higher levels since the growth rate of their technology and empire was directly proportional to difficulty level (if I remember the game correctly). I don't think the AI is fantastic by any strech in Civ III, but I do notice more signs of life than in other games with similar goals, e.g. Europa Universalis. For example in my last game I had almost all the sources of oil on the map. The Persians didn't have a source and didn't have the cash to pay me for one, so they gave me an ultimatum and then declared war on me when I refused. In another game, I had just finished clearing out the Greeks in a huge war and was extremely overextended. A few turns after my war with the Greeks ended, the Russians sneak attacked in force while all my forces were on the opposite front.

[Whammy]

Oh yea, thought I'd share my most recent experience with the AI. The Americans from the south launched an assault on me, I had a mutual protection pact with the romans to the north so they went to war with them as well. The Romans sent maybe 5 units across through my territory to reach the Americans. Along this way they were going back and forth over the same terrain, after 20 turns they were now heading back towards their territory. They never did a single thing in the war, the AI is not dependable at all, the AI should at least give some sense of playing with someone else, it doesn't.

"The Persians didn't have a source and didn't have the cash to pay me for one, so they gave me an ultimatum and then declared war on me when I refused."

Umm, is it really smart to start a war without any oil? Heh anyways yes I see your point, there is at least limited AI intelligence when it comes to resources and control. Although, last game watching a hoard of bowmen all pass over my only source of iron without pillaging it kinda makes me wonder....

"Uhm, if you want better AI, why not try writing one? It's not as easy as you seem to imply."

I would, but I'm not a programmer so... my complaints are geared towards a product I paid for, that in my opinion isn't at the quality it should be at.

". It builds units and uses them appropriately, it conducts reasonably intelligent diplomacy "

Hah come on, no way is that true. The computer will most of the time build up a huge ancient army, and slow down to a near halt and only really replace them after they're defeated. Watching my war elephants trample 20 or units combined of archers and spearmen trying to invade me while they have the tech to build calvary is silly. I've just sacked 4 of their cities because most of them have on french muskateer in the city and the rest spearmen. On another post someone was talking about cheap strategies or whatever, and one of them was attacking the computer anytime past the ancient era, which made me laugh cause it's pretty true. Btw, this was the best civ I've met in the game so far, and was a good 200 points or so up on me. It had at least 3 wonders built, it should have demolished me...:/

[MadWombat]

See? There's a thoroughly good suggestion for that thread. Make the computer more interested in upgrading its units, and less interested in building obsolete units.

You don't need to be a programmer to make logical suggestions. I make money telling programmers what to program. If you think the AI should use fortresses more agressively, or more effectively block off naval chokepoints or whatever, those are all valid suggestions!

[DrFell]

Yeah, there's too much whining 'the AI is terrible' but not many people offer many constructive suggestions as how to improve it.

[eMarkM]

Yes, the AI cheats and more than just the well know production bonuses. Go into the editor (post-patch) and pull up "difficulty levels" and you'll see exactly the bonuses it gets for each level.

It doesn't build units like crazy in the beginning, it's just rewarded w/ them when they build their first city. Deity gets like 5 free units to begin. They also don't have to pay as much in support for their units at higher levels and don't take long to transition governments. This is all editable now, BTW.

e

[Thrawn05]

If you ask me, the AI in civ3 is pretty dumb IMO. I never played Civ1 or 2, but I did play Civ on the SNES (that was back in the day!), and that damn thing was hard as a rock !

Of course, I kept lossing at cheiften on that game only because the cities always produced somthing, so I go bankrupt making 20 some phalanx and militia units .

[Mr. T]

unfair comparison

we have a lot of knowledge the computer doesn't.

we have hundreds of good players working tirlessly to defeat the AI. Not only that but we then exchange info.

I doubt anyone of us would have come up with all the ideas and found all the loopholes in the computer's negotiating AI!

The AI is held to an unfair standard, no AI can compete with good players sharing all of its shortfalls with eachother.

Furthermore, Soren Johnson said in his interview that he created the AI to be fun not maximally succesful. He tried to make different civs behave differently, I think the AI meets that goal. All the AIs are relatively competative and most of them are fun to play with if you refrain from exploiting their loopholes.