If you have comments about the AI, please read this before posting how bad is...

[Savant]

I think the frustration with the game as reflected here is that the problem is really widespread among the "3 ways of winning" - military, science, diplomacy.

We know the military route is flawed as it is too easy and the AI is unresponsive and "witless". Several folks have recommended the diplomacy and scientific avenues of victory as alternatives. Well, I disagree. Even if there were no such thing as individual differences in preferences for gameplay like military, science, diplo, the argument in favor of using one of the two alternatives to military strategy is still flawed.

Why do I say that? Because, the diplomacy AI model is as witless and unresponsive as the military AI. I am one of those who really would prefer a diplomatic strategy to victory but the AI is toothless or "zoned" almost always. I offer cities for a ceasefire when I am the one rampaging through it's empire and it says "no"? I offer technology, even military tech for a map that is only covering half of what I already have discovered and it says "no"? This is no one-time thing. This goes on and on. So this route is dead and I take up arms and cream the opponent civs. Whoopdee.

OK, so let's race the civs to some superior technology level! No...let's not. The tech tree is boring and wrong and twisted and I can't buy into the "alien" thing. I used to be an X-files fan too, yeah, six years ago! Got the X-file "boot-up" theme on my PC back in 1994 and it was so cool. So, well... the only X-files thing I have any interest in now is filling my shiny midnight black X-files coffee mug with French Roast. Thank goodness no picture of Molder or Scully haunt the elegance of the cup's appearance or it would have gone out in the last garage sale.

So I too am among the CTP diaspora.. lurking, waiting for a fix.. not having played in a week and very interested in that "other game" over in the "other game" forum.

------------------
'Blood will run'

[jkadabomb]

Diplomatic Victory came through war for me actually. Just crush the computer and for them into an alliance. Threaten the heck out of them till they agree. It always works. I won diplomatic victory in 1700.

[WesW]

Hi everyone. I hope you guys can help me figure a few things out here. In the goals.txt, there are lists of values which the AI takes into account to decide what to do. Well, there are three that I can't figure out. They are: ThreatBonus, ValueBonus and PowerBonus.
The goals page of the modification section has a "very" brief definition of these terms, too brief for me to be able to tell what values they read from and what their affect is.
If you could help me out here, especially with the difference between Value and Power, then I might be able to figure out just how the AI makes its decisions.

Value is a term referenced in Strategies.txt as one of the things used to determine whether to attack or not, but how is "value" determined?
Power is a line in units.txt, a value of which is assigned to each unit, seemingly close to the construction cost of the unit, and used for computing the power rankings, I thought.
As far as I can tell, value and power are about the same thing in the game. Do any of you know for sure?

[Matte979]

Wes, there was a post back a few weeks from an activision guy that said the powerbonus for units wasn't used.

Value might be the value of the attacked target
power might be the power of your empire.

Just guessing, thats the most frustrating about editing this game to much guessing.

/Mathias

[LDiCesare]

quote: Originally posted by phoenixcager on 01-04-2001 10:25 PM I've heard that the science victory in CtP2 (haven't attempted it) is the most difficult ever for a civ game.

The main difficulty with science victory is:
What do you have to do?????
I usually win science. Mainly because I would j
have too many cities if I went for military victory.
Anyway, once you decided to launch the project, you build obelisks a little bit everywhere, lots of satellites and pray you reach a good %.
If you do not, you ask for cities from other civs, threaten them (say "booh") and they give you one city each. If you can't, build underwater cities where needed. Nobody will attack them seriously so you are fine. Build obelisks there, launch the project, wait 10 ecruciatingly long turns and win.
By far this is the easiest way of winning in a civ game.

Couldn't find a challenge there. At least in civ1 you had a race to the stars, you could launch the ship second and still win. Here, none of that...

[riazk]

Alisia - I'd quote your initial post but I'm afraid I'd end up pasting the whole of it making this post the longest and most annoying post to read!

Anyhow, firstly the point of game AI which it seems you have missed in both Civ games and shooter games is not to let the computer play at "its best" but to simulate the different ways a human can play - allowing us mere mortals without friends or net connections a realistic game. Hence when we play civ we expect some of the opposition to attack, some to be defensive etc.. (oh and in FPS games some bots need to be good some to be crap - I'm sure the people who created the AI in FPS would not appreciate the of the cuff comments you make - I know the work they do is not easy! (How do I know? - I studied AI (finished a few years ago thankfully!) and often review games for a radio station so sometimes speak to the dev people.

You then go on to say "play the game in this way" - well the game was designed to allow us to play in this way and many others - if the AI could not cope (and it doesn't) then the game should not have been released till it could.

As for saying that "it is almost impossible to create a fast AI that is capable of playing excellent Civ" - yes true with some forms of AI, but there are many different forms of AI some simple some complex and games have been making use of both for a long time. AI has moved forward rapidly in recent times. CTP II is not majorly complicated compared to Civ 2 and certainly not very much more complicated than CTP - yes there is more diplomacy options but if they couldn't implement it properly surely it was better to wait till it can. That way they dont antagonise their customers who of course if annoyed enough will no longer purchase the next CTP - surely not good for the long term futre of CTP?!

My guess is CTP II AI can be fixed and is being part proven by some of the mods out there and hopefully along with the rest of the people out there the next patch will fix it!

Riaz

[Alpha Wolf]

quote: Originally posted by WesW on 01-06-2001 06:52 AM Hi everyone. I hope you guys can help me figure a few things out here. In the goals.txt, there are lists of values which the AI takes into account to decide what to do. Well, there are three that I can't figure out. They are: ThreatBonus, ValueBonus and PowerBonus. The goals page of the modification section has a "very" brief definition of these terms, too brief for me to be able to tell what values they read from and what their affect is. If you could help me out here, especially with the difference between Value and Power, then I might be able to figure out just how the AI makes its decisions. Value is a term referenced in Strategies.txt as one of the things used to determine whether to attack or not, but how is "value" determined? Power is a line in units.txt, a value of which is assigned to each unit, seemingly close to the construction cost of the unit, and used for computing the power rankings, I thought. As far as I can tell, value and power are about the same thing in the game. Do any of you know for sure?

Alot of the flags in the goals files dont seem to make sense. I got a noticeably more aggressive AI when I increased the threat bonus on siege and attack goals. Altho at that same time I had increased the priorities of attack and siege in strategies, so I'm not sure if the threat bonus alone caused the increase in aggressiveness. But looking at some of the other values, it seems like you get more points for attacking an ally than you do for attacking an enemy unless they are using a double negative. I've ben playing with that chokepointbonus to see if the AI actually can calculate a chokepoint but the results havent been consistent enough to know if anything I'm changing is actually having an effect. I thought I remembered someone claiming that the powerbonus was yet another used flag.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[Locutus]

Mr Fun & Alpha Wolf, I apologize(sp?) for confusing your names. I hope I didn't insult either of you I don't know how that could have happened, let's just say it was very late that night

Alpha Wolf,
Thanks for at least putting those extensions back in place, that helps a lot.
Whenever I have some time I'll put these files in a scenario folder and see if they work. If they do, I could put these files on my website or email them to you, 'cause that would basicly be a mod (well, an alpha/beta version at least, I know your still improving things), not much else needs to be changed as far as I can see.

Just in case anyone else is interested in these files: the easiest way to get Alpha's files is to go to his website and to change the 'http' in the address of his website to 'ftp'. Now select all files and right click on one of them. Select 'Copy to map...' or something similar (I'm currently using a Dutch version of Windows and I don't remember the English term) and select a map on your computer to copy the files to in the screen that pops up. No, drap&drop won't work, one of the many rediculous flaws of IE (I'm sure M$ says it's a feature but IMO it's a bug). This works in IE, I don't know about Netscape. If it doesn't, another way of getting them is to use a ftp-utility if you know how or to manually copy them one-by-one.

[Diadochi]

I tried playing the game as the leader of a benign civilized nation.

However the diplomatic model in the game is so weak, and the game so tedious, the only think that worked was going to war and conquering.

It is like playing a pacifist in Unreal Tournament trying to be a peaceful person in CTP2, boring and pointless.

[Bluevoss]

Besides which, the stupid diplomacy options end up picking your pocket (much like activision). You agree to something and the computer takes your money and you get nothing. So much for diplomacy. Fire when ready, Gridley.



------------------
Bluevoss-

[mosquitodriver]

I think it is nice Alicia that you can adjust your play of the game to accomidate for a difective A1. Truely the game is interesting in many ways. But you cannot suggest we ignore a huge aspect of the game (that is combat, tactics, strategy through armed conflict) or as you said, play to the level of the computer. With ideas like that, if all our forefathers thought like that, we would still be stuck in the middle ages. The bottom line is the A1 is lousy, you even admit that. To suggest playing around it is fine but does nothing to advance the enjoyable nature of the game. This game is neat in allot of ways, but in many more it fails to meet expectations, fails to challenge the die hard civer (civII is way better) this game lacks in so many key areas that it gets old and boring really fast. For those out there who wish to talk about fixing that, hats off to you for your efforts. For those who wish to quit at the slightest hint of critisizm, or are happy with the product the way it is, go play the game and be happy.