Pondering....

[Tamerlin]

Thanks for your support Centrifuge.

I have to apologize to everybody. I have unwillingly launch a debate over the Civ3's AI and its cheats and tricks. This was by no mean the goal of my first post.

Oerdin and Locutus have perfectly summed up what I'am feeling about Civ3, while Child of Thor has partly summed up why I prefer modded CtP2.

Whether half the cheats and tricks of the Civ3 AI are true or not, few games has managed to gather so many negative comments about its irritating behavior.

Even if I don't like Civ3, I'am really glad to hear that many people like Civ3 and its AI. I'am sincerely happy that Civ3 is a best seller with which many people have fun with because any Civilization like game will always have something special the other games (especially RTS) don't have.

What I can add is that if you have been disappointed with Civ3 you can give a chance to this ever evolving "modded game" called CtP2 provided you are really ready for a new experience.

[hexagonian]

RE: Bonus Cheats

All games (CTP2-civ3 and others) use bonuses on the higher levels. This, IMO, is acceptable because it does make for a better game - the human can outthink the computer because it cannot plan long-term so bonuses compensate the AI.

To give you some idea how the bonuses are implemented, in civ3 for Deity, they run more along the lines of 200% bonuses across the board, higher happiness penalties for the human and probably a few others that I may not be aware of. Someone may have to enlighten us just what those bonuses are though, and in the interest of presenting the facts clearly, I'm asking someone to pick up the ball for this...

I can spell out the bonuses in Cradle for Deity though...
1. The bonuses run more along the line of 120-140% across the board, if the civ is ahead of the human player, and up to 500% if the AI civ is very far behind the leader (human or AI).
2. The AI starts out with 11 advances, the human 3.
3. The AI starts out with 3 settlers, and the human 1.
4. The AI start outs with 10,000 gold and 6,000 PW, the human 100 gold.
5. During the couse of the game, the AI also gets a continual PW boost (offhand I cannot recall what the number is,
6. The AI will upgrade units for free, whereas the human player pays gold for upgrades.

So from that standpoint, the bonuses in CTP2 are rather strong. IMO, numbers 1,3 are the most powerful ones. Number 6 may seem powerful, but it is easy to generate a lot of RB gold in CTP2, and the AI does not seem to do as much RBing as the human player, even with that extra gold in its fund - and I had increased the gold required for any RBing so the human player cannot depend too much on that strategy.

Nevertheless, I am playing civ3 at the moment, having played and modded CTP1\CTP2 rather heavily since 1999. I'm currently moved up to playing at Regent (ver 1.29 patch) in my current game. The things I posted earlier in this thread are still holding up in my current game though - both good and bad.

My issues with civ3 probably fall along the lines that there are inherent design flaws within the game. I do not like the tech researching format that actually rewards a player more if he saves his gold and buys it on the open market. And there is no incentive to even be the first one to reach a tech, because the game will then reward all the other players with a lower research rate in addition to the normal bonuses. This may appear similar to the CTP2 bonuses, but actually it is not, because the reduced rate in civ3 applies to the human player too and actually ends up handicapping the AI. In CTP2, the human player has to earn it, any way you look at it.

Lack of variety in Governments in civ3 is another weakness.

I've already mentioned the Railroad Sleaze, which, IMO, kills the game at the Industrial Age, at a strategic level. Simply adding another tier of Tile Improvements and reducing the infinite movement of RR would make the game more believable and put back the need to think about what a player needs to do.

I cannot say for sure that the civ3 AI knows troop placement - the enemy did seem to beeline a loaded galley to an undefended city in two of my games, but I moved a spearman into it a turn before it arrived this game and it still unloaded/attacked it. And I do not trade maps with any civs in my last 2 games, which seemed to put a damper on AI aggression. Funny, because in both games, I placed a high emphasis on exploration and peaceful expansion, so I have the bulk of my continent mapped out anyhow. So who needs maps anyhow???

And I have cultured flipped two AI cities and have a bead on a third one - several others are likely targets too.

It does boil down to preferences though.

[Locutus]

Re: Re: Re: There is a life after Civ3

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I have the feeling the AI has been designed to use all the tricks many players have learned to use in Civ2.

I think this comment is key: if you're a die-hard Civ2 player and have play this game totally to death for the last 5-7 years, I'm sure the AI of Civ3 is okay and allows you to play your own game. However, if you're just a casual player and have never managed to win an OCC game (which is probably 99% of all Civ players), Civ3's AI behaves dominates the early game, exactly as I, Tamerlin, centrifuge and others have noted. When this happens at Deity level, this is okay, a good thing even, but when it also happens on Warlord level something is wrong IMHO... Combine that with the fact that, judging from the posts here, the AI obviously plays by a different set of rules than the human player (although the degree to which these rules are different remains an open question, at least for the uninformed reader of this thread) and I can see how many people (mainly casual players) might complain about the AI - and how others (mainly hardcore civ2-ers) might like it.

As Dave said, in the end it all boils down to preferences... which leads me to booting up my good old modded CtP2 again

[Solver]

Locutus, I'm also bored of covering all these points, I guess I'll not cover tham again till my interview, but I am yet to get a challenge as tough as in Civ 3. Yes, I got bored with Civ 2 ages ago, I found the AI there the same as Civ 1. I played my first Civ 2 game on King, hoping the AI has improved, I blew it to bits, played on Deity, blew it, and got disappointed by Civ 2 even more than I was (and I always was). I play Civ 3 only on Regent now, though might soon move up, but there I have been through big world wars, I've actually lost cities on my homeland, I've been conquered, etc.

CtP 2 still fails to provide this much of a challenge.

[Tamerlin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a life after Civ3

Originally posted by Locutus
As Dave said, in the end it all boils down to preferences... which leads me to booting up my good old modded CtP2 again

Yes, all this is a matter of taste. I would gladly play a Civ3 game from times to times between modded CtP2 ones if the AI was less irritating.

If the Civ3 AI could be modded to be as challenging as it is while having a different behavior...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
1 - type of resource: proven "no", location: proven "yes". 50% true, 50% wrong.

2 - proven to be 100% wrong. The AI has no knowledge about the entire map. Why else would it send units exploring? To fool the human? Ever traded maps with the AI? You can even see where it made suicide galley tries.

Proven? Maybe to your satisfaction but not to mine nor to most normal reasonably objective people if the posts here at poly are any guide. If you have proof then please show it so that I may critically examine it for myself. Until you do all I have to go on is what I myself witnessed and the testimony of other people whom I trust and that leads me to believe all of the above points are accurate. I'd be more then willing to revise them if new evidience comes to light but some how I doubt that will happen.

In the mean time if you enjoy Civ3 then keep playing and we can simply agree to disagree.

[Harovan]

Don't believe me, geez, so read through this thread. Note, that there is a 3rd cheat listed (AI trades during humans turn), which was corrected long ago (already in 1.17). In the mentioned thread are screenshots, saves and investigations by very good and competent players like Aeson.

Now, in return, post a prove about your fairy-tale with the 2 defenders the AI gets on city flips. I just had 2 flips in the first Apolyton university game, and in both cases the AI got 1 (one) defender. Prove please.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Proven? Maybe to your satisfaction but not to mine nor to most normal reasonably objective people if the posts here at poly are any guide.

And this I take as an insult.

[Locutus]

Come on, guys, play nice y'all. So far this discussion has been fairly friendly but I wouldn't want this thread to be the first one in this forum since ages to be closed because of flaming...

Originally posted by Solver
CtP 2 still fails to provide this much of a challenge.

Well, then you're obviously a better player than I am (which is quite possible since I don't MP - hell, I hardly play at all anymore these days), because I find Cradle Impossible with Marauders to be quite a challenge

[Solver]

Yeah, I'm seconding this... behave nice!

[Cookie Monster]

Hi all,

As I began to read this thread I was enthralled with the news that Vel was going to play CtP2. I remember reading the transcript of his interview with Apolyton where he stated that the CtP series just didn't interest him because of the bad press it initially received. Hats off to you Vel for giving CtP2 a try! I'm sure you will find some enjoyment from this game. I know I have.

I continued reading through this thread and was awestruck at comments and advice Hex, Locutus, IW, et. al were giving. I found myself weeping that your wonderful posts had endings to them because I just wanted to read and read and read.

Then I saw the war that erupted with fury and rage over Civ3 vs. CtP2. I beg that you all stop. Each of you here at 'Poly are extremely knowledgable in your respted games. I've read posts filled with awesome advice from both games. We should all understand, as I have stated before in another thread somewhere here, that each of us have unmovable opinions about our games. We are all deeply in love with our games as is evident from the passion I see in some of the posts here. Let's all be compassionate and understanding of one another as well. Debates of how this game is better than that game can continue ad infinitum with no end ever in site. Sometimes peoples' opinions are unshakeable. All that these heated debates prove is how stubborn we are in our opinions. Instead let's look at our brother's and appreciate them for their interests. Critisize their games but don't attack them for loving their games. I guess what I'm trying to say is "to each his own" but don't be afraid to try a game. Give it the time it deserves before bashing it. Learn to adapt your thinking and expectations about a game and play it as it was programmed. Miss the features you wish were there and you will not enjoy the game. Learn to adapt and be more open to alien concepts and you will enjoy a greater variety of games.

Perhaps some of you will read my posts in disgust and dismiss me as a romantic idealists. That is my personality and passion. While I understand that the world we live in is far from the utopia I long for, I do think that we can all at least try to strive for a diluted utopia, especially here at Apolyton.

[Hermann the Lombard]

HD: Well said.

The AI cheats in every computer game I have ever played where the AI is a challenge to the human player. Anyone who can program an AI that can regularly defeat good players *without* bonuses would probably not be writing AI for computer games.

So it doesn't bother me that the AI has such bonuses in CTP2 and in Civ3 (Civ2, SMAC, etc. etc.). Often the bonuses open up exploits for the human player like the bait and switch defense in Civ3, based on alternating undefended cities (which may have been fixed; I haven't played since 1.17).

Right now I prefer Cradle to Civ3. I *like* Civ3 and fully expect to play it again, but I haven't played it since I tried Cradle (6 months ago now). OTOH, I haven't been playing much Cradle lately because I've been playing Caesar III, Pharaoh, and Zeus...with Emperor due out in the fall.

I'm willing to play Civ3 on its own terms, and I really enjoyed the diplomacy and culture, the UUs, the distinctive nature of specific civs (for example, some civs need to "make their play" early when their UUs are available, and that will trigger your one shot with a golden age). I liked the maps, which have a better feel than the CTP2 maps (deserts north of E-W mountain ranges, and so forth). But I thought armies were very poorly implemented (at least through 1.17), and combat--while improved from Civ2--was still one-at-a-time, all or nothing (for the specific unit, not the stack). A friend said it was like two gangs fighting in an alley 3 feet wide.

So go with your own preferences and enjoy! You can listen to us babble about OUR preferences and even why we have those preferences.

As always: YMMV!

-- Ed (HtL)

p.s. I'm hoping Vel joins us for a while, as he was a big part of why I enjoyed and was successful at Civ3 early on. I'm not an expert player, but I learn from the experts. I don't have time to make all the mistakes myself, either.

[Alex]

Dietrich, you damn hippie...

[Velociryx]

Hey guys! I must say that all the talk of CTP2 has really got me pretty jazzed to try it out!

I looked for it when I was in best buy this past weekend, but didn't see it....will try EB this weekend when I'm down that way. I'm anxious to see what you guys are talkin' about...

As to the constant warring that seems to go on between the Civ3 and Ctp camps....::shrug:: it's a big world....seems like there oughtabe more than enough room for at least a handful of games. Hope so....this is the general arena I'll be bringing Candle'Bre into...

-=Vel=-

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
HD: Well said.

The AI cheats in every computer game I have ever played where the AI is a challenge to the human player. Anyone who can program an AI that can regularly defeat good players *without* bonuses would probably not be writing AI for computer games.

So it doesn't bother me that the AI has such bonuses in CTP2 and in Civ3 (Civ2, SMAC, etc. etc.). Often the bonuses open up exploits for the human player like the bait and switch defense in Civ3, based on alternating undefended cities (which may have been fixed; I haven't played since 1.17).

But I thought armies were very poorly implemented (at least through 1.17), and combat--while improved from Civ2--was still one-at-a-time, all or nothing (for the specific unit, not the stack). A friend said it was like two gangs fighting in an alley 3 feet wide.

As always: YMMV!

-- Ed (HtL)

p.s. I'm hoping Vel joins us for a while, as he was a big part of why I enjoyed and was successful at Civ3 early on. I'm not an expert player, but I learn from the experts. I don't have time to make all the mistakes myself, either.

Agreed! Armies in 1.29f have really been revamped. You can now blitz with them provided they are solely comprised of units that have that ability. An army of Modern Armor truely is devastating!

What does YMMV mean?

Finally, I like you tend to learn from the experts and then adapt their tricks to my own style of play. Can't wait to try out my strategies against live human's when PTW comes out!

Alexnm: