AI less settler-happy/cheaty ?

Timmer · December 2, 2003, 10:19

Forgive me if this was the case for PTW,
but I went straight from vanilla-CivIII to Conquests,
but it seems in the epic games I played so far (on
huge maps) that the AI doesn't settle less favorable
land as much as it used to. In one game, I'm now
approaching the end of the middle ages, and the
only continent fully settled is mine, cause I did it.

On another continent, that is home to three AI civs,
a large section of mostly plains and desert is still
untouched by the AI. (even though there are
plenty of oasis).

In vanilla-civIII , the AI would land-grab every
square it could, even if it was just 2 coast
squares not yet under by cultural-border control.

Now, they let these patches be.

There is something I've noticed though.
In the game I mentioned above, I had a
patch of meybe 15 tiles of desert with one
forest that I didn't bother to plant a city on,
and neither did the Dutch AI that I shared
the continent with.

That is, untill OIL became visible and their was
an oilwell on this patch. Then the dutch AI
tried to make a beeline for it.

So does that mean the AI doesn't cheat anymore
by taking advantage beforehand of knowing
where resources are gonna pop up ?

I'd say yes, since that huge plains/desert section
on the AI-run continent is sure to produce some
aluminium once it's discovered...

Timmer

planetfall · December 2, 2003, 10:42

Haven't played epic C3C yet, but from scenario play, I would say Yes the AI does not build as furiously as in C3. It will still build up to the OCN but then seems to put off building new cities as number one priority. Still enough settlers to keep you busy, but not the continuous flood and staging of 5-6 settlers waiting for the magic opening of new lands.

For PTW there was not much change, so this is mostly a C3C change.

-- PF

Hrafn · December 2, 2003, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by planetfall
Haven't played epic C3C yet, but from scenario play, I would say Yes the AI does not build as furiously as in C3. It will still build up to the OCN but then seems to put off building new cities as number one priority. Still enough settlers to keep you busy, but not the continuous flood and staging of 5-6 settlers waiting for the magic opening of new lands.

For PTW there was not much change, so this is mostly a C3C change.

-- PF

This change makes me very happy.

mimi · December 2, 2003, 12:06

AI is less protective of its resources too - I asked for and received a town from an AI that would have saltpeter in its radius once it expanded a couple times. (When it was given to me, it wasn't in the radius.)

The AI had 20 or so towns and this was one of only two that it was willing to give me for peace. Was the only saltpeter on the continent, as it later turned out... silly AI.

Dis · December 2, 2003, 16:07

did they change something where you can't build on certain terrain? I thought there was some change like that, I heard somewhere. I know you can't build on marshland.

The Templar · December 2, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I know you can't build on marshland.

Someone tell that to the residents on New Orleans.

(Which itself is built near a fish mine!)

vmxa1 · December 2, 2003, 18:28

Other than marsh you can build on volcanos. Some scenarios has implemented restricions as well.

chequita guevara · December 2, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
Someone tell that to the residents on New Orleans.

And Ravena and Venice and Ur and Chicago and most of Florida . . . ect.

Dis · December 2, 2003, 18:33

yes some scenarios have restrictions on desert and tundra (actually you couldn't build on tundra before could you?) You can't even traverse desert, jungle, and tundra in some scenarios.

And in some scenarios the colonist units can't seem to build cities on forest

. But you can build on hills and grassland, plains. But you can still build regular settler units in that game in addition to colonist units.

And I wanted to build on marsh in the Age of Discovery scenario. I wanted to build on New Orleans spot, but couldn't

.

Dis · December 2, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

And Ravena and Venice and Ur and Chicago and most of Florida . . . ect.

Florida isn't that swampy- I have been there.

notyoueither · December 2, 2003, 20:05

Was that before or after they drained most of the swamps, Diss?

Jaybe · December 2, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Florida isn't that swampy- I have been there.

Ah, but were you there decades ago, when it WAS much swampier?

joncnunn · December 2, 2003, 20:24

There's nothing that would keep you from draining a marsh first if you want to plant a city there.

sprudl · December 3, 2003, 02:38

The AI indeed seems to prioritize good land. I noticed this in a game where Spain and myself were separated by a wide, empty desert. This left the AI with only a small strip of grass & plains near the coast (3 or 4 tiles). There was a good chunk of fertile land a little further. Contrary to what I expected, the AI didn't settle the desert like a madman but went for the good land first. They only dropped a few cities in the desert after the initial expansion phase when there was really nothing else left.

Also, my neighbours didn't send settlers through my land to the tundra behind it.

I get the impression the AI spends more resources on infrastructure now before sending out more settlers.

dexters · December 3, 2003, 03:30

The AI has more money to play around with due the gpt bug.

But... these observations seem positive.

The Viceroy · December 3, 2003, 09:05

Yes, Ive noticed this, and its a huge improvement on previous AI settler activity.

Especially when you had 1 square sitting in the middle of your empire that your borders had not covered yet, and every single AI on the continent would be constantly heading for it..

I was also convinced that the AI didn't seem to know about resources until they had appeared, because they would usually make a dash for them, early on.

snoochems · December 3, 2003, 10:58

I would have to say the AI is a little more docile than before w.r.t city placement. I'm currently playing game where i'm on a huge continent, and the Dutch pretty much have a huge chunk of land that is lush, and great for cities, all for there selves. There is also two luxuries, and iron in that said peice of land.

Instead of building cities to luxuries or anything, they cramp there cities as much as they can into a tiny space instead of expanding out. Very stupid.
Now, it's about 800AD, and i've managed to get my own settlers there, and take the luxuries for my self, even though they were literally on there backdoor, and i had to travel half way across the globe to get there.

dexters · December 3, 2003, 14:59

cramping cities into fertile land to make use of every tile isn't stupid IMO. But maybe someone has a different opinion.

The Viceroy · December 3, 2003, 15:36

Much depends on the size of that furtile land, you don't want a load of cities with overlapping borders, as you reduce your cities capacity later on in the game. However, there is no point in having cities in stupid places (unless there are resources/luxuries to be gained).

Gunter · December 4, 2003, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Timmer
Forgive me if this was the case for PTW,
but I went straight from vanilla-CivIII to Conquests,
but it seems in the epic games I played so far (on
huge maps) that the AI doesn't settle less favorable
land as much as it used to. In one game, I'm now
approaching the end of the middle ages, and the
only continent fully settled is mine, cause I did it.

On another continent, that is home to three AI civs,
a large section of mostly plains and desert is still
untouched by the AI. (even though there are
plenty of oasis).

In vanilla-civIII , the AI would land-grab every
square it could, even if it was just 2 coast
squares not yet under by cultural-border control.

Now, they let these patches be.

There is something I've noticed though.
In the game I mentioned above, I had a
patch of meybe 15 tiles of desert with one
forest that I didn't bother to plant a city on,
and neither did the Dutch AI that I shared
the continent with.

That is, untill OIL became visible and their was
an oilwell on this patch. Then the dutch AI
tried to make a beeline for it.

So does that mean the AI doesn't cheat anymore
by taking advantage beforehand of knowing
where resources are gonna pop up ?

I'd say yes, since that huge plains/desert section
on the AI-run continent is sure to produce some
aluminium once it's discovered...

Timmer

This AI " habit " was one of the things that irritated me mostly on original game. BTW I jumped PTW as well.

I have still to try Conquests but I think I will appreciate the fact that the AI seems to cheat less.

Gunter