One Reason AI Agricultural Civs Do So Well?

[Rellin]

I posted this @ C3 Fanatics as well, but thought I would post it here as well hoping that someone at Firaxis will see it, and also as some of you may never check fanatics boards, I would like to hear your opinions on this as well.

The following is a huge problem in my opinion:

If you view any game in debug mode, any map, any size, any difficulty, the first thing the AI does is set its capitol to build a settler. For some capitols this can be upwards of 22 turns, and for some it may be much less. For those that is it much less if the biggest concern, cause the Civ then sits there for many additional turns waiting for thier city to grow to size 3 to produce that settler. Though for some, like Agricultural Civs, the wasted turns waiting on size 3 to come is much lower then non-Agricultural Civs.

This is why Agricultural AI civs do so well. Most Civs will be waiting for a settler with one turn left to produce, but it still takes 7 more turns for thier city to make it to size 3 from the time they are one turn from producing a settler, but Agricultural Civs have a lower time to grow to size 3 then normal Civs, especially if they get a lucky initial placement, thus they get a big head start on expansion over other Civs.

I understand this must be hardcoded AI REX bahavior but it is so wasteful. They should be programed to build two warriors then a settler (or maybe a granary or worker then a settler) or to do something logical, not just build settler and just wait or hope thier starting location was good enough to finish building the settler at the right time.

What would be best, I guess, would be if it was made so the AI had a series of If/Then statements it must use to deciede what to build first, and hell, throughout the entire game.

I now suddenly have no problem playing Monarch or Emperor that I had before, my problem being that, I hated for the AI to get free starting units and insane bonuses, but since they could have 3 warriors easily by the time they make thier first settler, I don't feel so bad letting them have 2 or 4 free warriors right off the bat, that is, as long as I turn off barbs so they don't get all the free techs from huts while I am actually producing my warriors that will be used to explore.

Anyway, I'd like to see some steps taken to correct this, it seems like it is such a big deal that affects the entire game as the first 50 or so turns are so important and wasting god knows how long waiting on thier town to grow, or hell, building a settler first is just plain dumb, at least hardcode a different build order, one recommended by some of the best players, rather then just a settler of the bat.

Please consider this change for the final patch that is due this summer, as I can't see it being too difficult to at least change the initial build order, let alone making a few if/then statements to determine a dynamic build order instead of using a plainly bad static one.

I'll edit this later, because I have had a bunch of Guinness tonight, and I am afraid I may have rambled some or have some grammatical errors above.

[vmxa1]

I don't have a problem with the AI doing foolish things. That is why they gave it a handicap. If they improved the play of the AI, they would have to rebalance the game, so what is the difference?

I mean if we were kicking the crap out of the AI on Sid, then I would be concerned.

[DrSpike]

I have to disagree. I'd much rather the AI opened more sensibly and not have to rely so much upon bonuses and player handicaps...........I'm sure everyone feels that way, it's just tricky to make the AI sensible. However, if it's correct, little things like the comment here must be easy to implement and would certainly be an improvement.

[Gunter]

Rellin, despiting pints of Guiness you had , or thanks to them , you explained a very good concept indeed,but as you know,the AI takes advantages mostly on initial bonuses , on game bonuses , cheats and so on and not from real " intelligence " as you expected it to have and use.

An IF-THEN mood will be too flat as enemy,even if perhaps better than the actual one,but an IF-THEN with a light ratio of random actions IMO would give the AI that classy touch of both " intelligence " and " personality " .

Gunter

[UnityScoutChopper]

Gunter,

unpredictability in some areas is fine, but I would prefer to see the AI predictably NOT building items that it doesn't have enough food to complete. In my opinion, it would be ideal if there was no need for the Sid level, and perhaps even the Deity level. An opponent that is "tough" only because of bonuses is really kind of lame.

USC