Did they improve the AI or something?

kolpo · February 8, 2004, 12:02

I just downloaded the lastest patch and played civ3 and I was completely defeated at regent difficulty after that tried i warlord and I also lost this while in the past(before I downloaded that patch) could easily win at warlord and won most of the time at regent. At warlord was I even completely wiped out, i have never experienced that before. So have they improved the AI or something?

Skanky Burns · February 8, 2004, 13:01

They generally improve the AI with each patch. Soren doesn't like his baby being beaten too often.

vmxa1 · February 8, 2004, 13:18

They have not mentioned anything specifically, but it seems much harder than before. A few changes will hurt the human. The research stretched to 50 turn min, instead of 40.
The FP hit, so no true second core and no more RCP. I would think those would not impact players at Warlord or Regent, as I would not expect them to be using those tactics all that effectively in the past.

Some improved tactics for invasion (maybe) and the lethal bombardment of planes have made the AI a little nastier.

Not sure what else it may be doing differently.

alva · February 8, 2004, 13:22

I'm not sure if they did improve it that much with latest CIV-vanilla patch.

That is what are talking about here, right?

vmxa?

kailhun · February 9, 2004, 06:23

I think that they read this forum. They figure out how the players think and then adapt the AI to defeat the puny humies.

vmxa1 · February 9, 2004, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
I'm not sure if they did improve it that much with latest CIV-vanilla patch.

That is what are talking about here, right?

vmxa?

You couldbe right. I figured it was a reference to the C3C patch as I think there were some improvements. If it was CivIII and patch 1.29f, why now?

Well actualy IIRC there was a lot done from unpatched civIII and 1.29f, so it could be either.

asleepathewheel · February 9, 2004, 15:14

yeah, not specific enough in the initial post.

one thing they did that made the Ai a touch more difficult is to give the zero-range bombard (in c3c). the ai with its fondness for archers and longbows and frigates gets a bit of a bounce from it.

kolpo · February 10, 2004, 16:16

It seems it has more to do with map settings, all games I had a hard time where with pangean maps with quite no water. When I started a game with normal settings did I again easily dominate the game. Either is my strategy not good for pangean maps(with little water) or is the AI better at them.

This was with vanilla civ3, I don't have civ3 conquest at the moment but am considering it. Is civ3 conquest good and are the conquests fun?

Tall Stranger · February 10, 2004, 16:41

The conquests are a blast (at least the ones I've played thus far). Some are easier than others, but all are unique enough to make them a welcome departure.

The epic game is also a worthy add-on to vanilla. Additional civs, tweaks to the game play (such as the creation of Scientific Great Leaders) and (IMO) a much better AI make this well worth the additional expense.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2004, 17:32

kolpo the more water in the map, the more it will favor the human player. Two big items are the lack of early contacts by the Ai as it will not build curraughs nor do suicide runs.
The other is the AI is not as good at invason.

kolpo · February 15, 2004, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
The conquests are a blast (at least the ones I've played thus far). Some are easier than others, but all are unique enough to make them a welcome departure.

The epic game is also a worthy add-on to vanilla. Additional civs, tweaks to the game play (such as the creation of Scientific Great Leaders) and (IMO) a much better AI make this well worth the additional expense.

I bought the expansion and you are right the conquests rock. I played the napoleon conquest and the AI there simply rocked, even thought I had conquered whole Italy and west germany didn't i made peace with the spanish because I had taken enough of there cities but instead to prevend them from conquering whole southern France

It is much better and has a hunderd times better AI then the napoleon scenarion of civ2, I hope all the conquests are as good as this one

Verto · February 15, 2004, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by kolpo
So have they improved the AI or something?

Maybe you are just getting worse.

Sovereign · February 16, 2004, 16:48

Just a couple of questions, guys. I apologize if they sound newbish...

What exactly does Zero Bombard do? Add a ZOC of fire like with tanks firing on enemy units as they pass by?

Second, whats all the hoopala about the Curraghs? What exactly is so special about them? From what I've read, players use them in a special tactic that overpowers the AI. How so? Could someone clarify this for me please?

That aside, I haven't been having that much trouble with the improved AI. Maybe it's because I always play Contients or Archiplageo maps.

TheArsenal · February 16, 2004, 17:44

Where I find the AI exceptional is the simple process of picking off wounded stragglers with low HPs. Time and time again I’ll risk sending a unit back into friendly territory to heal and out of nowhere comes the AI to kill it.

The downside of this behavior is the AI will often bypass one of my stacks bearing down on its city - or bypass loading the city full of units - to go get the stragglers. I on the other hand, will try to use favorable terrain to my advantage and throw everything I have at a huge AI stack if I have to. I hate losing cities way more than the AI appears to.

vmxa1 · February 16, 2004, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sovereign

What exactly does Zero Bombard do? Add a ZOC of fire like with tanks firing on enemy units as they pass by?

Second, whats all the hoopala about the Curraghs? What exactly is so special about them? From what I've read, players use them in a special tactic that overpowers the AI. How so? Could someone clarify this for me please?

That aside, I haven't been having that much trouble with the improved AI. Maybe it's because I always play Contients or Archiplageo maps.

It acts like an artie. It does nothing unless a unit attacks the city or stack. So if I have an archer and a spear and an attacker comes, the archer will get a shot off and the spear will defend.

Not like ZoC as no free shots at passing units. Well I do not recall seeing any anyway.

The curragh comes with Alphabet, so you get it very early. The AI does not make them, so you get to start exploring and make contacts sooner than the AI.

Arrian · February 16, 2004, 18:14

I actually thought Conquests was easier at first. I played primarily on Monarch, and I think it's true (for me) that Conquests was easier. Reason being I could get ahead on Monarch, and I think it's easier now to maintain a lead. The AI is easier to exploit in tech trading, at any rate.

Not sure yet about Emp, but it seems like that might be harder (again, for me). Same reason: lead easier to hold. On Emp, the AI is given advantages such that the human often doesn't claw his way to breakeven until halfway through the game.

The AI's city building and terrain improvement appear to have taken a nosedive. Tech trading... well, a shiny new tech that no one else owns has high value, even if the wonder it enables is already built (say... music theory). So the human can research an optional tech and trade it for one or more required techs to pull even. Of course, if you desperately need a particular tech and only 1 AI has it, you are going to be charged an arm and a leg.

Scarcity of resources and luxuries can make the game easier or harder, depending. Sure, if you're the one lacking iron and horses it seems bad. But when you've got 'em and your big strong neighboring AI lacks them... ah, ain't it beautiful?

Oh, cool, time to go home. Post ends...

-Arrian

asleepathewheel · February 16, 2004, 18:27

I've seen quite a few curraughs, but that was mainly on sid. very low on the priority list, so the ai won't build until after settling a lot of ground. but I have seen them in full force before.

The_Aussie_Lurker · February 17, 2004, 01:25

Hmmm, at the risk of sounding REALLY DUMB, might it be possible to slightly offset the AI penalty on maps with high water?
What I was wondering is, is it possible to remove the 'Sinks at Sea Flag' for galleys, but give the galley a really LOW movement rate, and Ocean tiles a really high Movement cost?
This way, AI galleys might be more willing to invest in multi-turn journeys (say 4-5 for Ocean Worlds), but AI and player alike is more likely to retain the galley as a coastal defense unit!
Of course, if you did this, you'd also have to give the Lighthouse a new ability-like bonus movement for naval units (if this were done, it'd be just as easy to make the lighthouse a Small Wonder-if you ask me!)
Anyway, just a thought guys-feel free to 'Flame' me if the idea is crap-I can TAKE IT

!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

vmxa1 · February 17, 2004, 03:11

That could be done, but they would still have lost the time it took to get map making.

The_Aussie_Lurker · February 17, 2004, 17:57

True enough, Vmxa1, but it would be balanced out by the fact that the human players would be EQUALLY disadvantaged by the change! So, when you DO make contact with the AI players, you will probably be roughly on a par in terms of how many other civs you've made contact with! Of course, it would be FANTASTIC if galleys a certain number of squares from port simply had a chance of losing hp's, rather than simply sinking! (After all, a Galley unit isn't ONE galley-I see it as being more like 4-5 galleys!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Sovereign · February 19, 2004, 17:29

Thanks, Vxma.

I guess I'll build Archers in my next Monarch Civ3 game. Or I might try an Emperor game again and use this tactic.