Better AI-use of the land-area? Yes, it seems

Ralf · August 10, 2001, 05:04

Click on the mountain-range screenshot - furtherst down, to the right. Then check out the colored worldmap-overview and all the white dots.

It seems they have rectified

the old Civ-2 problem of some AI-civs just giving up on expansion, despite they having big areas of attractive no-mans-land around them.

(time and time again I have encounted late-game Civ-2 AI-civs having whole big island completely to themselves - still they had not exploited all the available land. Perhaps only half of that land (or less) was covered under any AI city-areas.)

I really hope that above screenshot represents the norm in terms of AI landarea exploitation. My only added advice would be; tweak the AI too try emphesize coustal-cities a little more, as the highest early priority - then let it work inwards.

LaRusso · August 10, 2001, 05:21

well it might be a screenshot of firaxians having fun in a multiplayer

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 05:27

Hrmpf.

Just when I get my hopes up for good/better AI...

Not that I have anything against multiplayer anymore now that I have an always-on connection!

Ralf · August 10, 2001, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Not that I have anything against multiplayer anymore now that I have an always-on connection!

There are other reasons why multiplayer never can be a fullblown equal alternative to offline play. Especially not in a complicated turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3. They really must put in some effort in a much better AI.

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 05:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

There are other reasons why multiplayer never can be a fullblown equal alternative to offline play. Especially not in a complicated turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3. They really must put in some effort in a much better AI.

Name those other reasons.

Ralf · August 10, 2001, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Name those other reasons.

Use your imagination. Not all have flat-rate broadband-connections and/or unlimited access to the PC/internet. Also, there are time-differences between players, and some people have to actually work for a living, and also spent time with their familys. Finally, as I said: Civ-3 is a time-consuming turnbased strategy-game with several contenders.

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

Use your imagination. Not all have flat-rate broadband-connections and/or unlimited access to the PC/internet. Also, there are time-differences between players, and some people have to actually work for a living, and also spent time with their familys. Finally, as I said: Civ-3 is a time-consuming turnbased strategy-game with several contenders.

I disagree. The turnbased nature of the game allows games to be played in a semi-offline modus, thus negating your time-related, as well as connection-type related concerns.

And I think that playing against human opponents is much more interesting in the long term. Of course, that might be just my personal competition-liking opinion.

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 06:22

Ralf your reasons only support online MP, not all types of MP, such as LAN. This statement is false on some levels."There are other reasons why multiplayer never can be a fullblown equal alternative to offline play.". LAN is the best way to play the game imo. The Internet is also very popular for some people. The majority of people who play Civ2 still probably play MP. Meaning that it has become an alternative to many people. When people dominate the game they most likely will only resort to MP via the Internet or LAN or even possibly Hot Seat. People will still want to play MP at the beginning as well, it's just that it won't be the only alternative to play Civ at that time because they haven't conquered yet. When people conquer the AI they move on to human play a lot more to keep the same amount of play time at the same level or they just don't play the game all together. If you would have stated "There are other reasons why online MP never can be a fullblown equal alternative to offline play." your reasons would have been supported more. I do agree with those reasons about online MP, though. I played MP online before and it was a terrible experience, I played with the person I play with on LAN now. A few months later playing LAN became accessible for me so I started to play LAN. Basically my whole post could have been avoided if you would have stated "online MP" instead of "multiplayer".

Laszlo · August 10, 2001, 06:22

Ralf, I agree. The AI should have a level of adaptability to it that let's it compensate for different situations (w/o cheating

).

As an example, if you start exploring, and encounter ocean on three sides you start getting edgey

, and when you find you're an islander, you push towards trireme.

And if you play at different difficulty levels, strategy changes drastically. You need to orient yourself towards allowing for unhappiness in deity by providing tons of happy-makers or unhappiness negaters. Also in deity mode, some wonders hold all the importance in the world while others you might try for otherwise you have no time to think about.

You might also try moving your capital to a centralized position compared to the rest of your cities, or surround a Civ by pushing your settlers in one direction, or do any number of things that are influenced by the differing environments and positions of players.

When it comes to AI, one size does not fit all.

Laszlo

Zanzin · August 10, 2001, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

and some people have to actually work for a living, and also spent time with their familys.

who are these people??

Nah, kidding. I'm in complete agreeance that the Single player game must be very challenging and packed with decent AI....and not just AI that gets stuff for free and knows things it shouldn't as an excuse for higher difficulty levels.