Ability of the AI

Changmai Beagle · October 21, 2001, 23:00

This may well have been covered already

I haven't seen much in the previews that assesses the ability of the AI.

Strangely enough, I rather liked the layout and many of the ideas of CTP I and CTP II. Unfortunately, a lame (even non-attacking) AI can reduce the enjoyment of the game for those of us who play by (please don't say with

) ourselves

The background of the AI developer sounds very good. Have there been any critical reviews on this yet?

yin26 · October 21, 2001, 23:04

No word on this at all, really. We've only heard that 'nobody at Firaxis has beaten Deity level yet.' But that's not saying anything detailed enough to know if the comp just cheats like crazy at that level.

I raised this issue a while back when the first hypes starting popping up. They mentioned great MP (

), great graphics, great sound, etc., but NOT ONE WORD about AI improvements. A number of people then started to argue with me that AI hype is worthless anyway. So I said, well, by that standard, ANY hype is worthless...and off we went.

Akron · October 21, 2001, 23:07

It's impossible for the reviewers to thoroughly assess the game's ai, as they only have a limited time to learn and play the game, so they can't really master it and give a good review. I'm sure the ai will be as easy as it has always been. Good ai in a strategy game as complex as civ is hard to find. Hopefully, the ai will tend to be aggressive, as in civ 2, as opposed to passive as it was in CTP 2 where it never really did anything.

jerkwaterbox · October 21, 2001, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
I raised this issue a while back when the first hypes starting popping up. They mentioned great MP (

), great graphics, great sound, etc., but NOT ONE WORD about AI improvements. A number of people then started to argue with me that AI hype is worthless anyway. So I said, well, by that standard, ANY hype is worthless...and off we went.

It is a lot easier to hype graphics and sound though because that is what a lot of people look at when they are buying a game. Casual gamers don't look at a game and say before buying "Hmm... I wonder if this game has good AI." Most casual gamers probably don't even know what AI stands for.
Infogrames cannot just market to one demographic, so they have to make there ads and hype friendly to all.

cassembler · October 21, 2001, 23:52

Hey like I said- if the AI's ANY BETTER AT ALL than Civ2's- and I can't see why it wouldn't be- then hey, it's better.

With all of the new options though, I'm sure beating the AI won't be as easy as fortifying the "chariot absorbing musketeer." If it forces me to be more creative [than Civ2], then that's a good thing.

Steve Clark · October 22, 2001, 11:43

I think this provides some clues about the AI...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=27276

drake · October 22, 2001, 13:03

AI will always stand for Artificial Idiot.

Its just a matter of how big the idiot is

Rasbelin · October 22, 2001, 13:25

Let me just notify that the new article translation
might include some hints. More on that can be found
under this link:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?...post549984

Rasbelin · October 22, 2001, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

But that's not saying anything detailed enough to know if the comp just cheats like crazy at that level.

We know that the AI gets bonuses at deity (refering to the Civ III preview in The Games), but what kind of bonuses is a mystery.

Crouchback · October 22, 2001, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin

We know that the AI gets bonuses at deity (refering to the Civ III preview in The Games), but what kind of bonuses is a mystery.

Firaxis have said that the AI cheats in favour of the player upto Prince level, doesn't cheat at all at Prince and only after that cheats for itself. Which hopefully bodes well for the AI's ability to hold its own. But then I'm just gald they employed a special boffin (Soren Johnson) to specifically handle the AI.

BTW the only link I could find at short notice is on another civ site.

David

Lee Johnson · October 22, 2001, 15:23

Quote:

AI will always stand for Artificial Idiot.

No, no--Idiocy is always Real!

drake · October 22, 2001, 15:38

Quote:

Firaxis have said that the AI cheats in favour of the player upto Prince level, doesn't cheat at all at Prince and only after that cheats for itself. Which hopefully bodes well for the AI's ability to hold its own. But then I'm just gald they employed a special boffin (Soren Johnson) to specifically handle the AI.

Sounds like civ2.

What are you talking about lee

smellymummy · October 22, 2001, 15:44

there is a week or so left until the game is realeased, and I have to agree that out of all information given, AI has really been lacking - information wise.

Maybe because imagining how the AI would work can be mind boggling, especially when you'll want to apply it to code, or maybe because it stinks, much like other TBS games in general.

What I expect.... I become the superpower and the entire world hates me/forms aliances vs. me. Never able to get any civ to trade, therefore forcing me to restart the game until I get "the good starting location" with resources and all. Silly AI tactics for military... Well the list could go on, but I'm sure we've all played civ2 to death to know these things.

I am hoping for a smart and good AI, one that can play Intelligently, yet Artificially in it's own way

Although, short of having more information about it, I sincerely don't think civ3 will deliver the kind of AI I want, and others want too.

The diplomat · October 22, 2001, 15:45

We will soon found out about the AI, now won't we?

Steve Clark · October 22, 2001, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
We will soon found out about the AI, now won't we?

But even after such time, some folks will say that the AI sucks and some will say that the AI is clever. Some will say that the AI is too hard while others will say that the AI is too easy.

We all can agree that the AI in Civ2 is funny, to say the least but that didn't prevent us from playing it for thousands of hours, right?

drake · October 22, 2001, 15:57

Quote:

We all can agree that the AI in Civ2 is funny, to say the least but that didn't prevent us from playing it for thousands of hours, right?

Yes

After the first 500 hours of not being challenged and watching the AI implement their same dumb strategies over and over, saying the same thing over and over, I decided to find some real opponents.

After awhile one has to find out if they are good at learning the Ais dumb patterns, or if they are a good player who can adapt to the un-predicted.......

Least thats what I did

Steve Clark · October 22, 2001, 16:10

...and besides playing against real opponents, playing one of the newer custom scenarios or playing a challenge game (like OCC or others) added to the hours of fun. I have predicted a few times that 90% of the Civ3 games I will play will be scenarios, not only because I find them more fun, but I feel that the AI in regular game of Civ3 will be just as predictable (in a different way though).

art_vandelai · October 22, 2001, 17:07

With all the added complexity in the game, you'd think that the AI would not be as good. However, due to the evidence we have collected that many unbalanced strategies that are focussed on a single point of AI weakness will no longer work (e.g. ICS, war being a hinderance, stealing technologies in the end game). The only singular strategy that haven't been tested much is cultural domination, which (without having played the game) seems like it may be very effective.

If the cultural domination strategy is not a cakewalk, the players will now be forced to take a more pure, balanced approach to win the game. Even in CIV II, I found that balanced approach (which is how I play) gives mixed results, and on Deity makes it possible to survive, but not win outright.

While the players who spend every minute of their day analyzing every move in minute detail should easily be able to beat Deity, I think it will be a fairly balanced and competitive game with the AI's 'cheats' vs. the player's ability to conduct long-term strategy.

Blake · October 22, 2001, 18:33

I just really hope there is a few options for modifying the AI's, *especially* how much it values particular units, facilities and terrain improvments. This is not much to ask for, but makes it much easier to update or tweak the AI. It would also have applications in scenerio or mod design, traditionally the only way to stop the AI building a particular unit was removing the unit from the tech tree!

If such a system had been included in SMAC, using the same basic code for unit movement, invasions etc, the AI could have been made a lot better, by encouraging it to build facilities, units, and terraforming conductive to particular strategies.

The Civ3 enviroment should be a lot more AI friendly than SMAC's, with pre-set units, flat terrain (less terraforming choices), goverment instead of SE, fewer easily abused features (Crawlers, pop-boom, 'plonking' down wonders) and overall less general complexity. Culture is about the only *new* complexity, oh, and the trade system, that could cause a headache for the AI....

If they can make a slight improvment in the general AI code over SMAC's and add a bit of customization ability in the rules editor I think the AI should do very well.