AI overexpansion issue

[TLG]

AI expansion algorithm currently in use :

free squares = all squares bar ice and mountain zones located outside foreign borders
WHILE (free squares on land mass) DO
BUILD settlers and BUILD new cities
END
THEN
WHILE (free squares on the map) DO
BUILD ships loaded with SETTLERS and COLONIZE every free square AVAILABLE on the map even if it is damn stupid from a strategic point of view
END

Sounds too simple to me even if it is efficient to prevent experienced players from overextending their empire. Firaxis should have chosen to deal with the cause of the problem, now both the player and the computer must overexpand to succeed

How to fix this ?

-> Dynamic corruption : corruption penalities for every city within the empire when growing too fast. Corruption should be treated as a "virtual factor" by the AI engine and should be adjusted to balance the gameplay when needed.

-> Decolonization : distant cities (below size 8) should be able to claim independance and leave your empire without notice. New civilizations with tight cultural links abroad appears. You could start the game with 8 civilizations and finish it with 10 or 12.

TLG
http://frigate.free.fr

[TheDarkside]

you missed this part of the code:

if (choiceOfLandToSettle() == 2)
{
if (choice[0] == UTOPIAN_PLOT_OF_LAND_IN_NICE_REMOTE_LOCATION && choice[1] == USELESS_LAND_IN_SMALL_POCKET_OF_HUMAN_EMPIRE)
{
settle(USELESS_LAND_IN_SMALL_POCKET_OF_HUMAN_EMPIR E);
}
}
nextTurn();

[Ralf]

Let the AI-expansion rate be adjustable in the game-editor instead. Some like it the way AI-civs currently expands, while others dont.

[TLG]

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ralf
Let the AI-expansion rate be adjustable in the game-editor instead. Some like it the way AI-civs currently expands, while others dont.

I refuse to do this and I get annoyed when people post this as an end-all solution. I don't want to be playing a different game from 99% of other players. Then all the strategies, problems, stories, etc. I read about are useless. How can I share something about my game when the other person is playing a different game?

*If* there was a mod that a lot of people used that changed the rules and a significant portion of good players were using it, then I would use that mod. Otherwise, the rules editor means nothing.

[Howling Chip]

I have been playing Regent level for four days straight now. In the games where I have retired (eight so far), I do not see the AI expanding at an unusual rate compared to my expansion.

And I typically build temples a one of my first three builds.

This is just a post chiming in that I also fell the expansion rate does not need adjusted (at least at Regent level).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Pembleton
I refuse to do this and I get annoyed when people post this as an end-all solution.

If you are not happy with the game rules and unwilling to use the editor that they provided to customize your game, maybe you should find another game.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Osweld
If you are not happy with the game rules and unwilling to use the editor that they provided to customize your game, maybe you should find another game.

Thanks bud. Most of the time my complaints are usually addressed in a patch. They are usually ones that many other people have. And with all other "good" games where I have been dissatisfied with something, they have almost always been patched in the areas of deficiency.

And I am pretty happy with the game. It is a huge improvement upon Civ2. However it is clear the game should be tweaked and from Soren's responses on this forum, he gives every indication they will be. I have already stated that the inner core of the game is great but just needs to be fine-tuned to realize its full great potential.

[ajbera]

There should be a way to have different civs expand differently. I don't mind if the expansionist civs spread to the far corners of the globe, but every civ shouldn't behave this way. Some civs should be perfectionists, and some should fall in between.

Is there only a single AI expansion code? Disappointing.

However, with everything that's been going on (21 civs! Add/delete buttons activated! Blue water and raised land!) some modder will probably find a way to allow this.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by ajbera
Is there only a single AI expansion code? Disappointing.

I'm pretty sure that someone at Firaxis already stated there are different algorithms for different civs.

I think I had evidence of this in my last game when Babylon was rivalling me for best culture and his civ was pretty small compared to everyone else's. That's because it was building cultural improvements that no-one else was.

[Spagina]

Well, the only thing I can contribute to this argument is a lot of the AI expansion is annoying. If I have one tile anywhere that isn't covered by my cultural borders, I'll suddenly notice 3 civs trying to rush settlers through my territory to grab that spot for a city. It gets annoying as hell when I have to cram units into open spots near my cities so the computer doesn't build a worthless city in that 3x1 spot crammed inbetween two other cities.

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by Pembleton


I'm pretty sure that someone at Firaxis already stated there are different algorithms for different civs.

I think I had evidence of this in my last game when Babylon was rivalling me for best culture and his civ was pretty small compared to everyone else's. That's because it was building cultural improvements that no-one else was.

Actually, that's not always the case-I've played against Babylon and have had them become cockroaches. The AI just seems to like having a lot of cities. What annoys me is that they don't seem to suffer the effects of corruption as much as the human player does, which enables them to expand faster. Also, the AI tends to build it's cities 4 squares apart, instead of the optimal 5.

Marc

[Pyrodrew]

The AI is MUCH better than the Civ2 AI. The Civ2 Expansionist AIs were almost always the superior AIs, so these Civ3 AI Expansionists are a great challenge. Programming an AI isn't easy... I would hate the other extreme of an AI who is too stupid to expand. We should be glad we don't have an easy to beat stupid AI - all too often I've bought a game to see that. Not liking where the AI places their cities sometimes - minor issue. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind seeing the AI improved. Or maybe even 1 or 2 as Civ3 AI Specialists (an improved Civ2 AI Specialist).

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by tmarcl

Actually, that's not always the case-I've played against Babylon and have had them become cockroaches. The AI just seems to like having a lot of cities. What annoys me is that they don't seem to suffer the effects of corruption as much as the human player does, which enables them to expand faster. Also, the AI tends to build it's cities 4 squares apart, instead of the optimal 5.

Marc

The AI DOES suffer the same corruption than you, and even more because he doesn't seem to know courthouses. See my thread entitled AI Observations on corruption and production. Soren Johnson has made several comments that the AI plays by the EXACT same rules as you do. You might not believe him, he works for Firaxis, but my hours of experimenting confirmed it.

[General Ludd]

Double Post.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by tmarcl

Also, the AI tends to build it's cities 4 squares apart, instead of the optimal 5.

What is it with people's phobia of cities sharing a square? It is inneficient (and ugly), the only way it's possible to do that is to leave squares empty. I build my cities so that they take up every square possible.

In civ3, the computer builds cities almost exactly the same way as I do... we'll often be racing a settler to the same square.