Some missing the boat- #1 improvement

dennis_caver · January 21, 2001, 21:59

If you get your butt kicked by the AI in any era, then
you know Civ 3 has achieved the number ONE improvement.

The number one disappointment about CTP 2 is that the
AI is a wimp. It just gives up. At least in Civ 2 they
try to gang up on you when you're ahead. But, the AI
in Civ 2 doesn't know much about Strategy and Tactics,
especially with the powerfull weapons of the middle
- end game.

The design teams announcement of better animated units
is disappointing. I could care less - TOT's animation
was good enough - some new units are needed.

I want to see a pissed military AI civ go all out to
defeat the human civ - or effective military alliances
go all out to the conquer the humans.

The AI needs to now how to create and use large land
armies for offensive purposes. The strategy and tactic
needs to improve with the era. Tanks and Howitzers
are used alot differently then archers and cataputs.
Factoid - The concept of field artillery was developed
in the 18th century and changed the battle field
forever.

The AI needs to know about naval strategies and
tactics. Like a naval bombardment that is the prelude
to a beach-head for a large invasion force.

The AI needs to know about Air Power strategies and
tactics. In modern warfare, the concepts associated
with air superiority are dominate. This would include
tactics associated with non-nuke missiles.

Lastly in the area of warfare, there needs to be
improvements in gathering intelligence about your
opponents armies, navies and air force. A good field
commander does not go into battle without trying
to find out about the opposing forces. Civ 2 has
a start in this area but it needs to go alot
further. Infiltrators, Spy satellites, CIA's, Spies
that steal data, and even James Bond, etc.

I'm not a warmonger. I've had just as many science
victories as bloodlust victories. But currently,
the human has no problem winning the bloodlust
scenario. Besides with a strong military opponent, the
science victory will be much harder to achieve.

CIVILIZATION III INTRODUCTION

HEADLINES - AI kicks human butt from here to Alpha
Centauri.

Spelunk 'til ya puke,
Dennis

Cannes · January 22, 2001, 09:37

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 01-21-2001 08:59 PM
Lastly in the area of warfare, there needs to be
improvements in gathering intelligence about your
opponents armies, navies and air force. A good field
commander does not go into battle without trying
to find out about the opposing forces. Civ 2 has
a start in this area but it needs to go alot
further. Infiltrators, Spy satellites, CIA's, Spies
that steal data, and even James Bond, etc.

the CivII engine cheated to gain intelligence! That is not the way it should be done if you ask me. I realize how difficult it will be to program an AI that can use reckonesence(sp?) properly, but it can't be impossible.
Also to make the AI able to wage war. It must be possible with the implementation of borders that the AI reckognizes borders and uses them during warfare.
If the AI Zulu is at war with the neighbouring human Romans. Then it simply deploys a large amount of it's units near the border, in defensive stack formations at choke points and in cities. Preparing it's attack stacks just behind the frontline ready to strike at the closest least defended human city. It can't be impossible to program an AI to put air planes on a carrier or marines on a transport either. Just have something along the lines of (Carrier, 0 air planes, bad) (Carrier, 5 air planes, good) in the code.

[This message has been edited by Cannes (edited January 22, 2001).]

bagdar · January 22, 2001, 10:31

I like your suggestions, and by the way:

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 01-21-2001 08:59 PM
I'm not a warmonger

sure, because you are MARS!

Chronus · January 22, 2001, 22:09

Dennis - I certainly agree about having a tough AI (as I'm sure most Civers do).

I posted a suggestion awhile back about having end-game techs (in addition or in lieu of Future Techs) that were IMPOSSIBLE to attain in the standard 300 turn game (or whatever number it is). I would like to extend that thought to the AI as well.

Firaxis, please go all out on making an IMPOSSIBLE difficulty level that really is impossible to beat. Someone suggested in the CTP2 forum that the CTP2 AI was easy because Activision might have been concerned about turning off a lot of people that get beat by the AI. The logic in that totally escapes me. Please do not even think like that. Most Civers I've come across WANT a difficulty level that's totally unbeatable. So, go ahead and go all out. You know someone's bound to be able to beat it eventually so you might as well go for the gusto. We'll love ya for it! Besides, if we want to beat the game, we can always go to an easier level (gee, what a concept) ;-)

ChrisShaffer · January 23, 2001, 07:04

Open source AI please, thanks.

I hope Firaxis considers the amount of time people have spent developing scenarios, maps, graphics, etc. for Civ2. If even a small percentage of that effort had been towards improving the AI, we'd have something really exciting to play against. And there would be different 'flavors' of AI too - wouldn't that be nice?

January 24, 2001, 06:40

The AI needs to cheat, so let the thing cheat - as long as it does not feel like cheating. The AI needs to have, lets call it auto-intelligence, just to keep up with an experienced player. And even the CTP2 AI makes effective stacks. But there need to be AI personalities (stalin/hitler/caesar) that then take these huge stacks, put them on a transport, and send them to the next continent over, and sack the nearest strong city with the smallest defence (or something like that - I've been working too much on the CTP2 AI lately. I've almost got a Nader personality that launches endless nano-attacks against your important cities in the end-game). Also, the AI needs to stack the proper things together. I.e. an AEGIS cruiser with carriers, howitzers w/ tanks and mech inf. Dammit Firaxis! I want hordes of tank/howitzer stacks following on squads of stealth aircraft (fighters mixed with bombers)and bombarding fleets! Gimmie a challenge

tniem · January 24, 2001, 16:29

I would have to agree with Mister Pleasant that the AI is going to have to cheat. Make it so that the cheating is done without me knowing. And do it so that it makes it smarter and have it compete with me.

Grumbold · January 24, 2001, 20:10

I concur that a little cheating on the part of the AI is no bad thing. Just as long as a cheat does not turn into another way to exploit the AI. So many games can be suckered so badly just by leaving a location they can't quite reach in one turn undefended somewhere. They get drawn in and then cut to pieces when you regarrison and hit them with your prepared strike force.

Theben · January 25, 2001, 21:54

quote:

Originally posted by Chronus on 01-22-2001 09:09 PM
Firaxis, please go all out on making an IMPOSSIBLE difficulty level that really is impossible to beat. Someone suggested in the CTP2 forum that the CTP2 AI was easy because Activision might have been concerned about turning off a lot of people that get beat by the AI.

CTP2 may have been too easy but they have the right idea, from a marketing standpoint. When people say, "I want an unbeatable AI", what they really mean is, "I want an AI level so tough that no one can beat it but me somehow." When people aren't able to beat that uppermost level, they get discouraged. Check out HOMM2 & 3; very few people I know play at that impossible level all the time.

A truly impossible level is easy to do: just give the AI lots of bonuses and cheats. To make a game where at the highest level a veteran player is challenged at every stage in the game but yet has a chance of victory is a very difficult task indeed.

Chronus · January 26, 2001, 11:56

I don't mind the AI having some cheats. If they need to give it a large production edge, so be it. Again, keep in mind that an impossible level is an option. I can understand people getting discouraged for not beating the highest level ... but is beating the highest level REALLY necessary in order to enjoy the game?

"When people say, "I want an unbeatable AI", what they really mean is, "I want an AI level so tough that no one can beat it but me somehow." "

Um ... no. I want the AI to BEAT ME ... period. (sounds sadistic, eh?) Though I do want other people to enjoy the game, I'm really not concerned if (or how) the AI wins against them. However, Theben, I would like to see a challenge implemented in every stage or aspect of the game ... as you mentioned above.

AuraSeer · January 26, 2001, 18:49

If they want to keep the AI beatable for marketing reasons, why not just hide the highest difficulty level? List 5 levels on the menu, with the top one being tough, but still beatable by an average player with enough practice. Then, if a hardcore player wants a real challenge, he can open some kind of console window and type a cheat code (e.g., "set_difficulty SPANKMEHARD"), which tells the AI to go berserk and stomp all over him.

The average players will be happy, because they'll beat the hardest level they know about. Those of us who want more challenge will look on the web, find the code, and unlock the levels that are "too tough to be public."

Grumbold · January 27, 2001, 01:37

The highest level of AI should be able to offer a tough challenge at all times and certainly win some games against even the best player. If certain strategies defeat the AI every time, regardless of setup conditions or events during the game, it is not good enough. Players can then pick a level of fun or challenge to suit their mood. Personally I dont play more than half my games on the hardest setting because I just like to relax rather than play the maximisation game every turn.

One of my friends is utterly hooked on Civ2 but is so completely into fun that they are having trouble winning on the easiest level. I suggest strategies to improve their position and they just shrug and say "I like doing it this way". Whatever difficulty level gives you the most satisfaction needs to be catered for, from the easiest to the hardest.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited January 26, 2001).]