Soren, can you work on the pathetic AI?

[Capt Dizle]

Given that we have lost so much from previous renditions of Civ so that the game could be streamlined to enhance AI performance I expected some minimal challenge from the game but I find the AI can't compete. Will you work on it please?

Right now the AI combat routines are very predictable. I know how to build stacks that the AI won't attack, I know how to direct the AI by using these stacks and fortresses. I know how to create killing fields into which the AI marches lamb to the slaughter.

I know how to use MPP for a few coin to decimate various AIs without sweating.

I don't have to research at all to compete with your AI.

I don't have to really fight to defeat your AI, it goes Communist and starves itself to death.

I suppose this is usless but why don't you give up on trying to do the impossible, AI can never compete, just put all the neat stuff back in the game so that we can at least enjoy multiplayer.

[Arrian]

Well, so much for being polite

Seriously, though, the AI self-destruct needs fixing. Also, the last point is correct, the AI will NEVER compete with a skilled human opponent, even with cheats. Expecting it to is rather silly.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

I am just banging my head on a tree anyway.

[Capt Dizle]

It is true that most people play SP only and so I will yield the point that Civ3 should have been designed around SP. There were two distinct paths to take;

one, make the game simple enough for the AI to compete, or
two, go the route BR did with SMAC and add lots of toys and fun stuff, which btw, is fine for MP...

option one was a fool's errand and thats what we are stuck with cause the AI can't compete and Soren's efforts to close methods we use to beat it in patches have failed as well and have lead to such absurdities as AI self induced starvation and no research strats ... this is almost beyond belief

i have waded through a sea of fanboys to bang the drum to see if it might be possible to induce Firaxis to reverse course but frankly, I also have been on a fool's errand as well.....

this probably means I am far dumber than them, after all, I paid for their product and spend my time lamenting it...

perhaps its time for me to take the advice of the fanboys and just go away...

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, so much for being polite

Seriously, though, the AI self-destruct needs fixing. Also, the last point is correct, the AI will NEVER compete with a skilled human opponent, even with cheats. Expecting it to is rather silly.

-Arrian

But there is one thing I newer have learned to understand
as all civ-games so far goes wrong with this.
If it is impossible to program the A.I to make skilled assaults then why not program it to attack using brute force?
Sending over large stacks of units will always do SOME damage
regardless how pathetic the A.I might be.
If the Human is not well prepared the A.I will destroy the hapless
human - by brute force.

Is it really that difficult to program a unit to "Stay still!" until several units have gathered togheter as a stack - then attack?

In civ3 the A.I attack-forces seem all to target the same city witch is good but by popping up one by one only they will newer be able to deliver damage.

[Arrian]

Jt,

Well, I understand the point about CivII/SMAC versus CivIII in terms of complexity, and to a certain degree, I agree with you. But I still enjoy CivIII.

Saurus,

Um... the AI does use brute force. That's all it knows. And I see large stacks of AI troops all the time. It does this better with footsloggers than with mobile troops. Still, I once had to whittle down a stack of 20+ Samurai that showed up next to a border town. It took every Cavalry I had to stop them.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Communism needs to be avoided by the AI like the plague. That is as much a government design problem as an AI problem though.

The current version of tech trading at least keeps the AI within reach of the player, often ahead. Compare this to earlier games in the Civ series where it was easy for the player to get a huge tech lead on any difficulty.

Gone are the days when a single city could build every single wonder of the world too. The AI can compete there as well.

The AI also does a much better job at expansion. Even on Regent the AI keeps up quite well in number of cities.

From a military standpoint, Civ III is so much better. Civ I only required a Chariot and a Trireme to take over the world if you were lucky. Civ II was somewhat better, but the AI could never keep up in tech. It always ended up Tank/Howitzer/Battleship vs Spearmen. In SMAC it was possible to conquer the world without ever building a military unit, or just one naval unit if there were more than one island/continent.

[Pius Popprasch]

I think that the Civ3-AI has more strategical than tactical flaws. Huge AIs selfdestruct in senseless wars. In my last game the Greeks were really powerful around 900AD and more or less uncontrolable. Then they declared war to every other civ and got eliminated in the industrial age. The A.I. should not sign MPP easily and preferably attack neighbors.

[player1]

Civ3 AI is pretty good.

But,

HAS BUGS.

If fixed ===> Best Civ AI

Not prefect.

And still predictable.

For real challenge wait for MP.

[cassembler]

[SARCASM]If you want good AI go back to Civ2... No, really. [/SARCASM]

No, seriously, this AI is a HUGE improvement over past TBS games. I applaud the efforts of Soren.

In the editor, try bumping up the aggressiveness levels of the AI civs... Turn everyone into the Germans for a bit more "brute force" challenge.

[tommyd]

jimmytrick:

I don't understand exactly what you are complaining about.
On the one hand it seems that you are saying you want a tougher AI.
On the other it sounds like you're saying you'll put up with a weaker AI as long as there are more toys in the game.

In my opinion it seems very, very easy to make it so that the hardest level is unbeatable. The trick is to have it beatable, but still very hard to play.

If you're looking for a game where the AI can compete with you without any cheats or bonuses, you won't find it in games that involve a lot of random factors.

I also don't believe you'll find it in "new" games, where the designers barely have time to work on the game play, graphics, sounds, as well as the AI, before getting the game shipped out.

If you're looking for a game that will keep you spending half of your life trying to be even mildly competetive, a game that keeps kicking your a$$ no matter how much you learn, or how many tricks and twists you pick up, I suggest Chess. Trust me, you won't win anytime soon, but I personally hate the lack of randomness.

Tommy

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
. . . I expected some minimal challenge from the game but I find the AI can't compete. Will you work on it please?

I have an idea! Try to win without razing. Maybe this way history might remember you as jimmytrick the great, instead of jimmytrick the butcher. Just an idea.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I have an idea! Try to win without razing...

Will you succeed with all the unhappiness, reversal back and corruption factors?

Tell me how.

Not razing and maintaining a definite winning lead seems rather impossible to me.

AJ

[Munroe]

I just wish the AI would think about who they are declaring war on...

"hmm if I attack the germans who have 4 mpps and are the strongest civ and outnumber my forces 4:1 I still think I can win"

or

"So the zulu's got 3 civs to declare war on me I best wait till they get all 7 attacking me till I look for some allies"


Also paying civs to declare war is too cheap imo... for the AI and the human.. honestly I doubt there are many times when civs just jumped into the war because they got paid some low amount of money. Unless there was some previous hate towards a civ.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Will you succeed with all the unhappiness, reversal back and corruption factors?
AJ

Lots of players beat the game without razing. That is not to say that razing in not a valid strategy, just that it isn't necessary. You can win and not commit war crimes.

By the way, this is not a moral judgement. Terrible atrocities have been committed in history and Civ would not be complete without representing this aspect of humanity. Also, razing may turn out to be the best strategy (only mp will make this clear), but I hope not. Many people in the early twentieth century thought that fascism was the wave of the future, that democracies were rotting in their core, that multi-cultural societies were fractured and weak. They were wrong.

People wouldn't do evil things if there was no chance of success. Indeed, it is often the easiest way. There would be no reward for doing the right thing, if it wasn't difficult or dangerous.

[Zachriel]

Duplicate

[Coracle]

The AI marching into those "killing fields" is especially dumb and boring.

Worse, the AI DOES NOT LEARN. The Romans kept marching stacks (about five to six) of legionaries directly across a desert towards a city of mine. For some reason, they chose that route instead of one across hills and forests to another city of mine. I assume it figured the terrain would not be as easily defended in the desert. But it made them vulnerable to counterattack.

Unfortunately for them, I, as the Iroquois, just sat there waiting for them to come on with Mounted Warriors and swordsmen. The Romans came on - and I attacked destroying every invasion force while only losing several unts of my own. Three times the Roman tried this. After their third defeat I had so weakened him I attacked across that other defensible terrain taking and razing Veii. It was the beginning of the end for Rome.

Also, the AI is stupid in sending settler-foot soldier pairs right into my territory towards the spot of a razed city (as they did with Veii) even though I will destroy it with my military.

Yes, the AI can be figured out pretty easily.

[Über KruX]

any AI today will be figured out.

i told you this 6 months ago when i was "whining" as many of you said about no multiplayer. i told you within a month of playing you would know exactly what the AI wanted to do. now you can make settlers dance and crush any chance of invasion before they have a chance to plan it.

the only time i ever met a formidible AI opponent was my first game on diety, the Germans actually took over 2 islands from me on an archipeligo. but i never let it happen again for 5 months now.

[Dienstag]

Sweet! Uber KruX is already using the best quote from last night's Simpsons for his sig! I like your style, buddy.

About the AI: I think Munroe has an excellent point. If the AI would just show a little more strategic consideration, many of its tactical blunders would be easier to forgive. I can rationalize things like AI stacks walking into traps as poor leadership, but some of the AI's strategic decisions can only be described as inhumanly foolish.

We know that the AI's strategic decisions are influenced by an Aggressiveness factor, as well as a "Perceived Power" variable, which may be as simple as just the number of units. Does anyone know what other factors are considered when declaring war? I haven't noticed goverment playing any significant role, have you? In all fairness, I really respect Soren's efforts, I'd still love to be able to do some tweakin' myself.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
I think that the Civ3-AI has more strategical than tactical flaws. Huge AIs selfdestruct in senseless wars. In my last game the Greeks were really powerful around 900AD and more or less uncontrolable. Then they declared war to every other civ and got eliminated in the industrial age. The A.I. should not sign MPP easily and preferably attack neighbors.

sometimes it is just scary and this new culture rule makes a huge empire disappear in 3 turns - it is incredible to watch that unfold on the world map....
in the last game, though, AIs realisticaly ganged with me on aztecs, who were as big as all three of us combined. we could not win, but we bled them until their offensive power was crushed. still, AI managed war pretty well even in the modern era, even in communism, but only provided that it had two times more units than me . true, it helped that the configuration of the battlefield was such that it was me who picked where we are going to fight.


bismarck: upping aggression would not be very productive. bismarck and shaka are so ridiculously aggresive that i saw them make it into the modern age only couple of times.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by LaRusso ... in the last game, though, AIs realisticaly ganged with me on aztecs, who were as big as all three of us combined. we could not win ...

But that makes sense. In my game the Greeks started all the wars and I was really distant from them. They attacked me and my neighbors. Then they signed MPPs like mad.

bismarck: upping aggression would not be very productive. bismarck and shaka are so ridiculously aggresive that i saw them make it into the modern age only couple of times.

Militaristic A.I. is very weak/broken. Quite often militaristic Civs build huge amounts of Settlers neglegting everything else. But they have more flaws(I made a poll about that).

[Deathwalker]

Though I agree that the AI could do with some improvment, especially in it's battle tactics. I don't think it's that bad

[DrFell]

The AI is awful IMO, but I can't blame anyone for that, a truly challenging AI would take a long time to code and modern PC couldn't run it. That's why I'm waiting for MP... assuming it's any good I can't wait to start ripping up some of you newbies

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Arrian


Saurus,

Um... the AI does use brute force. That's all it knows. And I see large stacks of AI troops all the time. It does this better with footsloggers than with mobile troops. Still, I once had to whittle down a stack of 20+ Samurai that showed up next to a border town. It took every Cavalry I had to stop them.

-Arrian

Yes, something similar happened to me also - once, that is.
What usually happens though (at least during the late middleage/industrial age) is that the A.I keeps on drafting (yes, drafting) riflemen...then sending them individually into my territory to be killed.
Then the next turn they draft another riflemen and
again send it inside my borders to die - there is no sence of
stacked attacks here. I actually have no clue of what the A.I
consider himself doing. I have noticed some stacked attacks occasionally and that is good news but this is in violent contrast to this "draft citizens and then KILL them in suicide runs" and this "tactic" often, if not mostly, consumes the A.I compleatly IMHO. This has led me to believe that the stacks I have encountered are nothing more than a bunch of units who coincidentally happens to occupy the same space at the same time. After all, many of the units you will encounter in stacks
are hopelessly outdated and that could explain why there are so many of them that they incidentaly stack-up.


However...
As you proved, Arian, The A.I IS cabable of making stack-attacks
(20+ samurais is definetly NOT coincidence) - hooray! - but why is the A.I so very rarely doing this if it is able to? Why, why, whyyy?

-Saurus

[Aeson]

I think the reason for these lone invaders could be the way the AI see's the map. They see an undefended city somewhere in your territory (or worker/settler) and think one unit is enough to take it? I know I keep my interior cities undefended through most of the game. Most of the time I see these lone invaders, they are beelining for something in the interior of my empire. It's very rare that they attack my defended perimeter cities.

[Arrian]

I have seen the conscript riflemen infestation. I think they're trying to pillage and capture workers. I always have a 1 unit garrison in my cities, so they aren't beelining for an open city.

-Arrian

[Brinoch]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian
I have seen the conscript riflemen infestation. I think they're trying to pillage and capture workers. I always have a 1 unit garrison in my cities, so they aren't beelining for an open city.

I've noticed the AI doing this a lot. So, one game I didn't pick off those lonely invading troops and let it resolve its offensive. It was beelining for workers within the interior of my empire. A couple of other times, the AI dedicated a lot of effort to killing off wounded troops.

Actually, you can lure the AI pretty easily with workers and outdated wounded units.

Brinoch

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch

Militaristic A.I. is very weak/broken. Quite often militaristic Civs build huge amounts of Settlers neglegting everything else. But they have more flaws(I made a poll about that).

Hm. One of Hitler's main goals for the Third Reich was to secure sufficient Lebensraum (living space) for the German people. Meanwhile, he stressed the three K's (I believe they were Kirche, Kuche and Kinder, or church, kitchen and children) to German girls and women to encourage them to get married and have large, healthy families to popluate all this newly-acquired territory.

I guess there's no need to go into detail about what plans he had for the previous occupants of said territory, though, so let's just say it involved pop-rushing and razing and leave it at that.