Civ3 AI does Rock

Rust · April 22, 2002, 17:41

I just have to make note of this point, after playing Heroes IV awhile. And definitely more so after 1.21.

Cyclotron · April 22, 2002, 18:32

Point taken.

Coracle · April 22, 2002, 19:09

So why does it have to cheat so outrageously to be "competitive"??

Why is is so dumb it sends settlers wandering into my territory after I raze a city even when that civ is at war with me?? I wipe out his settlers time after time.

asleepathewheel · April 22, 2002, 20:00

Regardless of the flaws in the AI, it is still much better than the AI in the previous civ games. of course there are always going to be nitpicky problems with the AI, but what game is perfect? its obvious from a cost benefit analysis that firaxis has to make a game that people will buy. Could they make a better AI? Probably. Would people buy the $300 civ game? Probably not. I don't expect perfection from a 2001-2002 game. I just expect a game that gives a good challenge and is entertaining for a while, such as Civ3.

Jaguar · April 22, 2002, 20:30

it doesn't rock. but its a vast improvement from Civ2

asleepathewheel · April 22, 2002, 20:44

Civ3 rocks Saddam Hussein's ass

Inverse Icarus · April 22, 2002, 22:22

i'll give you that jaggie, it is a step up from civ2, but it is far from rocking.

and i should know, i 0wn r0x0rz.org don't i? lol

Capt Dizle · April 22, 2002, 22:49

The AI is better huh? Okay. It was accomplished by dumbing down the gameplay and code routines that cause interminable waits.

If the AI is so good then why all the cheats?

AI by its nature isn't good. I will have to say that I have several times noticed the AI do some really neat things. But, there are only a handful of tricks. It quickly gets predictable.

People only think they want human level AI. If they got it, in a normal game they would win only one of eight times (or one of sixteen, lol).

How long would people play that?

Grrr · April 23, 2002, 00:16

They wouldn't they'd cheat, like the human AI would

.

gopher · April 23, 2002, 00:54

Come on, admit that the first time you played this game, the AI gave you a bit of a shock, especially when the alliance wars started.

LaRusso · April 23, 2002, 03:22

it does good amphibious invasions, cuts off my resources, defends nicely, nothing short of a full scale invasion will finish it off. start a dodgy war and you will soon end up in a war of attrition, you really have to be careful and do not leave your fast charging units exposed.....

Skanky Burns · April 23, 2002, 04:45

The Civ 3 AI is an order of magnitude better than previous versions of AI, including the Civ 2 AI.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
So why does it have to cheat so outrageously to be "competitive"??

Wasn't it you complaining about Firaxis removing the "multi" cheat from the game?

notyoueither · April 23, 2002, 05:08

Consistency is the bugbear of...

Or is it that bugbears are seldom consistent?

I lost track.

Zachriel · April 23, 2002, 08:43

Put yourself in a losing position, such as starting in a jungle, or not using city packing on Deity. Now, defend yourself against the onslaught of units. No gold, no tech, no friends. Generally, the AI appears stupid when it is losing, and visa versa.

Once you've wiped out their armies and infrastructure, yes, it does appear rather stupid to defend cities with spearmen against advanced tanks. But what choice do they have? Most players will subjugate them, enslave them, or raze them if they surrender, so fight on they must.

Pius Popprasch · April 23, 2002, 09:19

Ancient Era A.I. is really strong and Middle Ages are still OK. Late game is spoiled by artificial dumbness. In comparison with Civ2 the better pathfinding is notable. There are also a lot of design changes to favor the A.I.(e.g. the permission of killer stacks, the corruption model and the ineffectiveness of bombard units) which make the A.I. look stronger.
The A.I. bonuses at Deity are extreme.