The brilliant AI

alexman · August 6, 2002, 16:28

Well, yes it's brilliant, but I just used that title to get Soren's attention.

So here's the question: Say we have two defensive units. Infantry, with both AI offense and AI defense flags in the editor, and Mech. Infantry, with only the defense flag. Say the AI builds an Infantry unit in an attack role because it doesn't have access to oil or saltpeter. What happens to that unit later, when it's time to upgrade (assuming he now has the necessary resources)?

a) Does it upgrade retaining an attack role, even if Mech Infantry doesn't have that flag set in the editor?

b) Does it upgrade to a defensive role, thereby changing the balance of the AI's offensive and defensive units?

c) Does it not upgrade at all, instead performing attacks against more modern units until it's killed?

PS. Note that this is not the case in the standard game. Mech Infantry actually has offense and defense flagged. But does that mean that there is a chance that the AI will actually build Mech Inf. instead of tanks for attack, even though they both require the same resources?

Soren Johnson · August 6, 2002, 16:34

the answer is b)... if MI's do not have an offensive flag option, then the only MI's the AI can have are "defensive" MI's.

alexman · August 6, 2002, 16:43

Thanks Soren - your'e the best!

Theseus · August 6, 2002, 17:14

Six minute response time!!

(but, Soren, do you mean MAs or MIs?)

Assuming MIs, this means that the AI will not mass upgrade it's offensive Infantry until it has Tanks?

alexman · August 6, 2002, 17:18

Theseus, I believe you always have tanks when you have Mech Infantry. They require the same resources, don't they?

N. Machiavelli · August 6, 2002, 17:23

Wellexcept for the fact that the two units are at the opposite ends of the Modern Age tech tree. Mech Infantry requires computers, I believe, while Modern Armour becomes availible with Synthetic Fibers. Both have prerequesit techs independant of each other, so you can have one without the other.

Theseus · August 6, 2002, 17:25

I just meant that it wouldn't upgrade until it had built a sufficient number of Tanks to maintain balance, which I would think of as a mistake.

Lord Merciless · August 6, 2002, 17:34

I think the AI is building Tanks on a bigger scale in 1.29f. But since Tanks are considered offensive weapons, the AI doesn't build many under Democracy and during peace time. Thus a human player has it very easy to backstab the AI.

I think the key here is to give AI greater emphasis on building more Tanks and fewer Infantries.

N. Machiavelli · August 6, 2002, 17:38

Yes, but then your forcing the AI to take a much more aggressive stance even if in a 'peaceful' government. Personally, I think that the number of Offensive to Defensive unit ratio should be more greatly influenced by the Civ's Aggresiveness factor rather than a forced AI script.

=DrJambo= · August 6, 2002, 18:09

Soren, could you let us know which improvements in Civ3 fall under which categories in the "build often" list (civilisations tab of the Editor)?

This would really aid us modders.

Many thanks if you can.

Killerdaffy · August 6, 2002, 19:57

DrJambo,

most of the information is already available in the key to AI greatness thread in the strategy forum.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56961

DeepO · August 6, 2002, 20:10

nice trick, alexman

I guess the spark of attention from Soren is already gone, but if not, I'd really appreciate some comments on the 'bugs from MT V testing' thread in the strat forum. Most of these are related to the AI, but I have to admit the title isn't that catchy as this one

DeepO

JohnM2433 · August 6, 2002, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I think the AI is building Tanks on a bigger scale in 1.29f. But since Tanks are considered offensive weapons, the AI doesn't build many under Democracy and during peace time. Thus a human player has it very easy to backstab the AI.

There's an old saying that "Those who wish for peace should prepare for war," or something like that. Meaning that a strong army is a powerful deterent of enemy agression. Nuclear weapons have been used almost exclusively in this fashion (thank goodness). Also, even "offensive" units have important uses in defensive warfare -- you can attack invading units in your territory. In fact, unless the enemy's offensive unit has a defensive unit protecting it, it is usually better to do this than simply to wait to be attacked.

So, in conclusion, even a peaceful, defensive democracy needs a balanced military, not just mainly defensive units. In other words, the AI is dumb.

Coracle · August 7, 2002, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnM2433
. . .So, in conclusion, even a peaceful, defensive democracy needs a balanced military, not just mainly defensive units. In other words, the AI is dumb.

Right on the nose!

This AI is BRAINDEAD, not "brilliant".

I once was the number one power with China, on my border, a very close second. There were by then six other civs scattered around.

I decided to take out China and as soon as I developed tanks I went after him. (I had modded the game so I wasn't restricted by Firaxis' stupid unit values and too few units, but tanks were still the best time to attack then).

WHAMMO! I hit him hard. Did very well that first turn.

I then waited for the inevitable DEVASTATING COUNTERATTACK - made all the worse owing to the ridiculous and illogical UNLIMITED MP's of units on railroads.

That counteratttack never came!! Just a few paltry attacks with cavalry, some tanks, and no artillery of course. The stupid AI is too dumb to use artillery.

So, I continued to roll over China. It was easy, unchallenging, and rather tedious. All because of Soren's STUPID AI that thinks "the best defense is lots of defensive units". Soren obviously knows NOTHING about military strategy. Without OFFENSIVE units to counterattack you will LOSE, especially as the AI can't figure out how to use artillery offensively.

The Pioneer · August 7, 2002, 01:54

....and he spoke

!.... once again!

So long...

Capt Dizle · August 7, 2002, 06:00

Coracle,

The problem is simply that insufficient time is spent refining gameplay versus all the other development tasks necessary to produce a game such as Civ3 in today's PC game environment.

The whole process is so big that it gathers momentum and goes out of control. Have you read what has transpired with Moo3?

Civ3 was a big money maker because of the marketing power of the Civilization and Sid Meier names. Firaxis only had to create a passable rendition of Civ. They didn't have to create anything new, good, or special. Whether they could have is debatable isn't it?

At any rate, Civ3 is what Civ3 is. I agree with you that the gameplay is, at its height, uninspired, and at its worse, unbelievably boring.

Maybe someone will create some decent gameplay and then build a game around it someday soon. Sid has done it quite a few times. Just because Jeff Briggs is not capable of such work doesn't mean we won't have anything to look forward to. We just need to be prepared to wait a few years or five.

The fact is that game makers can't live forever on past laurels.

=DrJambo= · August 7, 2002, 07:12

i sometimes wonder why Coracle even bothers hanging around a forum for a game he seems to despise so much?!

why don't you find something better to do with your time?

dunk · August 7, 2002, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
(I had modded the game so I wasn't restricted by Firaxis' stupid unit values and too few units, but tanks were still the best time to attack then).

I wonder what this means. Methinks his game has been modded out of balance.

Nym · August 7, 2002, 09:42

Just a question, which I think is related to this thread : does the AI upgrade units? I really wonder when I attack remaining bowmen during modern age.

lockstep · August 7, 2002, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Nym
Just a question, which I think is related to this thread : does the AI upgrade units? I really wonder when I attack remaining bowmen during modern age.

If you play the standard version of Civ3, bowmen can only be upgraded to longbowmen, and even the AI seems to know that the money for the upgrade would be wasted in this case.

player1 · August 7, 2002, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
i sometimes wonder why Coracle even bothers hanging around a forum for a game he seems to despise so much?!

why don't you find something better to do with your time?

He can't.
He is still playing Civ3.

How elese he would have "up to date" bashing info?

P.S.
Anway, if Civ3 AI is "braindead", then try higher diffculty level.
AI cheats can increase challanging factor and fun in that case.

JohnM2433 · August 7, 2002, 21:56

Well, I personally think the game is fun, or at least incredibly addictive. I haven't played enought to learn all of the AI's tricks yet, though. When and if that happens, the game will lose a lot of its charm.

But by then Play the World will be out, with multiplayer. That will be the real fun.

player1 · August 8, 2002, 03:26

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnM2433
But by then Play the World will be out, with multiplayer. That will be the real fun.

Indeed.