civ 3 is not a fair and good game

[jobuck]

I play the best I can with this game.
I'm definitely unhappy !!!!!!

- Advanced army unit loose against primitive warrior.
- Cultural and science discovery as well as territory covering is always bigger for others
- Sometime barbarian are coming at 5 or 6
- and so



I control myself to not say too much bad things here, because I know their a lot of peoples who like this game.

But you know, you can say what you want about the strategy, I don't believe my stategy (as it could be in a real life) is necessary a bad strategy.

I think that if you want win with this game, you have to understand the civ 3 strategy, and then you have some chances.

That's why, civ3 is not a good game for me !
I'm really fed up spending hours of my day off and nights to loose either close to the victory or after hours trying to build something (or 15 min. only after having started a new game, because 2 or 3 countries has decide to do war with me despite commercial exchange).

And why can I not request mutual agreement to protect each others when I have open an embassy ?

Also too much time, others countries don't want take part to a conflict I have with some others countries.

Yeah, angry that's the word.



NOTE:

For me a good strategy game is a game you can predict.
It seems that with civ3, there is something like more high is your player level, more small is the probability for you that most of warrior will loose against the other.
That's not something fair.
I can accept that if the level is high, the probability to be agressed by others is more high for e.g., but not that I have a less bonus at the start of the game, neither my chance of victory doing war with others is more small if we have the same army.
This are tooooooo much easy programing technics that will not convince peoples who like faire battles and want to build real strategy, and not just play with probabilities.

I don't want to have to be "civ3 certified" to get a chance to win !!!

[player1]

If game is difficult for you, play on easier level.

Some higher levels are supposed to be fun only for those who find lower levels easy.

[Spiffor]

If you want to play in absolute fairness, play at Regent difficulty. This way, the AI will have no advantage whatsoever on you, nor the opposite. You will only do a battle of wits against the AI, and your victory or your loss will only be explained by your skill.

It seems that with civ3, there is something like more high is your player level, more small is the probability for you that most of warrior will loose against the other.

It seems so, but it isn't so. The difficulty level is not present in the combat resolution formula.
Except when it comes to Barbarians. At chieftain level, your troops have huge bonuses when fighting Barbs, and at the deity level, Barbarian troops fight as well as if they belonged to another Civ (i.e no combat bonuses).
When you are engaging a foreign unit, the calculations are exactly the same for your unit and for its.

- Cultural and science discovery as well as territory covering is always bigger for others

Did you stop playing at monarch level ? Please remember that at higher levels, even the most experienced players have trouble keeping up with the AI at the beginning of the game.

I think that if you want win with this game, you have to understand the civ 3 strategy, and then you have some chances.

I don't really understand this point... Do you complain because you can't use a real life strategy in Civ ?

or 15 min. only after having started a new game, because 2 or 3 countries has decide to do war with me despite commercial exchange

I have never, ever, been ganged up on that early, even when I was a rookie. What are you precisely doing this first 15 minutes ? Do you leave your cities wholly undefended ? (and even that won't do the trick : the AI very rarely attacks before the end of the settlement phase)

And why can I not request mutual agreement to protect each others when I have open an embassy ?

Because you have not discovered nationalism yet. Nationalism give a few new diplomatic options, Mutual Protection Pact is one of them.

Also too much time, others countries don't want take part to a conflict I have with some others countries.

When they feel it is too risky, or they have good deals to lose, or you'll betray them, I don't see the problem. If you're the weakest, be aware the AI will be against you.
Civ is about realpolitics, and there are no heroic 'white knight' to help you / save you in times of trouble. There are only crows that want to eat a bit of your corpse before the others.


As a conclusion, it is normal for the game to be 'unfair' at higher difficulty level, because the AI doesn't get smarter past regent difficulty. Regent offers you the smartest AI the game can offer, and the only way for this game to be more difficult past regent is to give bonuses to the AI.
Yes, it is sad, but an artificial intelligence is extremely hard to design properly, and the work that has been made so far for Civ3 is better than in any other game I've seen .

[Chemical Ollie]

Eat and die...

[jobuck]

spiffor:

It seems so, but it isn't so.

well well well

I don't really understand this point... Do you complain because you can't use a real life strategy in Civ ?

I mean, to get a chance to win, you have to understand how civ works. That's not a natural approach for me.
I believe that the civ' ai is supposed to copy the human way of think. And it is not to the player to understand how work the civ' ai to be able to work.

You know, just after my post, I try again to play cool and good. But again it's not fair. Let say I have a army unit of the type A fighting an army unit of type B.
Let say A loose against B. Where is the logic if now I fight with B on my side against A on the other side and if I loose as well ???

I have never, ever, been ganged up on that early, even when I was a rookie.

Okay, let say 20 min. This happen each time my army get only warrior and when I'm either building very much cities against the others, or when I get some cultural impact (e.g. colosse + grand phare).

When they feel it is too risky, or they have good deals to lose, or you'll betray them, I don't see the problem.

1) Imagine their is two medium power, and one big power. If the two medium power think like you say, then they will not react if one or the other is attacked right ? So because they have a smaller power than the bifg one, they will loose ok ? Then what. After winning the war, the big power can fight the other medium one.
So in such case, it is obvious that the it is in the interest of the two medium power to fight again the big one.
Now at the begining of the game, you get often such situation (let say in the first hour). In my last game, I only know 2 others countries. One was more strong than me. But the other one were at the same level.
I ask him to fight again the big one and he refused.
And accordingly to the graph showing the power, his "power width" plus mine were more large than the big power. So what now ? After the big power will have put me out of the game, virtually, it will be the round of the other.
And this remember me again that if your country is too big (the other are limited in their expansion because you, they will start a war against you). That's what happen in the example above. And it was at the "start" of the game.

Yes, it is sad, but an artificial intelligence is extremely hard to design properly, and the work that has been made so far for Civ3 is better than in any other game I've seen .

I agree that design such ai is not an easy job.
In the other side, that doesn't mean it's a good one or a fair one. I don't feel more the level is high, more the ai is strong as with a chess game.
I have the feeling that more the level is high, more your chance too loose is high because the others nation have more power in an unfair way: they "born like that", and they have a higher probability to win if both side present the same warrior.
That's not ai for me.

[jobuck]

I just want to add something regarding the ai' design.
If I were involved in the development of the ai, I would not do my design testing too much the parameters of the others nation *as it seems to be the case* and take some actions accordingly.
For eg NationXPower = w1*n1 + .. + wn*nN
where wX is the weight of the army of a certain type (more height is the weight, more powerfull is this unit) and nX is the number of elements of this unit,
Then doing something like:
if (myNationPower > nationXPower && nationXPower.isBad()) {
attack();
}
I mean, I would no only perform such test.
I will instead try to found some models.
Let say 5 models, corresponding to 5 levels of difficulties.
The highest level corresponding to the more complexe model. The lowest one to the easiest model.

Then I'll design a neural network and run it billion of time taking in input some parameter of the model.
The neural network weights and offset being adjusted to converge to a victory.
Then, I will use the weight found by this network to ponderate the "litteral approach" initially described.

I don't want here to show my science you know.
But if you speak ai, you could speak neural networks.
That something well known now since years, and lot of simulator already exist in the market.

Now, also, how could I know if the civ ai doesn't integrate such approach ?
I don't now. But the result is not impressive as we could be using such technologies.

[Spiffor]

Sure, the AI could be better, but be aware it has been designed by about one person (Soren Johnson) who had limited time and limited budget to make it understand all the features of the game.
When I compare to past games I've played, whether TBS or RTS, I'm baffled by the result

And besides, I'd assume the attack formula is more complex, because I very often am in peace with the world despite having a weaker army. I get attacked at some point, but not before enjoying a long period of peace.

[Louis XXIV]

Do you check the unit stats?

Warriors have a 1.1.1 (that is their attack, defense, and movement). That is all self explanitory. The attack is the strength of the unit when attacking. The Defense is the strength of a unit defending. And the movement is how many squares they move in a turn. The terrain a unit is on imroves the chances of defense. Then it is put through a formula. A=Attack, D=Modified Defense (uses terrain, city, walls, and fortification to improve the defense).

The formula is A/(A+D)

If you use a warrior and a warrior you have slightly less then a 50% chance of winning the battle, if they attack you, they do to. If you fortify the unit it improves greatly as well.
Attack a Spearman (1.2.1) with a warrior and you have closer to a 33% chance of winning.
However, if you attack a Spearman with a Spearman you still have the same odds (Spearmen and Warriors have the same attack)

Re: Game difficulties (anyone who wants to fill in details, please do)

In cheiften, it takes them 1.5 times as long to do everything. Happiness is really easy to deal with early in the game

In Warlord it takes them 1.2 times as long. Happiness is more fair

In Regent everything is equal. You have to know at least the strategies the AI knows to keep up. You can probably do better.

In Monarch, it takes the AI .8 times to finish things (they work faster). Happy citizens are harder to get

In Diety (I need the details, but I think) the AI starts with a TON of units (including an extra settler). Happy Citizens? You wish

The AI has an attitude level. If you do certain things, they'll like you better or hate you worse. If you are weak, they'll declare war on you (many players would do the same to the AI)

[jobuck]

Louis XXIV :

hmm... okay
This is very interesting.
I have to confess that I didn't had really take care of these A.D.M parameters.
I have to try playing the game taking that stuff in consideration.

Thank's. You mark for me a point in favor of civ3.

[Spiffor]

I have the feeling that more the level is high, more your chance too loose is high because the others nation have more power in an unfair way: they "born like that", and they have a higher probability to win if both side present the same warrior.

This is exactly the case. The AI gets smarter only until Regent level. Regent is its best intelligence. Since Soren couldn't develop an AI that matches human intelligence, the only thing he could do for experienced players looking for a challenge was to give unfair bonuses to the AI. Monarch, Emperor and Deity are difficulty levels where the AI plays unfair. Yet, none of this unfairness affects combat prowess of units (except Barbarians).

You know, just after my post, I try again to play cool and good. But again it's not fair. Let say I have a army unit of the type A fighting an army unit of type B.
Let say A loose against B. Where is the logic if now I fight with B on my side against A on the other side and if I loose as well ???

Good Luck or bad luck. Civ isn't Chess, and there is no such thing as a knight who will automatically win against a pikeman, or the other way around. Since tactical battles cannot be done in Civ, the only way to show the aleas of battle is trough random numbers. Of course, a stronger unit sees his chances to win much bigger, but no unit is 100% sure to win, ever.

However, if you want to reduce the importance of luck in the game, I suggest you do like me :
- save civ.bic (or .bix if you play PtW) in another folder
- go to the editor
- edit Civ3.bic / .bix
- edit the rules, go to the "combat experience" tab
- Give twice as many hitpoints to every experience level. Flukes will be much less significant from now on.

Okay, let say 20 min. This happen each time my army get only warrior and when I'm either building very much cities against the others, or when I get some cultural impact (e.g. colosse + grand phare).

Ah yes, I almost never build early wonders, because I prefer focusing on expansion at that time. Remember that unprotected cities are bait to the AI, even if they are deep within your empire, and even if the AI should not know about it (because it knows about it).
A spearman in every city, at this stage of the game, would deter any minor attack. However, you should have a good protection in your capitol and in other wonder cities. If the AI sees it can grab a wonder without effort, it'll become extremely agressive immediately. Actually, I would do the same too

Imagine their is two medium power, and one big power. If the two medium power think like you say, then they will not react if one or the other is attacked right ? So because they have a smaller power than the bifg one, they will loose ok ? Then what. After winning the war, the big power can fight the other medium one

If I remember Machiavelli's The Prince correctly, your neighbour would be well advised to attack you to gain your power while your armies are busy at the other side of your country. That's the best way to become powerful with little cost for the upcoming war against your first agressor
But if you want alliances, one tech or two would be enough. If you manage to discover a tech sooner than anyone else (a tech nobody has picked yet), you'll make several allies. Don't hesitate to ally with everybody you can : if anything, it'll prevent them to ally with your enemy

[Inverse Icarus]

[Dominae]

Originally posted by jobuck
I mean, I would no only perform such test.
I will instead try to found some models.
Let say 5 models, corresponding to 5 levels of difficulties.
The highest level corresponding to the more complexe model. The lowest one to the easiest model.

Then I'll design a neural network and run it billion of time taking in input some parameter of the model.
The neural network weights and offset being adjusted to converge to a victory.
Then, I will use the weight found by this network to ponderate the "litteral approach" initially described.

Please elaborate.

It's easy to say: "just apply neural nets and the AI will be better". It's quite another to actually do the work. If you know about neural nets, you know that: 1) the problem of "playing Civ3" is fiendishly difficult to set up (what are your inputs...cities, units, techs, improvements, commerce, everything?), and 2) it would take almost forever for the neural net to find a "good solution" (corresponding to a playable AI), if all you want to ship with the product is one gigantic net. And if you want to break the problem apart and send multiple nets (for instance, one for "combat", one for "research"...not that any of this makes sense), you're avoiding the problem, because those sub-problems are themselves fiendishly difficult, and there appears the problem of re-integrating the the results of each sub-problem.

It took two guys about the same time it took Civ3's AI programmer (Soren) to come up with a neural net player for Checkers, including all the months the program just sat there alone, churning out weights and more weights. Now consider how much more complex Civ3 is compared to Checkers.

Hand-waiving and muttering "neural nets" is not valid argument against Civ3's AI.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by jobuck
I play the best I can with this game.
For me a good strategy game is a game you can predict.

Many games that involve strategy also involve a degree of luck/randomness. Take almost any card game, for instance.

This are tooooooo much easy programing technics that will not convince peoples who like faire battles and want to build real strategy, and not just play with probabilities.

So, the people who are good at Civ3 are just "lucky" then, since it's all just "playing with probabilies"?

I don't want to have to be "civ3 certified" to get a chance to win !!!

You want to win at Civ3 without being good at Civ3? Sounds to me like you want the game to be more random. Are Chess Grand Masters "Chess certified"?


Dominae

[jobuck]

Dominae, spiffor:

You made some interesting comments.
But it 5am here. Will reply tomorrow.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by jobuck
Dominae, spiffor:

You made some interesting comments.
But it 5am here. Will reply tomorrow.

Civ3 kept you up until the wee hours of the morning?




Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by jobuck
hmm... okay
This is very interesting.
I have to confess that I didn't had really take care of these A.D.M parameters.
I have to try playing the game taking that stuff in consideration.

Everyone has their own tastes and Civ 3 won't be for everyone. But it would seem a shame to throw out a game that many, many people find enjoyable simply because of some early frustration -- otherwise you may miss something you will come to really enjoy once you understand it, and you presumably wasted your money (assuming you bought the game).

Those "A.D.M. parameters" are absolutely fundamental to understanding how combat works in Civ 3. If you're playing the game with no concept of how A.D.M affects what happens within the game, it's probably a pretty safe bet that you don't yet understand any of the dozens (hundreds?) of other important gameplay concepts. From your posts, it sounds to me like you could quite easily decide that the card game Bridge is stupid, unfair, and not a good game . . . because you wouldn't bother to pay attention to those funny pictures, colors, and letters / numbers on the cards and their impact on the game, and can't understand why you keep losing.

I'm not trying to hit you over the head, but Civ 3 is not a simple, straightforward game. If you don't make a minimal effort to try and understand some of the very basics of how the game works, you're doomed to frustration (and deserve it too!).

Catt

[Louis XXIV]

Basically, Civ3 is a strategy game.

Every unit has a role.

I'll try suggesting a few tips (keep in mind, I'm no expert)

When you start with a Civ, you get a settler, a worker, and (if you're expansionist) a Scout.

Each square around you has 3 things:
Food (When your cities "Food box" fills up, your population will grow)

Shields (When you build a unit, it requires shields. If a unit requires 10 cost, like a warrior, it will require 10 shields to be built)

Commerce (Commerce increases the amount of money you have. It is important to invest this money in science. In the Domestic advisor, you can invest up to 100% of your money into science. This might be advisable, because it will give you techs quicker. If your citizens become unhappy, you can put that money into luxuries)

You probably know about exploration, since you played. Units with 2 moves move faster. however, mountains, hills, forests, and jungles slow down this movement. If you go on a hill or mountain, you get to see further.

Now a little more complicated strategy.

Early in the game, the more food you have, the better. You want that food box to fill so you get more population. When you get a second person, you get to put him on another square, and get more food, shields, and commerce. When you get to about 3 or 4 people. Build a settler. This will remove 2 of those people, but give you another city. This city will allow you to build more units, and get tech faster.

Workers improve the terrain and make it more productive. Roads make units move faster and add extra commerce to the tile you're working. Irrigation allows extra food, mining gives you shields.

I could go into much more detail, but that's what the manual, civlopedia, and just playing the game is for. If you ask, I (or somebody better at the game) will give plenty of tips

Here's a discription of the units. All units have their stats written as cost (in shields), attack, defense, and movement

Settler 30 0.0.1 You use these to build cities. If enemy units attack them, they capture them. You can do the same.

Worker 10 0.0.1 Improve the terrain. They can be captured

Scout 10 0.0.2 fast unit available to expansionist civs. Can be captured

Warrior 10 1.1.1 cheap scout early in the game. Not good for defeating anything but other warriors

spearman 20 1.2.1 the ideal defender. It has the best defense of any unit, and has a fairly cheap cost.

Archer 20 2.1.1 cheap cost, but poor defense make this unit "OK"
Its real advantage comes with the fact that it, like spearmen and warriors, requires no resources (see swordsman)

Swordsman 30 3.2.1 expensive for the early part of the game (downright cheap compared to later units) swordsman have the best attack and defense of any unit. However, they don't get produced as quick. They also require iron to build. This means that you can't build them without a road connecting the iron resource to your city.

Chariot 20 1.1.2 As you might see. this unit isn't good at attacking spearmen (what most cities will have). It is quicker than other units, but it requires "Horses" to build. Horses work like iron. If attacked, it has a chance to retreat before being destroyed

Horsemen 30 2.1.2 although this unit has less attack then a swordsmen, many people prefer it, because of its speed. It also requires Horses

Catapult 20 0.0.1 This unit is a special unit with a "bombard" feature. Instead of attacking units, it bombards them (use the "B' key). It can't take damage, but it will only do 1 hit point of damage (It has a 4 bombard, meaning it will have a 4/(4+D) chance of winning. If it is a spearmen defending, it has a 4/6 or 2/3 chance of doing 1 damage out of 3, 4, or 5. Bombard will never destroy a unit. This has its advantages, but catapults aren't the best bombard unit) It can be captured, so keep a unit with it

That is all the info you need about units, until you enter the Middle Ages.

Hope that helps

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Eat and die...

that is not very nice...

cheers

[Tiberius]

jobuck, you should definitely spend a few hours reading, a few hours that will save you a lot more hours of frustration. Civ3 is a great game and if you have spent already lots of hours playing it, you would probably love it, once you catch its little "secrets".

Here's the link:
"Must Read" threads for newer players / posters

There is nothing to read there , but a bunch of links to other threads, in different categories, written by expert civ players, advices of what, how and when to do, etc.
The info is priceless and you can't find it in manuals. For example:
Winning Early: What do YOU do?
or Civ choice for early warmongering
or Civ choice for the "builder"
or Combat System Explained
and a lot lot more.

One more thing. You said that a good strategy game is a game you can predict. Then think a little bit: a good strategy means that you plan a campaign, prepare for it and then accomplish it (like capturing that strategic city over there, near the iron resource). Strategy is not about winning or losing a battle, but about winning the war. Sh*t sometimes happen, just like in real life. This game is a recreation of human history, and just like in real life, a knight not always defeats a pikeman. There are tons of other factors that can (and did) change the outcome of a battle: terrain, supply lines, courage, morale, determination (like somebody defending his own homeland, correct?), leaders, tactics, etc. However the civ that has the best military, the best developed infrastructure, most friends and allies, control over resources, best strategy and tactics, best leaders and highly traines soldiers, etc; well, generally wins (the war).

[nbarclay]

jobuck, are you talking about a genetic algorithm type of approach? Even with infinite computing resources, almost all the testing would have to be done AI vs. AI because games against human players take so long. And AIs that do fantastic against other AIs might have fatal weaknesses that human players could identify and exploit to win relatively easily.

Further, Firaxis's computing resources are far from infinite. At one second per turn, averaging 300 turns per game, games would average five minutes each. Even if we assume 1000 games per computer per day (a little over three times that rate), and 100 computers running for 100 days, that's only ten million test runs. By genetic algorithm standards, with as many "genes" as it would take to represent a Civ 3 strategy, that's a joke. The only way it even might be possible to get adequate computing power would be with a SETI@home type arrangement, and I'm skeptical that even that would be enough for more than minor refinements with how complex Civ is.

Then there's the problem of figuring out how to define your "genes." A given civ's strategy at any given point in the game needs to be based on the status of the other civs in the game, especially its neighbors. How do you define "genes" with enough complexity to represent that, and how do you make an evolutionary process work on such "genes"? I suspect that answering those questions would take more time than it took to develop the Civ 3 AI - and would be far more likely to result in failure.

And as if that weren't enough, Firaxis is not a scientific establishment that's purpose is to provide the most effective AI players possible. Rather, it is a commercial game company with the mission of producing a game that is as much fun as possible for as wide a range of players as possible. Thus, AIs have to be optimized not just for their effectiveness in winning but also for how much fun they are to play against for various types of players.

It's interesting to contemplate how a company with infinite resources might tackle the problem of developing a first-class Civ AI. But the reality is that Firaxis had to deal with designing an AI using limited manpower and limited computing power in a limited amount of time. They're a commercial company, and past a certian point, investing more resources in the AI just to win a tiny handful of additional sales is a losing proposition for them.

Maybe someday competition, advances in computing power, and advances in AI technology will converge to produce AIs that can compete with the best human players on even terms in games as complex as Civ. But for the time being, we have to settle for rules that give AIs built-in advantages on higher difficulty levels to compensate for their inferior strategy.

Nathan

[Panag]

hi ,

if it aint a fair or good game the move on and buy something else , .......

have a nice day

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
jobuck, are you talking about a genetic algorithm type of approach?

Actually, I'm the one that threw the genetic algorithm idea into the discussion, with my example of the Checkers player (the name eludes me right now). But the point remains, namely that learning algorithms are pretty tough to implement for something like Civ3.

You could avoid genetic algorithms by defining an extremely complex evaluation function for each turn (or each component of each turn). Doing this, and getting it just right, would be a mammoth task, definitely far more complex than jobuck's simple example (wx1+wx2+...).

Further, Firaxis's computing resources are far from infinite. At one second per turn, averaging 300 turns per game, games would average five minutes each.

Actually, they could probably reduce the time-per-turn considerably (much less than one second). But again, the point remains: it would take much too long for the program to learn anything.

They're a commercial company, and past a certian point, investing more resources in the AI just to win a tiny handful of additional sales is a losing proposition for them.

I agree. To be the World Champion in Chess, you'll probably have to resort some esotoric algorithms and computing. Just to get to the same level of competence as the Civ3 has now would require a huge initial investment if neural nets were used. Why go through all that, when 99% of Civ3 players get a run for their money with an AI constructed by (more or less) one person?

Maybe someday competition, advances in computing power, and advances in AI technology will converge to produce AIs that can compete with the best human players on even terms in games as complex as Civ. But for the time being, we have to settle for rules that give AIs built-in advantages on higher difficulty levels to compensate for their inferior strategy.

Actually, I believe that without resorting to learning methods, it should at present be possible to design a Civ3 AI that trounces human players. It's just that a small gaming company like Firaxis will not come up with such an AI (nor would they, or any other company, want to afford to). It's a cost/benefit issue, pure and simple.


Dominae

[jobuck]

Hi nbarclay, Dominae

I don't know how much familar your are with neural network, but if you are the following models are useful to assist a decision:
retropropagation, boltzman or kohonen

Such model are particulary useful in such situations:
- the rules that could allow to solve a problem are unknow or very hard to formalize.
- we have some example of input and ouput that the model should provide (the output being given by some subject matter expert)
- the problem can change with the time (e.g. the initial condition)
- the problem request high speed of treatment

So, this seems to me to fit with the problem of creating an ai.
And as I mention, it is just here to assit, not to provide THE solution.

jobuck's simple example (wx1+wx2+...).

There is a missunderstanding here about what I say, as it is compared against genetic algorithms.

But the dummy "formula" above have nothing to to with ai. So their is no needs to compare it against it.
But if we take a look to some expression of the kohonen model, we have something like Mi(t) = Mj(t-1) + a(t) * [E(t) -Mj(t-1)] - formula updating the weights
This is still a linear equation, easy to compute (even if a high volume of iteration is needed)
That's why I say above that such model can be used when "the problem request high speed of treatment".

So how to integrate neural network into ai ?

The *spontaneous* idea was to first define a model, providing the input. The hard-coded ai then provide the neural network with such value and ponderate his decision with the result he get.

What is important here, is that the neural network (NN) don't was to simulate the whole strategy of the game.
We can have for e.g. one NN who simulate the trading, one other that simulate the fighting and so.
We can imagine also another model who take as input the result of the previous model, and so on until get a orientation for the next step to play.

Another point is that we can imagine model that anticipate 1, 2,3,5 or the 10 next "move".
But at each turn, the prediction restart with the "current state" of the game.

Anyway, that was a spontaneous idea.
It comes to my mind because I used such model years ago. And as mentioned, NN may solve complex problem (such as produce weather forecast).

I don't know if you remember in the 80's when the japanese were arguing that before the year 2000, they will have produce the first intelligent computer, able to communicate with human.
Despite the high level of technology that master the japanese, that still not the case today.
And it's a very complex problem that no one have some today.
But one way that produce the "less bad" result in may domain is the NN.
I was supposing he could have a role to play in such game.
This need to be investigated to provide a better "feasibility" answer.
But that's just a suggestion.
As this domain insterest me, I would perhaps try to work on that.
But don't worry. If I get at the end only 50% of the capacity of civ3, I ll already be happy.
Now my comments regarding civ are at another level, more general.

[jobuck]

panag:
Please do not come with political pix here, or choose another thread than my post.
Because sharon is definitely not a clean guy for me.

[Panag]

Originally posted by jobuck
panag:
Please do not come with political pix here, or choose another thread than my post.
Because sharon is definitely not a clean guy for me.

thats apolyton jobuck , .....


are you going to complain about everyones avatar that you dont like at poly , .... good luck

[jobuck]

panag,

it's up to you to keep it as your avatar, as it's up to me to comment it.
If that's apolyton then take my comment as apolyton as well.

Note:
I have nothing against the people this guy represent.
But as a bloody settler, that guy don't have my respect.
I don't care on who care about my opinion; again, I express it freely, that's it.

[Sirotnikov]

jobuck,

Wish to come to the Off Topic and debate about the supposed bloodiness and settlement activity of Sharon?

[/shameless plug]

ON TOPIC:

Things just cost too damn much. I rarely rushed cmopared to Civ II. And diplomacy is waaay too costly. Not as costly as espionage though.

It's cheaper to either buy the tech, or build and army, and conquer a city, than it is to steal a tech

[jobuck]

King,

I don't want debate this point.
The only opinion I agree to express about this is
I respect your avatar and your flag.
Final point.

[Cruddy]

Just to add 1 point Jobuck - about trading with other Civs.

If you want military alliance (or anything else the Civ has like a new technology) better to put it on the table and ask other Civ what they want for it.

Sometimes they will say no deal at all - very rare they will want nothing for the swap either.

Usually you have to pay other Civs for alliance (it costs money to fight wars). You can also trade techs, and luxuries, and strategics. Making other Civs your friends is not easy - but making them your enemy is easy.

Actions you do can make other Civs annoyed or Furious - more likely to declare war on you.

I would not say Civ3 is not fair or a bad game - but it takes many lost games to understand your bad play.

I've played it for over a year, and there are still many things I am not good at.

Don't let Panag upset you. He will bump any thread with a silly comment because he is like that.

I must admit, I have also done this sometimes!

[TOUGHUSAGUY]

LIFE AINT FAIR! GET USED TO IT PEOPLE!

ABOUT SHARON?? I SUPPORT HIM ALL THE WAY! GO GET THE SAND **** AND GIVE ALL THE THEM WHAT THEY DESERVE! WAR OT TERROR MEANS IT LIKE THIS !

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!

Added later by Ming... And another DL bites the dust