Is the AI insane

terveurn said:

How does Sweden with 2 cities and no oil end up with 2 aircraft and 2 tanks ?

Click to expand...

I haven't ever heard anybody say that AI civs can't buy resources such as oil from other civs, or get them from alliances with city states...

vahe said:

My 3 Artilleries and one tank CANNOT kill an enemy infantry which is located (not fortified) on an empty hill on MY territory!!!! I have +15% ATTACK BONUS, plus +10% adjustent unit attack bonus. My each Artillery does 8-7 damage only!!! Tank does 15-20 damage, GETS 30.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed ad nauseum...Artillery is a SEIGE unit and was nerfed with the Fall patch. You need ranged units. Artillery will decimate a city but they're largely ineffective against units. If you're bringing that much firepower the infantry has terrain modifier and is racking up exp to use for healing or promos. My experience has been tanks are largely ineffective, Modern Armor is a different story. What bonuses does it show the Infantry getting? in the Attack Preview?

Am I crazy for thinking it makes perfect sense for the AI to hate you more if you wipe a race off the planet ::cough:: native americans ::cough::, rather than leave them with a tiny plot of land/island?

I think it makes a huge difference in terms of the psyche of the leader/country and how much I would trust the guy. It's the same reason you get a nice bonus for liberating a civ. Competitively speaking, that civ is never going to win the game (just like the civ you've all but finished off except for one last city). But in both cases, liberating a civ and leaving a civ w/ one small city, you've effectively traded a city for niceness points in the world. It doesn't matter competitively, but there's diplomatic value in keeping a player in the game, as there is in real life, and as there should be.

There's a reason Palestine, Kurdistan, Tibet, etc all want their tiny pieces of land. It matters. Can you imagine how much global favor China would win if it "liberated" Tibet?

fatboris said:

What bonuses does it show the Infantry getting? in the Attack Preview?

Click to expand...

Yep, that's the key- when Teuvren showed a pic of the bonuses on the Infantry unit he was trying to kill with his artillery, it was like a rap sheet that almost disappeared off the bottom of the chart. And being an Ethiopian unit in its own territory didn't hurt its defense, either. Was like a gaggle of girlscouts trying to take out a pro linebacker in full gear. What kind of tank he's got is important, too. A WWI tank is weak against Infantry, but a WWII tank would usually make a good dent in it.

adwcta said:

Am I crazy for thinking it makes perfect sense for the AI to hate you more if you wipe a race off the planet ::cough:: native americans ::cough::, rather than leave them with a tiny plot of land/island?

I think it makes a huge difference in terms of the psyche of the leader/country and how much I would trust the guy. It's the same reason you get a nice bonus for liberating a civ. Competitively speaking, that civ is never going to win the game (just like the civ you've all but finished off except for one last city). But in both cases, liberating a civ and leaving a civ w/ one small city, you've effectively traded a city for niceness points in the world. It doesn't matter competitively, but there's diplomatic value in keeping a player in the game, as there is in real life, and as there should be.

There's a reason Palestine, Kurdistan, Tibet, etc all want their tiny pieces of land. It matters. Can you imagine how much global favor China would win if it "liberated" Tibet?

Click to expand...

As in most things civ-related, real life doesn't make a perfect analogy to the ingame diplomacy. Real world diplomacy has an infinite amount of nuance and subtlety and differing outcomes depending on the countries involved and their leadership. In CiV, it's all conglomerated into a quite limited one-result-fits-all mess. Things the repressive Chinese oligarchy/police-state government have to consider, beyond whatever international +diplo they might win from freeing Tibet, is the affect that show of 'weakness' would have on the large number of other restive minority populations which make up that huge and diverse country- Gorbachev + breakup of the soviet empire, anyone? China's leaders fear their own people first and foremost, and aren't about to free anyone, any time soon.

Smokeybear said:

And being an Ethiopian unit in its own territory didn't hurt its defense, either.

Click to expand...

I HATE Ethiopia. I have them for the first time in a game. We're pretty even techwise. Just as I DoW'd, Ottomas DoW'd me. I didn't know the Etiopian bonus so I puppeted Istanbul. That put me at 4 cities, Ethiopia at 3...then it got real. I'm not a man to cry but watching your Crossbows get picked off by waves of Chariot Archers? Yeah, I cried a little, so what!

Smokeybear said:

As in most things civ-related, real life doesn't make a perfect analogy to the ingame diplomacy. Real world diplomacy has an infinite amount of nuance and subtlety and differing outcomes depending on the countries involved and their leadership. In CiV, it's all conglomerated into a quite limited one-result-fits-all mess. Things the repressive Chinese oligarchy/police-state government have to consider, beyond whatever international +diplo they might win from freeing Tibet, is the affect that show of 'weakness' would have on the large number of other restive minority populations which make up that huge and diverse country- Gorbachev + breakup of the soviet empire, anyone? China's leaders fear their own people first and foremost, and aren't about to free anyone, any time soon.

Click to expand...

I wait for the day when games make a diplomacy and AI this complex. And not just the Chinese, but our Western societies Leaders too who have their own fears about their peoples.

One thing for sure, they wouldn`t so easily give away thier cities for peace.

Socratatus said:

And not just the Chinese, but our Western societies Leaders too who have their own fears about their peoples.

Click to expand...

Yep. Voters can be a fickle lot.

"Is the AI insane"

Yes. End of discussion

terveurn said:

Maybe you should propose your services to Firaxis if you can code some better AI Don't want to be mean, but so many people complain about poor AI while they could not code a tic-tac-too AI ( i couldn't code a tic-tac-too AI either so don't feel insulted)


Bob: been programming since computers were breadboard and every-time you wanted to print you had to hardwire the board (and it was a 18" x 18" pin board) - I remember when PASCAL was new and BASIC got everyone excited. I remember when getting a computer was ordering a kit and putting it together. And yeah, I can program a game of tic-tac-toe as well as Wumpus (I can also upgrade Windows by myself).

Do not know how long you have been around, but some of use old people still like to get out of the old folks home and play games (if that's OK with you kindergarteners).

* * *

azzaman - I thought resistance was futile ??

* * *

So I guess the motto is to encapsulate (or isolate) one city for each AI....

Click to expand...

Knows how to program, apparently since the Computer Stone Age. Doesn't know how to click a quote button.

Oh hey I can snipe too :F

Aaron90495 said:

"Is the AI insane"

Yes. End of discussion

Click to expand...

Yep it is insane.

Irkalla said:

Knows how to program, apparently since the Computer Stone Age. Doesn't know how to click a quote button.

Oh hey I can snipe too :F

Click to expand...

Yeah I can use the Quote button - it would help that in these holiday colors it can be hard to see

However, I was raised with manners and not some arrogant smart ass...

fatboris said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum...Artillery is a SEIGE unit and was nerfed with the Fall patch. You need ranged units. Artillery will decimate a city but they're largely ineffective against units. If you're bringing that much firepower the infantry has terrain modifier and is racking up exp to use for healing or promos. My experience has been tanks are largely ineffective, Modern Armor is a different story. What bonuses does it show the Infantry getting? in the Attack Preview?

Click to expand...

Well in my case, I had the high ground, I held the low ground, I was in my own territory, I had units in a city, I had units in forts, I had units in citadels and yet, nothing.......

Maybe getting tired of hearing this, but when artillery (and cannons) are only programmed for one use only (instead of being firepower based) kinda make them useless to haul around until you decide to do some door knocking.

Same thing with destroyers - in Civ2 any naval unit could do land bombardment (like real life) in Civ5 only battleships - that sucks.

And talking about Naval units, it sucks that the programmers of Civ V took away letting your early ships explore away from the coast line (before navigation). In C2 you took a chance that you ship would sink - but every so often, you would find another shore - in C5 the programmers put you on a leash and tell you you can not explore.

you guys need better war strategies, for experienced player handling 2-3 war at once even against deity AI still manageable.

terveurn said:

Maybe getting tired of hearing this, but when artillery (and cannons) are only programmed for one use only (instead of being firepower based) kinda make them useless to haul around until you decide to do some door knocking.

Click to expand...

They used to be firepower-based, and the game was worse for it, so it was changed. Still, one poster in your other thread discussed how they can still have some use in anti-unit work (assuming one's not behind in tech and facing heavy negative modifiers).

Also, probably the most important comment in that thread was DaveMcW's (as usual): the thing that caused your most agonized disbelief - the lack of even a scratch on the enemy unit - was probably an insta-heal promotion, earned by all the XP from surviving the not-very-damaging rounds from your artillery. So game-rules-wise, the "without a dent" aspect is quite explainable. Believability-wise, see below.

I actually came here for this:

Same thing with destroyers - in Civ2 any naval unit could do land bombardment (like real life) in Civ5 only battleships - that sucks.

And talking about Naval units, it sucks that the programmers of Civ V took away letting your early ships explore away from the coast line (before navigation). In C2 you took a chance that you ship would sink - but every so often, you would find another shore - in C5 the programmers put you on a leash and tell you you can not explore.

Click to expand...

(like real life)

Click to expand...

Civilization is not actually a simulation game (if it were, it would probably be a lot less popular), and the only realism that's important in it is the amount needed to maintain suspension of disbelief. What's important for suspension of disbelief varies from person to person, though there are trends. Meanwhile, there are also other considerations, such as experienced players not ripping the top-level AI a new one too easily.

Personally I find limitations as to which boats can shell the coast less damaging to disbelief than civilization-level (not individuals-level) transoceanic settling by a civ without transoceanic navigation. And the AI was always very bad at measuring the cost/benefit of suicide ships. (Actually I'm pretty sure it never took the risk at all in either I or II, but it's been too long for me to remember with certainty. Yes, I played them, much too much.) Sure, you could teach it, but I think sometimes as a game developer it's better to have rules more teachable to an AI, than spending a large part of your limited development resources on teaching the AI something complicated.

One last thing - over my years of following this forum, I have seen no end of diametrically-opposed suggestions and complaints - people bitterly angry that the game doesn't do something, and later, other people bitterly angry when the game DOES start doing that exact same thing. So the developers literally can't please everyone, can't meet everyone's picture of how the game "should" or worse yet "must" be. Please try to have some sympathy for them when they run into one of your "must-bes" or "mustn't-bes"!

terveurn said:

Bob: been programming since computers were breadboard and every-time you wanted to print you had to hardwire the board (and it was a 18" x 18" pin board)
(if that's OK with you kindergarteners).

Click to expand...

You did realize that the quote you answered was not directed at you, didn't you?
As for the kindergarteners statement, i havn't hard-wired any part but i learned informatics at school on a C64 computer. InkJet printers were top of the luxury when i bought my first PC, and floppy discs were still protected by cardboard sleeves
Calling an AI "insane" doesn't really lead people to think you are an experianced programmer.
End of the off topic discussion for me.

kaspergm said:

Ok, maybe coding was a bad choice of word. I should have said game design.
That being said, my point still stands. I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't do the coding, but after all, the code only does what the game designer wants it to do (unless it's bugged of course, but that's not what we're discussing here)

Click to expand...

Well, the code does what the programmer was able to code in order to simulate what the designer had in mind. At least when we are talking about such a complex code. Decision making never was a computer's strenght.
I'm not telling the design is flawless. It does have large flaws from my p.o.v. (other people might disagree), but i would bet the designers had some very good ideas that ended up working badly when the code turned them into 0s and 1s for the CPU to process.
But yes, diplomatic penalities are a bad design from many players P.o.V. (including myself) Fortunately, it's one that can be "fixed" with mods without being a programmer.

Making the AI "understand" long term consequences is a different subject