Civ3 Cheating AI totally ruins the game.
- Thread starter ^Requiem^
- Start date
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
Dont know his name...jeff morris or so i think
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Originally posted by stormbind
Are you judging others?
I never mentioned ANY names
Anyone who wishs to attribute my words to themselves has only themselves to blame
I know I'm like 13 years late for this forum, but I found it, so others probably will too.
Civ III AI DOES CHEAT
I've been playing this game for something like 15 years. I have racked up over 3000 hours of game time. And this game cheats, cheats, god damn cheats. It knows maps, it knows resources before they drop, it knows what units you have in your cities from the very start of the game and all throughout the game (no espionage). Worse still, the original poster is correct. I have seen AI successfully kill a infantry with a level 1 warrior many times. I have seen my ARMIES of cavalry defended by two or three spear men. I have seen AI make a beeline for a city that was heavily defended for over 20 turns then just as I move my armies out, there they appear (no espionage). I've seen AI beat battleships with frigates. I've seen one AI destroyer take out a fleet of bombers. I've seen AI take out one of my cities with a single unit, only to have that city defended by that same unit and three or four defenders the next turn without any transports docking in, any airports, or any access at all. These units just appear. The game cheats.
I love this game. I obvious have some kind of obsession with it. But it cheats beyond doubt and beyond its allowances from about monarch level and up, BADLY! When I play at high level, I send in 40+ cavalry or tanks or whatever to take out one city. I have to.
The higher you go up in difficulty the more AI strategises against you. AI will research a different tech each, then share all techs with each other and refuse you. So for every tech you complete, AI is completing three or four depending on how many comp players are in the game.
I have always had this issue with the game. It is MASSIVELY, unfairly titled in favour of the AI. It always has been.
Civ III AI DOES CHEAT
I've been playing this game for something like 15 years. I have racked up over 3000 hours of game time. And this game cheats, cheats, god damn cheats. It knows maps, it knows resources before they drop, it knows what units you have in your cities from the very start of the game and all throughout the game (no espionage). Worse still, the original poster is correct. I have seen AI successfully kill a infantry with a level 1 warrior many times. I have seen my ARMIES of cavalry defended by two or three spear men. I have seen AI make a beeline for a city that was heavily defended for over 20 turns then just as I move my armies out, there they appear (no espionage). I've seen AI beat battleships with frigates. I've seen one AI destroyer take out a fleet of bombers. I've seen AI take out one of my cities with a single unit, only to have that city defended by that same unit and three or four defenders the next turn without any transports docking in, any airports, or any access at all. These units just appear. The game cheats.
I love this game. I obvious have some kind of obsession with it. But it cheats beyond doubt and beyond its allowances from about monarch level and up, BADLY! When I play at high level, I send in 40+ cavalry or tanks or whatever to take out one city. I have to.
The higher you go up in difficulty the more AI strategises against you. AI will research a different tech each, then share all techs with each other and refuse you. So for every tech you complete, AI is completing three or four depending on how many comp players are in the game.
I have always had this issue with the game. It is MASSIVELY, unfairly titled in favour of the AI. It always has been.
Last edited:
robbus
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 208
dear art3sian... what is highest level you defeated AI? I won twice at monarch so levelled up... Got SMOKED on first emperor game.
currently on my second.
Here is my interpretation of alleged requiem attack... I think he is a troll. (see screenshot)
BTW I defeated this attack with a combo of bombers and infantry defending my only supply of saltpeter.
This was a pretty fun game and this was the turning point.
currently on my second.
Here is my interpretation of alleged requiem attack... I think he is a troll. (see screenshot)
BTW I defeated this attack with a combo of bombers and infantry defending my only supply of saltpeter.
This was a pretty fun game and this was the turning point.
Rickard1977
Chieftain
Even if i do not for a second believe that a warrior and an archer defeated 17 cavalry I know what you mean!
The only way to get somwhere in Civ3, even on warlord-level, is to only procuce military units, settlers and workers in the beginning, because that is what Al does. No early wonders! During the time you spend a lot of turns building a wonder, Al produces 100s of military units. When you first see another Civ on the same continent, attack them as fast as possible and defeat them by producing a lot of units. If you let them grow, you will never be able to destroy them later on. And you must have iron and salpeter, because you cannot win a battle even with hordes of archers, horsemen and spearmen.
The only way to get somwhere in Civ3, even on warlord-level, is to only procuce military units, settlers and workers in the beginning, because that is what Al does. No early wonders! During the time you spend a lot of turns building a wonder, Al produces 100s of military units. When you first see another Civ on the same continent, attack them as fast as possible and defeat them by producing a lot of units. If you let them grow, you will never be able to destroy them later on. And you must have iron and salpeter, because you cannot win a battle even with hordes of archers, horsemen and spearmen.
Its is quite possibly to win the game with only one city, in that case building lots of wonders is a necessity. Still not building wonders early on is usually the best procedure.
Usually it is quite possible to defeat AI later on, on some occations that is actually better than attacking them early. Resources are of course of some relevance, but the combination of longbowmen and trebuchets can crack anything AI will produce. Artillery increases the fighting efficiency to levels that negate the advantages AI enjoys.
The AI is allowed to know the map from the start. This is well known as was done to make the pathing less onerous. It also knows the location of all resources that are on the map at the start. It can see in your cities, so it knows what you have there. This is not what I would call a cheat. That is due to the fact you know the rules to start. If the rules changed during the game, that would be cheating. In any event this is easily over come, at least up to deity. Harder at deity and sid, but doable.
The AI is pathetic at war, so that is the easiest way to win. It is well known that you can early game rush the ai at most levels and there is a vid of it at deity, when that was the highest level. I have read of all sorts of battles won or lost with crazy odds, but stuff happens. I have lost a tank to a spear, not in a long time. I even once came close to losing a MA army to a spear or pike in an SG, where one could expect that army to easily kill infantry. Sort of like a lotto, the number can come up, just not expected.
I have posted a number of times the chart for the levels and they can be found in the editor. Regent is the level where no bonus is given to the player nor the AI. Beyond that level the AI get some bonus, more as the level increases. Ship battles are the worse IMO, just expect bad results. Though destroyers and up rarely lose to lessor units. Frigates can lose to anything, go figure. Stop fighting with individual units in C3C at the stage where you could be using armies. Armies kill and the Ai does not use them.
This is how I beat sid games. Though I must confess, I have never sent 40 cavs or tanks and not taking my objective vs same area units. I would not send cavs against mechs, I should have armies for that. I would dislike to use cavs on even infantry as they will lose too often. I would suggest you read a few of the better SG games and see how things can be done. They are great reads and there is a pinned list of the best ones.
ThERat
Deity
As far as my experience tells me, besides knowing the map and getting production boni (+extra settlers on higher levels), the AI does not cheat during battles. The odd results you get are affecting both you and AI. It is the skewed perception of humans that make us think, we are always on the receiving end.
You can win even Sid if you know how to use armies (and are lucky enough to survive the start and get generals).
You can win even Sid if you know how to use armies (and are lucky enough to survive the start and get generals).
It's more likely people such as yourself have the natural skewed perception because you can't imagine how any potential fix could be coded into the game, you are told that everything is random and you believe it at face value when everyone knows that games tend to use all manner of cunning methods to 'help balance' the game.
Also, something I've noticed a lot from various strategy games from that era is that just enough normally equals fail. It would be quite a long and laborious task to prove with lots of video captures, but, for example, if your lone Regular Warrior scout is miles out and attacks a Barbarian Warrior then they are more likely to die than if you had a stack of two Regular Warriors, and then this will depend on whether there's a fork in the road, because if there's a fork then you'd want to keep both Warriors alive, so it's more likely to kill one of them. Likewise, if you send one Cavalry to kill one Spearman in a town then it'll probably fail, but if you had a stack of four it will probably win, but if it's the AI then your Regular Pikeman will probably more likely die to the lone enemy Cavalry.
Then there's little things, like your Scout finds a luxury while exploring and by the time you've got your Setller/Spearman combo out there a Barbarian Camp has appeared literally on the exact spot you were going to Settle. When you play as a Seafaring civ and you send out the tiny pre-Galley boats on suicide mission to find new land then if you have one left it is less likely to sink than if you have more than one, but that one will more likely sink upon being 1 turn away from land than it will be in the middle of the ocean.
I made a thread about it once, something along the lines of 'planned irritation', but was mostly mocked by "random perceptions etc" people, but the more you play the more you notice these little things and people such as yourself likely subconsciously compensate by never putting yourself in such situations, whereas people such as Art3sian are more naturally planning-gamblers and so notice it more.
There's a whole raft of these 'little things', too many to mention them all, and why I call them irritations rather than cheats. But play long enough and you'll notice some repetitive traits that go beyond 100% random.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,942
Hi Buttercup, are you aware, that THERat is one of the most prominent Civ 3 Succession Game-players and his more than 40 succession games count to be within the best documented Civ 3 games we have?
Here you can find them: https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/civ3-succession-games.67/
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,942
He played long enough
(and additionally you can use these tons of well documented games without taking "lots of video captures").Well... I've played long enough...
I have no idea how he played nor what his playstyle provides with regards to the things I notice with my playstyle. I have no interest in looking through his thousands of hours of gameplay to try and spot something I see every game, but you can do that if you like...?
I have no idea how he played nor what his playstyle provides with regards to the things I notice with my playstyle. I have no interest in looking through his thousands of hours of gameplay to try and spot something I see every game, but you can do that if you like...?
- You were probably not fighting one spearman, but several. (but that is not displayed.)
- You probably didn't bring any artillery (catapults/cannons/ships).
- You probably didn't maximize the rest of your odds by NOT attacking over a river, cities on a hill etc.
Tips:
Bring artillery/bombing ships.
Have a beach head city where you can heal injured units.
Don't attack over a river.
Bring artillery.
If you're planning to take on a metro (city 12+) starve the population by pillaging the irrigation.
Bring some but few defenders to defend versus counter attacks.
The AI doesn't cheat in combat, but it does know the odds.
- You probably didn't bring any artillery (catapults/cannons/ships).
- You probably didn't maximize the rest of your odds by NOT attacking over a river, cities on a hill etc.
Tips:
Bring artillery/bombing ships.
Have a beach head city where you can heal injured units.
Don't attack over a river.
Bring artillery.
If you're planning to take on a metro (city 12+) starve the population by pillaging the irrigation.
Bring some but few defenders to defend versus counter attacks.
The AI doesn't cheat in combat, but it does know the odds.
Kirejara
King
Victory against all odds can (and do) happens the other way around (meaning in favour of the player).
Otherwise my first elite carrier would not be possible even in a modded game: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/interesting-screenshots.192414/page-219#post-14279385
I mean what are the chances for a carrier with 4 defence points to defeat a submarine with 20 attack points without even getting a scratch in the paint?
Otherwise my first elite carrier would not be possible even in a modded game: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/interesting-screenshots.192414/page-219#post-14279385
I mean what are the chances for a carrier with 4 defence points to defeat a submarine with 20 attack points without even getting a scratch in the paint?
The main issue with this debate is that no-one knows what is going on under the hood of the game to state any kind of factual statement. Both sides are going by personal perception alone. With regards to combat no-one even knows whats happening when two units meet. How can anyone make a factual statement without knowing how combat is even calculated. Yes, there are combat calculators, but they were made using % stats garnered from 1000 units attacking 1000 units and then extrapolating an average which has zero baring to one-on-one encounters and could easily hide any instances of situational balancing, from which, modding up 1000 units to fight 1000 units likely doesn't even have any situational adjusters anyway if situational adjusters are even used.
No matter how you cut it, everyone agrees the combat results are regularly absurd, and its the absurdity which makes the experts addicted to bombardment, makes casual players rage and makes a mockery of regular common-sense based warfare (where, in ye olden days, catapults had virtually zero effect on an army of spearmen running at you and were mostly used for breaking down structures over long periods of time, where WW2 bombing raids barely ever killed entire platoons and mostly just destroyed buildings and civilians, but not 5-10% of civilians per run! etc etc etc) and also what makes Beyond Sid defeatable (so its no wonder players who play at those levels like the system more than those who play casually, even if its a stupid system factually). It's absurdity layered over absurdity and there's no reason to assume other absurdities aren't hidden in the code somewhere, no reason whatsoever.
But lets all just ignore the fact that there's no facts and all state our opinion as if it were fact, cos that's what people do on forums
No matter how you cut it, everyone agrees the combat results are regularly absurd, and its the absurdity which makes the experts addicted to bombardment, makes casual players rage and makes a mockery of regular common-sense based warfare (where, in ye olden days, catapults had virtually zero effect on an army of spearmen running at you and were mostly used for breaking down structures over long periods of time, where WW2 bombing raids barely ever killed entire platoons and mostly just destroyed buildings and civilians, but not 5-10% of civilians per run! etc etc etc) and also what makes Beyond Sid defeatable (so its no wonder players who play at those levels like the system more than those who play casually, even if its a stupid system factually). It's absurdity layered over absurdity and there's no reason to assume other absurdities aren't hidden in the code somewhere, no reason whatsoever.
But lets all just ignore the fact that there's no facts and all state our opinion as if it were fact, cos that's what people do on forums
vorlon_mi
Emperor
I would quibble with the notion that "there are no facts." Over the time that this game has been discussed on these forums, we have had posts from people who work at 2K, who could (and did) state what was going on in the game code. There are statements about combat in the early guides which are based on the game documentation. I will grant that sometimes the game documentation has errors, but it does exist. As patches were released, release notes were included that described bugs which were fixed.
Active contributors in these forums have also read and posted in forums hosted on the Firaxis and 2K web sites, and the knowledge has cross-pollinated. These "hard data" have been supplemented with "experiential data" from save games posted and succession games. I agree that your personal experiential data is different from mine, and is different from Theov or Civinator or vmxa. But for those contributors who *have* conducted tests using the editor to verify certain aspects of the game mechanics, I fail to see how their tests should be discounted out-of-hand.
I agree that the Civ3 combat mechanics are an approximation, and that they have certain aspects which don't align with real-world experience. I would make exactly the same argument for the Civ4 combat mechanics (suicide catapults, anyone?) and the Civ5 combat mechanics. I haven't played Civ6 yet. My own personal perception of fun (or irritation) is less affected by the specific mechanics and their fidelity to real life.
Active contributors in these forums have also read and posted in forums hosted on the Firaxis and 2K web sites, and the knowledge has cross-pollinated. These "hard data" have been supplemented with "experiential data" from save games posted and succession games. I agree that your personal experiential data is different from mine, and is different from Theov or Civinator or vmxa. But for those contributors who *have* conducted tests using the editor to verify certain aspects of the game mechanics, I fail to see how their tests should be discounted out-of-hand.
I agree that the Civ3 combat mechanics are an approximation, and that they have certain aspects which don't align with real-world experience. I would make exactly the same argument for the Civ4 combat mechanics (suicide catapults, anyone?) and the Civ5 combat mechanics. I haven't played Civ6 yet. My own personal perception of fun (or irritation) is less affected by the specific mechanics and their fidelity to real life.
