Impossible to play

[element|Z]

I tried to play on hardest levle of the game.. DAMN.. by the time I build my first city and my first NEW settler the other Civs have allready gotten 3-4 cities EACH... Is it possible?!
I mean, By the time I had 4 cities, the other civ's had 8-9 cities, all begining wonders have been compleated and biggest city was size 8!!!
Now, how the hell is this possible? I mean, I know I ain't good players, but hell, it's impossible to play even if you are the best CIV3 player out there on hardest levle..

 

[Blitz_1]

i think on Monarch and above computers get "bonuses" or in other words they cheat, since comps are not smart as humans.

 

[WarandPeace]

"since comps are not smart as humans."

I think that's just an excuse to pump AI up for their deficiencies.
Usually speaking, AI is the most important element of the single player game, and to cheat that makes it not just difficult but depression to play.

I don't believe the game-makers paid enough attention and spent nearly enough time developing the AI system than they did with making gaming graphics and interface, which unlike AI, gets dull after a while.

 

[Suvorov]

Warandpeace: Please provide the class with an example of an AI in a strategic game that is up to your high standards and doesn't cheat. Please, in your wisdom, advise the Firaxis programmers on the marvellous AI routines you have developed that put theirs to shame. They might even employ you!

Damn, it's not like making a true artificial intelligence is HARD or anything - I mean Skynet came on line in '98 or so didn't it?

 

[ACM]

hehe skynet, T2 rocks !
to the poster: to be honest I don't see any validity in your complaint. If it's too hard to play at deity for you (it certainly is for me), just take it easy and play at a lower diff. That's why they are called difficulty levels, you know.

 

[WarandPeace]

"Warandpeace: Please provide the class with an example of an AI in a strategic game that is up to your high standards and doesn't cheat. Please, in your wisdom, advise the Firaxis programmers on the marvellous AI routines you have developed that put theirs to shame. They might even employ you! "

I never wanted to create any smart AIs.
I wanted to be hired by any gaming company. This is not a class.

But, that doesn't mean I don't have any comment or complaints --even though much have already been discussed.

AI is half, if not more, of the game in any single player game.
I don't believe you can honesty say to yourself, after spending the money and all that time waiting, that the AI in Civ3 is better than the AI in Civ2. Excuse me if you've never played Civ2, but let me tell you, I have and I don't see much difference. Making an AI maybe as tough as rocket science, I don't know, but I do except, as a customer, some progress in the product after 6 years of development.

Now, if this was a furniture, or something non-technological, then I might be content with what little change there has been through time. But the last time I checked we're in the 21st century and computers and computer-related products are soaring into new heights by the day. Technology is moving so fast that we are left simply amazed; and the gaming industry is no different. If you don't believe me, go check out some other games besides Civ3.

However, I am, at the least, a grateful man to be able to play this Civ. Being that I've played Civ2 for many years and developed a sense of kinship with the game, as I'm sure some of you have too. Nevertheless, if this game had its release without the overshadowing presence of Civ2, I would think it couldn't have done as well.

 

[Suvorov]

I can't believe you said with a straight face that the AI in Civ2 was on par with that in Civ3.

I have checked out other games besides Civ3. And believe me, the AI usually sucks, and usually (in games like C&C) it has the advantage of having its bases already built and therefore having half its job done for it by a human.

Technology has advanced, yes, but do not expect Civ3 programmers to have reproduced the human brain in the past 3 years.

I guess you're one of those glass half empty people.... it's not what the game has done, it's judged by how much it has failed to live up to the unrealistic expectations you have created in the intervening three years.

You are not what we economists would call an Enlightened Consumer. You judge the product not by comparing it to what is available, but according to your lofty estimates of what you think it should be.

 

[FullofHoles]

Realistically, Suvorov, making a BETTER AI would not be difficult. Making a TRULY GREAT AI might be beyond the scope of a gaming company at this time, but making a better one would not be.

When I was playing Civ, (the original Civ), I put together a list of simple changes that would have improved the AI.

I will grant you that AI is the weakest link in many games, but that is not SOLELY because it is difficult. Reasonably good AI takes TIME to develop, but really does not require TECHNOLOGY. A programmer who develops AI has to be good at the game as well as understand programming and that takes time. A good graphics man, on the other hand, doesn't even have to see the game. Graphics can be done SIMULTANEOUSLY with gameplay but AI has to be done AFTER gameplay is pretty much completed.

 

[FullofHoles]

Example of good AI in a strategy game? Try Jagged Alliance 2: Unfinished Business. I did not think much of the GAME JA2UB, but the AI is pretty good. (And god knows, Sir-Tech certainly had the TIME since JA2 fans had to wait for YEARS for this rather anemic addition to the worthy and reputable JA2 license to come out.)

Also, Colonization had good AI in comparison to Sid Meier's other games. One of the things that the computer opponents did correctly in Colonization was to only attack with OVERWHELMING force. None of this "we declare war TODAY and then take 5-15 turns to reach you" stuff. In Colonization you would see a Spanish ship approaching your coastline one on turn and NEXT TURN there would be a dozen Spanish cavalry and a declaration of war on your doorstep.

 

[WarandPeace]

This is fun, and I appreciate your feedback. Let me try and answer some of your comments

"I can't believe you said with a straight face that the AI in Civ2 was on par with that in Civ3. "

Why not, could you say it the differ?

"I have checked out other games besides Civ3. And believe me, the AI usually sucks, and usually (in games like C&C) it has the advantage of having its bases already built and therefore having half its job done for it by a human. "

I too have played C&C, which installment were u referring to? The first C&C was decent, Red Alert had its fame, but the rest after that was really terrible. As I remember, C&C was fun because you could play with vs another human player, but playing against its AI was only to past time with and not really any fun, for me at least.

"Technology has advanced, yes, but do not expect Civ3 programmers to have reproduced the human brain in the past 3 years. "

... I think you're being over dramatic.


"I guess you're one of those glass half empty people.... it's not what the game has done, it's judged by how much it has failed to live up to the unrealistic expectations you have created in the intervening three years. "

Hmm, actually I just speak my mind, and tell truth where I see it.
Btw, why are you keep repeating 3 years, and how do you know how long I've hoped for this game? If you meant the years it took to make the game, it would be 7 and maybe more.

"You are not what we economists would call an Enlightened Consumer. You judge the product not by comparing it to what is available, but according to your lofty estimates of what you think it should be."

Yeah, okay. Getting back to the point here... Let me tell you, whom seems to be very satisfied with the AI of this game, that this is really not that big of deal, to me, but crucial to the game, especial one that depends on its AI for playability. Just think about it, its like chess, what happens when the computer game of chess starts to cheat because the better players are fed up with the game cause it's too easy?

Well, no, Civ3 is not chess, it is a lot more complex of a game. But, seeing the reason of the game is its AI vs player concept, Sid and the boys at the company "should" have made it a priority.
But, sadly, they did not; they took the old Civ2 gaming engine and slapped in Civ3 after making some insignificant changes.

Now, there has been few speaking out against some of the game's follies, like me for one. But I still play it. Even though its not as I had excepted. Maybe that's good, gives me time to stop playing and use that time to do other things.

 

[Mithrandir]

I believe it's almost impossible to create a AI that can even come close at defeating a devoted civ player.
Just a few years ago they managed to make a computer which was able to defeat Kasparov in chess.
And it's clear that civIII is a much more complicated game than chess. There are many more dicisions (i know it's wrong spelled) to be made in civ and each dicision has more possibility's.
So if you are able to make a better AI, it take's too much time to calculate all the possiblity's. The game becomes to slow then.

 

[WarandPeace]

"I believe it's almost impossible to create a AI that can even come close at defeating a devoted civ player."

Agreed whole-heartedly. It would be great if someone could make it, as it would push the gaming world to its next level. But we're not asking or even hoping for anything close to that.

Let's say, a perfect AI, who can defeat a skilled player is 10. Then what we have now would be a 5, since it needs to cheat shamelessly to even catch up to a player in not high difficulty.

 

[Hommer]

If you want to play in Civ-like game in real multiplayer (without any AI), try E-Civ (see chapter Other games, topic Civ PBEM)).

And in Civ3 we can only see the beaty of 3D-models... But strategy of opponent is absent.

 

[jim1013]

Human players can learn, therefore with practice i think eventually the AI will almost always become beatable.

However what would be a truly cool feature would be an option (since many would find this too hard and annoying!!!), to have the AI either mimic the human players it's up against and/or "learn" from its own strategy. I'm not exactly sure how this could be done, although:

It would have to create a log so that it could determine what the human player did (that worked assuming human player won)

Also which strategies the computer used which worked.. The computer would need to develop "random strategies" and it could then rate them compared to how well/poorly it fared in the game.
It would then mix and match those that went well in a sort of "evolutionary way". It might be necessary for it to be trained against other ordinary AIs

Obviously it would have to improve from game to game, although it might be possible for it to improve in some things during the game

 

[element|Z]

Ok.. first of all, my primary question was not if A.I. cheats or not. That is more or less unimportant. Whats important is, that there is NO WAY of beating him on hardest levle of the game.

jim1013 says: "Human players can learn, therefore with practice i think eventually the AI will almost always become beatable."

In this case, you would have to practice like whole day for several years and ****. You would eventually need to understand the A.I. system in CIV 3 to beat it.

What I wanna know, have anybody here played on hardest levle of the game and accually managed to even follow the other civs in science, Mil, World map, Coulture etc?

 

[Cerryl]

The AI in Civ 2 was very passive compared to this game. This game, it will plop down a settler in unmarked territory very quickly. It hoards units before it attacks.

In CIV 2, the AI was lazy about expanding, would send 1-2 units at a time to a quick death.

Also, with zones of control removed, you can't just pin them in anymore, it's tough

 

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Mithrandir
And it's clear that civIII is a much more complicated game than chess. There are many more dicisions (i know it's wrong spelled) to be made in civ and each dicision has more possibility's.

What!!!!
Each move in chess is full of nigh-infinite possibilities and the best human players think up to ten moves ahead, with all the possible combinations of each before deciding to make their own move. In Civ, the human player will not worry about what the AI is doing until it encounters it. The Civ AI will not have to make as many calculations per turn as even the lowest level of computer chess program, even when there are 16 civs on a massive map, all moving their units at once. The reason that it took so long for humans to build Deep Blue and its successors is that it is very difficult for a computer to consider the various options to make a move. And Deep Blue wasn't laptop-sized either. If you don't believe me, try playing the AI at http://www.postcardchess.com/. Even though I'm not good enough to bother playing in the chess forum, I can beat the computer here after a couple of games. It is damned hard to make a good AI for chess, and people have been trying for far longer than since Civ came out.
To return to the original question, why don't you just stop whining about the strength of the AI and then go back and play at a lower level until you have mastered some strategies that you believe can be transferred to higher difficulty levels?

 

[tdp020]

I looked in on the chat with the AI guy from Firaxis. His comment was that nobody at Firaxis had beaten the AI on diety level yet. Seems to me that the whole point in difficulty levels is to offer a variety of challenges to all the different users, ranging from easy to almost impossible, so that the most people can find something that interests them. I always start on a fairly easy level to get the hang of the game, and then move up until I am challenged but not frustrated. I feel no need to stroke my ego by beating it at the highest level, I just try to always enjoy the game.

tdp

 

[Dragonsfire]

My 2 cents

I also have had this problem on Monarchy level. I am new to the Civ games (Sierra follower), but I try and popout Setlers as fast as i can (15 moves), but i am lucky if I can get 12 cities planted anyware were their is free space without exploring, before another county has me boxed in. Before I even have the last setler planted, some county already has a boat. I have always laged behind from the other Countries. It has gotten to the point were unless i find out how to get ahead, I will be shelving the game. Played about 15 games so far.

DF

 

[CoolLizy]

It used to be Civers complained about the game being too easy on the hardest level, now it's the other way around, it seems. Good grief! Just drop down to the monarch level and be happy.