Absolutely no balance at all !?!?

[Flower]

Dear Scotty,
Civilization III is already a great game and will stay forever a great game. I think it is balanced because when we talk about game balance we talk about units, city improvements, wonders. The only thing I would change in this game is the combat system because I don't like seeing my tank losing to rifleman or swordsman . The AI is something else, you cannot balance it. Maybe you can program a better AI but it will never beat a human being under the same conditions. Comparing chess with Civilization is a mistake. For example, there are 64 squares on a chessboard and in Civilization on a standard map there are thousands of it. In chess, the squares in the middle are the better for your pieces (there are 4 of them), in Civilization you have many terrain types that can be good or worse depending on many other factors. Chess has not change since it was created whereas Civilization always evolve a little bit when another game of the series arrives on the market. Finally, chess programs are very strong these days but they still have many holes to fill. You often see a top player like Kasparov or Kramnik beating the crap out of it in a closed game. Chess programs also benefit a lot from openings in chess (a pure sequence of moves that you can learn easily by memorizing it) because if you would make it play Fischer Random Chess and always mix the start of the pieces it would get crush game after game. In Civilization, the pieces are always mix at the start of the game and you have now 31 sets of pieces in the Conquests expansion whereas chess has only 2 sets of pieces and they are the same except that White has the initiative at the start at the game.

Best regards,
Flower

 

[ScottyPip0]

I didn't describe an AI that would look ahead and determine the outcome like the chessmaster AI. I am describing AI that would purely learn from mistakes. Say you get the game out of the box, and you play it a few times and the AI does some of the worst mistakes, but that's okay because your new to the game and it doesn't really matter. But over time, the AI slowly works out the best ways to increase it's value and grow. So it learns how to play the game by losing it.

What I am describing is AI similar to Black and White, where you could teach your creature how to do set things. You could write a few set things into the code, so the AI isn't completely bumbeling over itself, but after that it could have the ability to write it's own tactics and abilities.

Perhaps it's pie in the sky, but then again there are plenty of good examples of AI that work. One of the best examples of AI that I know used to kick my butt would be the AI from starcraft. I used to play the AI at the hardest level, and it was impossible. You'd take one tactic, and the computer would always counter it. First time I went straight into a growth tactic, and it stormed in with 10 monsters and blew the base to shreds. Then I started again and made my defences strong concentrating on nothing but a huge army, and it flew in with planes.

 

[Paradigne]

IMO the best they could do is come up with set tactics for each cultural setting. For example, expansionists should concentrate on building settlers, and expanding. Militaristic would be more interested in conquering cities then growing their own, Scientific would be more peaceful to anyone who had a tech lead or were close to their tech, trying to trade for anything they didn't have etc etc

 

[JackRules]

I think Dreamvirus hit the nail on the head...I think the reason so many people in this thread have pointed out AI stupidity is due in large part to the "brain" of the CIV Fanatics community. While there have been a few visionary players (SirPleb, Bamspeedy, et. al.), nearly all of us have learned from each other's mistakes. Even the best players have learned from others from time to time. One player figures out how to build a Settler Factory and a week later hundreds know how to do it. Another player figures out the Funnel of Doom and pretty soon we all use that strat. Imagine if each and every CIV player had learned the game in a vacuum, with no ability to learn from other players. I dare say the average CIV player would still be struggling on Regent or Monarch, and SID would be unbeaten. Certainly there are flaws with the AI that could (and should) be addressed. But the reality is, it is a dozen (or whatever) CIV AI programers trying to outwit the collective experiences of thousands of human players. That is alot to ask, IMHO.

 

[warpstorm]

But the reality is, it is a dozen (or whatever) CIV AI programers trying to outwit the collective experiences of thousands of human players.

A dozen? One part time AI programmer (he had other major duties at the time).

 

[Flower]

Dear Scotty,
I don't want to offend you but the AI from starcraft is a bad example of working AI because it gets crush by the average starcraft player that plays on Battle.net. As far as I'm concern, I can guarantee you that I can beat this AI in a 1vs3 computers on the hardest difficulty level, on lost temple map. Those AI from Blizzards games (Starcraft, Warcraft & expansions) are maybe some kind of improvement but they still can't compete with an experienced player because they always play the same strategic plan and use poor tactics. Finally, I think that you can't compare these AI because it's not the same type of game, one is a RTS while Civilization is a turn-based strategy game.

Best regards,
Flower

 

[ukrneal]

Funnel of Doom? What's that?

A little contrarian, but I like the micro-managing and think the military part is too important. OR at least, there are not enough consequences to going to war.

 

[widdowmaker]

A computer will NEVER be as good at ANYTHING as a human will. Humans can adapt, AI can not. Computers are based on math and can not do anytthing without a cuase, there is no "just make somthing up".

TO explain this beter, a computer can not make a random number. The RNG of Civ is good, but if it is left going long enough (making numbers, let say 1-100) a pattern WILL be evident after enough times. Nothing is random with AI or computers. And like it was said, the AI of Chessmaster is good because chess is a mathmatical probability you can break down into numbers and formulas. But it CAN be beaten, if it is the "Chessmaster" game seris then i have personaly beaten it on the hardest difficulty.

It was hard, but its not impossible. I belive that game took me several weeks, i tried every possible move and counter move on paper first. But then again, im not a grandmaster.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Face it - the Civ3 AI is an absolute masterpiece. Soren did a tremendous job here.
Especially since it's not a beefed-up Civ2 AI, but a new concept.

Surprisingly, outside the die-hard community Civ3 is widely considered as the strategy game with the by far best AI.

I do, however, completely agree that certain elements (many of them added later) are not implemented properly: The AI doesn't understand 20k and Victory Point Victories, and is not trying to compete here with the human.
But for me, that's about it.

 

[warpstorm]

In addition chess programs start by playing a set of opening gambits from a selection of tried and ture openings that thousands of people have hundreds of years to hone.

In Civ3 Soren was building the AI as the rules were changing and there were no expert players yet. While doing this he had to program quite a bit of the game itself.

 

[Mr. Do]

Civ 3 AI an "absolute masterpiece"? I guess it depends no your standards, but calling the AI a masterpiece is about as realistic an opinion as calling the graphics from Alpha Centauri the best thing since sliced bread. The AI programmer may have done an absolutely masterful job with the time and resources available to him, but come on, the AI is not very good, but still able to put up a contest with humans to a reasonable extent.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Civ 3 AI an "absolute masterpiece"? I guess it depends no your standards,

No, it does not depend on my standards. Please name any game of comparable complexity with an AI even remotely as capable as the Civ3 one.

 

[Mr. Do]

Yes, it does depend on your personal standards, as you gave an opinion, and I trust that you're not the type of person who decides that his own opinions are concrete fact.

I have not played that many turn-based games that are as complex as Civ 3, so I cannot really answer. That's a bit of a loaded question, as Civ 3 is THE turn-based game I play right now, and it's unlikely that I'd have either played a more complex game before Civ 3 was released, or that I'd be able to play another similar game to the depth that I have played Civ 3 since. I'd like to give Lords of the Realm 3 a try, if it's still mostly turn-based. I can think of many real-time where the AI does not consistently act as stupid as the AI in Civ 3, from the first RTS games I've played (C&C: RA, Total Annihilation etc.) to the more advanced ones.

Not that it really matters, as "masterpiece" means that it is the pinnacle in of itself, and without comparison. Even if there are no games with better AI (which I doubt), that doesn't mean the AI in this game is any better for it. That's like congratulating BMX XXX because no other game has captured the naked bike riding genre as well as it has. You can appreciate the skill that went into coding the AI in Civ 3, as I have done, but that does not make it a masterpiece.

 

[warpstorm]

LOTR3 has given up it's TBS roots entirely. It is an RTS now and a mediocre one at best.

RTS AI is generally weaker than TBS AI (including the ones you mentioned). They make up for it by being able to micromanage much faster than you can and not forgetting about units or buildings.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I must second Warp here. RTS AI are simply no match for Civ3.

But the Civ3 AI is already 3 or 4 years old, and still nothing else is even in sight - I think that shows that 'masterpiece' isn't that far off

And sorry, after reading again I think I may have sounded a bit rude.
(Note I *do* think my personal opinion is a matter of fact, I'm just too polite to say that )

 

[microbe]

You are kidding right?

First, you know what A stands for in AI, right? So what's a "True" AI?

Second, AI doesn't mean "no priori knowledge". Do you believe in chess the AI is "true"? There are always certain rules to start with.

Third, there is no point in talking about "fairness". It's a game. If you constantly win at one level, move it up, even if it's not "fair". We are playing for fun, not for some championship against the poor AI.

Fourth, again, it's just a game. It's not a DoD sponsored research project. So the AI is not really the best of the time, so what? I can understand how expensive building a "true" AI would be, if at all possible, in a game sold at only 10 bucks.

As for the AI, it is terribly flawed not because of programming, but because it's filled with boundaries and it cannot learn. True AI would start off just randomly doing anything at all with absolutely no concept, and would assess the results and slowly build up an idea of the best way to achieve a set goal. Because the programmers have made the AI with set patterns of code already, there is no learning at all.

 

[widdowmaker]

Just thought of somthing else. Even IF we had "true" AI and they ddi things rondomnly, it would make the game easier. TO make it harder you have them evaluate the map, lay cities according to OCP is possible, if not the ctttc is ok. Then have them choose what they think is the easiet goal giving the map layout. And then have them run a stratagey to win that goal asap.

 

[Mr. Do]

I must second Warp here. RTS AI are simply no match for Civ3.

But the Civ3 AI is already 3 or 4 years old, and still nothing else is even in sight - I think that shows that 'masterpiece' isn't that far off

And sorry, after reading again I think I may have sounded a bit rude.
(Note I *do* think my personal opinion is a matter of fact, I'm just too polite to say that )

Okay, RTS AI probably isn't technically better than Civ 3, but one thing I am quite certain of is that it masks it pretty well! Also you can't scrutinise RTS AI as deeply as you can with turn-based games, where you can consider the actions taken far mor deeply. Finally I think I am thinking of missions against AI, where the programmers can use their own tricks and triggers to make the AI seem like it's making smart tactical decisions, when it's just doing what it's told.

And don't worry, you didn't sound rude, you just weren't pulling any punches- and nor do you have to

 

[Longasc]

The problem is, the AI is not smart.

But it does quite well - there are not many decent strategy / RTS games with a good AI.

I personally doubt that we will get a really better AI for Civ4. Civ is a complex game, too complex for a set of rules or pre-programmed behaviours.

I do not think Firaxis can program a true AI.


I would rather have them fix the bugs they left in Civ3: Complete. Didn't I mention this some time ago?

 

[warpstorm]

Okay, RTS AI probably isn't technically better than Civ 3, but one thing I am quite certain of is that it masks it pretty well! Also you can't scrutinise RTS AI as deeply as you can with turn-based games, where you can consider the actions taken far mor deeply. Finally I think I am thinking of missions against AI, where the programmers can use their own tricks and triggers to make the AI seem like it's making smart tactical decisions, when it's just doing what it's told.

Well, it does mask it. In C&C:Generals which I'm most familiar with the scripting of, for example, the scenario designer has to layout exactly what to build under what situations and where to group the units, when to send out the units and the exact path that they will follow. While this gives the appearance of knowing what it is doing it is entirely scripted (even the skirmishes). This approach won't work for Civ because it needs to understand how to analyze a map which is entirely in the hands of the scenario designer not the AI in C&C.