Are we looking at CiV's AI the wrong way?

[Peregrine]

No, you're not the only one who misses stacks/armies.

In Civ2, the problem was exemplified by this situation; a stack of 8 knights (4 attack/2 defense/2 movement) moves across a plains or grassland tile. It is attacked by a single Horseman (2 attack/1 defense/2 movement). The horseman unit wins and the entire stack of knights is killed. Unacceptably innacurate and entirely unrealistic. One of the elements in CIV that I was very happy to see was the implementation of dense stacking, where the loss of the single unit in the stack did not eliminate the entire army. Makes perfect sense historically as well. Try as I might, I just can't see Assurbanipal or Alexander or Trajan or Belisarius or William I or Gustavus Adolphus or Frederick the Great saying, "No, you guys have to move over into the next region, miles and miles from here, because if you stayed, well, it'd be violating the stacking limits. Sorry. Stay in touch." Prior to the Napoeonic era, armies combined all elements and moved as a unit, whether we are talking about the Roman Republic or the Mark of Brandenburg. 1upt isn't just a step backward, it's even WORSE than the problem w/Civ2. Poor handling, poor implementation, and apparently very little thought went into the 1upt design decision. It frankly seems like the spoiled indulgence of a rookie designer, an ego-centered decision to "do it my way" whether there is any merit there at all. Not historical. Not playable. Not AI-able. Not knowledgeable.

With every week that goes by, I am increasingly glad I refused to purchase the thing. It's a failure on sooooo many levels.

 

[testdummy653]

No, you're not the only one who misses stacks/armies.

In Civ2, the problem was exemplified by this situation; a stack of 8 knights (4 attack/2 defense/2 movement) moves across a plains or grassland tile. It is attacked by a single Horseman (2 attack/1 defense/2 movement). The horseman unit wins and the entire stack of knights is killed. Unacceptably innacurate and entirely unrealistic. One of the elements in CIV that I was very happy to see was the implementation of dense stacking, where the loss of the single unit in the stack did not eliminate the entire army. Makes perfect sense historically as well. Try as I might, I just can't see Assurbanipal or Alexander or Trajan or Belisarius or William I or Gustavus Adolphus or Frederick the Great saying, "No, you guys have to move over into the next region, miles and miles from here, because if you stayed, well, it'd be violating the stacking limits. Sorry. Stay in touch." Prior to the Napoeonic era, armies combined all elements and moved as a unit, whether we are talking about the Roman Republic or the Mark of Brandenburg. 1upt isn't just a step backward, it's even WORSE than the problem w/Civ2. Poor handling, poor implementation, and apparently very little thought went into the 1upt design decision. It frankly seems like the spoiled indulgence of a rookie designer, an ego-centered decision to "do it my way" whether there is any merit there at all. Not historical. Not playable. Not AI-able. Not knowledgeable.

With every week that goes by, I am increasingly glad I refused to purchase the thing. It's a failure on sooooo many levels.

One, off topic.
Two, Don't Complain if you haven't bought the game. Do you know what really sucks is eating spinach..... I don't have to eat it, and do you know what? I'm not gonna tell everyone how previous versions of lettuce are so much better.

"Not historical. Not playable. Not AI-able. Not knowledgeable." (hyperbole)

You don't own the game, you can't make that judgment.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

One, off topic.
Two, Don't Complain if you haven't bought the game. Do you know what really sucks is eating spinach..... I don't have to eat it, and do you know what? I'm not gonna tell everyone how previous versions of lettuce are so much better.

"Not historical. Not playable. Not AI-able. Not knowledgeable." (hyperbole)

You don't own the game, you can't make that judgment.

He just did make that judgment. Whether or not you can refute it seems to be the open question.

 

[testdummy653]

He just did make that judgment. Whether or not you can refute it seems to be the open question.

Its an opinion argument, i know where i stand, he know where he stands. I won't be able to be look at these features, and have him go wow.... he has already made his judgment, my point is that he should not be declaring a judgment on something he does not own or has experience first hand.

I do not have to refute his argument, because it neither based on fact nor fiction, its just a battle of preferences. Of course, i would point out that almost every game is un historical, and since i did play 210 hours now, i would say playable. Not ai-able nor is not- knowable make no sense.

Once again this is off the topic. I do not care if you think Civ 1 is better than CiV, unless you can somehow prove to me that is somehow related to the topic at hand, then i would love to hear it, until then focus on the AI.

 

[Jaycob]

"Not historical. Not playable. Not AI-able. Not knowledgeable." (hyperbole)

You don't own the game, you can't make that judgment.

And yet he is completely correct. I will grant you that games are unrealistic by nature and that it is not necessarily a bad thing, but for Civ- a game that represents itself as a historical adventure- this edition has certainly went off the deep end in that regard. You can't honestly tell me that the 1UPT is "AI-able" (that is, the AI handles 1UPT effectively). The fact that I can hold off two or three deity AIs with an army that is 1/8th each their sizes proves otherwise.

And it's really quite rude to tell someone they're off topic and then respond in a belittling and antagonistic manner. If it's off topic, then why are you responding?

 

[testdummy653]

And yet he is completely correct. I will grant you that games are unrealistic by nature and that it is not necessarily a bad thing, but for Civ- a game that represents itself as a historical adventure- this edition has certainly went off the deep end in that regard. You can't honestly tell me that the 1UPT is "AI-able" (that is, the AI handles 1UPT effectively). The fact that I can hold off two or three deity AIs with an army that is 1/8th each their sizes proves otherwise.

And it's really quite rude to tell someone they're off topic and then respond in a belittling and antagonistic manner. If it's off topic, then why are you responding?

Let me break down for you:

One, I never said that the AI was good at handling combat units. You missed my point. please reread my original post on my the original topic.

Two, AI-able is not a word. Another missed point.

Three, The part about spinach and lettuce (i had a rough day, and this was my attempt of a joke).

Four, Lecturing me on forum etiquette is appreciated, but i rather not have someone call my argument belittling, and rude, because i said something is off topic. What he was discussing had nothing to do with the Conquest AI syndrome. I only responded,(this is the same reason i respond to you) is that i hope that someone read this, and goes back on topic, to save my thread, help provide insight(good or bad) on my theory.

Four, This my contribution to off-topic thread that has started into my thread. I do not agree with someone who complains about something, that they (A) never tired for themselves, (B) played a demo and disliked (C) read some forum post/reviews and decided to complain.

Now I do have some flexibility on option (B) since it gives the user the best chance of insight into the game, but complain about the demo, not the game.

A real world example: I watch a movie trailer, and its look like a bad movie. I will say "This movie looks bad." I cannot say that the movie is bad, because i haven't watched it.
(Yes this example is lame.)

Five, Off topic again: Civ has never been historical game. Its based off history, and that is all (this is my opinion). If you want to discuss this point further, please see the historical immersion thread, and i will be happy to read your posts.

Edit: sorry, i forgot to link the thread for historical immersion thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390288

 

[Peregrine]

Whether or not my response is off topic isn't for you to decide. It's the mods' decision. Until I hear from them, in the words of the Scythian king to the Persian emissary, "go weep."

AI-able is a term I just coined. Guess what, Einstein; I can do that. Last time I looked, English was a living language. If you don't know what that means, look it up--I'm not getting paid to teach the uninformed. More to the point, the term was perfectly understood. Not just by you, but by others, and easily. Can you say "trivial criticism?" I suppose you'd point out spelling errors too. If there were any.

And if we want to point fingers about a lack of understanding, your "spinach analogy" was frankly incomprehensible. I read it three times before simply giving up. If you want to make a point, make a point--being clever isn't your strong suit.

What is the most laughable aspect of the whole silly business is the blithe assumption that I haven't played the game. Um. . . demo? Or how about . . . played it on a friend's machine. One who was naive enough to purchase the thing before trying the demo or reading serious criticism. Just because I haven't purchased it doesn't mean I haven't tried it on for size. Latest news; it don't fit. anywhere.

Yes, Civ IS an historical game. That someone could, in sane mind, deny this speaks of a variety of mild insanity to me. But that's just my opinion.

I sure CAN complain. If you don't like it, tough. Please whine some more about it. It's mildly entertaining.

I don't own the game, and I sure CAN make that judgement. Once again, if you don't like it, tough. It's already done.

(You sure seem to like telling others what to do, don't you? Controlling much? )

No, it's NOT an "opinion" judgement. It's based on a sound understanding of history.

Yes, it IS based on facts. Apparently, I am required to repeat myself again. HISTORY. Are you denying that any of the generals/monarchs/warlords I mentioned are NOT factual? Are you denying that all of the armies led by these historical figures were NOT composed of cavalry/infantry/siege weapons? If so, I strongly suggest you either seek help or get just a mere smidgeon of education. Good luck.

I'm not PROVING anything. The AI in V is a joke. Even the attack dogs admit it openly. 1upt isn't the only reason for that, but it's a large part.

On topic enough for ya?

Finally, if this post seems a bit, well, acidic, I'd simply ask you, "How does it feel?" Next time, try being more civil.

 

[testdummy653]

I'm sorry. I called you names, and stuff. (i didn't, but if you take me calling you name or such, I'm sorry)
I'm sorry that your angry (i'm not), I'm sorry that my spinach joke didn't land.

But I'm not sorry for having an opinion, and IMO your still not on topic. Let the mods decided? I made this topic, sure they have control over everything that is said, but you would think i would know what really is on topic or not. I'm not trying to do their jobs, but i would like people to talk about what i wrote in the op, not whether we can or cannot complain about things, or whether you feel like calling me uneducated or not.

I'm not denying the game is based on historical things, but i still wouldn't call this game historical. Age of the Empire(the original) is based on historical situations, with historical civilizations, but even then i wouldn't call it a historical game (its close). When the developer give you control of a civilization, your forgetting that civs history and making your own. Who cares that Aztecs died off (sure there still around today in various countries), I gonna make them win the mother******* space victory. This game is based on history, but not historical.

I would really want to know where i offended you guy so much?
If its the numbering things, i do that all the time, i have to do that and say stuff so I can see my points a lot better, and think my points out better. I usually have to reread my post a few(6- 8) times if i don't do that way. It's sad, but i usually miss words, or leave them out completely.

I suppose you'd point out spelling errors too. If there were any.

I have slight condition of dyslexia, so if you did, I have done worst. (this is also why I have to do numbering and stuff, it takes me way to long to type stuff out when i can't see the patterns).

 

[Jediron]

To answer the OP's question:

Yes, i think we do. We are all blind. The AI is the most intelligent creature, we are NOOBs compared to the avanced artificial intelligence of the master. We are so dumb, we shall never understand it. Now, i hope you are happy; i feel so dumb now..