big BIG flaw in AI (not a rant)

[Exsanguination]

One thing I'd like to see in future civ games is an 'achieving' AI, if you will. What I mean is, when was the last time the AI won a conquest or a domination victory? cultural? In my experience, NEVER. Only times the AI EVER won was in a diplomatic loss on my part, or a histographic.

Yes, on higher difficulty levels (deity, ahem), the AI probably wins conquest or cultural too. I'd like too see it where each AI player establishes a goal, like we do. In most games, we say, "OK, I'm gonna go for a cultural victory", or "Alright, I'm gonna dominate the world". The AI doesn't think like this. It just plays the game and hopes the dice rolls in its favor. Some sort of system where, say, at the beginning of a game, the AI players get assigned a random, secret victory goal. There could be set paths for the AI to take and strategies to play, like we use. It would make the game much more fun.

 

[Zouave]

Persuant and related to that, consider "paths" for each civ's expansion.

In Civ 2 we had various civs expanding in different ways - the extremes being the Japanese and Mongols compared to the Chinese and Aztecs.

But in Civ 3 EVERYBODY suffers from the same dopey Settler Diarrhea. It really takes on a "samey" sort of feeling leading to extreme ENNUI.

Things would be far more interesting if civs expanded differently and at difffent rates; in otherwords, take different paths.

But I'm sure the AI would explode if it had to expand it's "thinking" to do that.

Setting a path for the AI as you said might also be interesting. At least HAVING that goal set - but not telling the human - might be even better: knowing the goal might be disadvantageous. But the idea is good.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by Zouave

Setting a path for the AI as you said might also be interesting. At least HAVING that goal set - but not telling the human - might be even better: knowing the goal might be disadvantageous. But the idea is good.

Kinda like I said, keep it secret

 

[Octavian X]

Just an odd thought, but unless you were the last one killed, wouldn't you never see the AI win conquest? (Then again, if that happened to you, you'd have to suck)

I do have to agree, though, that the AI seems to have a unified strategy.

 

[God]

Originally posted by Zouave
Persuant and related to that, consider "paths" for each civ's expansion.

In Civ 2 we had various civs expanding in different ways - the extremes being the Japanese and Mongols compared to the Chinese and Aztecs.

But in Civ 3 EVERYBODY suffers from the same dopey Settler Diarrhea. It really takes on a "samey" sort of feeling leading to extreme ENNUI.

Things would be far more interesting if civs expanded differently and at difffent rates; in otherwords, take different paths.

Yeah, I loved/hated Genghis for that. He used to always get big and attack me, but then I started playing as the Mongols.

I wish they had that. Its nice that we already have the agression levels, and adding this would make civs even more unique.

 

[Dark Sheer]

If you go into the editor you will see that each Civ is set to either build more culture or more industrial or more military or more settler etc. This in a way has already set a path as to how a Civ will work towards its victory path.

The only trouble is the hard coded vulture behaviour. This kind of break the preset path as sooner or later everyone will declare war on almost everyone else and once that is started there is no way back for the AI Civ.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

i think the "chess vs civ3" thread would be an interesting read in reference to goal sets.

 

[Klasanov]

I loved Civ II, but Firaxis fixed so many problems in the logistics of big empires (mainly the whole idea of how unit support goes. I don't know if I'll ever go back to Civ II from civ III because of this, maybe though), where all cities contribute to the military power, regardless of production.

This problem could probably all be fied if they took out the silly OCN. Civ II had none, and I don't remember the AI expanding so silly that it pushed back your cultural border. It's even worse on regent, where everyone starts so close to eachother. Because of this, the AI had no reason to stop at the OCN, so they could take over the world if they wanted (I think. Only played warlord, although they were more aggressive in that game when you attacked them).

It's many more steps forward too, as well as a few steps back, from Civ II.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I do feel the AI doesn't aim for a win - it only aims for a human loss. How often have I seen a civ gobble up a neigbour - this would be the time to say OK I'm strongest, I'll keep fighting until I get to domination. part one would be trying to control the continent - instead the AI will engage in useless overseas wars against the human (I do rarely see the AI eliminate more than one neighbour, but usually more by accident).

Should be fixable.... maybe needs a fix in the balance on OCN and land 'value'??