Civ III AI stupidities
- Thread starter CivFan91
- Start date
Oh, well, uh, um... UH-OH! THEY'RE ON TO ME!!!
As for the typo, I don't remember exactly what I typed, and I changed it before I even heard of CivFanatics.com. I heard about the NoAIpatrol=0 from a fellow Civ-er within my family. (I have two family members who play: My mom and my uncle.) But I promise you: You will either get bored of squishing your opponents, or get squished immediately on, like, turn 10.
With that typo, the AI sends all units at you as soon as they get them, so you get a screen of units like a SOD, only spread a bit. IF you beat that, the whole Civ is for the taking. Of course, the computer doesn't just team up on you. In a Pangea game, I won by Conquest vs. 15 Civs in the AA. How? 14 AI's killed each other. The one remaining Civ which won only by attrition was quickly plundered of all it's cities by me. All two of their remaining cities. I loved it until I played an Archipelago game. 100 units at a time is NOT fun if you are trying to expand. I got squished badly on that game, and it was on Cheif.
As for the typo, I don't remember exactly what I typed, and I changed it before I even heard of CivFanatics.com. I heard about the NoAIpatrol=0 from a fellow Civ-er within my family. (I have two family members who play: My mom and my uncle.) But I promise you: You will either get bored of squishing your opponents, or get squished immediately on, like, turn 10.
With that typo, the AI sends all units at you as soon as they get them, so you get a screen of units like a SOD, only spread a bit. IF you beat that, the whole Civ is for the taking. Of course, the computer doesn't just team up on you. In a Pangea game, I won by Conquest vs. 15 Civs in the AA. How? 14 AI's killed each other. The one remaining Civ which won only by attrition was quickly plundered of all it's cities by me. All two of their remaining cities. I loved it until I played an Archipelago game. 100 units at a time is NOT fun if you are trying to expand. I got squished badly on that game, and it was on Cheif.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
In the same game i reported a few post before, the Arabs just rop-raped me. Do you expect a massive invasion laying waste onto my unprepared forces, right? Wrong. They sent a lone MDI, that failed to kill a cavalry, a longbowman that captured a slave and another longbowman that ended its course just outside one of my cities, ready to be slaughtered by an elite cavalry with the possibility of getting a leader. That's all their "invasion force". Obviously, by attacking they also gifted me with some negative WW points that allowed me to drop luxury spending to zero. Not considering that i was giving them 2 luxuries for free, exactly to deter them from trying some dirty tricks while i was busy with the aztecs. :shakehead
Now, would you seriously call it "artificial intelligence" ?!?
Now, would you seriously call it "artificial intelligence" ?!?
I have two:
In Age of Imperialism, the Russia/Japan war that broke out caused a whole flurry of alliances and embargoes.
I got these messages:
America and Venezuela have signed an alliance vs (forgot which civ)
Venezuela declared war on (same civ as above)
Then a few seconds later:
America declared war on Venezuela
They make an alliance, then break it straight away. Of course this was probably due to a MPP between America and some civ that Venez attacked, but it is such a stupid thing to happen.
I don't know if this next one is a stupidity or a cunning plan:
I was playing Iroquois, and had just signed an ROP with the Inca. They started marching a huge army of Swords through my territory towards the Celts (a 2CC civ trapped by me on a Tundra peninsula. When they got there they just turned around and marched back again. I still have no idea why they did this (it couldnt have been to go after barbs because I checked and there was nowhere for them to spawn) but there are two options:
1) They planned to attack the Celts but changed their mind at the last minute. (Don't see why, they had enough troops to annihilate the Celts)
2) They had a cunning plan, as I will explain.
A while later a similar stack marched down and I thought they must have been doing the same as before. Suddenly I was attacked! The first city fell instantly, two Pikes versus twenty+ Swords is not a pretty sight. Next were either my capital or the city with the SOZ and Leo's. They went for the Wonder city. Meanwhile I had rushed my MWs and ACs up from the Mayan border, where I had been plotting an invasion, and enlisted the Mayan and Celts to fight. They took the Wonder city, but only held it a turn as my horses stormed in and wiped out the Sword SOD. I counterattacked and retook the first city I lost, then went on to push into the heart of Inca, where I am at the moment.
The point is, the original mass Sword movement caused me to pay less attention when another stack moved in as I thought it was just repeating what it had done before. If I had rallied my forces as soon as they stepped across the border I probably wouldn't have lost the Wonder city, even if it was briefly. It could have been far worse. So the AI (probably inadvertantly) used an interesting diversionary tactic.
In Age of Imperialism, the Russia/Japan war that broke out caused a whole flurry of alliances and embargoes.
I got these messages:
America and Venezuela have signed an alliance vs (forgot which civ)
Venezuela declared war on (same civ as above)
Then a few seconds later:
America declared war on Venezuela
They make an alliance, then break it straight away. Of course this was probably due to a MPP between America and some civ that Venez attacked, but it is such a stupid thing to happen.I don't know if this next one is a stupidity or a cunning plan:
I was playing Iroquois, and had just signed an ROP with the Inca. They started marching a huge army of Swords through my territory towards the Celts (a 2CC civ trapped by me on a Tundra peninsula. When they got there they just turned around and marched back again. I still have no idea why they did this (it couldnt have been to go after barbs because I checked and there was nowhere for them to spawn) but there are two options:
1) They planned to attack the Celts but changed their mind at the last minute. (Don't see why, they had enough troops to annihilate the Celts)
2) They had a cunning plan, as I will explain.
A while later a similar stack marched down and I thought they must have been doing the same as before. Suddenly I was attacked! The first city fell instantly, two Pikes versus twenty+ Swords is not a pretty sight. Next were either my capital or the city with the SOZ and Leo's. They went for the Wonder city. Meanwhile I had rushed my MWs and ACs up from the Mayan border, where I had been plotting an invasion, and enlisted the Mayan and Celts to fight. They took the Wonder city, but only held it a turn as my horses stormed in and wiped out the Sword SOD. I counterattacked and retook the first city I lost, then went on to push into the heart of Inca, where I am at the moment.
The point is, the original mass Sword movement caused me to pay less attention when another stack moved in as I thought it was just repeating what it had done before. If I had rallied my forces as soon as they stepped across the border I probably wouldn't have lost the Wonder city, even if it was briefly. It could have been far worse. So the AI (probably inadvertantly) used an interesting diversionary tactic.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
It is not necessarily an AI stupidity, but what about those unhappy citizens in a newly conquered city - conquered from a despot or communist AI - who when you inquire as to why they are unhappy opinine that they "cannot forget the cruel oppression that you bore down on us?"
I just liberated you from your cruel oppressors, dammit!
I just liberated you from your cruel oppressors, dammit! Lord Emsworth said:
I popped Barbs from a goody hut once. They killed the automated worker that popped it. Smart so far... I had 3 cities I just settled. So where do they go? Northward into the Tundras! I killed them off with an Archer.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
A lot of what people have posted here are basically variations on some of the same problems with the AI. Leaving aside obvious stuff like how the AI doesn't optimize its cities properly or know how to use workers intelligently, here are some of the other main AI stupidites.
- The AI basically goes to war over dice rolls in Civ3. Periodically, the game will roll the dice for each AI civ and randomly issue demands on other civs. If that civ refuses, the AI will usually then declare war. Sometimes there aren't even demands, the AI will simply out and declare war because a random number was generated telling it to do so. Since this fails to take into account the strategic situation (or anything at ALL about the game), we end up with the ridiculous stories that everyone has been posting about. This is also why it's basically impossible to form real friendships in Civ3; sooner or later, your "ally" will make a dice roll and very well can end up going to war with you.
- When the AI is at war, it determines its movements on the basis of each unit individually. In other words, for each unit, it determines the battle that it will have the best chance of winning, and tries to fight that battle. This may occasionally lead to tactically intelligent behavior, but far more often results in monumentally stupid behavior on the STRATEGIC level. (Incidentally, this is why the armies in Conquests won't ever be attacked; each unit individually calculates the odds of fighting the army as "too low" and thus you can run around with impunity pillaging their entire core to death.) How many times have we seen an AI's units utterly ignore a critically important city location in order to chase after worthless colonies on the other end of the world? Sirian has written the classic exposition on this subject, so rather than go on more myself, I'll link to his excellent writeup and just quote the conclusion here:
- Finally, the AI civs in Civ3 are ALWAYS willing to trade anything so long as you can come up with the cash to pay for it. Everything is always up for sale, and this leads to idiotic behavior. Would you trade away your aluminum to another civ if you were in a space race? The AI is always willing to do so, as long as you pay them. They will happily sell you the techs or resources needed to slit their own throats. The game would be greatly improved if the AI simply WOULD NOT agree to trade certain things under any circumstances (wonder techs when it's building wonders, most strategic resources, certainly any spaceship techs, etc.)
As a corollary to the above, the AI is equally willing to whore itself out in military alliances and MPPs regardless of the strategic situation for pennies on the dollar. This is another huge weakness of the AI; you can make them dance to your strings over and over again by instituting phony wars or dogpiling weak civs and swooping in to grab their lands. You can get your worst enemy to side with you in a flash for a virtual pittance in gold; again, with money, you can basically make the AI do whatever you want in diplomacy. Clearly, the AI shouldn't sign military alliances at all if relations are bad; the fact that they are always for sale to the highest bidder is a major flaw in the game's AI.
There are many more problems, of course, but those are some of the biggest stupidities. Civ4 will hopefully close out some of these problems.
- The AI basically goes to war over dice rolls in Civ3. Periodically, the game will roll the dice for each AI civ and randomly issue demands on other civs. If that civ refuses, the AI will usually then declare war. Sometimes there aren't even demands, the AI will simply out and declare war because a random number was generated telling it to do so. Since this fails to take into account the strategic situation (or anything at ALL about the game), we end up with the ridiculous stories that everyone has been posting about. This is also why it's basically impossible to form real friendships in Civ3; sooner or later, your "ally" will make a dice roll and very well can end up going to war with you.
- When the AI is at war, it determines its movements on the basis of each unit individually. In other words, for each unit, it determines the battle that it will have the best chance of winning, and tries to fight that battle. This may occasionally lead to tactically intelligent behavior, but far more often results in monumentally stupid behavior on the STRATEGIC level. (Incidentally, this is why the armies in Conquests won't ever be attacked; each unit individually calculates the odds of fighting the army as "too low" and thus you can run around with impunity pillaging their entire core to death.) How many times have we seen an AI's units utterly ignore a critically important city location in order to chase after worthless colonies on the other end of the world? Sirian has written the classic exposition on this subject, so rather than go on more myself, I'll link to his excellent writeup and just quote the conclusion here:
Sirian said:
- Finally, the AI civs in Civ3 are ALWAYS willing to trade anything so long as you can come up with the cash to pay for it. Everything is always up for sale, and this leads to idiotic behavior. Would you trade away your aluminum to another civ if you were in a space race? The AI is always willing to do so, as long as you pay them. They will happily sell you the techs or resources needed to slit their own throats. The game would be greatly improved if the AI simply WOULD NOT agree to trade certain things under any circumstances (wonder techs when it's building wonders, most strategic resources, certainly any spaceship techs, etc.)
As a corollary to the above, the AI is equally willing to whore itself out in military alliances and MPPs regardless of the strategic situation for pennies on the dollar. This is another huge weakness of the AI; you can make them dance to your strings over and over again by instituting phony wars or dogpiling weak civs and swooping in to grab their lands. You can get your worst enemy to side with you in a flash for a virtual pittance in gold; again, with money, you can basically make the AI do whatever you want in diplomacy. Clearly, the AI shouldn't sign military alliances at all if relations are bad; the fact that they are always for sale to the highest bidder is a major flaw in the game's AI.
There are many more problems, of course, but those are some of the biggest stupidities. Civ4 will hopefully close out some of these problems.
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
I have a empty city and no offense whatsoever and i tellthe AI to leave, guess what, they do .
.I am currently in a game where I have modern armor and about 50+ size 25 or larger cities. The next nearest tech are the Aztec, who are way behind in research - they don't even have hospitals yet.
In that game Shaka has one single town, a size 2. He declared war on me ages ago, and he refuses to make peace unless I give him about 8 techs. Periodically he sends out a warrior to pillage a nearby improvement, which is of course immediatly rebuilt by an automated settler. The warrior then attacks the nearest city, in which I have parked about 15 modern armor and mechs....
In that game Shaka has one single town, a size 2. He declared war on me ages ago, and he refuses to make peace unless I give him about 8 techs. Periodically he sends out a warrior to pillage a nearby improvement, which is of course immediatly rebuilt by an automated settler. The warrior then attacks the nearest city, in which I have parked about 15 modern armor and mechs....
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
Wlauzon said:
What an Idiot.In my Emperor game, which you can check out in my Sig, The Aztegs got a Military Great Leader after his Elite Archer kicked my Archers backside. But the Aztecs weren't smart enough to move the MGL's sorry @$$ out of the way, when I had 8 Archers nearby. They had the Archer to protect the MGL.
It's too bad the MGL had to be put to the arrow. I had no trouble picking off the Archer, but the MGL refused to surrender... All this happened about 30 minutes ago. :shakehead
It's too bad the MGL had to be put to the arrow. I had no trouble picking off the Archer, but the MGL refused to surrender... All this happened about 30 minutes ago. :shakehead
oldStatesman
Cybernaut
Just had a classic example happen this weekend that had me rolling on the floor with laughter.Sullla said:
The Hittites had declared on the Egyptians, and attacked a '1' size city on an island they shared with Cleo. The island was long and narrow, with the Egyptians being on one end, and the Hittites on the other end. The Hittites had railed up to the Egyptian borger, and there was one unroaded jungle square between the Egypt city and the border (Cleo had captured the city in an earlier war and never mproved anything).
Well, the Hitts moved a large stack (about 12-16 units) of mech infantry, modern armor and TOWs next to the city and declared. Cleo had 2 vet TOWS and an (regular) infantry defending. Both Tows were redlined by the Hittites, after about 6 or 7 attacks by the Hittitie TOWS and some of the Mech infantry. The infantry was the top unit now, and had only 2 points left (it was now a Vet.). The Hittites then STOPPED attacking
and moved their modern armor units back across the border, and railed them into their city on the North end of the Island...where a convoy promptly sailed forth! THREE turns later after a lengthy sea voyage the convoy pulled up next to the Egyptian city - where Cleo's forces had healed....and disembarked THE SAME 4 Armor units that had been right next to the city into attack position with the original Hitt attacking units that had survived and not moved and had camped there unmoving for ... THREE Turns!!!
Next turn the stack was promptly joined by 3 more modern armor units that travelled instantaneously by rail from the Northern Hittite city (they had to have been there all along because the Hittites did not reinforce the city from their mainland, nor did they pop rush 3 units (Fascism of coarse) - the cities pop never declined... it was a 5 at the start of the war and was still a 5 now ....) ... and finally took the city after losing 6 or so units because now they were attacking a fully healed elite TOW and a fully healed Vet Infantry instead of two redlined elite TOWS and a half strength Infantry unit.
(More stupidity in the same battle - Cleo in the meanwhile had pulled one of the TOWS out, regardless of the 5 strong Hittite units still camped outside the town, via convoy to stage a suicide one unit attack on the Hittite city...and also moved 3 dammaged destroyers, a damaged carrier and 4 bombers into the city on the very turn the Hittites took it....I guess she didn't realize that there were now 12 strong Hittite units attacking and she only had a lone Tow and a lone Infantry on defense.
The town still fell, but it could have fallen FOUR turns earlier ... with less causulties...I literally died laughing with astonishment when I watched the Hittites pull out their Armor...and loaded it up on a convoy to attack the SAME city...
I do hope they get the aI right in Civ4...it is so frustrating to watch dumb crap like this when you know it could be better...I am not asking for "human like intelligence", only a decent aI decision tree....
There are 3 major items that really bug me about Civ3 that if not fixed in Civ4 will be a real shame.
1 is the stupid impossibility of overcoming polution, no matter how many non polluting power sources you build or how many pollution reducing improvements you have. Invariably, if I have a lot of 25+ cities, eventually the majority of my occupied land turns into desert. This is just stupid.
2 is the idea that under a democracy every military unit outside the city adds to the possibility of a revolt - even if they are parked right in your front yard.
3 is the incredibly stupid AI. As described in many of the previous messages, the computer AI leaves itself wide open to exploits. I have had the Zulus travel for 50 squares to attack an undefended city while I am taking 3-4 of their cities per turn with my hundreds of tanks.
1 is the stupid impossibility of overcoming polution, no matter how many non polluting power sources you build or how many pollution reducing improvements you have. Invariably, if I have a lot of 25+ cities, eventually the majority of my occupied land turns into desert. This is just stupid.
2 is the idea that under a democracy every military unit outside the city adds to the possibility of a revolt - even if they are parked right in your front yard.
3 is the incredibly stupid AI. As described in many of the previous messages, the computer AI leaves itself wide open to exploits. I have had the Zulus travel for 50 squares to attack an undefended city while I am taking 3-4 of their cities per turn with my hundreds of tanks.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
Wlauzon, some of your points need to be addressed:
There are ways to limit this effect. IMO, the really stupid thing is that when the AS are hit by pollution, they usually leave the tile polluted for many turn, even if it's a quite fertile tile and they're losing population because of it.
About point 3, i agree completely. The AS is dumb as a rock.
This is global warming at work. It starts hitting when there's too much pollution worldwide, and it tends to go out of control whenever you use nukes.Wlauzon said:
There are ways to limit this effect. IMO, the really stupid thing is that when the AS are hit by pollution, they usually leave the tile polluted for many turn, even if it's a quite fertile tile and they're losing population because of it.
Never heard of it. Aren't you confusing Civ2 with Civ3?!?Wlauzon said:
About point 3, i agree completely. The AS is dumb as a rock.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Wlauzon said:
If you are at war and a democracy you collect one war wearyness point per turn per unit that stays in enemy territory. But that is it.
gunkulator
Emperor
Lord Emsworth said:If you are at war and a democracy you collect one war wearyness point per turn per unit that stays in enemy territory. But that is it.
Not quite. You incur 1 WWP every turn if you have one or more units in AI territory and you are at war with that AI. It's not 1 WWP per unit per turn.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
gunkulator said:
So, if you have 50 units in enemy territory it is only one point? Good to know.
Dominus Romae
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 256
I hope we don't have to post such a thread for Civ4...
Similar threads
