Civ3 Cheating AI totally ruins the game.
- Thread starter ^Requiem^
- Start date
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
The A.I built more than 2 cities in a Chieftain game?
Way to go A.I!!!
It got to cavalry? And you let that happen?
P.S you talk of your cavalry attacking his city with a warrior in it...I don't believe you for one second as you talk of battles between your riflemen and an A.I cavalry and swordsman.
You sir are a liar
Way to go A.I!!!
It got to cavalry? And you let that happen?
P.S you talk of your cavalry attacking his city with a warrior in it...I don't believe you for one second as you talk of battles between your riflemen and an A.I cavalry and swordsman.
You sir are a liar
Clown2TheLeft
Prince
That is not an AI cheat. That is, I suspect a gross exaggeration of some bad luck. And if you're smashing keyboards and monitors to vent this frustration, then, perhaps, a strategy game is not for you.
An AI cheat is when their ironclad go beserk outside your city harboring the Privateer. An AI cheat is when they attack your least defended city, regardless of their gold reserves to conduct espionage. An AI cheat is when they attack units that should be invisible to them. These are the AI cheats I've come across, aside from rampant tech-trading during your turn in earlier versions.
However, there's ways to use their cheats against them, and they're so simple it's almost unfair. Ironclad harassing your lone privateer in its harbor? Well, that's a great time to establish naval superiority, as their forces will be concentrated on that one spot. An unescorted worker near a border can draw the AI's cavalry for an ambush, similarly with "poorly" defended cities.
As Sun Tzu said: The art of war is deception...
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
An AI cheat is when their ironclad go beserk outside your city harboring the Privateer. An AI cheat is when they attack your least defended city, regardless of their gold reserves to conduct espionage. An AI cheat is when they attack units that should be invisible to them. These are the AI cheats I've come across, aside from rampant tech-trading during your turn in earlier versions.
However, there's ways to use their cheats against them, and they're so simple it's almost unfair. Ironclad harassing your lone privateer in its harbor? Well, that's a great time to establish naval superiority, as their forces will be concentrated on that one spot. An unescorted worker near a border can draw the AI's cavalry for an ambush, similarly with "poorly" defended cities.
As Sun Tzu said: The art of war is deception...
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
Clown2TheLeft
Prince
As a PS: Do you mean "Cavalry" 6/3/3/ or "Horsemen" 2/1/2? With cavalry, 6/3/3, I'd have to say you're full of it. With horsemen, if, for some reason, you did not build barracks, were attacking a city situated on a hill and attacking across a river, it becomes slightly more believeable. Not much, considering the numbers, but slightly...
--TCttL
--TCttL
Hellfire
Prince
I don't know if anyone asked these questions however:
1) was the city he was attacking on a hill?
2) I doubt it, since the AI was on chieftan, but was their a wall around the city?
3) What was the population of the city?
4) Was there a river on one side of the city across which this person was attacking the AI?
Even with a warrior, if #1, 3 and 4 were "yes", 7, and "yes" thats could bring the warrior up to 3.5 defense, 4 if the AI rounds up (dunno if it does that, I forget). Then there is the defense bonus the other unit gets for being on its own territory, and the fact that it was fortified.
If you aren't careful and don't analyze the people you are attacking you could easily find yourself facing a warrior with an 8 defense and watching it kill your cavalry.
I will say it once again, the AI DOES NOT CHEAT. This is about design. Computers don't cheat (I hear it all the time from my son thinking the computer is somehow out to beat him for personal reasons). It just doesn't happen that way. The AI is designed to know aspects of the map and where your units are and to analyze both defensive and offensive positions.
Civ1 and 2 were more production intensive. If you could out produce your enemies you'd win the game. Civ3 is more unit intensive. Combats are far more complex, and often lend themselves to being more about chance due to the way probability works. I find in a war I'm waging now the computer is finding ways to throw their MIs against my MIs and even though mine are fortified in cities of population 15 it is taking only one of their MIs to kill one of mine. Its insane, but its bad luck to.
In civ2 the unit hp based on the age the unit was in was good, but it there was very little luck to it, and you never saw a battleship lose very many battles.
Yes, there is only a 4% chance that the spearman I'm attacking with my MA is going to lose a hp in one round, but every so often it happens. In order to make the game more challenging they had to reintroduce some of the randomness of the game.
I apologize for your losses, but you have to realize its a game. You also have to realize that when you go off on a rant like this you sound like you are exaggerating things. If you want us to take this seriously, make your argument clearly and concisely with screenshots so we can see what you are seeing.
1) was the city he was attacking on a hill?
2) I doubt it, since the AI was on chieftan, but was their a wall around the city?
3) What was the population of the city?
4) Was there a river on one side of the city across which this person was attacking the AI?
Even with a warrior, if #1, 3 and 4 were "yes", 7, and "yes" thats could bring the warrior up to 3.5 defense, 4 if the AI rounds up (dunno if it does that, I forget). Then there is the defense bonus the other unit gets for being on its own territory, and the fact that it was fortified.
If you aren't careful and don't analyze the people you are attacking you could easily find yourself facing a warrior with an 8 defense and watching it kill your cavalry.
I will say it once again, the AI DOES NOT CHEAT. This is about design. Computers don't cheat (I hear it all the time from my son thinking the computer is somehow out to beat him for personal reasons). It just doesn't happen that way. The AI is designed to know aspects of the map and where your units are and to analyze both defensive and offensive positions.
Civ1 and 2 were more production intensive. If you could out produce your enemies you'd win the game. Civ3 is more unit intensive. Combats are far more complex, and often lend themselves to being more about chance due to the way probability works. I find in a war I'm waging now the computer is finding ways to throw their MIs against my MIs and even though mine are fortified in cities of population 15 it is taking only one of their MIs to kill one of mine. Its insane, but its bad luck to.
In civ2 the unit hp based on the age the unit was in was good, but it there was very little luck to it, and you never saw a battleship lose very many battles.
Yes, there is only a 4% chance that the spearman I'm attacking with my MA is going to lose a hp in one round, but every so often it happens. In order to make the game more challenging they had to reintroduce some of the randomness of the game.
I apologize for your losses, but you have to realize its a game. You also have to realize that when you go off on a rant like this you sound like you are exaggerating things. If you want us to take this seriously, make your argument clearly and concisely with screenshots so we can see what you are seeing.
Grille
panel insect
Yeah, and I'm so dreadfully sorry for millions of poor ai-warriors that have been slaughtered by brutish, violent, blood-thirsty cavalry in soOriginally posted by Chris1111
I sure hope the AI got a great leader out of this
many games... it's just good to hear about the punishment.
planetfall
Emperor
Requiem,
I have never played civ1/civ2, but in over a year of Civ3 I have never run across a string of bad numbers like you are talking about. However, I vaguely recall several strings of good numbers where I won even thought I was not supposed to.
Every time I have checked out a claim of AI combat cheating I haven't seen any consensus that it exists. If you can't convince the regular players, maybe it doesn't exist.
If you are going to make a charge of AI cheating, give us all a reasonable chance of verifying the cheat. Give us a save game of just before the event and tell us how to reproduce it. Otherwise it just sounds like crying over spilt milk.
Most good players hate to lose but sometimes players from the old civ games express much frustration because it takes them a bit to figure out the rule of civ3 are different and thus the game is played different. Diety civ2 players rarely start out by winning their first diety civ3 game.
I can understand how frustrating it is to have limited game resources and have the die go against you. After this streak of bad numbers end, you should be getting a streak of good numbers.
== PF
I have never played civ1/civ2, but in over a year of Civ3 I have never run across a string of bad numbers like you are talking about. However, I vaguely recall several strings of good numbers where I won even thought I was not supposed to.
Every time I have checked out a claim of AI combat cheating I haven't seen any consensus that it exists. If you can't convince the regular players, maybe it doesn't exist.
If you are going to make a charge of AI cheating, give us all a reasonable chance of verifying the cheat. Give us a save game of just before the event and tell us how to reproduce it. Otherwise it just sounds like crying over spilt milk.
Most good players hate to lose but sometimes players from the old civ games express much frustration because it takes them a bit to figure out the rule of civ3 are different and thus the game is played different. Diety civ2 players rarely start out by winning their first diety civ3 game.
I can understand how frustrating it is to have limited game resources and have the die go against you. After this streak of bad numbers end, you should be getting a streak of good numbers.
== PF
I hate to agree with a cheat-whiner, but I have seen something like this happen before. Once I was finishing up a game as the Romans against the Americans. They had only five cities left. My spy said that they only had seven Mech Inf left. Since I could see that all of his cities had at least one MI in them, the max that this one city could have was three. I had just finished off a bunch of cities using the proper method of bombing the hell out of them then moving the modern armor in. I had no bombardment points left for that turn (neither RA or Bombers), but did have about twenty modern armors with movement points. For the heck of it I decided to take out this city. Twenty mobile armors lost later I became frustrated and moved some of my defensive units from recently captured cities in and lost five more modern armors.
I then grudgingly waited a turn, moved in my RA's and bombers and was able to take the city after a few more losses. The rest of the cities went uneventfully.
My point is that there does seem to be (and I emphasize seem) certain cities that are more difficult to take for some reason. This city had nothing unusual about it. It was on grassland. It was just one of those things. I was frustrated though because this forced me to wait a turn to do it right. As I said, it was late in the game and I was really just playing it out.
That said, I don't really have a problem with this. Whether through just bad luck or something more sinister I was given a mild challenge late in the game. Hey, it's a game.
I then grudgingly waited a turn, moved in my RA's and bombers and was able to take the city after a few more losses. The rest of the cities went uneventfully.
My point is that there does seem to be (and I emphasize seem) certain cities that are more difficult to take for some reason. This city had nothing unusual about it. It was on grassland. It was just one of those things. I was frustrated though because this forced me to wait a turn to do it right. As I said, it was late in the game and I was really just playing it out.
That said, I don't really have a problem with this. Whether through just bad luck or something more sinister I was given a mild challenge late in the game. Hey, it's a game.
It's about time that somebody stood up for the poor AI warrior. We run around with our fancy legions and pre-madonna knights while this sad sap warrior is trying to fight off hoards of barbarians in order to protect his fledgling civilization. If the Democrats won't stand up and call for an investigation of AI Warrior civil rights violations then I will.
Originally posted by redhat
The truth is, you can demolish a stronghold with cannons, catapults but not rifles. Imagine that your firing at the spearmen below the wall. The spearmens are throwing spears at you above the wall. The castle gate is tightly locked. Who's got the advantage?
Go..unlock the gate with your artilleries/cannons/catapults
Spearman in the game does not THROW spears, they only have one spear and a shied to fight with.
And if in a jungle or forest, I will believe they can beat a tank.
Dark Yoda
Student
while its irritating it only happens occasionally on chieftain with me. spearmen killing my cavalry but normally it works ok, though im playing single plyr ptw 1.14f. try this then, play until you have modern armour or tanks, whichever u prefer then go and attack the city, proving that no, the ai doesnt cheat and maybe your strategy is wrong.
Dark Yoda
Student
ps: the reason the spearmen kill cavalry is cos cavalry is a mounted unit and spearmen and pikemen are good at killing mounted units, look in the civilopedia.
Dark Yoda
Student
thanks zeeter, i checked it out just after id posted my reply so now i know.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It's nice to see my common misconceptions thread mentioned 
I've had astounding bad luck in that fashion (though those numbers seem a little intense), but I've also had goodluck as equally unfathomable. This good luck is just a LOT harder to recognize (well hell, you wouldn't attack unless you planned to win, right?)
I've had astounding bad luck in that fashion (though those numbers seem a little intense), but I've also had goodluck as equally unfathomable. This good luck is just a LOT harder to recognize (well hell, you wouldn't attack unless you planned to win, right?)
Well, it's never crashed - although I have had gameplay errors 
There's a lot that makes Civ1 more playable than Civ3. I hope Civ4 puts more emphasis on playability that gimmicks - and multiplayer should come as standard!
That's actually why I got Civ3, I was tired of only having computer AI in Civ1 for Windows... doh! And I do feel ripped off!
Sid Mieyers (I really should pay attention to the start screen at check the spelling for that name) should learn one simple fact... "If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing!" ... Civ1 was dated, but not broken... Civ3 is needs fixing
I still play it though, so cannot be that bad
There's a lot that makes Civ1 more playable than Civ3. I hope Civ4 puts more emphasis on playability that gimmicks - and multiplayer should come as standard!
That's actually why I got Civ3, I was tired of only having computer AI in Civ1 for Windows... doh! And I do feel ripped off!
Sid Mieyers (I really should pay attention to the start screen at check the spelling for that name) should learn one simple fact... "If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing!" ... Civ1 was dated, but not broken... Civ3 is needs fixing
I still play it though, so cannot be that bad
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Hang in there, and leave Sid alone!
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
Besides Sid didnt even made it...
You would get the wrong guy fro CIV3
You would get the wrong guy fro CIV3
Similar threads
