Do we jump to conclusions about the AI?

[sumthinelse]

In most of the threads in which some new bug or cheat is alleged, it seems that we eventually find a reasonable explanation for the game's behaviour.

Some of the complaints are about the game design, and I agree with some of them, but here I am just talking about bugs and "unfair" and undocumented AI advantages. So, since you can configure the AI to AI trade rate to be "fair," it's not a cheat. How can something that is 100% under your control be unfair? "Culture flipping" works both ways, so I don't think that is unfair. I can see why the AI's ability to see things that the human can't is unfair in a sense, but here I am talking about newly discovered alleged bugs and cheats.

One thing (discovered by Killer) that really does seem to be a bug is that when the AI civ is destroyed but respawns, they keep all their units. According to Firaxis the units should disappear. So this would be a bug, not a cheat, because it was an accident.

But in most cases, I would answer the question in the title with "Yes. We do jump to conclusions."

2 recommendations:

• Keep an open mind. It might be something you haven't thought of yet.
  
• Post a saved game if possible. Sometimes others can help you to determine what really happened.
  

 

[Zouave]

Bugs, cheats, stupidities, whatever. They occur regularly, and I've seen some of them in games so often it is both infuriating. . . and boring as I know exactly what crap this in-your-face AI will do.

I've posted plenty of them, and my examples were very specific and incontrevertable - and I included sometimes screenshots.

Enough. You want to see them do a search.

I never said Culture Flipping was "unfair". Never. I said repeatedly and explained why with examples it is braindead, illogical, dumb, and non-historical. It is always implemented in the game mechanics very stupidly. My examples of that have been posted often too.

Since when is trade "100% under my control"?? It takes two to make a deal, and the AI tech whores with other civs, tries to stick me up on deals, and worse, is so utterly dumb even when we have a tech deal good to go if I throw in as a free bonus up to six free resources it insults me, cancels the deal, and hands me some bullbleep about my reputation. Reputation. That's when the human usually gets blamed for something he never did in the first place, or is blamed for something that happened four thousand years ago!

 

[Shabbaman]

That's right. You didn't say cf is unfair, you said that it sucks. Two different things

More bugs? Patch me up Firaxis!

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Zouave

Since when is trade "100% under my control"?? It takes two to make a deal, and the AI tech whores with other civs, tries to stick me up on deals, and worse, is so utterly dumb even when we have a tech deal good to go if I throw in as a free bonus up to six free resources it insults me, cancels the deal, and hands me some bullbleep about my reputation. Reputation. That's when the human usually gets blamed for something he never did in the first place, or is blamed for something that happened four thousand years ago!

I was talking about the "AI to AI trade rate" in the difficulty levels. When I set that value to 100 the AI is tougher on other AIs with trading, and fairer to me, that is, to the best of my knowledge, it seems to apply the same trading evaluation formulae to other AI civs that it does to me (even though trading is not necessarily reasonable from a human point of view). So you have set this rate to 100 and you still think the AI gives preferential treatment to other AI civs?

I agree that the reputation mechanism is broken but I can't tell if it blames other AI civs for things that are not under their control. Maybe it does. How would we test that?

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Shabbaman
That's right. You didn't say cf is unfair, you said that it sucks. Two different things

More bugs? Patch me up Firaxis!

I agree, but this thread isn't about what Zoave said. It's about alleged new discoveries of bugs and cheats (including instances in which I thought I had found a cheat but was wrong), and my claim that most of them turn out to be false.

 

[GeneralTacticus]

Since when is trade "100% under my control"??

He's talking about the rate of AI to AI trading.

is so utterly dumb even when we have a tech deal good to go if I throw in as a free bonus up to six free resources it insults me, cancels the deal, and hands me some bullbleep about my reputation

That sounds weird. I've never seen that before.

That's when the human usually gets blamed for something he never did in the first place,

Such as?

I never said Culture Flipping was "unfair". Never. I said repeatedly and explained why with examples it is braindead, illogical, dumb, and non-historical. It is always implemented in the game mechanics very stupidly. My examples of that have been posted often too.

Cities the Assyrians conquered repeatedly 'culture flipped' back to their former owners. The Assyrians solved this by razing them when they did so, or just razing them in the first place.

After the Mongol invasion of China the whole place more or less 'culture flipped' back, once the Mongols started to weaken.

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


I agree, but this thread isn't about what Zoave said. It's about alleged new discoveries of bugs and cheats (including instances in which I thought I had found a cheat but was wrong), and my claim that most of them turn out to be false.

I had noticed that before, yes I think it's good that some guys from firaxis take the time occasionally to browse and post CFC.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

sumthinelse: you are dead on, but there is one thing I'd like to add:

some things, like the 'free unit?' thing, CAN be explained - but only if we throw our fundamental thought about how games work overboard. I - and I think most others - expected Civ to work like Monopoly, my turn, the next gusy turn, the next ones and so on until it is my turn again. Actually, I was pissed because I saw in the after action review that i always went first.....

But the fact that this isn't true is so surprising for me that I do feel this is NOT to be explained and forgotten, but rather called an unfair AI advantage and PLASTERED OVER THE BOARD until it is changed or the resulting imbalances patched away. And the louder we scream, the better........

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Shabbaman


I think it's good that some guys from firaxis take the time occasionally to browse and post CFC.

Well, sometimes they tell us useful information, sometimes we figure it out independently, and sometimes we get an answer from Firaxis and our own efforts.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
sumthinelse: you are dead on, but there is one thing I'd like to add:

some things, like the 'free unit?' thing, CAN be explained - but only if we throw our fundamental thought about how games work overboard. I - and I think most others - expected Civ to work like Monopoly, my turn, the next gusy turn, the next ones and so on until it is my turn again. Actually, I was pissed because I saw in the after action review that i always went first.....

But the fact that this isn't true is so surprising for me that I do feel this is NOT to be explained and forgotten, but rather called an unfair AI advantage and PLASTERED OVER THE BOARD until it is changed or the resulting imbalances patched away. And the louder we scream, the better........

Some of these discoveries are close calls. It's very subjective.

OK, since the AI always moves last, and production of all units, human and AI, occurs at the end of a turn , the AI can take your city by force and rush another defender before you move. You can't do that before the AI moves. So that could be viewed as unfair. But if you and the AI both get nukes on the same turn, you get to fire first, which is a really big advantage. So it's kind of unbalancing both ways.

I don't think this was intended to give the AI an advantage. I think they just designed it that way because it was easier to do.

I don't like the way it works, and I think it should be changed in PTW.

Should we call this a "cheat?" I would vote no, but of course not everyone would agree. Suppose I was playing cards with my friend. He forgot to shuffle the deck and got a good hand and won. But it was a mistake, not intended to give him any advantage. I wouldn't call him a "cheat" because I know it's an honest mistake. The word "cheat" connotes something sneaky and dishonest.

And to me it makes a big difference that there is a rational explanation for this (the AI moves last) rather than units appearing "out of thin air." I believe it makes it easier to describe how we want the game to work to Firaxis/Infogames.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Yes, I think it's been seen a lot that people are quick to assume the worst. We don't like to admit that perhaps we screwed up or that the AI used a tactic we haven't thought of.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

And then of course there are some who will use any thread started about supposed AI indiscretion to make it into a soapbox for all their complaints regarding the game. That irks me when people don't try to figure out what's going on, or how what they feel is a cheat can be countered or even used to the human advantage.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Flips happen all the time, and whenever they happen, the AI has a huge advantage: it can rush and -possibly- draft. nukes on the same turn - hardly ever......

 

[Qitai]

Maybe I should post a new one, but too lazy. I recently come across what I think is a cheat, but I am not sure. Is AI subjected to the 4 minimum turn for research rule? The recent game I played, all civ (inclding myself) did not have gunpowder. But next turn, out it comes. I bought it and gave it free to others to speed up tech research. Then, next turn I check again and to my surprise Chemistry is out??!! Did not save the game though. Too lazy.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

another thing: if the AI demands you leave it is BEFORE they produce - that's why they almost always get another defender - just in time for the war.....

extremely annoying, because in the early game they'll pop-rush - which usually takes the town from 2 to 1 so it gets autorazed.......

 

[Evincar]

About the turn sequence, I actually think we get a big big advantage:

We get wonders production first!! Yes, if me and an AI is going to complete one on the same turn, it's mine, not theirs!! now, this is really and advantage

I still think this should work as most reasonable games: Player 1 moves, then produces, player 2 moves, then produces, etc...

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
[ . . . . ] I - and I think most others - expected Civ to work like Monopoly, my turn, the next gusy turn, the next ones and so on until it is my turn again. Actually, I was pissed because I saw in the after action review that i always went first.....

But the fact that this isn't true is so surprising for me that I do feel this is NOT to be explained and forgotten, but rather called an unfair AI advantage and PLASTERED OVER THE BOARD until it is changed or the resulting imbalances patched away. And the louder we scream, the better........

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Flips happen all the time, and whenever they happen, the AI has a huge advantage: it can rush and -possibly- draft. nukes on the same turn - hardly ever......

I must admit I still don't understand why this gets under your skin so badly Killer. From my point of view, the production and movement turn ordering is highly advantageous to the player -- it essentially guarantees that a great leader used in rushing a wonder will never be wasted by the human player (but could be wasted by the AI - if it ever rushed wonders, that is ).

I'm actually curious to see how this will work in MP and/or how long MP will be out before we hear the complaint "I used my GL to rush Leo's -- and #$%^@#$ still built it before me!!"

 

[Qitai]

Another thing. AI gets to poprush the moment you declare war during your turn!! I am certain this is no illusion since I reloaded to check.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Evincar: I agree!

Quitai: too lazy to read my post?

(I wrote exactly that! )

 

[zeeter]

I don't think that we're going to come to any conclusion here. Some people just cannot accept the fact that that this game is not Civ2 with better graphics.

Yes, there are cheats. Deal with it. Yes, the player always goes first. Deal with it. These are the rules of the game. Nobody said it was fair. Life's not fair, so why should Civ3 be fair? Take advantage of the AI cheats. Try to find the cheats before they happen and counter them.

Strategies used in Civ2 will not work in Civ3. Get over it as this is a different game.