Does the computer play to win?

it's great if i works for you.
I just get bored when i have worked so hard building an impressive military, only to discover a civilization of warriors that are not worthy of my armies wrath. but then i have been playing with the official version and not one that is modified to give extra building bonuses to encourage the AI to build them. maybe with modified buildings it is enough encouragement to make the AI build the required buildings to get better units. i would have thought that simply opening up unit possibilities is enough reason to build the buildings.
 
I can't take it any more. After commiting over 150 hrs. to FFH and it's MODS, My thirty years of personal gaming experience leads me to conclude:

FFH has Epic potential and in SP remains a frusterating disappointment.

If a games AI can't fullfill it's own victory conditions then how is not broken? Go back and read the numerous posts in this thread and elsewhere if you need confirmation. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" when the only way to get a decent SP game is to make myriad contortions in an attempt to accomandate your "play style". Are you kidding me?

The only thing the AI does "well" is build SOD's and even then has little idea what to do with them. Again. Are you kidding me!?!

My penultimate post in this forum titled "Cannon fodder" addressed this issue directly. To which no reponse was given. Thanks:rolleyes:.

I was trying to find out weather or not this game was a dead-ender for me(as I value my time) or if the programmers skill matched the strength of their vision. I bought the vision. I've been playing comp games and D&D since the Seventies and like Mulder: "I want to believe". And as such, on the surface, FFH is very compelling to me. BUT...

You ask, Does the AI play to win? No, it doesn't know how to. or if you prefer: A LOT of sizzle! but too little steak.:(

*Sycophants: please feel free to respond if so compelled...unless.

Your writing from mommies'/parents basement in which case. Well, you can imagine.
 
FfH2 is in development. This means that it is not a polished product, like you might buy in a store. There are problems, and the community is working to correct them. Some problems are fixed quickly, whereas others linger for a very long time. If you can fix a problem yourself then please do so, and post your solution. Otherwise, all you can do is report the problem and wait with the rest of us.

Your "cannon fodder" posts didn't receive much response because there are pages and pages of discussion of that AI problem (and others) in another thread (Post 0.41h AI feedback needed). If you thought you were breaking a hot news story of the hidden AI flaw that would shock the FfH2 community to its core, alas, you were mistaken. New threads started to discuss recent topics tend to receive less attention than the original discussion itself. It's nothing personal; that's just how forums work.

Whining about the lack of attention you are getting and insulting fans of the mod are not likely to get you any respect, and certainly won't speed up the pace at which problems are corrected, but they might just get you labeled as a troll.
 
Well, I know I lose A LOT so I guess the computer is playing to win! I think with the fixes to the AI I can't win on immortal any more and diety is out of reach for me.

Best wishes,

Breunor
 
Thank you Emptiness for the enlightening post. Many of these aspects I kind of preferred or figured out on my own. I always do pangea with low water and allow no sea AI civs in the game. However, I choose Fantasy Map for more land area! Do you recommend that? I notice on Fantasy map there could be some mismatch in tile types. I always leave Tech brokering on, add civ(s), and advanced start to not only help me but the civs especially get those important early techs they often ignore. I have never turned on Permanent alliance, but I auto workers & don't min/max my plots (which I should but the micromanaging is tedious). Do you recommend turning off AI building and upgrading requirements? Progressive difficulty? I can't remember my other settings but that's pretty much it. I haven't played Civ4 for awhile, and right now having trouble getting Windows 7 to launch mods, but BTS works fine.

• I play on Pangea maps. This ensures that all the AIs can potentially attack me, so they are all a threat.
• I set low sea level and add one extra AI (on standard map size; if I played a larger map I might add more). Exactly how many civs you use should depend on how much early competition for city sites you want there to be. My settings usually produce competition for my third or fourth city site, and so early expansion is important. Playing with too few AIs would probably increase the risk that one will become much larger than the others, and that might be bad (unless you want to have one of the AIs gobbling up all the others).
• I turn on No Tech Brokering, to limit my abuse of tech trades (although this is much less of a concern on Pangea maps, because all the AIs tend to be in contact with one another by the time I've researched Trade.)
• I turn on Allow Permanent Alliances, so that in the later game there's a chance that two AIs (which might not be much of a threat to me alone) will ally and pose a threat. I also usually do not build the Mercurian Gate, in the hope that one of the AIs will build it and become more dangerous. (The early game is dangerous for me, but I find the middle and late game fairly easy when I survive to see them. AI alliances means there's a chance for a power shakeup.)
 
However, I choose Fantasy Map for more land area! Do you recommend that? <snip> Do you recommend turning off AI building and upgrading requirements? Progressive difficulty?
I've tried playing games on Fantasy Map but have never made it more than 10 turns. The resulting terrain patterns are just too chaotic for my tastes.

I don't turn off AI building and upgrading requirements. I don't like the idea that the AI can build High Priests directly (for example), or that it would not have to build a Training Yard in order to be able to build Swordsmen/Axemen. I have not noticed the AI having any difficulty producing units that have a building requirement. Considering the fact that the AI already produces many more units than I do, I just can't justify making it even easier by allowing them to convert the :hammers: that should go to that required building into another unit or two. The AI does have trouble keeping some types of high-level units alive, and so may not have full access to units with upgrade requirements, but the latest AI changes have improved the AIs ability to level units successfully. If I were playing at Deity but wanted more of a challenge, then I might turn these requirements off - but I'm not there yet.

Increasing difficulty and flexible difficulty are interesting ideas, but I don't have enough control over how they work. If I could limit how many difficulty stages flexible difficulty could raise or lower the difficulty, and if I could select the maximum difficulty to which increasing difficulty would increase, then I would use these settings all the time. As they function now, they don't work well with my play style and skill level.
 
Those options are there to make the AI a little harder, and so they will actually get High Priests and Arch-Mages. Otherwise, the AI never ever builds Tier4 units that had to be upgraded. I have never seen an AI Immortal for instance. And the AI will still build the buildings that are just prerequists. They may build an axeman or two before building a training yard, but they will build it eventually. It just gives them a slight helping hand and allows the player a bit more fun. I play with both options always on.
 
...I was trying to find out weather or not this game was a dead-ender for me(as I value my time) or if the programmers skill matched the strength of their vision. I bought the vision. I've been playing comp games and D&D since the Seventies and like Mulder: "I want to believe". And as such, on the surface, FFH is very compelling to me. BUT...

You ask, Does the AI play to win? No, it doesn't know how to. or if you prefer: A LOT of sizzle! but too little steak.:(

*Sycophants: please feel free to respond if so compelled...unless.

Your writing from mommies'/parents basement in which case. Well, you can imagine.

Firstly, I'm not writing from my parent's basement. I, too, have been playing computer games since the 70's. Aside from my own "Tic-Tack-Toe" game I wrote in basic, I played many "cassette tape games" including much of the "Temple of Apshai" line. I also played a Star Trek like ASCII game on my college's mainframe system in the 80's. If you know what that is then, we have a common reference point. But, it's all moot, really - There weren't many "games" in the 70's and, what existed, wasn't much like CivIV. The first game that remotely resembled Civ that I played was "Empire", IIRC. "Populous" comes close as well.

Now, to the point:

Is FFH2 perfect? NO! But, it's a mod. It's a very, very, very complex and full-featured modification of CivIV. CivIV was not build to support FFH2 specifically, it was built to support its native game format and some modifications to that. Still, FFH2 has been developed and has progressed in scope far more than many "total conversions" of CivIV. It has more unique features than any CivIV Mod I know of which is, admittedly, not very many.

The point is that FFH2 is very ambitious and takes the CivIV engine by the hair and slings it around like an abused toy. It stretches "what is possible" with the native engine. It pushes the envelope. Considering all that, it's likely to assume there are some complex bits of Civ that don't work well with this total conversion. Nothing is more complex in a game than the way its AI works and this is no different in CivIV. To be blunt, CivIV's native AI simply "doesn't understand" what to do with a great deal of FFH2 brings to the table. Even then, the FFH2 developers have managed to eek out a passable line of approach for the AI to follow.

Is it as good as CivIV's native AI? No, it is not. But, for a fan-developed total conversion mod, it makes an impressive effort at trying to be competitive.

I approach this game differently and I suggest you do the same. I look at FFH2 as more of a "roleplaying" experience. I chose the civ I wish to roleplay and then take up the challenge of making my OWN game interesting and unique. No, the AIs don't do an excellent job. But, they can present a challenge nonetheless. Primarily, it's due to the handicaps they are given to make them a bit more powerful. That's fine. It works, to an extent, at presenting a challenge.

Will the AI ship over a boat full of fireball wielding mages, spewing fireballs everywhere and summoning spectres to destroy my city while their legions storm my beaches? No. But, it will pursue standard, generic means to present me and my civilizations problems. It will attack. It will defend. It will form alliances against me and it will attempt to force me to do what it wants. It will attempt to gain a victory in the ways it "understands" how to do so. But, it does not understand subtleties and, for that matter, neither does the native AI. In order for that to happen, much more than just weight codes have to be introduced. As it is, the weight codes enable the AI in CivIV to "feel" more competitive than the ones in FFH2.

CivIV's AI "ain't so hot" either. It uses many of the same hooks as any other AI - Handicaps to decrease the opponent's costs for certain actions. So, the CivIV AI gets similar bonuses but, with the one caveat being that the AI was written specifically to control the units it was designed to control and to compete for the victory conditions present "out of the box." Its weight codes are custom tailored for its decision engine and the game environment. FFH2 can change the weights and prioritize some things but, we can't expect them to recompile the whole game engine, can we?

You are, of course, free to poo-poo FFH2 all you wish. But, I think you can enjoy the mod if you are willing to treat it differently.
 
Back
Top Bottom