Firaxis AI is similar to an imbecile so it gives my cities away

[sidsoldout]

Firaxis you did a great job cashing in by ruining a classic game. For some reason, probably greed, you've decided to change every single rule in the game to confuse the dedicated fanatics that have been playing since 1992. You've patched the game half a dozen times to the point that the README file takes a half-hour just to read and the original game manual (and $eperately $old $trategy guide) is obselete. I've played this imitation Sid game long enough to know that the AI is given an unfair advantage to make up for the poor programming in this game. Here is an example that sums the crap that an ordinary civ player has to put up with.

Babylon decides to start a war by sending some rogue spearman / settler team halfway into my empire. Fine have it your way even though your capital city is four squares north of our border.

So eventually I collect two invading forces, one diversionary on the eastern border flank and the main attacking force of pikeman, longbowman and probably six catapults to be sailed north up the western border coast. Babylon is not a coastal town, rather one square inland. Babylon had also built the Great Wall Wonder before instigating this war.

I am able to systematically unload my forces on the far (north) side of the capital city in the hills and dig in. There: about four pikemen, five longbowman and six catapults amassed directly to the north. This maneuver probably needed about 20 turns time.

It never occured to the AI to build a catapult , let alone any offensive unit, in the capital city to wear down and counterattack the IMMEDIATE threat to the capital city -- The AI was in check! Babylon probably tried to build a library or something. In a pathetic attempt to undermine my strategy the AI sent like three or four Bowman, the Bab's special unit, to try a frontal assault on one of my cities south of the border over the hills and desert lands, between my two invading forces.

Needless to say both my forces succeeded to the west and the east, the AI's stand on desert land was a debacle and the capital Babylon fell with one swift stroke. I took Babylon, size 9 I think and another town which I abandoned. Then I negotiated a peace settlement so that I would not overextend my forces, as Russia is to the east. Later I move in two settlers to build two cities in the border gap that existed after my invasion succeeded.
That was not the frustrating part but the easy sudden victory just felt like a cheap success.

To recap I have now gained three cities to the north by capturing the Babylonian capital directly north and its eastern neighboring city. This devastating loss for any conquered civilization wiped at least 30% of its population.




So how does the game react? First of all the Babs were able to found a new capital in like 5 turns. I am baffled. Oh well, good for Babs. I continue to mind my affairs and work on rebuilding these cities with temples and things to avoid the cities rejoining it's Babylonian culture, a dreadful concept which I am all too familiar.

After 50 turns, Babylon city rose up and deposed my govt! Why wasn't there any warning, any indicator about the state of affairs there? I mean there are 1/2 million Babylonians in the city -- surely there must be some kind of barometer to let the ruling class know what's happening in the city. I am not an ignorant ruler. The borders were two squares away from the city. The lousy useless F5 culture screen tells me "the Babylonians are admirers of our culture," whatever that means. Furthermore my units garrisoned in the city were not "deposed". They were turncoats -- they joined the other side!

I bought this game last December and I am well aware of this culture / border rules garbage, what's healthy for culture and how to make the borders expand. So I know that by the book there is NO WAY a civ so damaged by war can rebuild that kind of culture within 50 turns. Not to mention that the Great Wall I conquered didn't give me any culture points at all but that's just a side argument.




So I experiment a little. I reloaded the Auto-Save one turn prior and abandonded the city Babylon to save my units and destroy the revolting Babylonian citizens. So how does the game respond?

Not to be outcheated, the AI picks another city eight squares to the east along the border and deposes that town instead! A town I built fair and square, with my own settler, built with my own money, and grew with my own food. Gone.

So I believe that the AI gives itself a highly inflated advantage when compared to humans. There's no other explanation for this kind of behavior. I mean, why would the conquered city decide to return to a civilization that sat on it's hands when trying to defend it? How come when I abandoned one city in hindsight the computer picks on another city eight squares away, on different ground, on the same turn? Also why is it that whenever I gain a city by culture it's some failing sandhole with two people but over the six months I have lost large, happy, cultural and networked cities to an inferior AI culture in almost half of my campaigns?

I am more willing to believe other people's complaints now, such as the AI's battle calculation is favored, the AI is given unfair reconnaisance about the human civ, the culture factor is slanted toward the AI, the AI players conspire and suit other AI players before the human, and the AI adjusts it's calculations based on relative strength.

Civ 3 involves changes in every single rule out there but for every rule there's an exception. The game is now one-dimensional and it's pretty much he with the biggest bag of gems wins. There is no room for ingenuity when dealt at a disadvantage -- no way to bluff. Rather the game rules just seem to favor the AI style of play with just numbers, numbers, numbers. The only way to get ahead in this game is follow the system. No spies? You can't call asking daddy gov't if we can afford a spy espionage, I mean doesn't that defeat the purpose of subversion in the first place? The culture / border concept might be tolerable if it were calculated on the level but now I see it's just another tool to make up for the lack of brains and expense at Firaxis. The Civ 2 game was great though I admit it had plenty of flaws but at least it is fair and is STILL FUN TO PLAY!

I hope Firaxis goes out of business. It's only because half of the Civ players will probably buy anything that says Civilization on the box that you have any fan base at all. Twice now you've taken a great Sid Meier idea (Gettysburg the other) and squeezed all the money you could from it. Please show the old Civ fans that you milked money from some humility and let some other designers release Civ 4.


F U Firaxis

 

[Ralf]

The AI in Civ3 is a HUGE improvement over the one in Civ2 and SMAC - not to mention CTP2. Sure, there are room for improvements - but at the same time, I think you guys should be a little more humble and appreciative then it comes to understanding how extemely hard it is to AI-program a beast like Civ3. Compare with classic chess with only 64 squares and only different 6 game-units plus a very limited set of simplistic gamerules. Games like Civ3 and EU2 are much, much more comlex then that.

 

[TheNiceOne]

sidsoldout, I won't bother to discuss your ranting, but let me give my view to what happened after you took the Babylonian cities:

So how does the game react? First of all the Babs were able to found a new capital in like 5 turns. I am baffled. Oh well, good for Babs.
Bab had cities left when you captured their capital. In CIV3, the palace is automatically moved to another city when destroyed. So theyr were actually able to found a new capital immediately (as you would had anyone taken your capital).

After 50 turns, Babylon city rose up and deposed my govt! Why wasn't there any warning, any indicator about the state of affairs there?
You have a point there, there should be some kind of warning...

I bought this game last December and I am well aware of this culture / border rules garbage, what's healthy for culture and how to make the borders expand. So I know that by the book there is NO WAY a civ so damaged by war can rebuild that kind of culture within 50 turns. Not to mention that the Great Wall I conquered didn't give me any culture points at all but that's just a side argument.
It seems that you don't know all aspects of culture in civ: The Babs didn't lose any culture when they lost their cities. All culture points generated by these cities before you took them remain intact for the Babs. What they lose is future culture points from those cities. Check the histogram to see this.

And great wonders never give culture points for anyone else than the original builder, which is quite logical - and even written in the manual. Also, the possibility of a flip is much greater as long as you have produced less culture in that city than the original owner.

So I experiment a little. I reloaded the Auto-Save one turn prior and abandonded the city Babylon to save my units and destroy the revolting Babylonian citizens. So how does the game respond?

Not to be outcheated, the AI picks another city eight squares to the east along the border and deposes that town instead! A town I built fair and square, with my own settler, built with my own money, and grew with my own food. Gone.

A town quite close to Bab capital, and with some working squares in enemy territory I suppose?

So I believe that the AI gives itself a highly inflated advantage when compared to humans. There's no other explanation for this kind of behavior.
Yes, i believe there is, see below.

I mean, why would the conquered city decide to return to a civilization that sat on it's hands when trying to defend it?
Maybe because such feelings aren't programmed in the game at all? And if they were, can you cite one real world example where a people wouldn't rather belong to their own nationregardless of how poor that nation fared?

How come when I abandoned one city in hindsight the computer picks on another city eight squares away, on different ground, on the same turn?
Since you abandoned the city that flipped, the random number that was used to decide its flip was used somewhere else instead: in the city that flipped instead is my guess. So there is a logical explanation for this that does not involve AI cheating.

On a similar note, I've had one of my cities flip (when in disorder), I reloaded and fixed the disorder - and the result was no flip. Here the random number was used in the same place - but an even higher number was now needed due to no disorder.

Also why is it that whenever I gain a city by culture it's some failing sandhole with two people but over the six months I have lost large, happy, cultural and networked cities to an inferior AI culture in almost half of my campaigns?
To be rude: maybe because you're not good at playing the culture part of the game?

To explain a bit more: The AI cities that border your empire and have some of the working squares inside your borders are usually pretty weak cities, so it's those cities you'll get.

Those large, happy, cultural and networked cities you loose are probably filled with poeple of another nationality, close to enemy capital, with a few working squares inside enemy territory and with more culture previously generated for the enemy than for you.

This happens because you is the one that capture enemy cities that eventaully is closer to enemy capital than yours. If the AI had captured several of your cities and tried to keep them (which seldom happens), you would see those large cities flip back to you.

So, when capturing enemy cities, do you make sure that there are no unhappy citizens and the all its working radius is inside your border? If not, you are to blame for losing the city, not the game.

 

[Kilroy]

Maybe I just play a bit differently, but just about the only time I deal with culture flipping is when cities are JOINING my empire. There are three things you can do that drastically cut down the chance of losing cities - captured or otherwise.


1. Placing many units in a captured city is a must. Since 1.17, you can completely supress the chance of rebellion just through this alone. At least one for every foreign citizen, more if you just captured it, it's close to the border, or the home civ doesn't admire your culture (although, this part of the game still isn't very well known, it seems).

2. Of course you need to build up you own culture, the more the better.

3. And the sneaky trick I have in my book, that I don't see mentioned on this board very often, is forced relocation. It's historically accurate, the Babylonians, Romans, English, and yes even Americans have done it. And it reduces - DRASTICALLY - the chance for reversion. Simply build a bunch of workers in captured cities to thin the population, and either use those workers for slave labor or join them to another city, one with more of your people. Although, for the last option, I highly recommend waiting until after the war is over, otherwise you'll get a lot of unhappiness in your cities. Also, these workers can be used as bargaining chips during negociations if you place them in your capital - very useful during peace talks.


I think most people's problem with this game isn't that the AI sucks or there isn't enough complexity (although both arguments definitely have their points - especially the latter), but simply that they HAVEN'T LEARNED TO PLAY IT PROPERLY YET.

 

[Tassadar]

With Civ 2 i was most of the time a peaceful builder and like to built space shipe. Also it was fun to capture a.i. city, with advence governement this captured city had no corruption and produce right aways.

But now i turn out like genocidal maniacs because of this cultur flip, It is almost imposible to take and keep an ai. city around their capital, so what i do is raze city, i raze the biggest one and then the capital, dont stop until they are erradicate.

I dont know if you know starcraft, the protoss got a units call ARCHON, when on attack he say, annahilat, destroy, erradicate. I am like that now. A.i. are like insect which need to be totaly wipe out, they dont deserve an honorable behavior like civ 2.

I would like to compare how much bytes programm a.i. in both game ( civ 2 and 3). I am pretty sure civ 3 got a higher one for video but lesser for a.i. behavior.

 

[Beam]

sidsoldout, did you just become a member to flame Firaxis???

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sidsoldout
I am not an ignorant ruler.

Interesting assertion. From your actions, it is apparent you were simply not aware that the people might not want to live under your despotic rule. "I give them bread and circuses. Why don't they love me!" But don't feel bad. It's a common trait among tyrants, to become isolated from the hopes and aspirations of their subjects. (I guarantee that experienced players will find it obvious from your game play why the people revolted against your rule.)

So I know that by the book there is NO WAY a civ so damaged by war can rebuild that kind of culture within 50 turns.

That's not true. Paris still had plenty of culture after Nazi occupation. So did Moscow after the Napoleonic occupation and resulting conflagration. In the game, cities retain their native culture, even under occupation. If you can't or won't play culture, then you can't or won't enjoy Civ3.

I reloaded the Auto-Save one turn prior and abandonded the city Babylon to save my units and destroy the revolting Babylonian citizens. So how does the game respond?

Of course, if you cheat by reloading, the machine will reuse the same randomizer result. In this case, because you haven't properly garrisoned against city revolts, the rebels will simply move to the next city. If you want to cheat successfully, you need to provoke the computer into using up that "bad" roll of the die.

The Civ 2 game was great though I admit it had plenty of flaws but at least it is fair and is STILL FUN TO PLAY!

Solution! Play Civ2. Leave Civ3 to those who know how to adapt to the more sophisticated gaming system.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Zachriel




Solution! Play Civ2. Leave Civ3 to those who know how to adapt to the more sophisticated gaming system.

I have great respect to you Zachriel( i saw your site, good advice,ect)

But i would say civ 3 got a more sophisticated VIDEO system. A.i dont know how to use cruise missile and air fight properly( they are not able to manage air supperiority with more than 1 fighter per city, they have unidimensional attack( like 80 units agaisnt 1 barbarian), they are not able to use bombard units like cannon,artillry..ect. Sam missile site work now ( after about 9 month from release).

But when i bought civ 2, i play it from the box and everything work fine, if you didnt protect your battleshipe with aegis cruiser then several a.i. cruise missile will sink it, and many sevaral different battle with different units like defender+attacker+cannon.

IMHO only civ 3 video system is more sophisticated than civ 2, but i like civ3, i like to feel like a tyran and raze their city and or precision strike them until no more building in it, i like to give them hard life when i am a communist. I find funny that some of you guy play as honorable as you can with those cheater a.i.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy
sidsoldout, did you just become a member to flame Firaxis???

shhhhh Maybe he IS from Firaxis

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tassadar


But when i bought civ 2, i play it from the box and everything work fine, if you didnt protect your battleshipe with aegis cruiser then several a.i. cruise missile will sink it, and many sevaral different battle with different units like defender+attacker+cannon.

Civ2 was a great game, no doubt!

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Tassadar
But now i turn out like genocidal maniacs because of this cultur flip, It is almost imposible to take and keep an ai. city around their capital, so what i do is raze city, i raze the biggest one and then the capital, dont stop until they are erradicate.

I think you must be doing something wrong. I never raze a city and I very, very rarely have a city flip. If you are only putting a handful of units in a deep captured city and you are the global cultural loser, yes, it will flip. Don't do that. Either be the culture leader or use enough troops.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by warpstorm
I think you must be doing something wrong. I never raze a city and I very, very rarely have a city flip. If you are only putting a handful of units in a deep captured city and you are the global cultural loser, yes, it will flip. Don't do that. Either be the culture leader or use enough troops.

Quoting Tassadar, "but i like civ3, i like to feel like a tyran and raze their city and or precision strike them until no more building in it, i like to give them hard life when i am a communist."

In other words, he likes being a tyrant.

 

[robehans]

I don't get it, how can you sidsoldout not manage the CF?
In my current game i had a war with the french, they were impressed with my culture, that means they were equal in terms of the calculations...
My capital was in 1 end and the french were in the other end...
I captured Orleans Marseille and a couple of small cities in the vicinity of Paris, i had a few troops in each, and as soon as the resistance ended i bought a temple there...
Not a single culture flip in the whole war!!! and i didnt make a cease-fire deal with em a single time until they had 4 cities (of which 2 on an other continent) and i demended to get those for a peace treaty... and i got em
then the next turn i sent in my samurais to finish him off...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

CF sucks!


No, not as a general concept, but some aspects of it. Two, to be exact: there is no way to judge the risk as exact as the AI can and the garrison in the city disappears.


Aside from these minor(!) gripes I love CF - it is an integral part of the game!

so, sidsoldout, maybe you are angry, maybe you do not play the game as well as you think you do - but do you really have to write such a rant????? Besides, your nick is inacceptable, too.

Oh, btw, FYI:

originally posted by Cunobellin of Hippo in the announcements thread:
Threads Re: Culture Flipping (Jul 27, 2002 until Aug 26, 2002) With the following legal footing (excerpted from the forum rules)...

quote:Use descriptive subject lines & research your post.
This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Also, scan the subjects of the last several days' posts to make sure you aren't duplicating posts.

...everybody's favourite Civ 3 Moderators, in association with Thunderfall, hereby declare a strict set of conditions that MUST be met by someone who dares to post yet another thread regarding Culture Flipping.


* Include new material! If it's already been said, we'd really rather not hear it again.

* Replies are relevent to the new material. If an otherwise novel thread degenerates into yet another cultural war we may have to dispose of it. If this isn't the topic starter's fault, we'll deal with those whose it is.



And on a more unofficial note, if a thread annoys one of us, regardless of the above two requirements having been met, we may just delete it anyway

This harsh new policy was brought on by an incessant stream of repetitive, polarized ranting threads "discussing" culture flipping. We look forward to disposing of this ordinance in the near future when CF no longer dominates every corner of this forum.

Thank you for your attention.
Hippo

I do hope the mods are serious about this!

 

[Chieftess]

I've never had culture flips either, and I always rush the temple/library combo right away. (If you're really worried, you can rush a worker, then rush the improvement - provided you're not in anarchy, despotism, communism). You could wait 1 turn, too, for a cheaper rush.

BTW, I usually leave cities with wonders for last. I don't want to use up 10% of my forces for each city with a wonder, and not have enough for some size 23 metro on a hill with 10 units in it.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
I do hope the mods are serious about this!

Oh, we are

Sidsoldout - if you're having trouble dealing with the new rules and concepts of the game I suggest you visit the Strategy forum or the Succession game forum and have a good, long read. The source of your disgust seems to be a lack of proper knowledge of what you're dealing with- not the game itself.

And the rest is just redundant...