Kaguya-Himes 5 Impossible Requests for Civ 5

[Chiyochan]

You are not worth arguing with. but i will argue anyway. my entire argument will consist of belittling your argument by asserting with no cause that you are lying.

you're funny. Right, I just 'DONT UNDERSTAND' the AI. its got nothing to do with the fact that I can take on top soldier AIs on prince while being dead last in military, ones that where pointing their swords firmly at me and not halfway across the map dealing with other things. but laughably trying to funnel their way through Lhasa one at a time while south asia lays defended by one warrior a Great general and a 2 triremes.

Moderator Action: Do not alter someone's quote to make it appear they said something they didn't.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Valkrionn]

Obviously you do not, when I have already stated that the strategic AI (which I said is actually quite good, and is) and the tactical AI (which we've both said is crap, if you check my posts) are very different things.

As I said, look at how it actually works, and then read my posts. I agree the tactical AI is crap. It's also being worked on. The strategic AI, on the other hand, is quite good, which is what my entire post concerned.

 

[QES]

Yes... It results in it's defeat because YOU attacked at the right time. Put it in terms of human players if you have to: Player A suddenly attacks Player B, and has him completely off guard. While this happens, Player C attacks and conquers Player A, who had had to invest all his troops to take out B.

Same damn situation. Player C feels badass for going with the correct timing.

I am damn well aware that the AI has issues. However, it is NOT as bad as people are saying, not on a grand scale; It is the small scale that kills it. Run a few dozen AI games, then come tell me how much it sucks. And please, differentiate between Strategic and Tactical AI, as the two are very much separate in the code.

I think most people's issues with the AI are for not realizing that human players are treacherous and opportunistic wretches.

It's less about the "Winning a war off elsewhere" and more about the "how did you not see that i was going to betray and conquer you as soon as I could?"

Going "all-in" on only one front of one war should be avoided by clever AI. Perhaps the level of hate should determine how committed an army gets. Speaking of which, it's hard to tell which players AI's love and hate. Sure they want sneaky sneak pacts of sneakery, but they all do that. It's not with cause. And the player should be treated as untrustworthy without deliberate cause (liberation of the AI's cities for example, or lots and long trade of resources between two nations that do not boarder one another.)

The greatest danger to history is any player who gets to repeat it. The AI should know this.

 

[Morlark]

Obviously you do not, when I have already stated that the strategic AI (which I said is actually quite good, and is) and the tactical AI (which we've both said is crap, if you check my posts) are very different things.

As I said, look at how it actually works, and then read my posts. I agree the tactical AI is crap. It's also being worked on. The strategic AI, on the other hand, is quite good, which is what my entire post concerned.

Man, I wish I had your restraint. I was going to call him out on that 'lol oh so funnay' misquote, because it's not the first time he's done something equally as obnoxious as that. Instead I thought better of it.

 

[Valkrionn]

I think most people's issues with the AI are for not realizing that human players are treacherous and opportunistic wretches.

It's less about the "Winning a war off elsewhere" and more about the "how did you not see that i was going to betray and conquer you as soon as I could?"

Going "all-in" on only one front of one war should be avoided by clever AI. Perhaps the level of hate should determine how committed an army gets. Speaking of which, it's hard to tell which players AI's love and hate. Sure they want sneaky sneak pacts of sneakery, but they all do that. It's not with cause. And the player should be treated as untrustworthy without deliberate cause (liberation of the AI's cities for example, or lots and long trade of resources between two nations that do not boarder one another.)

The greatest danger to history is any player who gets to repeat it. The AI should know this.

I would agree with you, for the most part. The strategic AI is at the point where it weighs risks like that, though... If it thinks it has a reasonable shot at pulling off the war, and coming closer to victory in the process, it will do so. The AI most definitely plays to win now.

Now if we can get the tactical AI up to par, we'll have something truly challenging.

Man, I wish I had your restraint. I was going to call him out on that 'lol oh so funnay' misquote, because it's not the first time he's done something equally as obnoxious as that. Instead I thought better of it.

Meh. At this point I have more than a little experience replying to posts of that nature; Comes with running a major mod. Plus, it's just not worth letting it bother you.

 

[Chiyochan]

Man, I wish I had your restraint. I was going to call him out on that 'lol oh so funnay' misquote, because it's not the first time he's done something equally as obnoxious as that. Instead I thought better of it.

Its called paraphrasing, and I dont make a habit of respecting people who call me out as a liar and an idiot for thinking the AI is horrible. something to which there is massive evidence collected by many people, not just myself in some sort of limited anecdotal instance.

 

[Morlark]

Its called paraphrasing, and I dont make a habit of respecting people who call me out as a liar and an idiot for thinking the AI is horrible. something to which there is massive evidence collected by many people, not just myself in some sort of limited anecdotal instance.

No, it's called deliberately, dishonestly, and maliciously misrepresenting someone, by putting words into their mouth that are not even remotely representative of what they said. What's that word for when you say something that isn't true?

You're right about one thing though. You don't make a habit of respecting people. Shame you've never actually applied that conditional that you claim to.

 

[Tssha]

Its called paraphrasing, and I dont make a habit of respecting people who call me out as a liar and an idiot for thinking the AI is horrible. something to which there is massive evidence collected by many people, not just myself in some sort of limited anecdotal instance.

The plural of anecdote isn't "evidence".

Also, calm down Morlark. If it's trolling you're only feeding it. If it's not, then this is just another pointless argument with no favourable resolution that'll only wind making you both look like as.

 

[Chiyochan]

No, it's called deliberately, dishonestly, and maliciously misrepresenting someone, by putting words into their mouth that are not even remotely representative of what they said. What's that word for when you say something that isn't true?

You're right about one thing though. You don't make a habit of respecting people. Shame you've never actually applied that conditional that you claim to.

Guess I'll just add you to the list of people then, since you cant listen to reason theres no point in talking with you. It's amazing how you people are actually accusing me of trolling.
trolling,
My own thread
of helpful modding ideas to improve the game.
Yeah I think its fairly obvious who's the delusional one here.
Sorry I didn't realize not putting up with malicious accusations and lies counted as trolling and ironically, lying. Maybe I've tapped into a whole different planet by accident. SO I guess I'll just be satisfied with the first few mature posters who where kind enough to respond thoughtfully and not derail my thread with the hopeless assertion that the AI is fine as it is.

 

[Afforess]

It's amazing how you people are actually accusing me of trolling.

Well, the Moderators seem to agree with us. I recommend we simply let this thread die.

 

[Valkrionn]

Its called paraphrasing, and I dont make a habit of respecting people who call me out as a liar and an idiot for thinking the AI is horrible. something to which there is massive evidence collected by many people, not just myself in some sort of limited anecdotal instance.

Actually, it would be called deliberately misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth. You may choose to call it paraphrasing, of course, but that does not make it so.

I have never called you a liar. Nor an idiot. Misinformed, yes; But that is fact, not supposition, given that you do not know the workings of the AI. Hell, that's not even a bad thing; Far more important the impression the AI gives those who DON'T understand it, 99% of players, than the 1% who do.

And again... Go back and read what I had to say. And keep in mind that Strategic and Tactical level AIs are separate. They run separately, they are coded separately, and each is specialized. Strategically, the AI is quite good. Tactically, not so much, and this is what you and so many others (including myself) have found issue with, and is being actively worked on.

No, it's called deliberately, dishonestly, and maliciously misrepresenting someone, by putting words into their mouth that are not even remotely representative of what they said. What's that word for when you say something that isn't true?

You're right about one thing though. You don't make a habit of respecting people. Shame you've never actually applied that conditional that you claim to.

Meh, don't worry about it. Continuing to reply does nothing.

Guess I'll just add you to the list of people then, since you cant listen to reason theres no point in talking with you. It's amazing how you people are actually accusing me of trolling.
trolling,
My own thread
of helpful modding ideas to improve the game.
Yeah I think its fairly obvious who's the delusional one here.
Sorry I didn't realize not putting up with malicious accusations and lies counted as trolling and ironically, lying. Maybe I've tapped into a whole different planet by accident. SO I guess I'll just be satisfied with the first few mature posters who where kind enough to respond thoughtfully and not derail my thread with the hopeless assertion that the AI is fine as it is.

Again, I was never malicious. I quoted you directly, and I replied in a fairly polite manner, particularly when compared to the way you replied to me.

I never once insulted you, yet the very first time you quote me you change my quote to derp. The next time you quote me, you put statements completely unrelated to what I said in my mouth. Yes, I am obviously the one making malicious accusations. Yep.