Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
Sure, until the guys wimp out and leave you with nothing to do, great fun!
Hotseat against yourself works too.
Max level - no AI cheat
- Thread starter YinYang86
- Start date
Hotseat against yourself works too.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
I agree that combat bonuses would have been much smarter than production bonuses. More units doesn't really do much more than give you more XP.
They also should really eliminate ranged attacks of all kinds. Would really make it harder to abuse the AI, still easy of course, but harder.
I never understand why more designers don't design their game around the AI instead of the reverse.
Some nice points true the thread.
I have to say that I've played on Prince level as suggested by developers to be "fair" up until the last patch, when they "upgraded" AI (I suppose forced by some whining "fans" claming that AI is so bad and easy to play against), so now I moved back to warlord since AI is from than on much more aggressive for my taste and most of my games became just constant war against my civ (and in between other civs among themselves).
So the levels (of difficulty or fairness or AI cheat level ) actually are subject to change by some of the patches.
I have to say that I've played on Prince level as suggested by developers to be "fair" up until the last patch, when they "upgraded" AI (I suppose forced by some whining "fans" claming that AI is so bad and easy to play against), so now I moved back to warlord since AI is from than on much more aggressive for my taste and most of my games became just constant war against my civ (and in between other civs among themselves).
So the levels (of difficulty or fairness or AI cheat level ) actually are subject to change by some of the patches.
Derpy Hooves
Grand Inquisitor
Oh, my bad, I figured that when you where talking about the unit just standing there doing nothing that that was actually a problem, and the building problem could be fixed by the first example as well.
Funny how you call the example silly now, when initially you stated I did not understand AI because I said it was too simple of a problem to bother explaining how to fix it. Please try to be consistent.
And then you go on with your restrictive thinking, as noted before, these problems are so easy to overcome a single line would be sufficient, and no DLL knowledge required, mods will not be affected, at least not from the way they're implemented now, with the AI treating everything like cannon fodder.
And the current AI does not deal with unforseen situations either, try attacking them when their army is attacking another Civ.
What I'm wrapping my oh-so creative mind around is you missing the point of the discussion, I have no objections to the dev's making an even better AI then I'm proposing with scripting, my point was just that even a simple scripted AI could improve it immensely compared to it's very sad current state, point being, they did neither, like the ruthless lazy bastards I think I've sufficiently proven they are.
Actually, the AI should roleplay, the AI and human being treated differently concerning resources is just an effect of they way they implemented difficulties.
The AI should not pounce on every weakness you exhibit, and the CIV style of diplomacy, altough unfair for the AI made for a system you could manipulate, something that's a requirement for a game as complex as this. Failing this diplomacy turns into chaos, or at best managed chaos, which is the situation we're in currently.
Immersive diplomacy was a feature of the level of the control you had over diplomacy in CIV, removing that was a mistake only a guy who's never made a Civ game could've made.
There are also numerous studios that don't have the "release when done" policy but will still push back release if it's in an unfinished state, not doing this is Firaxis fault, this is not so much a matter of being a bit too ambitious as just godamn daydreaming, something a studio, which I thought was professional , should not do.
And your final point is that a scripted AI is bad because they did not have time to playtest for making one.
This is backwards logic, neither did they have time to make more Civs, yet it would have been great if more where included.
The point is, they SHOULD have made time to make a good AI and playtest it because any respectable studio does this, as noted before, I don't prefer simple over complex scripts, just that these are relatively simple to program, which is only relevant for our discussion as my initial assertion was that even with simple scripts they could have improved this game.
Ofcourse Firaxis and Schafers incompetence taken into account, I might prefer a script AI purely because I don't trust in their ability to make a complex one without breaking some of it's most fundamental features. Even our current AI is better then if Schafer got the brilliant idea to let the AI ragequit or do "griefing" to make it more like you're playing a real human.
Funny how you call the example silly now, when initially you stated I did not understand AI because I said it was too simple of a problem to bother explaining how to fix it. Please try to be consistent.
And then you go on with your restrictive thinking, as noted before, these problems are so easy to overcome a single line would be sufficient, and no DLL knowledge required, mods will not be affected, at least not from the way they're implemented now, with the AI treating everything like cannon fodder.
And the current AI does not deal with unforseen situations either, try attacking them when their army is attacking another Civ.
What I'm wrapping my oh-so creative mind around is you missing the point of the discussion, I have no objections to the dev's making an even better AI then I'm proposing with scripting, my point was just that even a simple scripted AI could improve it immensely compared to it's very sad current state, point being, they did neither, like the ruthless lazy bastards I think I've sufficiently proven they are.
Actually, the AI should roleplay, the AI and human being treated differently concerning resources is just an effect of they way they implemented difficulties.
The AI should not pounce on every weakness you exhibit, and the CIV style of diplomacy, altough unfair for the AI made for a system you could manipulate, something that's a requirement for a game as complex as this. Failing this diplomacy turns into chaos, or at best managed chaos, which is the situation we're in currently.
Immersive diplomacy was a feature of the level of the control you had over diplomacy in CIV, removing that was a mistake only a guy who's never made a Civ game could've made.
There are also numerous studios that don't have the "release when done" policy but will still push back release if it's in an unfinished state, not doing this is Firaxis fault, this is not so much a matter of being a bit too ambitious as just godamn daydreaming, something a studio, which I thought was professional , should not do.
And your final point is that a scripted AI is bad because they did not have time to playtest for making one.
This is backwards logic, neither did they have time to make more Civs, yet it would have been great if more where included.
The point is, they SHOULD have made time to make a good AI and playtest it because any respectable studio does this, as noted before, I don't prefer simple over complex scripts, just that these are relatively simple to program, which is only relevant for our discussion as my initial assertion was that even with simple scripts they could have improved this game.
Ofcourse Firaxis and Schafers incompetence taken into account, I might prefer a script AI purely because I don't trust in their ability to make a complex one without breaking some of it's most fundamental features. Even our current AI is better then if Schafer got the brilliant idea to let the AI ragequit or do "griefing" to make it more like you're playing a real human.
KillingMeSoftly
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 279
I don't feel the CiV AI is especially bad. At least it doesn't feel that way compared to most strategy games I've played. Take Total War for example; a very indepth strategy game with realistic combat. Yet I can still completely trounse a much larger army than mine because the AI isn't too hard to outwit.
This all boils down to the fact the AI will never be as good as a decent player. It is simply inferior by all accounts. The computer "cheats" because this is the only way it can hope to match a player who knows the ropes, because the computer doesn't think. It can only react based upon its scripts and doesn't evolve or become better as the game progresses. There will not be an AI that can match a competent player without huge bonuses until someday in the future, that won't be here anytime soon.
While the CiV AI can certainly use tweaks and be made better, calling CiV a bad game because of its AI is silly to me. This case can be made against any strategy game. If you want an honest challenge then the only way to get that is to play other people. It has been this way for all strategy games, Civilization or not.
The closest you can get to a fair deal is Prince, but even then the AI gets happiness bonuses that allow it to settle more cities than you. However, there are plenty of methods and strategies available where happiness won't be an issue for the player, either.
This all boils down to the fact the AI will never be as good as a decent player. It is simply inferior by all accounts. The computer "cheats" because this is the only way it can hope to match a player who knows the ropes, because the computer doesn't think. It can only react based upon its scripts and doesn't evolve or become better as the game progresses. There will not be an AI that can match a competent player without huge bonuses until someday in the future, that won't be here anytime soon.
While the CiV AI can certainly use tweaks and be made better, calling CiV a bad game because of its AI is silly to me. This case can be made against any strategy game. If you want an honest challenge then the only way to get that is to play other people. It has been this way for all strategy games, Civilization or not.
The closest you can get to a fair deal is Prince, but even then the AI gets happiness bonuses that allow it to settle more cities than you. However, there are plenty of methods and strategies available where happiness won't be an issue for the player, either.
Derpy Hooves
Grand Inquisitor
Actually I have a whole list of reasons why this game is bad that does not center on the AI, but nevertheless that's the focus of this thread.
And few TBS games have good combat AI's, but if you want to play with some of the better ones, try HoMM 2 or 3 or M.A.X.X., the point is that compared to many other games the AI is bad altough I can't say I have any experience with the Total War franchise.
And as noted before, I believe in this thread, Warlord is most likely the most equal one, as the player gets bonusses equivelant to the ones the AI gets. Even Prince difficulty gets massive bonusses, and we all know how well they do.
And few TBS games have good combat AI's, but if you want to play with some of the better ones, try HoMM 2 or 3 or M.A.X.X., the point is that compared to many other games the AI is bad altough I can't say I have any experience with the Total War franchise.
And as noted before, I believe in this thread, Warlord is most likely the most equal one, as the player gets bonusses equivelant to the ones the AI gets. Even Prince difficulty gets massive bonusses, and we all know how well they do.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
A) This isn't true at all, it cheats like crazy.
B) It is not relly any better than the Civ V AI. It is good, but that is just the thing, good AI is still rubish compared to a player.
