Most unbearable AI cheat

[morchuflex]

I really can't put up any longer with that cheat: the fact that the AI can force you to evacuate its territory, but you cannot force them to evacuate yours.
Of course, you can always tell them: "your forces are in our territory; they must be removed". They will answer "no problemo"... and still move deeper into your territory. This is true both for land forces and ships. The cheat is, you can only force them to leave if they are immobile. But if they move between turns (still staying inside your borders!), you will never get the option to tell them "leave or declare war". The AI, however, CAN order you to evacuate even if you move between turns. That's the kind of asymetrical (is this English?) situation that really ruins the experience, IMHO. I prefered SMAC's diplomacy, where there was no "first warning" but just "leave or die".
In my current game, the Portugueses have already colonized half MY home island. Their galleys (they built the GL even before I discovered MM, and yet that was my aim from the start, but let's forget THAT cheat at this time... ) navigate freely in my waters, and I can only shut my mouth... or declare war - and be crushed.
Even worse: if per chance you get the ability to order them to evacuate, they can be moved automatically to the other side... in the very middle of your territory, where you were planning to build cities only later, since it was (supposedly) secured area.
I really, really hate this!

 

[Turner]

This is not a cheat. The AI does not cheat. You can force the AI out of your territory. Yes, the 'Your forces...' may come up once or twice, but the longer they're in there, the bigger the chance of the 'leave or declare war', comes up.

The two are dependant on how strong the unit is, how many forces are inside foriegn territory, and I think AI attitude as something to do with as well (that's been my experience). You do have options...you can piss them off before telling them to leave (this seems to work, in my experience). You can herd them out of your territory. You can declare war.

But this is not a cheat. The AI does not cheat.

 

[morchuflex]

I maintain this is a cheat.
I have already tried to go and bug them repeatedly (up to five or six tries, in consecutive turns) and I NEVER got the ability to get rid of their ships sailing in my waters.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

True. But that works the other way, too - your ships can stay in foreign water for ages.

 

[Turner]

And it depends on how strong your units are compared to their forces. If you take a galley or transport with no units, you can most likely stay in their territory forever. Put Modern Armors in it, and they'll ask you to leave. Just as if they had strong units in their tranports, you can make them leave as well.

 

[Roland Johansen]

This is not a cheat. You can do exactly the same to the AI. Enter their land with only a settler or even a settler and a spearman and stay away from their cities. Yes, they'll tell you to leave, but you can still proceed further in their territory. Only if it takes you 20 or so turns to reach the other side of their territory where the unsettled land is, then they'll get the option remove or declare war. If you're closer to the other side then to your own side of their territory, you'll be teleported to the other side.

You probably compared an assymetrical situation where you entered their territory and stationed 20 knights next to one of their cities and they entered your territory with a settler and a spearman. In such a situation it is very understandeble that they say "remove or declare war" while you can only say " please remove your citizens from our land".

By the way, it was tested that the AI and the Human player get the option remove or declare war after the same amount of turns in enemy territory.

The rules are the same for the Human player and the AI, only the AI is using the rules better than the Human player.

 

[Chieftess]

I've had ships in AI borders for numerous turns. It's only when you ship over 9 galleys that the AI gets a little concerned. I think it might depend on attitude, too. A furious AI might not like you passing through.

 

[Bibor]

The real cheat here is that the AI knows what are you (or not) transporting. I also find it annoying that the AI knows the exact location of my troops. He will travel like 30 tiles of ocean, land on my terrain and declare war on me just because he "saw" an empty city on my shores. Like empty cities are a miracle under democracy? Of course, what i do is to keep a "bunker" full of assault units which can get to any city via railroad in 0 turns.
I actually make castles/bunkers for them.
I give them a garrison even --> and rename units like "Liberty" bunker battery 1.

LMAO

-bibor

 

[Roland Johansen]

It is true that the AI can see where you have placed your units even though the units are not in the AI's units visibility range. The AI can however not plan an attack or think ahead in any way. It can't even think at all. It only performs preprogrammed actions based on the present situation on the board. Because of this, the AI performs very poorly in warfare (where planning is everything).

The Human player can plan its attacks to attack the AI at its weakspots and make optimal use of the poor AI's understanding of warfare. If the programmers thought they could make the AI be a bit more challenging by giving the AI the advantage to see the humans weakspots then they have my blessing. However this has backfired, as good human players know the AI sees their weakspots and they create deliberate weakspots to control the AI's movements.

If you play against (good) human opponents, you'll see that they will attack your weak spots much more effectively than the AI could ever do. A human player will travel 30 tiles to attack your cities at an unexpected spot and won't use 3 obsolete units to do so, but will use 5-20 shiploads of the most usefull units available.

 

[Bibor]

If you play against (good) human opponents, you'll see that they will attack your weak spots much more effectively than the AI could ever do. A human player will travel 30 tiles to attack your cities at an unexpected spot and won't use 3 obsolete units to do so, but will use 5-20 shiploads of the most usefull units available.

That's why i hate the CIV3 for being so lame on netcode. I *want* to play on-line (since i have cable and a bunch of free time right now), but all play simultaneous moves and i don't know how to play that...

-bibor

 

[Moonsinger]

I really can't put up any longer with that cheat: the fact that the AI can force you to evacuate its territory, but you cannot force them to evacuate yours.

Yes, you can force them to evacuate yours. I don't have time to figure out the exact formula for activating the "leave or declare war" option, but I can tell you that it has something to do with the strength of their force in comparing to the total number of their force and yours. For example, if they have 100 cavalry and at least 50 of their best cavalry (just an example, this number is overkilled, but 50 units will do it for sure) are inside your border, I'm sure the "leave or declare war" option will be available for you. On the other hand, if they have just a few spearmans escorting a couple of their settlers, the "leave or war" option won't come up.

Since we know exactly what to expect from the AI, we can simply send our best warriors to escort them safely through our territory or throw them endless party to delay their journey or just simply box them up all together. The bottom line, there are so many great benefits for hosting foreign troops in our territory. Yes, I know...it's just another exploit and we don't play fair with the AIs. What can I say? Being a human player is really an utimate exploit of all and the AI can't possibly compete with that.

 

[Bibor]

Don't underestimate the programmability of the AI, my friend. If CIV4 will really have a programmable AI (by anyone) in 1/2 a year we will have a monster AI fed for info by all best CIV players. It will be still somewhat limited in options, yes, but will be significantly harder.

-bibor

 

[warpstorm]

That's why i hate the CIV3 for being so lame on netcode. I *want* to play on-line (since i have cable and a bunch of free time right now), but all play simultaneous moves and i don't know how to play that...

Why is your not wanting to play what most people do lame on Civ3's part? It included both simultaneous and traditional turn-based to support those who want either.

Why not learn simul? It's really not that hard and it speeds up the game a lot as you are only waiting on the slowest player rather than all players.

 

[Reinhard]

This is not a cheat. The AI does not cheat.

But this is not a cheat. The AI does not cheat.

This is definitely not a cheat, however the AI cheats all the time by knowing map and troop locations . Further, AI doesn't seem to take rep hits, as most AI civs break treaties all the time and still engage in GPT for tech deals with other AIs.

 

[daengle]

...the AI cheats all the time by knowing map and troop locations . Further, AI doesn't seem to take rep hits, as most AI civs break treaties all the time and still engage in GPT for tech deals with other AIs.

I find it odd people think the AI's not tracking reputation on each other is a cheat.

Having the AI players track each other's reputations would serve no purpose. After all, the AI's already know without any kind of behavoir history tracking exactly how the other AI's are programmed to act with regard to honoring treaties.

The whole point of the reputation system is to give the AI's some model of how the human player is likey to act. It is true that the current system is broken in that it's possible to get your reputation trashed for reasons beyond your control (and the penaties for ROP violations are nowhere near great enough), but still, having some kind of analysis of the human player's behavior is much better than none.

 

[Reinhard]

Well, some may think that it is kind of unfair to break a 500 gpt deal after a few turns with no penalty whatsoever. Except annoying the hell out of human player, but I think that has already been achieved before...

A nice idea would be to up the average deal prices for each broken treaty. This could affect AI as well as human and lead into some interesting diplomacy strategies, especially if the effects on prices were exponential.

 

[sabo]

I use it to my advantage, if there is an AI in my territory that I want or need to go to war with I bring up the diplo screen and start demanding stuff from him until he's furious then I tell him to "Either leave or declare war" he declares war EVERY time.

 

[dgfred]

I've had ships in AI borders for numerous turns. It's only when you ship over 9 galleys that the AI gets a little concerned. I think it might depend on attitude, too. A furious AI might not like you passing through.

The AI really when I stroll through their waters with my
Berserks. They are real paranoid for some reason .

 

[morchuflex]

All right, maybe what I called a cheat isn't a cheat after all.
Then let's call it bad game design: in real situation, which government would allow another nation to move fleets and troops in its territory? I definitely think there should be no polite warning, just as in SMAC.
Don't make me wrong: I love Civ3, I think it's a huge improvment over all previous civ-likes. But I do have the strange feeling that Sid and his buddies tried (and succeeded) to piss Civ2 veterans in every possible way. Nothing that conveniently worked in Civ2 still works in Civ3. I couldn't lose a game in Civ2 on Deity level, even after disbanding one of my two starting settlers. And now, I'm struggling to win my first game on Emperor level. Perhaps that's what makes me aggressive when I feel cheated.

 

[sealman]

... I couldn't lose a game in Civ2 on Deity level, even after disbanding one of my two starting settlers. And now, I'm struggling to win my first game on Emperor level...

Sounds like they improved the game to me. But yes, I agree, this is rather annoying.