Sid vs Diety?

[vorlon_mi]

One of the challenges for the Civ 3 (and all the series, really) is the
vast number of options that they have to handle. Consider chess:
only 64 squares, 6 types of units, and a small number of movements,
yet there are volumes of books on tactics and strategy. (Others have
made similar comments on these forums; I'm not saying this because I'm
brilliant). The Civ AI has to evaluate the relative benefits of building
military units, founding cities, negotiating with allies or enemies, as well as
some form of military tactics. The scope of actions is huge!
Now, in many FPS games, the options are much fewer for the AI. Pick up gun,
switch weapon, charge, retreat, seek cover, and so on. One might even
be able to upgrade oneself, through power-ups or bonuses....or human-entered
codes. The scope of actions for the AI does increase in RTS games, but
the complexity is still much less than Civ2 or Civ3.
BTW, that complexity -- and the added richness of all those decisions --
is one of my favorite parts of Civving....and I've only been doing it for 2 years!

 

[vmxa]

All I can say is between here an Poly in the last 3 or so years I have seen many posters say the game is too hard for them.

I have personally tried to help scores of players that could not beat Warlord and some even Chief.

Given that the number of people that come to this site is a small fraction of the games sales. I would be shock if those that do not even come to the board are as a whole doing much better.

Now you want them to make the game as smart as a human? Which human? The ones that call help desk to say the computer is broken, only to finally realize the thing is not plugged in or the ones that crush the game at Deity?

No matter how you shake it out, it will probably please a lot fewer people than it is worth to the company. Me I am happy either way. I will beat it either way.

 

[Breunor]

Its really, really hard to make good AI at games like this. I don't think it would hurt the game if the AI is better -- rather, we would simply adjust difficulty levels in a differnt way.

Usuually, playing other humans is probably more satisfying, but I play computer games becuase I play at times when its hard to find them.

CIV's AI is pretty good for a strategy computer game. Rech for the Stars has the best I''ve seen, but CIV's is one of the best.

At some point, the designers have to make a time/cost decision. The AI is done. At that point, there isn't anything wrong with offering version where the AI is disadvantaged (Warlord) and advantaged (Monarcha nd above), so each of us can play a fun, competitive game. Its hard to understand why someone could say these levels shouldn't be offered? Why not simply adjust the AI advantages to make the fun for each person.

That's why we have players of all strengths on this forums. We each adjust the game so that we play and enjoy it. Without making the AI smarter (hard to do), the designers make them tougher. In chess, the highest level is too ahrd (Hydra can now beat any human) so they have to make it dumber. But nobody could build a game like Civ on a computer to play as wella s chess!

Breunor

 

[Nuggetman]

Copers in 8 turns @ 20 shields/turn.

Acually it will take 7...

 

[Tone]

7 more turns from the picture but the build takes 8 turns to complete. 40% of 400sh is 160sh which takes 8 turns @ 20spt.