The best argument I've seen so far defending the AI cheats. It's true, we can compare notes and peek at the board. But I limit my "save and reload" instances, rare that they happen, for getting a scout instead of 35 gold from my first hut. I justify this because the AI starts with more units than I do and it isn't fair that they can gobble up all the goody huts. I wanted that aspect to be even. But other than that rare instance, I can't justify any cheating. Whats the point of having goody huts when I can't reach them? I don't gobble them all myself, either. I usually just send the one scout. At least it is fair that way. And I don't use the reload cheat for games I intend to post online.
Although I don't consider analyzing the unique situation with a human mind to be cheating, it is simply pitting human mental acumen against AI design and the processing ability of the computer. A good AI could beat you most of the time even without handicaps, like a chess program. Like everything else a computer does, it is possible to teach it how to do things that appear to be very human. Like preparing for conflict before starting a war. Teaching it what to research in different situations. Sharpening its diplomatic program. Teaching the computer to analyze the offensive capabilities of an opponent, and teaching it to look for signs of military buildup.
Everything that a human does, a computer can be taught how to duplicate convincingly. When it comes right down to it, we are machines that can feel. Perhaps the computer may never really feel anything, but it can learn to mimic our behavior and even surpass our processing ability.
Sorry that was a bit of a rant. Oh well...
I don't see how I am being arrogant, though. I resent such an accusation. I think accusing someone of arrogance with such conviction is arrogant in and of itself.
Reloading to get scouts instead of gold. In other words you cheat and still can't win?
Chess = finite set of moves out to n turns, supercomputer can crunch. Civ = much more complicated over the course of an entire game. Don't ask too much from programmers okay?
Civ AI can't think more than 1 turn in advance, according to those who have looked at the savegame coding.
A human can think in the long-term, short-term, factor in tradeoffs, and gain big production or research or gold bonuses from a variety of methods, like trading techs and maps, using espionage effectively, efficiently specializing cities (the AI does really idiotic things sometimes, just look at the national wonder combos it uses sometimes), etc. A human player also has a HUGE advantage when it comes to warfare, which is why the AI programmers gave some units and traits (skirms, bowmen, protective, and free archers to higher-difficulty level AIs) to help out the AI. AI is also not good at diplomacy so you can get blocs to hate each other or otherwise manipulate world politics.
About war: AI still attacks suicidally sometimes, against well-entrenched positions. And the AI is pretty crappy about using collateral damage efficiently unless it has so many units that it can't help but use it decently well. AI is also helpless against massed bombers and fighters, not to mention fast cav and tank rushes. AI also doesn't promote well and sometimes wastes its GGs like it does with other GPs that it gets. In short, if you have ANY siege units, and even half the power rating of an AI, even on Deity, you should win more than you lose and eventually level the playing field and then turn the tide completely. (If you have air or mobile artillery, plus blitzers like tanks, you should always win even when outnumbered 2 to 1 or even more. The AI is hopeless against massed air and blitzing units, even with the max-capacity air nerf. Deity level on Road to War proves this easily, with Russia's mammoth army STILL unable to contain a human-controlled Germany.)
![[pissed]](/images/smilies/pissed.gif "Pissed [pissed]")
