The AI knows where all troops are - proof!

[Sirp]

bamspeedy: it's not 15 turns; it's forever (or until the planned city site is taken). The AI is clearly stateless. That's all. Making a stateful AI is a non-trivial process.

As for the AI not being affected by fog of war, it's pretty damn obvious it's not, so I don't see why people feel the need to post countless examples, over and over again.

 

[Higher Game]

"Higher Game: 120 tries is statistically significant!
Others have found this, too! Obviously, the seed is changed by rushing and diplomacy, and somehow is is usually changed favourable. So befoe you call me delusional, how about you give it a try?"

120 tries? You would need to have a few thousand tries before it really does get significant. Also, there is an option for preserve random seed before you start a game. And if it changes the seed, how do you know it will not increase the chances of the ship sinking?

 

[Masquerouge]

Actually, somewhere between 800-900 tries is enough to make the result significant to -/+ 5%... IIRC !

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Higher Game: the radnom seed preserve thing was on for all tries, I always saved with the Galley at sea, then ended turn. I wrote down if it sank or not, then reloaded, rushed a temple, ended turn, noted it it sank or not, then reloaded, rushed two temples and so on.

So ti I get significantly less losses witht the rush thing, 120 tries is statistically significant. It doesn't give me hard numbers, but it gives me a very strong indication that temple rushing infleunces the chance of sinking somehow! I was not trying to reach a hard number for probability of sinking after rushing, for that i would indeed need around 800 or so tries!


Sirp: the point in this one is not that the AI knows which city is empty. The town was empty the turn before, too, just this turn the Horesmen were moved out of the next city! So this is a lot more than the AI simply knowing stuff, the AI also openly acts on this beyond the data it can easily get from espionage!

And also this is GD where all the newbies come. And they at least do NOT already know it.

 

[Sirp]

Killer: yes, the AI knows where every unit in it's known world is. Whether it knows the size of city garrisons is unclear, but it well might. I still stay this is old news; real old news.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Sirp
Killer: yes, the AI knows where every unit in it's known world is. Whether it knows the size of city garrisons is unclear, but it wel
l might. I still stay this is old news; real old news.

Yes sure, but a lots of poeple still say; a.i dont cheat you know what i mean!
This kinf of stuff killer have experience should not happen, imagine playing against a human player and at all time he know where your units are, that s why MP is still impossible with this game.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Sirp: they do know garrison strength and troop type - only that can explain the behaviour here. Why diodn't they go for the empty city before?????? because they knew the Archer would get slaughtered by th Horsemen from the next town. They also knew I hadn't built a road yet (would have been possible), so the Horsies couldn't get back in time. And this is a lot mroe that the AI should know in all fairness.

 

[Higher Game]

Is it even possible not to have a cheating AI? Why can't it make decisions based off of what it knows?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Higher Game
Is it even possible not to have a cheating AI? Why can't it make decisions based off of what it knows?

I fear not! After all, it would involve a huge amount of programming to stop all the exploits I can already think of... and the AI would have to plan then....

 

[Higher Game]

They had dozens of guys make Civ 3, and only 1 of them was behind the AI. I guess they have multiplayer in mind...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

mehtinks so, too.... and I really look forward to it

 

[Sirp]

no I don't think they had multiplayer in mind. If they had multiplayer in mind the original game would have allowed multiplayer. I would imagine that less than 10% of people who purchased the original Civilization III will ever play a single multiplayer game.

The CivIII AI still gives a good challenge to many people...even on warlord. It's only once you start getting pretty good that it's inadequacies become clear. The average customer won't even notice such inadequacies.

Also killer, I seriously doubt the AI assesses counter-attack force to its sea-borne invasion attempts. I have seen it drop longbowmen off in the range of knights or cavalary countless times.

 

[Higher Game]

They DO have multiplayer in mind. So much, in fact, they are selling the expansion with little more than just multiplayer. It's all about money with Firaxis.

 

[Koronin]

What's so wrong with the AI knowing your cities and their content anyway?

It's inheritantly handicapped against even the unskilled player, so it 'cheats (for lack of abetter word) to even it out.

The game is NOT unbeatable, but still challenging, a nice balance.

 

[Higher Game]

What is annoying is that they adjust their strategies based on this, and you can take advantage of their cheating. If they send a settler across the world in favor of a closer spot, you know there is a resource there. It's actually very unfair, but the most unfair parts are how they attack an undefended island. I can't see how they know it is undefended. Free espionage is cheating.