What Ai is better than Civ III?

[jssst21]

After having read, in threads too numerous to count, how Civ III's AI cheats,steals or is juts generally dumb, I was wondering just what other game AIs people have played against that they would consider better and why?

Forgive my grammar

My $.02 - Civ III's Ai is a great leap forward (apologies Mao old boy) from its previous incarnations. I have not yet played any other game with similarly challenging AI. Sure, it cheats and uses forces unwisely, but all in all I think it is excellent.

Do people have any idea how difficult it is to program an even competent AI? Some of the complaints and demands I have seen people make would require AI's that NASA couldn't dream up on their best day. Active bargaining, complex military strategies that could be applied to any geographic or political situation, I persobnally feel people need to be a little more realistic. Curious how others feel and, more importantly, where have you seen it done better?

 

[Greadius]

People like to complain about stuff like games. The AI isn't perfect, the biggest problem I see is that it has strong patterns of behavior that can be exploited easily. That being said, I'm frequently surprised by the AI's capability to do things right. The computer on cheats if you set the difficulty really high, if you want a fair game play it on lower settings.

A lot of the stupid AI moves can be found with historical correllation; many leaders do stupid things on international policy, its just a microcosm to have the AI make mistakes.

Personally, it is the best AI I've played against, but my experience is limited to. Nothing compares to 'real' competition though.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Better AI? I can't really think of one.

If you want to see really poor AI, take a gander at Risk II. Played it for the first time last night... the computer has no clue. Civ 3 is far better, and this is with a far more complex game.

 

[Matrix]

I think it is fundamentally impossible to make a tough AI without letting him cheat. Civ3 is more than chess; you can't always calculate what the best tactic is...

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

I don't have a better AI to propose, but I got the worst I have ever seen .... Extreme Paintball... god that game suck ... the move of the character are totally random ... Sometime you even have a guy doing moonwalking in front of a wall with bullets coming out from his a$$ .....now THAT is poor AI

And for the question, I agree with you, I don't really see a way to change the difficulty level without letting the AI cheat ... Being a programmer, I have to say that programming a good AI is a hell lot of trouble.... Anyway, CIV3 AI is great

 

[jssst21]

This post was designed to turn some of the just plain criticism I hear on the boards into constructive criticism. There are tons of people complaining about the AI. Show me where to look for better AI....
...if not give it a rest. please.

 

[jssst21]

This post was designed to turn some of the just plain criticism I hear on the boards into constructive criticism. There are tons of people complaining about the AI. Show me where to look for better AI....
...if not give it a rest. please.

 

[swt1]

I've think the AI in Warlords III was pretty good. Not sure it was better than CIV 3 as it has been a while since I played it. But that AI also had issues. The gameplay was much simplier than CIV 3. Also looked like in the scenarios and campaigns a lot of the AI moves were prescripted. The game would also drag out after one had an assurred victory.

BTW I also liked the AI in Warlords Battelcry, but that really doesn't count as it is a RTS game.

Overall though the AI in CIV 3 is one of the tops, but yes it could be refined somewhat. Thought I would throw at least one title name, as no one else has yet.

 

[connor]

It has been a while since I played CTP, but it seemed, if I remember correctly, that its AI was not too bad, but I do think that CIV3 is the best I have encountered to date. I am not a programmer, but it seems that to have the AI be able to calculate and anticipate every possible move and strategy is near impossible, hence the cry for MP. The computer simply cannot think abstractly, and I think in some sense that is what many people are desiring. The computer cannot, at least to my knowledge, develop and implement new strategies and tactics, hence the reason people develop a pattern for winning that tends to work so frequently.

 

[BillChin]

A couple of points. I agree about the computer version of Risk. For veteran players the game rarely lasts more than six or seven turns (the first set of cards turned in by the human player usually wipes one or two opponents off the map). There is zero replay value to the Risk computer game as the same basic strategy wins very quickly every time.

I disagree about the impossibility of a good AI in a 4X game. It is a matter of time and resources, not the task itself. The keystone in my mind is scripting files governing the AI. This would let the virtually unlimited resources of the fan base work on the project instead of a small team of programmers and their play testers. I define a good AI as one that can beat 80% of experienced human players on a consistent basis on an even playing field. With hundred or thousands of fans devoted to the project I am sure one can be developed.

Unfortunately, not every player wants a better AI (about 20%). Supporting scripting files means much higher production costs and much longer testing. No rational publisher is going to make a design decision that translates into less customers and higher costs.

 

[MrMulan]

Just wondering...how hard would it be to program the game to learn from your past play styles? I know some chess programs have that...but i really like the game as it is(there is always room for improvement-thats why theres a future)

 

[Troyens]

You think the AI is smart when in an acceptable trade I throw in a luxury item (dyes) FOR FREE for good relations. . . and instead of being thanked I get a "they would never accept such a deal" message??

I think it's awfully STUPID.

You think it is smart when the AI Military Advisor evaluates a civ's strength by the quantity of their units instead of their quality? In other words, one civ can build a ton of junk warrior units and be less likely to be attacked than a civ that has a smaller (BUT STRONGER) army with swordsmen and horsemen.

I think that any Military Advisor that dumb should be shot.

You think it smart when the Diplomatic Advisor continually and stubbornly won't cut a peace deal even when outnumbered and badly losing a war? I have to practically wipe out some civs before they'll make peace.

Such a Diplomatic Advisor is suicidally dumb.

Culture flipping borders and cities are a big crock (see the thread on that).

The AI makes no provision for privateers and submarines to attack an enemy's trade routes and commerce; in otherwords, to attack their merchant shipping - those vessels' true purpose and the prime purpose of any navy.

I know for a fact the AI regularly breaks its own rules and cheats, instead of getting less dumb. That includes ocean-goiing galleys, freebies in trade, knowing too much about maps, and such as free tech advances so we the player doesn't get "too far" ahead.

No, I do not miss some of the crazy stuff from the Civ II AI: battleships in lakes, or waves of nothing but catapult units invading me, but I sure expected better than this for the AI after all these years since Civ II came out.

 

[Selous]

hmmm .... and i did notice that u didnt have any examples of good AI
i disagree with most of your post troyens as most of it is arguements with basic features of the game ... culture flipping has nothing to do with AI. the fact that privateers and subs do almost nothing to trade and whatnot
and civs getting free tecks .... mebey they are the ones that scientiffic civs get at the start of a new age?
there are some issues with AI not wanting some luxuries or resorses ... but that is rare

u complain that the AI breaks the rules and cheats but u want the AI to cheat more? and know your entire force composition and placement without having spies? i would rather have the AI make a bad desision sometimes rather than cheat rampantly ... much like a human player i guess (okok so the AI makes a few dumb desisions a bit more than a human player) .... but like jssst21 says ...... find us an example of some better 4x AI

 

[Smash]

The only decent ai that is affordable is in chess programs.

This civ3 ai is not better than anything else.In fact,it is worse in many ways.
In Civ3,the player has been limited by different caps on stuff which gives the illusion of a better ai.In truth,it is the player that is not doing as well as in previous versions.

think about it.

 

[Greadius]

I thought about it, and I'm still confused.

Idealistic goal, but people will always complain. Best just to ignore them. They don't complain because there IS better, they complain because it makes them feel better.

 

[Furry Spatula]

About this Civ 3 AI. People who complain about it are asking for way too much for a cheap piece of software. If you wanted a truly "good" AI in this game you'd be paying upwards of $150 US probably. Thats how much time and resources it would take to get an AI extremly good.

With a game as complex as Civ 3 they did a damn fine job with the AI. The sheer number of ways a player can attempt this game shows its copmplexity.

And as people have mentioned about the military advisor and strength of a military, is that realy AI? Its how the game tells the AI what is strong, and thus the AI bases its judgement of attacking on that. The game says strength is just determined on the # of units you have, not what type or how advanced they are, thus the AI cannot make a true judgement on this. I expect that if some more patches come out this will be changed.

And as selous stated, the AI cheating isn't the AI being poor, its giving the AI more bonuses, it has nothing to do with how good the AI is.

Frankly i can see one thing common with all these people B****ing about games, you want everything in it. Its not going to happen. Again if you guys wanted the best AI avaliable the game would end up costing you over $150 us. This is because not only would it take so much time to program the AI, they would need to hire tens of thousands of play testers to try every strategy, thats why bugs are always found later on after releases, the game truly gets tested

And to those of you who say this game is historicaly inaccurate, sorry its off topic, I say of course it is. What did you expect from a "GAME" not a pice of educational software. And frankly they didn't make this game for a few people who wanted to play something historicly accurate with a lot of gameplay imbalances, not to mention how on earth could you live for thousands of years? Frankly you people expect too much from gaming companies, ok my rant is complete.

 

[jssst21]

To address Troyens- You only need to pick up a newspaper to see examples of a country that is clearly militarily superior fighting a country that is massively militarily inferior to the last man. Though it seems illogical, it does happen in real life with astounding frequency. Further, that same country has in previous encounters, gotten its rear-end thoroughly kicked by a country with vastly inferior technology who refused to sue for peace and refused to give up.
Cultural and religous differences in the real world, as in Civ, do produce some truly bizarre results.

 

[Greadius]

That is more modern day intelligence though... in the age of information, even the most backwater places can be determined.

For historical perspective the capabilities of other military capability were guess work. For example, at the beginning of World War 1, none of the nations had real knowledge of their adversaries military prowess; none of them prepared for a long war since they assumed their military was vastly superior. Likewise, the first British invasion of Afghanistan they had no idea that the tribesmen out there even had rifles. They came with a military much to small to cover an area as large as they had thought.

Historically, military decisions have rarely reflected accurate concepts of their adversaries. Its the military advisors role to try and get you to use your forces, not to gather intelligence.

 

[Crash]

This is in response to the post about the AI not agreeing to peace when it is losing a war...

Imagine that Canada launches a successful suprise attack on Maine, and conquers it before anything can be done to stop it. They than back up their victory by threatening to use their nuclear stockpile (Ok, ok, they don't have nuclear missiles but they could load a missile with Black Label and do a lot of damage).

Would the US just sit by and let them keep Maine even with the threat of nuclear war?!?

Would Canada let us keep a province if we invaded (ok, maybe Quebec)??

Most countries are unwilling to "give up" portions of themselves for the sake of peace. Especially in the last century or so it has been the practice to "return" to the original boundaries when the war has ended (for the most part).

So why should the AI be any different? Would you settle for letting the AI take one of your main cities and not get it back?

This arguement also blends into the culture flip debate.

If Canada took over Maine wouldn't they cities "flip" back to the US the first chance they got??

Just some thoughts...

 

[Peteus]

Originally posted by Troyens
You think the AI is smart when in an acceptable trade I throw in a luxury item (dyes) FOR FREE for good relations. . . and instead of being thanked I get a "they would never accept such a deal" message??

I think it's awfully STUPID.

You think it is smart when the AI Military Advisor evaluates a civ's strength by the quantity of their units instead of their quality? In other words, one civ can build a ton of junk warrior units and be less likely to be attacked than a civ that has a smaller (BUT STRONGER) army with swordsmen and horsemen.

I think that any Military Advisor that dumb should be shot.

Those two items are bugs, not examples of a poor AI, IMO. I've certainly noticed both. It's true though that the AI is limited by the poor information he gets from his military advisor. (Thus invading me with knights when he has me outnumbered but I have him vastly outgunned with tanks!) Fixing the military advisor calculation would be an easy way to make the AI "smarter".