I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when you say that the AI can't handle 1 UpT.
What is the solution to 1UpT?
- Thread starter TheMarshmallowBear
- Start date
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when you say that the AI can't handle 1 UpT.
Civ4 once was labeled as having a bad AI as well and steps were taken to improve it.
Perhaps you might like to read a bit here. It was not the only effort.
I disagree with your indisputable facts. Please do not tell others that they cannot have opinions as yours is the only one that counts because it is indisputable.
I like 1upt, it is a lot better than giant stacks.
If people don't like 1upt, then maybe it can be changed to 2upt or 3upt. This way 2 or 3 of the same unite type (military/civilian) can be allowed to occupy the same tile at once.
Also, I think there should be a way for my military unit to enter the same tile as a another civs civilian unit without declaring war.
If people don't like 1upt, then maybe it can be changed to 2upt or 3upt. This way 2 or 3 of the same unite type (military/civilian) can be allowed to occupy the same tile at once.
Also, I think there should be a way for my military unit to enter the same tile as a another civs civilian unit without declaring war.
In addition to the two posts above, I sometimes wonder if the statement "Civ5's AI is terrible" became sort of a MEME already.
Sure, at the beginning, this was definitely true. But after G&K and uncounted patches the AI is noticeable better! I even dare to say that Civ5's tactical AI now is among the best in comparable games! (Not, of course, in comparison to a skilled human player. But nobody expects something like this seriously... I hope.)
Biologist
Emperor
This thread seems to have become more about AI programming in general than about 1UPT in particular. But as others have pointed out, if it's possible to program an AI to guide a robot millions of miles through space to reach another planet, it's possible to program an AI to play a computer game competently. Maybe not brilliantly, but competently.
Before there were video games a number of systems were created to enable 2+ player hex based games to be played solo so obviously it can be done but for the Civ devs this may have been new territory.
The AI in these hex board games was often driven by random numbers and probability of successful outcomes so saying it is too difficult seems a bit lame to be honest. I think the resources (time) weren't available.
The AI in these hex board games was often driven by random numbers and probability of successful outcomes so saying it is too difficult seems a bit lame to be honest. I think the resources (time) weren't available.
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
Realms Beyond has something like 50 games archived. Everyone has their own thread where they report (show-off) their strategies. Players win using a combination of buildering, warmongering, and yes, diplomacy.
Players get kudos for a combination of how badass their play is and how well they are reported. Recommended games are Pitboss 2 and PBEM 23.
Civ4 MP is definitely not dead, if anything, the practice of posting spoiler threads (and yes, jeopardising your carefully planned rush or backstab) has made the community stronger.
Would those two games be good examples of the 'ultimate' MP experience civ4 can offer?
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
They're threads by some damn good players, the ones who played the best in that game. If you want something more "balanced", with a closer skill disparity, they'd be this or this or this. Those are trickier to follow because it's harder to frame those games around a single narrative.
But yes, Civ4 is deep as hell and a good player is constantly making decisions involving trade-offs between military and economy. So no, Civ4 MP is not purely a military game because if you randomly decide to rush someone who knows how to handle rushes (aka someone as good at the game as you are), you'll simply lose the game for yourself and your victim. And if you invest in an ridiculously large SoD, by the time it's ready, your opponent has probably attained the means to handle it.
RB has also done a Civ5 PBEM game, but the metagame is not particularly mature.
But yes, Civ4 is deep as hell and a good player is constantly making decisions involving trade-offs between military and economy. So no, Civ4 MP is not purely a military game because if you randomly decide to rush someone who knows how to handle rushes (aka someone as good at the game as you are), you'll simply lose the game for yourself and your victim. And if you invest in an ridiculously large SoD, by the time it's ready, your opponent has probably attained the means to handle it.
RB has also done a Civ5 PBEM game, but the metagame is not particularly mature.
It'd be interesting to see them change the way they think of armies in general. Instead of having units, you actually have an army that's populated in much the same way as a game like Lords of the Realm from way back when. For example, instead of simply "building a swordsman" you'd instead allocate a certain amount of a cities population to become swordsmen. These swordsmen, when finished, take away population from the city and become a mobile unit. This unit can be combined with any number of units, adding to the population of that army.
You say "but that's bringing back stacks of doom" well not exactly because with a population model you can then totally change how combat works. Instead of wounding units that can then turn around and heal, you inflict casualties that are a permanent loss. In order to "rebuild" you're stack, you can't just sit there out of combat and rest, you have to actually take more population from your cities, train them and then send them over to your "stack."
Additionally, contrary to the old Civ 4 model where the defending stack simply put it's best unit forward, you'd be fighting the entire army at once. You'd gain the benefits of the different unit types but you'd also gain the downsides. Combat values wouldn't be calculated unit vs unit, rather they'd be calculated army vs army.
Units would lose health bars and instead they'd have populations. Maybe you take an army of 100,000 knights and 100,000 longswords up against an army of 125,000 pikes and 75,000 crossbows. After you apply your combat variables, perhaps the first army takes 75,000 casualties and the second takes 120,000 leaving the 1st army with 62,500 knights+62,500 longswords and the 2nd army with 75,000 pikes+45,000 crossbows.
Now the first army is bigger than the 2nd army and would have a much greater combat advantage, ultimately being in position to finish the job quickly. The 2nd army would likely try to retreat back to a city or to another army to rebolster it's numbers.
This system, though it might be a little bit more complicated, would make combat feel much more realistic and also would allow the developers to improve the depth of economy in the game. No longer would you be able to simply sacrifice growth for production or gold and overwhelm your enemy by force as though armies were lifeless robots built in a factory. You'd now have to manage population growth vs gold and production to ensure that not only could you produce troops fast enough, but also that you have the life-force to populate an army.
You say "but that's bringing back stacks of doom" well not exactly because with a population model you can then totally change how combat works. Instead of wounding units that can then turn around and heal, you inflict casualties that are a permanent loss. In order to "rebuild" you're stack, you can't just sit there out of combat and rest, you have to actually take more population from your cities, train them and then send them over to your "stack."
Additionally, contrary to the old Civ 4 model where the defending stack simply put it's best unit forward, you'd be fighting the entire army at once. You'd gain the benefits of the different unit types but you'd also gain the downsides. Combat values wouldn't be calculated unit vs unit, rather they'd be calculated army vs army.
Units would lose health bars and instead they'd have populations. Maybe you take an army of 100,000 knights and 100,000 longswords up against an army of 125,000 pikes and 75,000 crossbows. After you apply your combat variables, perhaps the first army takes 75,000 casualties and the second takes 120,000 leaving the 1st army with 62,500 knights+62,500 longswords and the 2nd army with 75,000 pikes+45,000 crossbows.
Now the first army is bigger than the 2nd army and would have a much greater combat advantage, ultimately being in position to finish the job quickly. The 2nd army would likely try to retreat back to a city or to another army to rebolster it's numbers.
This system, though it might be a little bit more complicated, would make combat feel much more realistic and also would allow the developers to improve the depth of economy in the game. No longer would you be able to simply sacrifice growth for production or gold and overwhelm your enemy by force as though armies were lifeless robots built in a factory. You'd now have to manage population growth vs gold and production to ensure that not only could you produce troops fast enough, but also that you have the life-force to populate an army.
This is actually a lot like Civ Revolution (at least like the Civ 4-era re-make). In that game in the series, you had a population that worked tiles and buildings, and to make a soldier you first had to build enough weapons to arm one, and then you had to remove one of your population and assign him to be a soldier. You could even remove population and move them as civilian units to other cities and have them work there instead. But the reason that Civ Revolution went in this direction is because it was a pretty different game: no techs to worry about, more trading, only 4 playable civs (with 8 leaders, 2 a piece) and so on. When you add lots of civs, lots of techs, lots more buildings and other stuff, that system just becomes too time-consuming.
No I wanted to see the best of the best. I will see how some of the best Civ4 players play the game, thanks for the links. Will likely tell a lot about it.
