What's with the AI !!

[rancorbeast]

Hey guys ! Nice to know the CIV community is not dead

Ok here's my thing. I bought CIV3 the other day...just to have fun like I used to and to prepare my mind for Civ4 !! What a blast it was to play...untill... here it goes. I'm playing roman on easy setting (ok call me a puss..) I kept the other two civ in check, my borders are well defined and I bribe the living hell out of all o them so they leave me alone. So I got this huge territory... I'm sooo far more advaced than they are. I got riflemen and the best they got is spearmen.

Well guess what.. the egyptians who have been "polite" with me since the beginning have declared war on me... and their little speardude and Archers are killing my riflemens !! AND THEY'RE IN FORTRESSES 3 unit each along my border !! What the F... I was having so much fun just discovering stuff and building a large empire, trading you name it... and I'm getting my as. whooped by some puny little archers !! What's wrong here !! Oh and the game won't let me sign a peace treaty !!

Can I get out of this ? Please help guys !

Thanks a million

 

[MSTK]

Welcome to CFC

 

[MSTK]

K, here are some answers that I think of:

1) Always start of Chieftan. Not Warlord, nto Regent...the easiest level possible. This is a change from most games. Many people stay on Chieftan for months before moving onto Warlord
2) After your first game or two, stop building Great Wonders. Period. Never touch the Great Library, or even consider it. Then after you get onto Monarch Difficulty, you can use them.
3) Bribery doesn't work in this game
4) AI usually declares war for one of a few reasons:
a. You have an undefended or easily takable city
b. You have a luxury
c. Mutual protection pact or Military Alliance
5) AI is very stupid.
6) Go to the Creation and Customizations forum and find a "Combat Calculator", which will tell the odds of winning a battle. Also, look for a "Combat Simulator", which tells the odds of taking or defending a city.
7) The AI is usually in a bad mood within the first 10 turns or so of a war. They'll eventually lighten up.
8) For now, build defensive units (Riflemen). Cities on hills have a defensive bonus, BTW. After their attack falls (which it will), counter-attack.
9) Artillery (cannons, catapults) are the best weapons in Civ. Always have at least one quarter f your attack force be artillery.

 

[rancorbeast]

Thanks for the tips on that... now this may sound stupid but I'm still running the game unpatched... will there be a significant AI improvement with the latest patch ? I'll admit to missing the good ol cheat mode in Civ2 *sigh*

Thanks !

 

[Kayak]

I'd get the patch. It's been so long now I can't remember what they fix anymore. Certainly it does not improve the AI WTH! moves. As to bowmen beating your riflemen, ya just gotta take the good ol RNG (random number generator) like an adult (I generally pound the wall or floor or something) go back to the game and wipe out the @$#%s! Have Fun!

 

[rancorbeast]

Ya see this has always been my beef with the Civ concept !! I mean Meier's a genius no questions there... But why would you build a game so rich so fun to play so complex only to throw in a stupid random number battle system. I mean why build tanks when elephants is all ya need that's what I used to say in Civ2 !! *sigh* Anyway just ranting here I guess... I'm hoping that with Civ4 they will figure out this has got to go... If I want to play a random number combat game, I'll go buy a stupid halloween costume and play D&D !!

 

[warpstorm]

I'm sure that Civ4 will use a RNG based combat system like the previous ones.

 

[rancorbeast]

But why ??? Please somebody tell me why can't we have a normal combat system like any other strategy game !! If I play let's say command and conquer for example ( ok I know it's real time but combat is combat for god's sake ) A tank fighting a soldier will win...period...I mean reality check here !! If someone *sigh* maybe I'm not down with Civ as much as I think I am.. I've been reading up on using artillery as a long range defense... we'll see i guess !

 

[mortalmadman]

Ya see this has always been my beef with the Civ concept !! I mean Meier's a genius no questions there... But why would you build a game so rich so fun to play so complex only to throw in a stupid random number battle system. I mean why build tanks when elephants is all ya need that's what I used to say in Civ2 !! *sigh* Anyway just ranting here I guess... I'm hoping that with Civ4 they will figure out this has got to go... If I want to play a random number combat game, I'll go buy a stupid halloween costume and play D&D !!

Calm down. It ain't like a tank has just of even chance aginst an other tank as a spearmen. Plus it's more realistic. It ain't like longbow men never beat a riflemen.

 

[Tomoyo]

Hey, impis have beaten rifles before!

 

[Licentia]

I think anyone who complains about the "unrealistic" loss of higher tech units against lower tech units needs to play Civ1 for a day. It's really not that bad anymore.

 

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, I recall losing a battleship to a settler once... I'd like to see one of these whiners pull that off in Civ3

 

[MSTK]

Yeah, I recall losing a battleship to a settler once... I'd like to see one of these whiners pull that off in Civ3

 

[morchuflex]

I even lost a BB against... a diplomat (supposedly 0 defense).

 

[The Last Conformist]

But why ??? Please somebody tell me why can't we have a normal combat system like any other strategy game !! If I play let's say command and conquer for example ( ok I know it's real time but combat is combat for god's sake ) A tank fighting a soldier will win...period...I mean reality check here !!

You've never seen the rocketbike kills mammoth tank trick?

 

[tR1cKy]

@mortalmadman: the RNG thing is stupid, like it or not.
I'm ok with the fact that battles cannot be decided only by unit stats. There must be some chance factor in them, as it is in real combats, but when it's too much, it spoils the game.

@Tomoyo: you are talking about Ishandlwana battle. Ok, zulus won, but english forces were vastly outnumbered (25000 zulu impis vs. 1400 english riflemen). Then, the english made the colossal mistake of underestimate the enemy. They thought to have an amusing "turkey shoot" party against primitive humanoids incapable of any concrete strategic or tactical decision, but things were completely different.

 

[The Omega]

If an archer beats your rifleman, just think of it as the archers ambushing your riflemen, or your rifelmans commander is a copmlete idiot.

 

[tR1cKy]

A tank fighting a soldier will win...period...

Not exactly.
1) At a very short distance a 7'62 nato bullet may pierce the armor of a ww2-time tank.
2) In infantry squads defending against tanks, some units were armed with the SuperEnerga anti-tank rifle bomb, very effective against tanks (today this weapon is obsolete)
Obviously, the odds are for the tank, but it is ok that sometimes an infantry unit may beat a tank.

 

[satchel]

I do not find the game is "spoiled" (to use tricky's word) by the random aspect of battles. Since I took the trouble to understand the combat system I an able to make sure I am always adequately prepared for battle. I protect against bad luck by going to war with ample units and adequate artillery to soften up AI defenses.

I'm by no means knowledgable in military history, but I do watch the news, and it seems like the two elements of (1) the need for adequate artillery to soften defenses, and (2) lots of attacking units dying when trying to take a city, even with superior firepower, are fairly realistic elements. Losses of advanced units can be viewed as effects of friendly fire, techology malfunction, or other rationalizations - frankly, I don't much care. Civ is not a hyper-realistic military simulation, and I, for one, am glad for that. I am not interested in playing such a game, though I am sure they exist for those that are interested.

If the energy that some players put into complaining about the civ combat system were instead placed in mastering it, some of those players might find the game more enjoyable overall and be less beholden to the whims of the RNG. I am frequently mystified by players who (to pick an abstract example) never seem to build artillery units, and then complain that the combat system is unrealistic when they lose offensive units trying to take a fortified city.

 

[gunkulator]

Actually I far perfer Civ3's combat system to the exceedingly dull Civ2 system where you automatically knew the outcome of every battle before it started. What Civ3 forces you to do is to plan your attacks more intelligently and, yes, realistically. If you have 10 tanks that are going to fight 10 infantry, you must be prepared to accept the loss of 1 or 2 of your tanks. Instead of 10 tanks, perhaps you should bring along 15. Or you could use artillery to soften up those infantry first. Better yet do both.

Having a superior unit means you will win most of the time, not all of the time. Insisting on a 0% casuality rate just because you have better units is unrealistic.