akots
Poet
I have looked through all the posts and did not notice a board which would focus on analyzing the question why a tiny human brain can battle the AI very efficiently and even win on a deity level without major problems assuming minimal qualification as a Civ3 player. You know very well that taking chess for an example, recently world known chess grandmasters are desperately trying to make a draw with AI. Five or six years ago, sophisticated chess programs required to battle versus world champion had to use the multiprocessor giants. However, now, even a normal 2 GHz PC run by some Fritz software (version 8, for example) can easily defeat virtually any grandmaster apart from those who are very experienced at playing versus the PC or who are in the top ten players in the world. In general, one can argue that Civ3 is more complex than chess though apparently this is not true. I have played a lot both games and sure many other people did. Civ3 has more rules which are not that clear but certainly the game is not extremely complicated. The problem is that the AI is weak. So, I think this topic of AI weaknesses should be more interesting to Firaxis and Sid Meyer but many normal players can benefit from a number of AI weaknesses in a normal game even on lower than deity levels. I would focus primarily on several major weaknesses of the following groups:
1. Micromanagement.
2. Military.
3. Diplomacy.
4. Trade.
5. AI worker inefficiency.
6. City placement.
Point zero and major problem of the AI. The AI behaves absolutely identically on all difficulty levels. So, the AI does not improve with increased difficulty. It just grows faster and builds easier on the deity level than on chieftain, has less corruption and has great starting bonus which is by the way crucial. All other things are the same and do not improve. So, the AI uses the same criteria for making the key decisions on any difficulty level. To my mind, this is major drawback and the big reason for failure of the AI to battle efficiently on higher levels.
1. Micromanagement.
Well, there is nothing to discuss here because the AI has no micromanagement. It does not change location of working tiles. Once the tile is being worked by a city it will never be relocated to another city only in case of some disaster and only accidentally. The choice is indeed tricky. Sometimes you need growth, sometimes production, sometimes trade, sometimes just wait for a couple of turns with both. The AI knows nothing of a settler factory or optimal city placement or FP placement or wonder prebuild. One can argue this is cheating. However, AI knows very well how to attack and break RoP which should not be allowed. Well, this is real cheating.
2. Military.
In general, depending on situation and availability of certain units, AI manages war rather satisfactory. Always counterattack, protect cities well, protects resources, focuses on a weak point. However, each war has a certain goal. Once the goal is achieved, the war should end. Or if the war cannot be continued, it should also end. It looks like AI has no idea about these goals. AI prefers to attack only weak targets and lacks flexibility. Certainly, the AI does not know about leader farming or use of artillery for attacking cities. Not upgrading obsolete ancient units either even if it has Leonardos.
3. Diplomacy (and spies).
Just one sentence. The AI puts a way too much trust in the opponents. And virtually never uses spies efficiently. And again, never changes point of view. Military alliance strategy is also beyond any critique. It is quite possible to trade for an alliance with some remote civ against the similar remote civ a valuable technology and never see the rival within 20 or 30 turns.
4. Trade.
In general, trade is more or less OK. However, the AI puts too much value is things which are indeed not so valuable. For example, certain technologies or resources, like nationalism-steam power after discovery of economics or saltpeter in modern era which is hardly at all necessary. And trade prices very weakly correlate (if at all) with AI attitude. I mean, that if AI likes you, certain discount should be possible. And trading military units (or production or food not only gold, lux, and tech) would be very nice.
5. Workers.
AI terribly manages the workers. It moves them there and back. Never automate your worker, but this is known to everyone.
6. City placement.
Beyond any critique is the AI algorithm for city placement. May be, it benefits a little bit in the industrial era, may be, it slightly decreases corruption, though this I doubt. In general, the land is used extremely inefficiently.
In conclusion, a strong point of the AI is budgeting and happiness management. I personally always use a governor during anarchy with more that 10 cities to prevent civil disorder just to save time wondering around and micromanaging each city. Also, governor is very helpful in newly captured resisting cities. Certainly, it is possible to starve it to 1 citizen but what is the point in capturing a city if you are starving the population? Besides, it is cruel oppression.
This is my first post so dont judge me too much. Hopefully it can start an interesting discussion.
1. Micromanagement.
2. Military.
3. Diplomacy.
4. Trade.
5. AI worker inefficiency.
6. City placement.
Point zero and major problem of the AI. The AI behaves absolutely identically on all difficulty levels. So, the AI does not improve with increased difficulty. It just grows faster and builds easier on the deity level than on chieftain, has less corruption and has great starting bonus which is by the way crucial. All other things are the same and do not improve. So, the AI uses the same criteria for making the key decisions on any difficulty level. To my mind, this is major drawback and the big reason for failure of the AI to battle efficiently on higher levels.
1. Micromanagement.
Well, there is nothing to discuss here because the AI has no micromanagement. It does not change location of working tiles. Once the tile is being worked by a city it will never be relocated to another city only in case of some disaster and only accidentally. The choice is indeed tricky. Sometimes you need growth, sometimes production, sometimes trade, sometimes just wait for a couple of turns with both. The AI knows nothing of a settler factory or optimal city placement or FP placement or wonder prebuild. One can argue this is cheating. However, AI knows very well how to attack and break RoP which should not be allowed. Well, this is real cheating.
2. Military.
In general, depending on situation and availability of certain units, AI manages war rather satisfactory. Always counterattack, protect cities well, protects resources, focuses on a weak point. However, each war has a certain goal. Once the goal is achieved, the war should end. Or if the war cannot be continued, it should also end. It looks like AI has no idea about these goals. AI prefers to attack only weak targets and lacks flexibility. Certainly, the AI does not know about leader farming or use of artillery for attacking cities. Not upgrading obsolete ancient units either even if it has Leonardos.
3. Diplomacy (and spies).
Just one sentence. The AI puts a way too much trust in the opponents. And virtually never uses spies efficiently. And again, never changes point of view. Military alliance strategy is also beyond any critique. It is quite possible to trade for an alliance with some remote civ against the similar remote civ a valuable technology and never see the rival within 20 or 30 turns.
4. Trade.
In general, trade is more or less OK. However, the AI puts too much value is things which are indeed not so valuable. For example, certain technologies or resources, like nationalism-steam power after discovery of economics or saltpeter in modern era which is hardly at all necessary. And trade prices very weakly correlate (if at all) with AI attitude. I mean, that if AI likes you, certain discount should be possible. And trading military units (or production or food not only gold, lux, and tech) would be very nice.
5. Workers.
AI terribly manages the workers. It moves them there and back. Never automate your worker, but this is known to everyone.
6. City placement.
Beyond any critique is the AI algorithm for city placement. May be, it benefits a little bit in the industrial era, may be, it slightly decreases corruption, though this I doubt. In general, the land is used extremely inefficiently.
In conclusion, a strong point of the AI is budgeting and happiness management. I personally always use a governor during anarchy with more that 10 cities to prevent civil disorder just to save time wondering around and micromanaging each city. Also, governor is very helpful in newly captured resisting cities. Certainly, it is possible to starve it to 1 citizen but what is the point in capturing a city if you are starving the population? Besides, it is cruel oppression.
This is my first post so dont judge me too much. Hopefully it can start an interesting discussion.
