Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

3) No way around it, until we can actually get programs to think and create new ideas. That's also the time when some evil AI executes its plan to kill us all. 

you seem to be forgetting that this is a game, with limited abilities and everything. As such you can be [partially] solved and you can make AI very successful just be using good strategies, because it can calculate what to do better than you can, if it knows how. This does take a PhD in maths, or, more probably, lots of play-testing and implementing that "by ear", none of which Firaxis ever does.

Like I said, Galatic Civilizations 2.  The AI doesn't cheat, and it's quite capable of outthinking a human player in truly astounding ways.  If you've never seen it, do read this extraordinary story of one man against the AI.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg

[kcwong]

you seem to be forgetting that this is a game, with limited abilities and everything. As such you can be [partially] solved and you can make AI very successful just be using good strategies, because it can calculate what to do better than you can, if it knows how. This does take a PhD in maths, or, more probably, lots of play-testing and implementing that "by ear", none of which Firaxis ever does.

But the question is in a multidimensional game like Civilization, even the developers and designers themselves do not know what to do given a snapshot of of a game. Then how do they code and initialize data for the AI? Too many decisions for the AI to make, too many parameters for the AI to balance and consider.

I don't have Galactic Civilization, but I've heard *a lot* of *very good* things about it. I'll check it out someday, when I have time... I already have too much games bought but no played.

[a1s]

the developers and designers themselves do not know [jack]

yeah, that's what I said too, wasn't it?

basically if they don't know, than chances are you don't know, which gives AI a fighting chance even if they just implemented their hunches (on medium difficulty at least).

[Sowelu]

Whoa, were we playing the same version of GalCiv2?  It does cheat at higher skill levels--it would be stupid to NOT make cheating levels after all, if you're good enough you want a lopsided game--and when I put it at the highest non-cheating level, I still trounce it and it still does stupid things like only research laser defenses when all I use is missiles.  Sure, you might say, the other AIs have to worry about each other, but that's not true when I'm doing way better then the rest of them put together.  I'm sorry.  GalCiv2 might be a tiny hair above the competition...but I'm not convinced.  Its AI is not revolutionary at all, and the game itself gets on my nerves (worst tech descriptions ever).

As for Civ4...  Uh, I really hate to say it, but those complaints about how hard it is to build stuff, and how abusive the AI is at making cities?  It sounds like you're just a scrub.  :x  Good players are REALLY good at optimizing workers and settlers.  Really really good.  Notice how the AI has more farms than you?  Yeah.  They're probably also making way better use of their gold, and buying things at the correct times (er...wait, sorry, that's every game BUT civ 4 in most of its gov types).  I only say that because, having played civ type games for the last um...17 years?, newbies tend to think I'm cheating.  >_>

Personally though.  I don't really like being outsmarted by a computer.  I've programmed AI, I know it's not a matter of being "smart", it's a matter of being programmed well...and I don't like battles of wits against some programmer.  I just think of player-vs-computer TBS games as equivalent to Doom or something.  The enemy has numbers.  You have smarts.  It's fun to outsmart your enemy, and beat the hell out of their superior stuff.  If you want a smart enemy, play against a HUMAN.  There is no substitute and never will be, at least not until AI is sentient...and then it won't want to play these boring games.

My favorite Civ-alike is Alpha Centauri, by a HUUUUGE margin.  I rate the others about equal. (Except civ 3 below the others.  Why do 3rd games always suck?  SimCity 3 sucked, too.)

[Asheron]

Whoa, were we playing the same version of GalCiv2?  It does cheat at higher skill
As for Civ4...  Uh, I really hate to say it, but those complaints about how hard it is to build stuff, and how abusive the AI is at making cities?  It sounds like you're just a scrub.  :x  Good players are REALLY good at optimizing workers and settlers.  Really really good.  Notice how the AI has more farms than you?  Yeah.  They're probably also making way better use of their gold, and buying things at the correct times (er...wait, sorry, that's every game BUT civ 4 in most of its gov types).  I only say that because, having played civ type games for the last um...17 years?, newbies tend to think I'm cheating.  >_>

I won my first game as a space race game while the other civilzations still were in WWII. I completely destroyed every civilization of the map in my second game with modern tank divisions while the other guys had grenadiers.
I'm not complaining the game is too hard. I'm not asking to give me an edge of the AI. I want EVERYONE to be able to build buildings faster, including the AI and etc, because, I want to have the feeling I'm building an empire, that cities who claim to have populations of several hundred thousands actually can do things cities with populations of several hundred thousands can do and etcetera.

[mainiac]

I liked a lot about Civ 4 but things happen way too slow in the ancient era. In one turn of ancient era time, Alexander the Great conquered his empire.  In 13 turns of ancient era time, the romans conquers 4 major powers (Guals, Carthage, Egypt, Greece).  Civ doesn't have too many things to slow down expansion once it get's started so the game has to make conquest impossibly slow for balance which means that in the early game you're marshalling resources to be able to do things in a thousand years.  Madness.

[Tormy]

3) No way around it, until we can actually get programs to think and create new ideas. That's also the time when some evil AI executes its plan to kill us all. 

you seem to be forgetting that this is a game, with limited abilities and everything. As such you can be [partially] solved and you can make AI very successful just be using good strategies, because it can calculate what to do better than you can, if it knows how. This does take a PhD in maths, or, more probably, lots of play-testing and implementing that "by ear", none of which Firaxis ever does.

Like I said, Galatic Civilizations 2.  The AI doesn't cheat, and it's quite capable of outthinking a human player in truly astounding ways.  If you've never seen it, do read this extraordinary story of one man against the AI.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg

Galciv 2. AI is much better compared to the Civ 4. AI. thats for sure...[btw as I heard the Galciv2 AI is also cheating on high diff. settings]

[Asheron]

Hmm... I might get myself GalCiv 2.
Anyway, Tormy pretty much nailed it. It's impossible to fight decent wars in the classical time. Really, is there anyone who ever fought a battle with the prehistoric warrior against an AI?
Thought so.

[a1s]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg

hm... I've read the article. The guys wan a newbie (as evidenced by the fact that he didn't know about morale modifiers), and had an awful strategy (too much like my own usual startegy, BTW...  ) and yet he won. The AI was incapable of an effective arms race. and the guy's Ideas about what the AIs were thinking seemed too much like what we say about our dwarfs (except we know it's a joke). I'm unconvinced (by the article).

[Mephansteras]

I must be one of the few people who really liked Civ3. Of course, I used a heavily modded version of it, which included turning off Railroads. That made all the difference in the world for my one real complaint of it, which was the stupid slowdown at later stages of the game. Turns out the AI would send EVERY unit to EVERY tile with a railroad to investigate. Sheesh. By not having railroads the game was a little more interesting and ran much faster.

That and I had fun units running around, like Balrogs and Mechs. THAT was fun.

[Asheron]

I must be one of the few people who really liked Civ3. Of course, I used a heavily modded version of it, which included turning off Railroads. That made all the difference in the world for my one real complaint of it, which was the stupid slowdown at later stages of the game. Turns out the AI would send EVERY unit to EVERY tile with a railroad to investigate. Sheesh. By not having railroads the game was a little more interesting and ran much faster.

That and I had fun units running around, like Balrogs and Mechs. THAT was fun.

I like it more then civ4. You can actually fight decent classical wars on that one. I played a game with the Romans not long ago on the hardest setting. I ended up retiring though, since I was fighting a war with the Egyptians for over 500 years without any side loosing any territory. I swear, every turn another four units would join in on the battle.

[Torak]

Like Aq, I enjoyed Galactic Civilizations 1/2 more than any of the civilization games. I love ship customizationmore than anything else in the game, I don't know why.

[Tormy]

Like Aq, I enjoyed Galactic Civilizations 1/2 more than any of the civilization games. I love ship customizationmore than anything else in the game, I don't know why.

Yeah its really one of the best parts of Galciv 2.
Also Stardock's support is just plain awesome...they keep updating their game for decades. I am just so happy, that these lads will make that Master of Magic clone...the game is in the right hands. 

[Tommy2U]

Like Aq, I enjoyed Galactic Civilizations 1/2 more than any of the civilization games. I love ship customizationmore than anything else in the game, I don't know why.

And yet it's totally superfluous. I have no idea why the devs put that much time and effort into something that doesn't bring anything meaningful to the game (people don't buy it for the graphics, anyway) and not on say, a more decent and detailed combat model.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Well, I agree with you about the *designing more decent combat model*, however I think the ship design in the spirit of GalCiv itself (with the same tech tree, if we only use devs' blueprints, the game get boring fast.)