AI : Building Everywhere!

be0wulfe · November 5, 2001, 13:24

Something steams me about the AI - and I guess they can get away with this since they're not (as) affected by Corruption ... if I leave so much as ONE square of land in my rear areas or borders open, the AI shimmies over and pops a city in place ... leaving you with unsavory options to plug that gap back (war) or waiting (culture) ...

There needs to some sort of mechanism that prevents this from happenning ... for example, I left one square of land open on the coast, in the middle of a strip of land I was on. Culture would have eventually allowed me to incorporate that square. However, one of the AI's comes by and pops a city there, pushing back my borders! If the AI is going to be allowed to do that, borders should be a lot more static. Otherwise, I should think that's basically a declaration of war, but the player get's penalized for starting a war ...

The AI should be penalized for setting up cities on every available inch of ground, especially if it's between two of the players cities, by being more affected by corruption, being force to live with the same resource availability rules, and not shifting the borders back!

be0wulfe

Ralf · November 5, 2001, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by be0wulfe
Something steams me about the AI - and I guess they can get away with this since they're not (as) affected by Corruption ... if I leave so much as ONE square of land in my rear areas or borders open, the AI shimmies over and pops a city in place.

It seems to me that a "reject settler" option is needed (just like the reject diplomat/spy option in Civ-2), in addition to the diplomacy-screen options. This option should be available whenever a foreign settler without pass-rights moves within any of your culture-borders.

yin26 · November 5, 2001, 18:02

Yes! If you catch a settler in your territory, you should be able to send him back to his capital AND HOLD HIM THERE FOR 10 TURNS! Without causing a war.

If you look in my review thread, I am currently trying to tackle this issue.

Cougz · November 5, 2001, 18:41

Seems to me that ICS is no longer an option, it is a MUST. The AI gets out there so fast you are forced to pump out settlers just to stay competitive. The AI will build 30 cities on a huge map very quickly if it has the space, and if it doesn't it will get really close to you.

I agree, it should be an act of war whenever ANYBODY pushes a border back by building a city next to it. Border changes should come by either culture or war only.

barefootbadass · November 5, 2001, 19:17

I remember this(pushing borders by building cities near them) as a minor problem in SMAC(maybe it was more of a problem than I thought, I lost interest in that game pretty quickly). Basically in that game I would do the same to the ai to push the borders back, then if the ai didn't like it and started a war I had an excuse to go on a rampage.

I really think that if someone builds a city such that its city radius covers some of the area where the border was just before it was built that should be an act of war. It is effectively gaining territory, as much as having an army march through the countryside.

yin26 · November 5, 2001, 20:14

I just realized I have to amend my previous post. The AI *always* sends its settlers escorted, so you can't effectively send the settler packing unless they program the following: When entering a stack that contains a settler and any other military units *and* if the civ is at peace with you, you should be given the option of sending back at least the settler (if not the entire stack) without causing war.

Now, if the AI refuses the request, you can go to war or let things continue.

I'd be quite happy with that.

Kc7mxo · November 5, 2001, 21:01

I've done a little investigating of ai cities, and it seems to me that they suffer from very similiar, if not the same corruption as the human.

They just don't care.

Grunthex · November 6, 2001, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I've done a little investigating of ai cities, and it seems to me that they suffer from very similiar, if not the same corruption as the human.

They just don't care.

That's exactly right. They suffer the same corruption, and they're slower than you to build courthouses.

Pyrodrew · November 6, 2001, 05:01

Quote:

Basically in that game I would do the same to the ai to push the borders back, then if the ai didn't like it and started a war I had an excuse to go on a rampage.

This is exactly what I do to the AI also. For now you have to fight fire with fire. I can position my cities smarter tho. The AI puts a city in the back or middle of my empire & that will become a future city of mine someday because of culture.

I don't mind the AI expanding & building like crazy (finally a more challenging AI) in the beginning, but like Yin said if they are in my borders they *should* be kicked out. I don't mind them crossing my borders as long as they are not in my borders when it's MY turn. However being kicked out would only be part of the solution otherwise the AI would send endless attempts of settlers only to have them constantly thrown out... if at peace, the AI should know not to have settlers/military "spend the night" in your borders.

Grim Legacy · November 6, 2001, 05:45

I do think the AI carries this too far though. It shouldn't necessarily go for that spot right next to your border all the time. And it should take into account the fertility of the land too. All those desert/tundra camps look silly.

Also, subversion isn't a good thing all too often -these AI cities are badly placed, and often infringing on the perimeter of my own cities. I like the raze option. The workers get disbanded.

mrbilll · November 6, 2001, 06:36

I've heard in several places that the AI does, in fact, suffer from corruption just as you do. (And I DO mean suffer!) Fine, whatever.

If that's the case, how does it manage to spread so fast? Even producing nothing but settlers, and ignoring everything else, I can't seem to spread and establish cities as fast as my rivals. I still have to worry about defense, if not infrastructure. Somehow, the AI has defense, infrastructure, and expansion all at once.

If there's not some kind of cheating going on, maybe someone who knows how it's done could let us in on the secret...?

November 6, 2001, 09:07

How they deal with corruption? simple, like i do early until i get appropriate improvements or more units...build settlers to lower your pop and lowering corruption..... But the AI does it more often, so often that they got crappy infrastructure and so on, bad enough that they seem to have the habit of building tons of units without paying a cent to improvements.

As for the borders, I am use to it :P SMAC/X player here and i use the change the borders with bases a lot to prevent the comp access to some terrain, and etc... of course, the Comp atleast usually respect my borders, unless they intend war.

Somethings in the SMAC AI they should have implemented in Civ3 :P

-LMP