When is firaxis going to fix.....

[miike]

When is Firaxis going to release a patch that fixes the diplomacy, trading, and the way that the AI plays in general? I think that the Alpha Centauri AI is much better. At least, it makes some sense. I am sick and tired of the fact that the AI knows exactly where your weak points are, and always attacks them. Every time, I play this game, I get so frustrated with the game, because the AI obviosly cheats, never trades fairly or intelligently, and will attack you for no reason. People will try to offer explanations for all this, but I have played the game, long enough to know that it is poor programming from Firaxis, that needs to be patched before, they bother with a debate about compressing BIC files. There is no sense, in bothering to buy an expansion until Firaxis fixes the bugs and screw ups in the first game.

[notyoueither]

Well miike. Sorry to disagree, but...

Yes, the AI is given some intelligence advantages over the human. However, as a human you should be capable of learning how to cope with them, or even turn them to disadvantages if you are so inclined. Others have. Ask and I'm sure that many answers shall be given.

As for trade, many people are able to get decent trades out of the AI tech-wise. I agree with you about resources though. The usurious rates the AI will often charge me for luxuries has often led to me snuffing out an AI I would have preferred to remain freindly with. Not so good for a game that claims to wish to discourage war and encourage peace.

As for unprovoked attacks... Well, maybe the AI is trying to win? I guess the AI's I launch attacks on might be bewildered as to why I did it, but it always boils down to the fact that I want to win and I figure that going through X Civ is the best way to do it.

[Civ Old Timer]

I think you're absolutely right about how the AI fights. If one city on your border has two defenders and the others have three, it will attack the weaker one EVERY time. It's predictable.

I have other beefs with the design of the game too. Resources are an interesting addition to the game, but are implemented in a very sorry way. I recently gave up on a game where there was only ONE source of oil in the whole world, and it was in the strongest civ in the game. So no oil means I can't biuld the following units: Tanks, Airplanes, Battleships, etc. Most of the modern arsenel is gone. GONE! I'm supposed to take the oil from the Romans with almost no modern weapons, and he can defend with them. That is a sadistic result, especially coming near the end of the game. What huge waste of my time!

Resources should give a small production boost to cities who control them. That's all. It would still make the game interesting, but it would avoid ruining it outright.

I also hate cities flipping due to culture. Maybe some people don't mind. I'd settle for an option to turn it off when I start up a game.

This game really pisses me off. Get it right or go home... hjow often to you need to hear it before you address it? Give people options to control the type of game.

And while I'm pissing on you, firaxis, how about a map generator that generates more than quasi symetrical pear shaped chunks of land? Civ 1, 2 and SMAC and all had better AI and better maps.

Why the heck wouldn't you draw on the best parts of your past???

BAH!

[asleepathewheel]

Similar arguments were also used when Civ2 came out and then when SMAC came out.

I don't see how the AI in SMAC is better than the one in Civ3. I've played SMAC a few times since Civ3 came out, and my new warlike tactics transfer quite well and it was generally a romp. But in civ3, i find a challenge even on monarch.

I think this is probably another case of not being able to change and adapt tactics. Or your ego does not allow you to drop down to chieftain level and work your way back up.

[Jon Shafer]

(Maybe it's just me) But I find the Monarch level fairly easy. Simply expand early on (AI civs will commonly over-expand early on, and if you build up a few horsement and archers early, you can take 2 of them out with east). After that you should dominate most of your continent, so the rest of your rivals on your hunk of land will fall in a matter of time. Once the slug-fest of the modern age beings, pump out modern armor like there's no tomorrow. Of course, this is obviously geared towards a militaristic approach, and it's doubtful you'll win by Diplomatic Victory *ahem* (unless, of course, you ally with everyone remaning and call a vote ). Again, maybe I've just got a defective game and Monarch is a lot harder than I'm portraying it, but I suppose that's just me.

But anyways, back on topic...
Yes, the AI is bad. Let's see you program something better.

Yes, the gameplay regarding resources is bad. Buy a new game.

Yes, the AI's attitude towards diplomacy and trading will make you want to pull your hair out (if you have any left ). Shelf the CD.

Undoubtedly, the game could be vastly improved. But that's not how it is. If you don't like this game, then chances are you won't like Civ IV either. Perhaps they'll fix things. And maybe even expand in certain areas to make the game more fun. Maybe the AI will be more human-like. That's why spending 50 bucks at Electronics Boutique doesn't put you on the street. You won't know unless you buy #4. Disappointed with III? Don't get IV.

Anyways, I'm sounding belligerent (when I'm really not, I just don't see the point of these threads... Firaxis will do what Firaxis does... a thread on a forum won't lead to a major change in gameplay {at least, in the real world}), so I think I'll stop now. Ahhh, this is why I'm making my own Civ-type game.

[Cyclotron]

COT, you sound like a Coracle DL

OK... so, it's cheating when the AI goes for your weak points, but it's good strategy when you go for theirs? Talk about a double standard... I can't believe you are condemning the AI for playing well.

I think (or, I would like to think) I have a bit of authority talking about resources. For months before Civ3 came out, I argued with a poster called Youngsun about resources. He wanted a Civ3 type system, I wanted to keep the old Civ2 system. I am familiar with all the arguments. The problem is, Civ2's system was meaningless and flat. Most modern wars are fought over resources, and the rise and fall of ancient tribes depended on their access to things like iron and horses. Civ3 made these things important, not just small bonuses that you plunked a city over and that was that. Firaxis made resources valuable, dynamic, and important. Even a "supplementary resource fanatic" like me a few months ago had to realize that Civ3 was a giant leap forward in the world of resources. To be content with the Civ2 system is the mark of someone who neither understands resources, or wants to win the game easily wiht no trouble.

As for culture flipping... there are plenty of threads here dealing with that, and I'd be happy to engage you on the issue on any one of those.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
OK... so, it's cheating when the AI goes for your weak points, but it's good strategy when you go for theirs? Talk about a double standard... I can't believe you are condemning the AI for playing well.

I think the problem he has is that the AI somehow automatically "knows" your weak points... not that it exploits them.

I think (or, I would like to think) I have a bit of authority talking about resources. For months before Civ3 came out, I argued with a poster called Youngsun about resources. He wanted a Civ3 type system, I wanted to keep the old Civ2 system. I am familiar with all the arguments. The problem is, Civ2's system was meaningless and flat. Most modern wars are fought over resources, and the rise and fall of ancient tribes depended on their access to things like iron and horses. Civ3 made these things important, not just small bonuses that you plunked a city over and that was that. Firaxis made resources valuable, dynamic, and important. Even a "supplementary resource fanatic" like me a few months ago had to realize that Civ3 was a giant leap forward in the world of resources. To be content with the Civ2 system is the mark of someone who neither understands resources, or wants to win the game easily wiht no trouble.

People are impatient. I see the resource and culture ideas greatly expanded in IV. With these overall rounded-out improvements (and hopefully a better system for war!), perhaps IV will be "the one" we've all been waiting for. Oh well, only thing at stake is a year of waiting and 50 bucks.

[Cyclotron]

I wonder if he considers that the AI probably has embassies with you... and if it's smart, it checks out your cities before attacking. That's what a good human player does...

[Ethelred]

More complaining about the game being to tough for them.

When is Firaxis going to release a patch that fixes the diplomacy, trading, and the way that the AI plays in general?

What level are you playing on? I don't realy see a problem in any of those. The diplomacy is interesting and the same for the trading.

I am sick and tired of the fact that the AI knows exactly where your weak points are, and always attacks them.

Thats what I do to the AI when I attack. I have different idea of what is their weak point of course.

Every time, I play this game, I get so frustrated with the game, because the AI obviosly cheats,

It doesn't cheat. It does know things you don't but there is no other way to handle some of the stuff. Previous Civs really did cheat.

never trades fairly or intelligently,

You aren't winning are you? I guess then it is doing more things right than you want to admit. It does have a different idea than many players about what is fair that is true. Think about it this way. Did you pay what they asked? Then they weren't charging to much. Whatever the traffic will bear although what they really are doing is trying to deal with what its worth to you not for them.

and will attack you for no reason.

Sometimes it for one simple reason. They have to attack someone and you are the best target. Try not to be a target. Of course sometimes it does look the AI civ just wants to start another game and get out of this one.

[nato]

Every time, I play this game, I get so frustrated with the game, because the AI obviosly cheats

Well I try to look at it as the AI gets its advantages, and we humans get our advantages. No AI "cheat" is as big as our advantage in being able to think!

Just try to look at it as you have your strengths, and the AI has different strengths ... and you have to make yours (thinking and smart decisions) count for more than his!

You do have to be careful that you are being smart by being smart, and not by taking advantage of AI behavior / limitations. Also, as I have said elsewhere, I bet the AI could be better if it played to its strengths instead of trying to imitate a human.

In a perfect world the AI would be just like a human, but that will never be. So either you swear off single player totally, and become an MP ranter, or you accept that you are and the AI must be different.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by nato
In a perfect world the AI would be just like a human, but that will never be.

Oh is that so?

[nato]

As far as Civ3 is concerned, yes.

Here you seem to like these:

edit: Spam owns me, does it? I'll compare posts with you anytime you want!

[Jon Shafer]

Spam owns you.

[notyoueither]

For $750 I'll bet Soren could take you on a tour of what TBS AI could really do.

[nato]

Duh, that is exactly my point.

There is simply not enough time and resources to turn the Civ3 AI into Deep Blue or something.

Therefore expecting the Civ3 AI to not cheat and to imitate a human player is very unrealistic. So learn to live with the cheats and accept them as the AI's strength, while yours is being able to think. That or go to MP only when it comes out.

Darn tongue smilies ... must counteract with my personal favorite smilie:

edit: Just to be clear, I'm not yelling or anything ... I just love the little arm guy!

[Civ Old Timer]

I don't have any problem with people liking the way Civ has been designed. I thoroughly dislike the idea that I need to confrom to this game. SMAC had an arsenel of options to allow the player to customize the game to his or her preferences. If you want to sell Civ 3 to more people, you need to accomodate them.

I think the designers read "Guns, Germs and Steel" (look it up on Amazon if you haven't heard of it) and took it far too seriously. Civ 3 is a game, as far as I'm concerned, and not some kind of historical simulation. I don't give two bits about historical accuracy or "realism" of how it plays. Efforts in that direction can only go so far and then it just becomes a drag. In life perhaps some tribes did get dealt a tough hand, resource wise. Why on earth would we do that in a game? That we play for fun to while away a few happy hours in the evening? I want the effort I put to to give me a fighting chance for the whole period of the game - or why should I bother?

Now I'm not claiming it's my way or the highway, so don't get on your stool and go on about how you beat the game on deity and you started on an island that could only fit two cities and it had no iron. I'm saying that I have a different approach to the game and I'd be very surprised if I was alone. I can hold up well on the regent level until I'm tossed a bomb like "no oil". Many people don't like the diplmatic victory conditions and they can opt out if they wish. NOW, WHY CAN'T I LESSEN THE IMPACT OF RESOURCES?

It's not a lot to ask, really? Is it?

There are many things I do like about the game, including the tougher AI. What I don't like it are a few things that really drive a spike into the fun factor.

[notyoueither]

nato

Duh. Sorry to make you feel picked on.

BTW. Try getting to your point earlier next time.

[ChaotikVisions]

So make a map that has oil everywhere, or just quit and start again, or do the fun part, play it out till the bitter end. I remember a game where I was China, and was overrunning modern tanks with hordes of bombers and riflemen, though eventually the sheer power of the tanks and there numbers did get me. Still, it was fun. I like having resources, having a war over resources makes the game more realistic(and yes, realism is needed somewhat in a civilization SIMULATION game). I don't think it hampers gameplay, only enhances it.

As for the AI cheating on where to attack, doesn't really bother me either. I don't do the same thing, but only because i'm more direct in a war and just organize a way to capture the cities I want, minor details such as enemy troops can be dealth with when I get there. Trading is a bit rough, as even with equal luxury-luxury or resources-resource they still try to extort you. But, I can deal with it. Better AI makes the game MUCH more enjoyable.

[notyoueither]

COT. Ironically, I've often seen it argued that the simplifications of Civ3 over SMAC were entirely due to wanting a broader audience. Go figure.

On the topic of resources, many have already agreed with you. There was a mod proposed (unfortunately abandoned) that included alternate units for Civs without a required resource. No oil? Build Light Tanks and Battle Cruisers.

I don't know if anyone else is doing it now. I don't think so, but look for it when the game is done. As in finished. That's when I'll begin my own mod if I can find no other that accomodates all the best ideas I've seen.

[nato]

Sorry for all the trouble, being too defensive I guess.

I just meant ... no one likes AI cheats because they make the game less real. But if you look at them like the AI's advantage, while your's is being smart, it doesn't hurt the game so much.

And you get to feel smart!

Now I'll leave because I AM spamming the thread at this point...

[Capt Dizle]

I generally identify with the threadstarter and the old timer.

People register dislike about facets of the game and they get attacked. There are about a dozen hardline Civ3 defenders here that gang rape anyone expressing a negative opinion on the game.

It should be apparent that there is a significant number of people who are unhappy about the game.

My personal goal is to continue to voice my displeasure in the hope that Firaxis will not be allowed to do the next game in the Civ series.

[Txurce]

That the AI is programmed to attack the weakest target is a cheat? Yeah - in favor of the human! Build up your border cities and the AI army will walk past them and into your interior, where your offensive units can now strike first, and absolutely destroy the invading force before it can land even one blow. The current programming is a huge improvement over Civ2, but still so rigid and simplistic that countering it verges on being an exploit.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
My personal goal is to continue to voice my displeasure in the hope that Firaxis will not be allowed to do the next game in the Civ series.

I think that's perhaps the saddest thing I've ever read. Don't you have anything better to in life than criticize a game company?

[notyoueither]

Geez. Your position surprises me jt. However, I have attacked no one. I have answered posts and :gasp: agreed with some of the criticism.

I'll leave the mindless catagorizations to you... No. That's not entirely fair. But I'll not edit it either.

What do you expect jt? Come to a forum for discussion of a topic and slag the topic. I guess you think that such forums are full of people who hate the topic? I think most people who dislike a product so vehemently would move on with their lives. Maybe not you, but most people would. And with your winning ways, no wonder your 'contributions' receive such a 'polite' reception.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I think the designers read "Guns, Germs and Steel" (look it up on Amazon if you haven't heard of it) and took it far too seriously.

Jared Diamond. Physiologist if all things. Same doctorate as Dr. Laura Schleshinger. However he is a real scientist and she is a fake psychologist.

In life perhaps some tribes did get dealt a tough hand, resource wise. Why on earth would we do that in a game? That we play for fun to while away a few happy hours in the evening? I want the effort I put to to give me a fighting chance for the whole period of the game - or why should I bother?

Well if you don't like the way it is then edit it. Increase the resources to the point that everyone has two or three of everything.

I find it makes the game more interesting if I have to trade or fight for it but to each his own.

NOW, WHY CAN'T I LESSEN THE IMPACT OF RESOURCES?

It's not a lot to ask, really? Is it?

Use the Editor Luke, it will ease your path and guide you to civilization.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I generally identify with the threadstarter and the old timer.

People register dislike about facets of the game and they get attacked. There are about a dozen hardline Civ3 defenders here that gang rape anyone expressing a negative opinion on the game.

It should be apparent that there is a significant number of people who are unhappy about the game.

My personal goal is to continue to voice my displeasure in the hope that Firaxis will not be allowed to do the next game in the Civ series.

Ditto.

And the "Civ3 defenders" likely pick up paychecks from Firaxis.

AI cheating detracts from the game.

[Solver]

Good thread and great posts.

Yes, I like the AI. And I really got the philosophy "The AI has those advantages, but I got the advantage of being human". And don't you try to find a better spot for the invasion whenever you attack the AI?

The AI wants to expand, and it wants new land. So it will attack. It wants money and technology, so it wants you to actually pay for resources.

And to all those who want the resource system of Civ 2, where resource squares only gave a tile bonus. Go to the Editor, uncheck the resource requirements to all the units, and play it like Civ 2. In fact, there are much more options to play Civ 3 like Civ 2 than you would think there are.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I think you're absolutely right about how the AI fights. If one city on your border has two defenders and the others have three, it will attack the weaker one EVERY time. It's predictable.

If you were a general commanding an army, where would you attack first? I doubt very much that you'd go for your enemy's strongest positions, but rather one of his weak points. That's just good tactics IMO. So why should the AI do it differently?

[Solver]

Willem you have the points. Sure there are cases when you need to strike vs. some of the better defended points to gain a strategic advantage, but I suppose the AI does that, I think I've seen it attack some places that weren't the weakest ones.

[Civ Old Timer]

The trouble with the AI always attacking the weakest cities is not that it allows it to beat me. If I know the pattern, it is predictable and boring. That was the point of the observation. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.

As for the hope that Firaxis will not be allowed by Infogrames to make Civ 4, that won't happen. The game is legally Sid Meier's Civ 3 and Sid is Firaxis. I actually would like to see Sid have a greater say in the game, not less. I get the feeling that Sid did little more than sign off on this game and kick back waiting for the royalty cheques. Bad Sid. Bad.

As for the game's editor, I'm only taken the breifest look at it. It looked quite unfinsihed and unfriendly. If I create a map with it, I'd loose the surprise of exporing it. I suppose it might be worth it if I can overcome the resource issue. I suppose I'll have to go and have another look.

I do have two other things that I'd really like to see from the game or the XP. 1) I want to get updates on other governments when they change their type. Once an embassy is established I don't know why I can't be breifed on major changes like that. We do get told about civs starting wonders already. 2) I want my foreign advsor to tell if I'm going to break a treaty, since it's hard to keep it all straight over a few weeks.

Thanks all, lots of good points in this thread.