Your A.I. of choice

[Dooz]

With all these complaints against the RTW A.I. (I'm not saying their unwarranted, because they are) I was just curious as to what game's A.I. any of you have ever truly loved and were happy with for a long time.

I know it kind of sounds like a weird "tone" here, like I'm pissed off or making fun of those who complain about the A.I. but I'm really not. I just can't word it any better ~:)

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Civ III AI was great!

Again and again the computer amazed me with a combined Diplomatic agreements and movements that was brilliant! I still working on beating the AI on highest level. Almost used.. something about 28 tries.

Rome - Total War and Shogun - Total War has a high level AI even know it has some mistakes (Just waiting to be shot by archers etc.).

[Akka]

I concur. Civ3 AI is very good. I'm not a hardcore player, but I'm somehow seasoned, and though I kick the butt of the AI easily on Regent (the "medium" difficulty), it's mainly because I know how to play, and not because the AI is inane. I recognize, though, that part of the good job of the AI comes from a downplaying of the complexity of the game in some aspects, but still the results are quite impressive for me (of course, real veterans are able to win consistently even in totally insane difficulty levels, but it tells more about their abilities than about AI shortcomings).

On a totally different kind of game, the Unreal Tournament AI was excellent. It successed in making a "human-like" AI, with bots that acted in a somehow "natural" way, making human-like mistake and so on.

[Tamur]

Chessmaster 9000. Not joking! If someone --- that someone who gets paid to do such things or has time to do it for free! --- would abstract a wargame's rules to the level of a chess game, and then define constraints with the same detail, that someone could make an AI that is insanely difficult to insanely easy, weak in some areas but tough in others, etc. And yes, I'm dreaming.

[Chelifer]

IMHO, one of the best battle AI was in Homeworld series. It felt good to me.

[Red Harvest]

Battlefield map AI I would go for Sid Meier's Gettysburg & Antietam. Sure it could be beaten, but it could put up a very good fight in the process.

Strategic map AI...hmmm...not sure. Actually, Spaceward Ho! is very entertaining since it uses a mix of AI characters/abilities. Completely different kind of game, but I like its approach to AI. Simple and fun.

Overall campaign atmosphere: Red Baron 3D. It wasn't scripted. It had a dynamic campaign and you could deviate from your mission and explore other areas looking for a fight. Now the AI pilots were fairly easy to beat once you got the feel for it, but the campaign was impressive. I even keep my old 3dfx Banshee card around and put it in at times just to play. I would love to mate that campaign engine to an IL-2 flight sim (fixing the laser cannon AI gunners of course.) I've never seen a campaign engine to match it. Sad, because it was really just a mission generator for a campaign map, but it did missions for an entire front, not just a few squads.

[BobTheTerrible]

The best AI I have seen is in Civ3. Even on the medium difficulty, the game gave a huge challenge. It took enough people banding together over the internet to share their tips and secrets to make it possible to beat the games Hardest AI. I nearly beat it once myself (interestingly enough it was Rome who stopped me dead in my tracks, after annhiliating the chinese, vikings, and english in short order... ahh those were the days) But the AI's once weakness in Civ3 was its military operations. It used artillery and tactics effectively, the only thing it failed to do was to keep its units together in one "stack." If it had done that, the hardest AI would be literally impossible (the AI getting production bonuses and such on that level)

EDIT: Yes, come to think of it, the AI in Gettysburg/anteitam/south mountain was excelent. I never played the game for any extended period of time, but there were certain places I couldn't beat due to the AI being overwhelmingly good. It didn't help that I knew little to nothing of civil war tactics, hehe.

To make a good AI, it takes alot of hard work... There's so much for it to consider, especially in the battle map of RTW.

What I would really like to see, is AI generals having different "strategies" depending on the battle, and by winning the battles developing the strategies more. As it stands now (what I have noticed at least) is that there is 1 battle map AI. It gets slightly modified depending on nation and other conditions, but it is the same AI each time. If you were to do a battle, and make certain moves at certain times, the AI would do the same thing each time provided that the conditions were exactly the same.

Now, that's pure fantasy because although the gaming market would be capable of that, it would be impractical because of the time needed to make the AI.

As a side note, does anyone know how the AI in, say, RTW is created? Is it still the standard long lines of "if, then" code, or does it actually use the so called "fuzzy logic" stuff?

[Dooz]

I loved Civ III too. Favorite game to date. RTW close second... or tie... hmm...

Anyhoo, if there are any other game genres from which you like the A.I. feel free to list those too.

[Sol Invictus]

I haven't played it; never cared for space strategy; but Galactic Civilization is said to have a very good AI. Of the games I have played, I would have to say that SM:G would be the best AI, but I always suspected it of cheating somewhat; even on normal difficulty. Lords of the Realm 2, could at times, surprise me. Shogun was good after the patches. We can only hope that RTW will follow the same path.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I like the Ai in Operation Flashpoint, it is an FPS, but it is hyperrealistic. The computer can be told to do nothing but sit in a town square when you make a custom mission and when you fire at them from afar or roll up in a tank they scatter and the specialists move up. AKA AT troops, AA troops and such. One of my favorite custom missions is making a night spec ops mission at the top of a mountain with 8-12 ruskies around a fire. You have to circle them picking them of one at a time or find the perfect spot for a satchel. The helicopters are also great. One of my favorite FPS's of all time.
I don't know about RTS AI, CIV III is very good. So far I have only played a few campaigns, because of their length. But in my Japan campaign I got ICBM's while the other nations were still using pre-gunpowder weapons. Nuclear Submarine v. full continent empire of ancient peoples......

[ToranagaSama]

The Battle AI of Shogun and Medieval despite not being *perfect* is effectively better than Rome's; and the improvements of the MedMod caused the AI to be even more effective. Head and Shoulders above Rome. RTW is a step backward.

Yet, to answer the question: Far Cry!

[AntiochusIII]

I'm surprised somebody said Unreal Tournament's AI is cool until I realize I was having fun with these AI so much long ago... Thank you for reminding good old days... and I'm not even 16 yet to have good old days!!

For the answer : Yes, I've played Civ 3. The AI is impressive. I've had hard times getting myself a survival chance in that game thanks to the AI alone.

[Bjorn Bjornson]

OMG Kenshin I was going to mention Operation Flashpoint. But being a long time lurker first time poster I felt it wouldn't matter. But... well... gotta start somewhere I guess!
:bow:

The CivIII AI isn't all that great. If it's hard, it's only because the AI technically "cheats" (it gets a number of allowances the player does not). Actually I personally hate vanilla Civ3, and only play it after heavy modification (took basically a year or so to make a good mod balanced that the AI can know how to use)... and before anyone jumps to the conclusion I hated it because the AI was "hard" - that wasn't it.
Little stuff like having Longbowmen as the offensive infantry unit of the middle ages was one of the many little things that made me hate that game (of course buying it off the shelf right when it came out for 60 dollars and finding out there was no Viking faction was really up there lol).
:furious3:

Although there is plenty of rants about the AI in Rome... all I have to say about it is this: in Medieval, if the AI was hellbent on just standing there the whole battle (which did occur), they would atleast switch to loose formation if they were under fire... I have not seen an AI unit in RTW do that a single time yet... once I just sat there, my army was two slingers and a lame family member general, and the 3 warbands of the Brigands just sat there at got stoned... not in the good way either.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Little stuff like having Longbowmen as the offensive infantry unit of the middle ages was one of the many little things that made me hate that game (of course buying it off the shelf right when it came out for 60 dollars and finding out there was no Viking faction was really up there lol).
:furious3:

The Viking Faction came in the expansion Play the world. Just like they came in MTW ~:)

[Akka]

The CivIII AI isn't all that great. If it's hard, it's only because the AI technically "cheats" (it gets a number of allowances the player does not).
Partially untrue.
The AI does, in fact, get allowances, but NOT BEFORE KING'S LEVEL !
In Chieftain and Warlord, it's in fact the PLAYER who gets advantages against AI. At Prince level, all is totally equal. It's only above that the AI gets bonus (and at Sid, these boni are totally insane).
We've worked a long time at Civfanatics to take the AI red-handed with cheating at Prince, but despite years of close scrutiny, the only "cheats" that was found was the one which was already recognized by the designers : that the AI has a partial knowledge about where are your armies. That's all.

[lgw]

Strat map: Civ. 3

Battlefield: Hands down Civil War Bull Run. New game from Mad Minute games.
The AI is nasty. No scripting! See Shermans colum in the distance on the road next to woods. Lose Sherman . Ya better send some out some one find him, and determine the axis of his advance. Otherwise he might show up with a brigade on your flank or rear. Each commander is different. Each battle is different, no matter how many times ya play it. I break even with the AI on normal difficulty. If ya like ACW you might want to give this one a try. $20, hard to beat that price. Graphics are only a little better than MTW, so if all ya care about is looking pretty then this game won't float your boat.

[th3freakie]

The diplomatic AI of Europa Universalis is prety good too, I'd say. Specialy for the complex system it has to work with.

And Combat Flight Simulator: WWII Pacific Theater dogfighting one is very good also.

[Parmenio]

I get the feeling that with RTW some of STW and MTW battlefield AI had to be streamlined due to the extra weight of rendering 3D models on the CPU.

The RTW stragetic AI of course has to deal with a far more complex map than STW and MTW.

[DragonIce84]

Civ III and Flashpoint I agree with, both fun to play against, and it probably leads to the fact that neither game is a bore to play.

Rainbow6:RavenShield has odd AI, it can be awesome, sneaking up behind you though places you've cleared before shooting you, and then again it can be useless, staring at you aim slowly and carefully at it's forehead, not doing a thing.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I was just playing Rainbow Six:3 Athena Sword and I fired at one guy with an AK na dhe died, but his buddy like 50 ft away and outside of my FOV did not blink an eyelash, I just came and lined up a shot on him like I did the first guy. It is usually pretty good though.

[Fridge]

Anyone played Pro Evolution 3? By far the best AI I've seen in a game; playing against the computer is almost indistinguishable from playing a person, and the AI control of your teammates is incredible.

It's quite relevant to R:TW as well; You've got 22 units (11 friendly, 11 enemy) moving about a 3d playing field, each with different offensive and defensive abilities (about 40-50 stats altogether in PE!) and with definite goals but no defined path to reach them. And it very rarely breaks...

[Butcher]

I agree about Op Flsh, the a.i on that was very good, especially when under fire - some lie down and provide covering fire whilst others move to try and pick you off from a different angle.Or they will lie in wait patiently waiting for you to move out of cover then BAM! Great stuff.
But I suppose that's easier than handling 1000's of troops all at once..

[a_ver_est]

The Flashpoint AI is one of the best that I've seen, well the game itself is one of the best.

[Darius]

The best game AI ever for a computer would be for the game Galactic Civilizations, or GalCiv. They used actual human algorithims and play strategies to form the AI along its different difficulty settings. So instead of facing the computer, you're playing against the digitized version of an actual opponent.

[The Stranger]

Anyone played Pro Evolution 3? By far the best AI I've seen in a game; playing against the computer is almost indistinguishable from playing a person, and the AI control of your teammates is incredible.

It's quite relevant to R:TW as well; You've got 22 units (11 friendly, 11 enemy) moving about a 3d playing field, each with different offensive and defensive abilities (about 40-50 stats altogether in PE!) and with definite goals but no defined path to reach them. And it very rarely breaks...

i did pro 4 is even better though on pc pro 3 is an total disaster but on ps2 man its the bomb

[econ21]

Imperialism 2 had pretty good AI on hard. Yes, you could fool it by oscillating armies between provinces but it was very ruthless at exploiting your weakness and coped admirably with the formiddable multiple constraints on your nation's development.

I also liked the threat of Civ2's AI on King and Deity - when the Mongols or some other aggressive/expansionist faction first appeared, you worried. Civ3 bored me, but I confess it may have been even harder than Civ2.

To be honest, although people complain, I think the battlefield AI does well in STW and MTW. In MTW, the weaknesses were more at the strategic level (build choices, failure to exploit sea trade). STW was pretty competitive.

Heroes of Might and Magic III had a non-too-shabby AI, both strategic and tactical. I disliked a lot of the game mechanics, but the computer could put up a good fight.

I've been less impressed with the AI of computer wargames, but have a soft spot for Steel Panthers. There is something about being remorsely pounded with heavy artillery on defence or blundering into concealed ambushes that gave a feeling of danger even if in reality you were going to win.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Actually I think the best AI ever has to be Chessmaster 10th edition, simulating Fisher(sp?). I have played him 80+ times on the demo and he kills me every time. I am not bad at chess and they use human algorithms to simulate the pros extremely well.

[jimmyM]

Towards a question posed earlier in the thread - how DOES the A.I work (algorithms, fuzzy logic & c. have been mentioned, possibly mums too..) the issue has also been brought up regarding the new patch, and the state of the vanilla A.I.
I had always assumed pretty much all A.I's were based on the old yes/no gated system, in some cases taken to incredibly complex heights, not sure about the "fuzzy logic " bit...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Just to let everybody know this thread has forced me to take up civ 3 again. I have no idea how I have fit it in between Pacific Fighters, Rome, the ORG and miscellanious games but somehow I have...

[Dooz]

That is a task not easily undertaken. Kudos to you, Uesugi.

[SpencerH]

I've never been happy with any AI, including CIV3's (see sig).

I have to agree that the best battlefield AI was SM's Gettysburg (I remember some very complex battles with both sides wheeling to flank the other and the difference being my better use of cannon). RoN had the best overall AI (although I havent played it to death as I have with every civ variant).

[Slyspy]

For diplomatic AI: Europa Universalis 2.

For tactical AI: Combat Mission 1/2/3 (speciafically the tank combat, its infantry tactics are rather poor).

For strategic AI: Probably GalCiv though I felt I was being beaten more by the complexity than by the AI, but I lent my copy out so cannot try in again right now.

As a side note the AI in RTW carries over flaws from MTW and STW while adding some more! I shall try the new patch though.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The one thing I hate about civ3 is the oversimplified battles, I had a musketman lose to a roman legionarry... Messed up, oh well the Romans are gone now and I rule my continent, off to pester the Chinese!

[Fragony]

The best AI has to be Halo, killing the covenant never gets old. As for strategy games, Sacrifice has pretty good AI, really puts up a fight.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I love Halo and Halo 2, but I do not think the AI matches up to that in OpFlash, the Ruskies are clever and can even find you by your muzzle flash in the dark! (with silenced weapon, I am not that dumb....usually.)

[fret]

Id disagree strongly with all the comments about the Civ 3 AI being good.

It has many flaws, especially when deciding whether to attack units of a certain type and strength, it cannot mount a seabound invasion which is critical, the unit upgrade behavior, whic is more critical in a game such as Civ 3 where you have constantly changing unit-dynamic, id terrible, in that you can be in the middle of the Modern Era with tanks-a-plenty and the AI, who is perfectly capable of producing such units, instead decided to leave its Riflemen as Riflemen when it should be upgrading everything to Mech Infantry. Diplomacy is often predictable, enemy units can in some respects be made to systemtically act in a certain manner allowing you to control their movement and elimate accordingly, such as SiPlebs Funnel of Doom manouver. There are many issues / exploits such as this.

As usual, the Civ 3 AI only uses production weighting to increase in difficulty, playing SId is exacly the same as playing Cheiftan, exept what it takes the player 10 turns to build, the Cheiftan AI will take 20 turns to build, the Sid AI will take 4 turns to build

There is nothing special about the Civ 3 AI.

[fret]

Partially untrue.
The AI does, in fact, get allowances, but NOT BEFORE KING'S LEVEL !

There is no 'King' Level in Civ 3, theres no 'Prince' level either

The levels are as follows in increasing difficulty (pre-conquests)...

Chieftan
Warlord
Regent (level playing field)
Monarch
Emporer
Diety


The AI bonus' / penalties are as follows...

Where it takes the human player 100% to build something, it will take the AI....

Chieftan - 200% (estimate(i havent played this level for a while)
Warlord - 160% (estimate again)
Regent - 100% (level playing field)
Monarch - 90%
Emporer - 80%
Diety - 60%

With the release of the Conquests expantion pack, the values of the Diety difficulty level were ameded slightly, and two new more diffiult levels were introduced.

Aside from production bonus, the AI also makes it more difficult as the base cost of technologies is increased as the difficulty level increases, therfore making tech-beating and tech-buying more diffucult.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Gettysburg did have the best AI I think. Though it did get a bonus on the high levels.

Shoguns AI held up fairly well considering how much I played that game. It was only ranged units that it was terrible at.

I thought the thief AI was pretty good...guards scared the heck out of me on more than one occasion.

[Red Harvest]

Civil War Bull Run has good AI. It is aggressive about flanking the player. It has a few tricks up its sleaves. Let's just say that I'm not winning the scenarios on normal difficulty on the first pass most of the time.

[Satyr]

Kohan II, while not coming with great AIs out of the box has gotten a few great ones written by the community. When playing on the hardest level it is very hard to win against some of them. Even on the "Hard" setting they can offer a game that is as tough as most people offer in multi. And the game actually requires some tactics as well as a good stragegy to do well. I am finding it is a good substitute to fill in for the lack of a viable Total War game. I will have to try Axis and Allies from the same company to try the engine in a non fantasy setting too.