Printable View
I have been playing as the Chichimecs in America and decided to start by wiping out the Apaches. I played with fog of war off and noticed two strange things:
1. The Apaches conquer rebel villages with almost no losses.
2. True, maintenance for Apache troops is low, but they cost mony to build and income is small. When I wiped out the Apaches after 17 turns, they had over 50,000 florins. Pursuing the same strategy as the Apaches, I had been almost broke after 17 turns.
You don't want a challenging AI?? I would love it if it cheats - it would save me having to give the AI loads of cash each turn
Correct. In the campaign_script you can read that the AI gets extra money because the AI doesn't get any missions with which it can earn some money. The script also adds some extra money for higher difficulty levels to make the game more ah.... yes indeed difficult. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole
The AI in every video game out there cheats to one degree or other. I can't see how you'd be surprised the TW AI cheats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole
Yes - It's fantastic!
I'm playing the Welsh in britannia and now have built up to 1/4 the map with irish, scots and english remnants controlling 1/4 each. I am totally bankrupt and average around 5th (sometimes 4th if norway having a bad day) militarily with 42-59% of the top military (varies between above 3).
Capturing English cities they make me hardly any money. So it appears the AI cheats, gives them more money to maintain troops and lets teh English build entire stacks of armoured swordsmen and fuedal knights vs my crappy spears, skirmishers and saefwyr.
Fantastic! I'm forced to regularly win with half the army. I have to fight canny, defensively and skirmish. I count every man and count it as a disaster when I lose 1/3rd as many men as the english.
In normal TW I would be swimming in cash and beginning to bulldoze the enemy now. As it is I'm not even winning and live in fear ogf the scvots or irish turning on me.
It seems CA are listening. I, for one, am happy.
p.s. Ok so there's still no chance of me losing really and the Ai still fights like a girl but it seems to be as good as they could make it....
p.p.s. And Teulu Skirmishers are fantastic!
Same in the Teutonic order campaign. As landlocked Novgorod I am stealing candies from babies to feed my troops, yet Teutons keep sending more and more armies. I am not outnumbered but definitely outclassed by their heavily armored soldiers. I think in the first 20 turns I had more heroic victories than in whole vanilla Grand Campaign. Good thing Mongols are duking it out with Poland.
Also in the campaign script I see that in addition to bonus income factions get a "last stand" bonus of $10000 if they have only a few settlements left, and the "debt bail-out" bonus of $10000 if they go in the red, finally they all are supposed to turn on the player if he is close to winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole
Well, me and my wife are playing with maya and apaches... I can say that she never gets under 40.000!! Even when I need some 10.000 to stop those damn english!!!!!! And when I talk 10.000, I talk 3 or 4 times!!!!
lol!
Goddamnit are the goddamn annoying mongols in kingdoms as well?!! ugh, that just ruined my day :(Quote:
Originally Posted by MStumm
No the Mongols are just a regular faction now.
You are indeed correct, the AI is programmed to gain money should they hit the red, which is clearly making them more of a challenge to just stomp on, I also belive its available to get them to declare war should you grow to a certain extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monsieur Alphonse
You can still cripple the AI though. THe Lithuanians have been smashed down to two villages and they can no longer retaliate.
That makes economic warfare pretty much useless. But then again provides more challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
Is it known how much money the AI gets, and under what circumstances ?
Yeah, you can check the campaign_scripts for the different campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by DVX BELLORVM
It differs from campaign to campaign and faction to faction.
If the AI has less than 0, they get 2000 and if they have less than -5000 they get another 6000, in addition to that they get an increase for their king's purse depending on your difficulty setting.
In crusades for example, the KOJ gets +500 on easy (while the player would get 1000 extra playing it), +2000 on medium (no play bonus), +3500 on hard and +5500 on vh.
In addition the Turks get a 15k extra per turn in that campaign when not played by a human.
I don't have the Kingdoms yet ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by alpaca
But I've checked campaign_script for the vanilla, and didn't find anything. Does that mean that in vanilla AI doesn't receive financial bonuses, or have I missed something?
In the American campaign script, each faction is given a "King's Purse" that varies from 500 to 6500 per turn. In addition, the Tarascans, Chichimecans, and Aztecs get an extra 10000 florins per turn.
The effect is that AI factions can build and support all the forces that they can recruit. That explains why they have multiple stacks per city sitting around.
It will be interesting to see whether any human can win with a faction other then the Apaches, given this misguided code in campaign_script.
I checked campaign_script for the original MTW2 and found no special code to give money to AI factions. This is a new feature(bug) in Kingdoms, and it wrecks the economic foundation of the game, since you are watching your finances and the AI effectively has infinite cash. I cannot imagine how this made it through beta testing.
This is actually a feature. I believe in the original campaign the AI (with a few exceptions) was almost always broke, so you were fighting mostly militias. Now at least they can afford the brawn to fight back. Too bad they still lack the brains. In the Teutonic campaign all factions have lots of pretty large armies, much larger than in the vanilla. Since they have armies they can actually attack me now, and with expensive units too. Like Teutonic armored spearmen which are about 700 each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole
Yeah it's a poor way to make the game challenging but it's better than the ease in which you can beat vanilla I guess (if it actually makes the game considerably harder). I'd like to see some reports about how this stuff plays.
Indeed, the same problem in RTW I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by MStumm
That and that the AI had no population to build troops with.
Hence why the most challenging mods have money scripts for the AI since it obviously can't handle the economy part.
Personally I don't care if the AI cheats, as long as it's reasonable and makes the game challenging.
Giving them alot of money seems reasonable to me.
dont know if you just want to know about kingdoms, but I have some pretty longterm games in a modded vanilla game of Rome wich basicly changes their unit-roster a bit so better units are by default more costly and their economie always in the 10.000s of credits they become a heck of a lot harder on the "campaign" map, ofcourse they still remain the tactics-less idiot in battle ..Quote:
Originally Posted by alpaca
they seem to swarm around with clusters of armies and really lay siege to a settlement and even react to you attacking them
(I once launched an assault on Carthage with 3 full stacks of post-marian troops, ofcourse was victorious in taking the settlement, but failed to notice their 3 full stacks of men laying around the country-side now being redirected to their new enemy ..
so in the end I took a settlement with 3 armies and lost one to 3 armies, later on whiped Carthage's 3 army behind on an open battlefield ..)
comparing like vanilla Rome and modded Rome in a Julii campaign means basicly that you dont get swarmed by 1/2 to 2/3 full Gaul/German/Briton armies, but you get swarmed by 2full stack armies of Gaul/German/Briton men.
Not to forget they gain the ability to react/counterattack cause they actually have a spare-army.
differnce in gameplay is also that you actually get more decent goals, dont need to go for that large_village as that large_village now in a modded game has grown to large_city, something worth taking...
generally it just plays better if the AI isnt "also" having to deal with a bad economie to wich they can not adapt, gving of an impression they can actually compeat with you, of even beter make you somewhat feel like the underdog
G
Personally, I'd rather the AI was actually programmed to play a challenging game rather than given unjustifiable advantages. So, I'm a bit dissapointed that this was the best that CA could come up with to give players more of a challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
In my opinion it should have been an option at least, not a mandatory feature.
I agree with Didz and the dissapointment is all the more so since the TW AI has always cheated in pretty much the same way since day immemorial.
Not that i was expecting Kingdoms to fix this in any case though.
Yup, i've won with New Spain, though i did lose 39 battles in the process.Quote:
It will be interesting to see whether any human can win with a faction other then the Apaches, given this misguided code in campaign_script.
It's not a bug, it's designed that way so to provide more of a challenge on harder difficulty settings.Quote:
I checked campaign_script for the original MTW2 and found no special code to give money to AI factions. This is a new feature(bug) in Kingdoms, and it wrecks the economic foundation of the game, since you are watching your finances and the AI effectively has infinite cash. I cannot imagine how this made it through beta testing.
If a game provides a challenge to succeed, it retains its interest. Ideally, if the AI can be programmed to provide this challenge without a dearth of cheats, this is clearly the best option. Civ 4 BtS has gone a long way to accomplishing this. If however, this is a problem, as it has been throughout TW games, then I'd always take a cheating AI that provides a challenge over a walk in the park. If they go on to differentiate this through difficulty levels then everyone wins.
Kingdoms is far better in terms of campaign AI and battle AI than patch 1.2/1.3 vanilla. As a result, it goes a long way to restoring some of the challenge without the cheats. Having said that, it is by no means perfect and it's still a far cry away from the level of AI in Civ 4 BtS (not surprising given that Civ 4 is a turn based strategy game).
Everyone who seems a bit disappointed with this way of making the AI more difficult baffles me somewhat. CA were NEVER going to revolutionise the way the MTWII AI worked, its an expansion pack, they don't do that, the work into making a new AI is solely going into the next two next gen games.
CA could have released the new campaigns with no AI bonuses, then we'd be complaining that it was far too easy. I am glad they get bonuses and get to cheat to provide a longer campaign.
That's not possible. It might be possible if PC's came equipped with a specific AI CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
This explains a lot, especially with the Americas campaign. I just might have to step back from VH to Hard, and see if that can get me past my little problem of not being able to even attack the Tarascans with the Aztecs, because they literally have this non-step stream of units coming out of their cities towards mine. I'm swatting them down as they come, but I can't build up enough momentum to win the 10 consecutive battles just to siege a city. I suppose that's how Very Hard should, be though.
Sorry for going OT but BtS does exactly the same on the difficulty settings where it becomes challenging (for argument's sake let's say Prince and above, although it depends on the player's skill level), AI builds cheaper, researches faster, has less maintenance and pays a lot less for upgrading units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
The AI is actually so easily exploitable by gifting them, giving them tributes and paying them to attack other people that I can win about 2/3 of the games with a decent starting position on Emperor difficulty. Most through domination, admittedly, where it's very hard for the AI to keep even (on the tactical level I mean - a lot of times I have K:D ratios of 3:1 and more) but still.
All in all it's as I said on a thread on civfanatics: The AI is very much shorthanded in the brains department so consider handicaps as a way to partially make up for the unfair advantage you have over the AI.
This is true. I think Civ has always had one of the best AIs in the strategy genre, but it also has cheated outrageously at higher difficulty levels. The cheating is what makes it challenging in a way that most TW games have not been.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpaca
I think vanilla TW could cheat more in favour of the AI - a money top up is the obvious route; mods like EB use it successfully. Over in the Throne Room, we've been making sure AI factions have 50k or so in the bank in our M2TW HRE PBM. This, together with limits on player expansion, has meant that that AI has gone from fielding virtually no significant armies to fielding forces that can match our own (and indeed sometime out-tech us).
However, Civ does have some better AI behaviour than TW (as well as some limitations). Having played Civ4 recently, the two obvious ones to me are:
(a) In Civ, when an AI goes to war, it usually does so very seriously - it may mass several scarey stacks and slowly march halfway across the world to get at you. It can be quite frightening to see those looming out of the fog of war reading to take down a border town (and keep going). By contrast, TW still tends to go for penny packets, not just ruthlessly compiling a stack of doom and not going for the jugular, being content to just snatch the odd settlement.
(b) The Civ diplomatic programming is great fun - dealing with the varied personalities of the different factions (Ghandhi vs Shaka etc) makes that side of the game rather rewarding. In TW, AI diplomatic behaviour is often hard to make sense out of and almost never pulls off the trick of feeling "human" (e.g. you don't feel you have annoyed a faction or that they are your friends, etc).
As a long term modder of campaign scripts in Med II, I'm rather perplexed at the code entries for the CA-inserted AI money scripts in Kingdoms...
During our testing of money scripts in vanilla we discovered that there had to be a comma after the faction's name but before the money award. Well, looking at the various new money scripts in the Britannia campaign, they look like they're not going to work! Based on my knowledge the one above should be:Code:monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType england
and IsFactionAIControlled
and Treasury < -5000
add_money england 10000
Anyone confirm to the contrary?Code:monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType england
and IsFactionAIControlled
and Treasury < -5000
add_money england, 10000
True, but the actual AI which controls the units, build decisions, etc, is a vast improvement over what it was in vanilla Civ 4. The AI can actually contend in the wars, rather than just cheating its way to a space victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpaca
@Jambo
At least that explains probably why I don't get the extra money when I am promoted during my New Spain campaign. According to the script and the pop up New Spain should 5000 at the first promotion and 10000, 15000, 20000, 25000 at the next promotions but I have never experienced that I get that extra money.
The line in the campaign script is:
Which may bee should according Jambo with a comma after spain.Code:add_money spain 5000
Can someone confirm that the player doesn't get the extra money after a promotion in a New Spain campaign?
Well, it would seem it is bugged.
Does anyone know if the "increment_kings_purse" command also requires a comma?
Sure it's possible. There are good games out there where the AI doesn't cheat, like GalCiv2. It's programmed to recognize and counter common player strategies, and it's very tough to beat at the harder levels, with no cheats like economic advantage, lifting fog of war, etc. GalCiv2 does have the advantage that it has no separate tactical AI (all battles are auto-calc'd), so the programmers can focus on turn-based strategy without any distractions.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I probably won't buy Kingdoms for other reasons (see the SecureRom discussion), but just as a personal opinion... since they weren't going to rebuild the AI from scratch, I don't mind this way of making the game more challenging. I do think it's unfortunate that it's tied to the campaign difficulty setting. It would be nice if that were separate, so you could use a medium difficulty where diplomacy isn't broken by the constant normalizing towards aggression that happens at H and VH settings. Maybe the same thing could be done by modding in a King's Purse boost for medium difficulty.
The bug (in my opinion) is in the part of the script that gives 10000 florins per turn to the Tarascans and the Chichimecs, independent of the difficulty level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
As an experiment, I set up a game at Easy/Easy and ran through 10 quick turns.
Almost everyone was broke, but the Tarascans and the Chichimecs had about 40K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Yeah the problem lies with the "default state" being a kind of war in TW states.
Not completely unrealistic for a Medieval setting, mind. Most wars back then didn't go to the end in a sense like wars today.
In Civ, most AIs don't go into full-scale war mode either though, you often see them having large stacks in their own cities, far from the front. To be honest, war in Civ4 isn't much harder than in TW.
It got a bit better with BtS but not by a huge margin, at least the AI more often creates larger stacks now, but this obviously also opens up collateral damage possibilites :beam:
Edit: Jambo, "As a long term modder of campaign scripts in Med II" you should've realized that add_money is a new command. You're referring to the console_command of the same name which however doesn't necessarily have the same syntax. I'd say it probably works (can't imagine their scripters screw so big time) but can't test it since I don't have the game.
Why don't you just try giving yourself money with it? It's a two-minutes' test.
So, unless anyone can prove otherwise, it would seem all this debating over the merits of the AI getting financial cheats is inconsequential... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Personally, I have found the AI getting tougher towards the latter half of the Britannia campaign, so my guess is that the increment_kings_purse might be working... even though I couldn't get the actual command to work from the console.
Jambo, as alpaca pointed out, there not console commands, the new add_money command appears to be different to the console command version. From my playing of the campaigns i would guess they are working as the ai does produce a lot more troops on VH, and generally better quality troops.Quote:
Personally, I have found the AI getting tougher towards the latter half of the Britannia campaign, so my guess is that the increment_kings_purse might be working... even though I couldn't get the actual command to work from the console.
I disagree, I've played games where the AI provides a challenge without cheating. (Combat Mission being one example that springs to mind)Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
What we are looking at in this case is a simple example of lazy programming and game design. CA can't be bothered to go through the effort of making the AI more of a challenge as its far easier just to have it cheat.
Didz, have you played Kingdoms?
I've found the AI to be far better than it is in Med II 1.2. I should say I also use a few personalised AI tweaks to help the AI armies reform better when on attack and defence, but on the whole, Kingdoms is the best TW to date, and by a long way. So, I think you're probably being a little harsh here.
I also can't actually think of any strategy game that doesn't impart bonuses (read "cheats" for some here) to the AI at tougher difficulty levels...
Lusted, Alpaca,
I'll do a test later, things may be different in Kingdoms. If I recall correctly I did this under Med II and despite giving large amounts (40000 max) using the add_money command in a script (without the comma) the financial graphs of the AI factions never showed any evidence they were working. With the comma, they did....
Edit: There's also Monsieur Alphonse's post to consider too. He's not received any of the monetary awards in the Spanish campaign.
I seem to remember getting truckloads of money every time I earned a title as New Spain, for what it's worth...
Whoever wrote this is an idiot. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Code in Kingdoms works fine.
After playing kingdoms for a while I can say that the AI builds alot better troops now and is generally tougher too.
Nope! I bought two copies and then discovered they were trojan horses for the SecuRom hack, so I haven't installed them on either of my PC's yet. Still dithering about whether I want to knowingly install a piece of invasive software on my systems that might bite me when I least expect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
The fact that this thread is adding so many other issues, like AI cheats, into the mix is merely making me even less inclined to take the risk.
I've always been interested in the AI aspects of strategy games. When I increase the difficulty of a game, I don't want the enemy to have falsely inflated morale bonuses, their troops to be individually harder to kill, or their treasuries gifted so that they can buy their way to victory. What I'd like to see is the enemy playing smarter, using more innovative and/or complicated tactics. The same could go for better generals (ie as more command stars are gained, more developed tactics are used) at the same difficulty level. I'm always disappointed when a 7 star general has (seemingly) the same level of tactical ability as a mere captain.
Taking it further, perhaps human players could be limited in terms of what they can do by the level of the commander of a force in a battle ie if your force is only commanded by a captain you can only complete basic tactics, like hold a line in front of a brigde, or advance in a line. Attempts to complete more complicated manouvres could have a chance of ending in a confused disaster, unless you have a general with some command ability.
Didz, the AI has been cheating its way to losing for decades.
How would you implement this? I mean in TW you have total control over your units so would you want to introduce a kind of random factor to check whether the units do what you want or something completely strange?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessex Rob
Could be a nice idea for some players (including me :yes: ) because it's actually pretty realistic but I guess most people would scream for vengeance :laugh4:
I admit it would be difficult to do, and some players would doubtless get annoyed if their brilliant tactics degenerated into chaos (I include myself here!). I'd envisage a sort of sliding scale so that a simple manouver by a well trained, well-led unit would be flawless, but more complicated marches and counter-marches lead to a loss of cohesion. I'd even like a bit more "fog of war" on the battlefield, not just in terms of what can be seen, but in terms of what can be done and by whom. I can't imagine that these things would be easy or even (universally) popular.
Personally, I wouldn't want units doing something completely random, but maybe misunderstanding slightly; so advancing too far/not far enough, moving too fast/slow to where they're supposed to go. A classic would be the disappearing cavalry charge...you know the one, where the elite charge through the enemy and keep going...and going...and going, maybe if the commander lacks command stars it could increase the chance of them leaving the battlefield whilst in pursuit and (maybe) not even coming back before the battle ends.
Alternatively, you could limit the number of orders per minute according to the skill of the commander. So a mere captain can pass down one order a minute, eg Everyone (select all units) Move Forward, or shift the position of one unit of the army precisely. Meanwhile, a 4 star general can issue 4 commands in the same time eg units 1+2 move forward, unit 3 move back, unit 4 form schiltrom, unit 5 change to wedge formation etc. A timer could show how long before the next order is available. This would make "simpler" tactics the only thing achievable with low level commanders, and more complicated plans on the player's part would require a general capable of carrying them out. It would also make grouping of units vital, as each order to a group would only count as 1 order.
Probably all very difficult to do, but I think it would be interesting to fight with slightly more realistic limits to what you can do...and probably very frustrating at times!
You can get a feeling of that by selecting the "General camera" option... It restricts your vision to what your general can see of the battlefield... Makes it much harder to see what is happening...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessex Rob
Upon reading this thread i realized why the stalin tactic failed in my teutonic campaign against the lithuanians guess you can;t beat the ai economically and without fighting many battles, I'm a tad disapointed economic warfare is just as important i am disapointed at CA.:smash:
What is even more annoying than 10k armies spammed at you is taking Jerusalem with your Ghulam/Mamluke horde and still having the AI launch armies with Marshals and Constables every turn. It has been 16 turns since I took the city and the AI still keeps cranking these REQUIRES JERUSALEM units out.
I am all for AI boosts but it really takes the fun out of capturing key cities if the AI just ignores the rules.
Yeah, I am actually grateful that we started giving the AI money. We were just steamrolling through everything before it and now with the AI having so much money, they pump out full stacks like crazy. It actually makes fighting battles alot more challenging, not as much in whether you win or lose, but on how many troops you lose as the deficent AI makes winning battles pretty easy, but large stack sizes destroys your armies through attrition.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I think of giving the AI money as offsetting their innate inferiority in fighting battles as well as their economic management
Absolutely. As Wales it wasn't could I beat the English full stack coming at me, it was can I beat it with almsot no losses because there was another one behind it and then two more coming next turn...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
The AI is still easily beatable unless you have a far inferior stack. The challenge is surviving the war of attrition.
And for those complaining it's just the AI trying to do to us what we did to the Mongols...
I presently control all of England an dwales in britannia and was thinking of quittign because I figured now I was 1 in all categories the challenge weas over. Figured the scots would be too easy if we're even stevens. but maybe it won't be if they've got some cheats up their sleeves...
Scots cheating? never! Btw most of the good mods give the ai cash and i believe al totalwwar games have done to keep the ai out of debt its nothing new to kingdoms.
Is there any cheat for the AI on battlefield or the only one is more money in campaign?
There's some fairly moronic logic being deployed in this thread. I won't name names.
Why don't you guys try playing the game facing the other way? I'm sure that will make it more challenging. How about breaking your clicking finger with a hammer? How about playing after a hefty dose of tranquilisers? All of those things would make it more challenging.
You're as bad as the "Oh, so what if they left (insert feature) out? Someone will eventually mod it in" crowd.
If you keep giving CA and Sega breaks like this you'll keep getting "Graphics - Total War" forever.
I totally agree with the first part.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
But I suspect the names we're not naming are very different...
Well for my part I don't find beating a steady stream of full stack armies at all challenging. My word for it would be BORING.
What we needed was a AI that could field a decent army, give it a sensible goal and use it effectively. What we seem to have got is an AI, thats just as dumb as before but now has the ability to bore you into submission.
You're right. There's far too much spamming in the last few CA offerings. Spamming of annoying voice messages on the battlefield, spamming of full stacks on VH, spamming of agents....the list goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I hope they start from scratch with the campaign and interface on ETW.
They do. In fact they write the whole thing anew from scratch. They might keep the launcher though, no idea :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
In fact, I've just realised that we seem to have gone full circle back to the original Hojo Horde problem of STW. We complained then that the way the Hojo Faction in STW seemed able to produce 20+ full army stacks to defend a single province was boring, as it just resulted in an end game that required the same battle to be fought with the same troops repeatedly.
Half a dozen upgrades and new version down the line and it seems...here we are again....different uniforms same problem. How come CDV Software can come up with an AI thats challenging, but CA can only provide theirs with the same old ways to cheat?
And on that note Didz, when CA pandered to the community's complaints and removed the cheating Hojo horde, people then complained the game was too easy... (which it was)
But at least it wasn't boring.....the issue which is constantly being danced around is that the AI is NOT challenging enough. AI being Artificial Intelligence, what that means is that it basically isn't artificially intelligent enough to provide the player with a challenging opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
The solution is to put more effort into improving its intelligence, not letting it cheat. Letting it cheat is what Dad's do when playing snakes and ladders with their four year old, but CA is meant to be designing a strategy game for adults not frustrated fathers.
Other gaming companies like CDV seem able to provide an intelligent AI opponent so its not an impossible request, and the message from the fan-base during the recent unofficial survey was 'Less Eye Candy, More Substance'. So there ought to be no confusion over our priorities.
However, it appears that message fell on deaf ears and thats a real shame.
I can't believe how easy you guys think it is to "make a better AI". There are an infinite more variations than in Chess and they're only just capable of beating kasparaov with the best AI in the world. you think CA should just "make a better one" for their game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
All you can do is give a computer options - if this do this of that do that. Computers can't assimilate those variations like a normal person. They're just shit at environmental factors outside of straight maths.
You seem to be blaming Ca for not single handedly revolutionising AI programming on an international scale.
Yet you don't want cheats like money or instant stacks - despite the fact that even civ 4, the acknowledged world games leader at camapign AI (which is still easier than battle AI) cheats like crazy!
A little grasp of reality wouldn't hurt here guys...