安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
Most of these human criteria will be not be so easy to fit in an easy heuristic for the AI. You would need complex algorithms to weigh these criteria against each other. Nevertheless, I think the AI can be improved here by taking more things into account: Just looking at habitat is probably a far too simple approach and doesn't allow the AI to be smart on this subject.
I think that for example an algorithm to judge the value of the surrounding terrain around a city shouldn't be that hard to program, if it is poor, the expansion behaviour of the AI should get a boost and its willingness to build suburbs be penalized. Or maybe just penalize its willingness to build suburbs, its willingness to expand should get automatically higher then due to lack of habitat.
But since this also includes aliens, this might be too effective in how it changes where they'd like to settle. Like if you clean up your alien-presence this might invite the AI over to you since they rather colonize a bad spot without aliens than a good spot with aliens.
Also since the distance of the closest city to the average of my military plays a huge role in the decision whether to declare war or not, the AI is just as provokeable as a human when it comes to settling a city near their core.
There of course already are evaluation-methods for any given spot. They are currently only used when it comes to deciding where to colonize but not whether to colonize.
My current concern is the whether/when part moreso than the where part.
However, I think that the aggressive AI expansion (playing on easy- "the new normal") is what drives MY expansion. Forget optimizing growth rates and understanding the finer points of global growth (not food) driven expansion. The AI, IMHO correctly, considers that the maximum number of launch sites for nukes and black holes as decisive for the end game battles. So I've seen the AI take even a single hex available area between 2 of mycities on a coast.
tldr: the current ruleset encourages the AI to settle rapidly and everywhere; the human is hard pressed to keep up. I dislike this mechanic!
Nowadays easy is what had been Very Easy in earlier versions.
Normal actually is the fair difficulty now.
Are we both talking about 1.6.4+? Your mention of Nukes and Blackholes makes it sound like you could be talking about 1.6.3.
The AI in my current version expands quite a lot well before it has access to nukes.
And in my opinion it's not always ideal to expand so much under the current ruleset as new cities drain a lot of the resource-pool that could go into military.
I will now try some other approach.
That's quite a big discrepancy in our playstyle then. I usually don't get a second city before Mine, Farm, Barracks, Pollution-Processor, Wendo-Apartmens and a bunch of units.
By then my capital oftentimes is at about size 15 or bigger.
@daniel:
I agree that Nukes are a good reason to get additional cities but I'm also mostly talking about earlier phases of the game. In 1.6.4 Nukes come a lot later compareatively so no need to have a sub-ideal economy due to overexpansion before the nukes are even available.
I'll be doing another new experiment today.
Are we both talking about 1.6.4+? Your mention of Nukes and Blackholes makes it sound like you could be talking about 1.6.3.
The AI in my current version expands quite a lot well before it has access to nukes.
>>>
Yes, latest version.
Sorry, I didn't explain well. It's pretty much what Daniel said. Before black holes is when the AI is expanding like crazy, but it serves them really well to have many more launch sites than the human if war comes later. In my games I tried to follow the careful expansion advice in the forums only to find I had built only 1/3 of the number of AI cities per player.
The AI doesn't go to war early; I don't go to war early; all parties are basically peaceful during the expansion phase. The result is that the AI has that many more nukes and black holes to use whan was eventually comes.
Seems the AI has it right- avoid war; expand like crazy is a winning strategy!
If there are good bonuses in range I keep growing until I have them inside my borders too. But if I don't I usually feel it worth to expand and take a nearby bonus/good city spot. This often also saves me the Wendoappartmens (tech and prod) for a while and I can build a tank instead. :D
It actually was a very simple approach that combined what I had done earlier with several other ideas:
For the calculation it takes current habitat + potential habitat from researched but unbuilt buildings but habitat provided from suburbs is halved in that equation.
The result was a very nice expansion pace. It avoided the suburbia-problem from earlier but did not overexpand either like the current version.
@willgamer: Well, you not going to war early or when the opportunity was ideal was a lucky circumstance for the AI. The only problem with the rapid expansion-pace was that it is too vulnerable while the new cities are all being brought up. When they are not punished for this they will end up in a better position of course.
I'll upload the new approach to civforum in a couple of minutes. It is, what I think, a very good compromise.
Edit:
http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?96495-Zwischenpatches&p=6903951&viewfull=1#post6903951
@willgamer: Well, you not going to war early or when the opportunity was ideal was a lucky circumstance for the AI. The only problem with the rapid expansion-pace was that it is too vulnerable while the new cities are all being brought up. When they are not punished for this they will end up in a better position of course.
>>>>
Punished by whom??? I usually generate maps with about 3-4 continents. So on my continent, yes I could punish too early expansion and I have played games that way. Unfortunately, the other 3 or 4 AIs never punish each other, so they continue to expand and I'm the bad guy for the rest of the game.
I've seen AIs go to war with a weak AI, but never with an over expanding AI.
Had I not also restricted myself to not go to war, I think that by the end of the midgame I was at the peak of my potential and could have gone on a rampage.
Eventually you are overtaken with that but starting the game off as one-city-challenge and finding the right moment to divert from it actually can be a very strong strategy. The main advantage clearly is to not have to invest in all the buildings several time.
My city reached it's max-potential at 104 population. I, however had to stall growth a while at size 88 as by then I didn't have the golden population-improvement yet.
Here's a sceenshot of the fully developed city:
http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=1316741
As consequence of that I now count suburbs as full value again which lowers expansionism of AI a little bit. (They will not try one-city-challenges!)