Does the AI cheat?

[Mr Noseybonk]

Even on easiest levels the AI expands (ie builds new cities) at seemingly impossible rates.

[Valdar]

It doesn't 'cheat' per se. The AI civilizations get more advantages in each increase in the level difficulty. At the easier levels, the player actually has the advantage. There is a chart on the Civ Fanatics website that shows the breakdown for each level.
If you play on easier levels, are lucky on your starting position, and play an aggressive expansion strategy, you can easily expand more rapidly than the AI Civs.

[ShutEye_DK]

Originally posted by gartheastwood:

Even on easiest levels the AI expands (ie builds new cities) at seemingly impossible rates.

Yes it does. Go have a look in the editor.

[Mr Noseybonk]

Originally posted by ShutEye_DK:

Originally posted by gartheastwood:

Even on easiest levels the AI expands (ie builds new cities) at seemingly impossible rates.

Yes it does. Go have a look in the editor.

<RANT BEGINS>

This Steam version *has* the editor? I thought that was missing from this <ahem> "complete" <ahem> version!

Anyway, Civ III's AI plays the kind of game that I LOATHE AND DETEST the most.
- profanely, obscenely expansionistic, and cheaty expansionism at that. Ok, you can try being so yourself, but having a large number of cities just makes the game a pile of micromanagement ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. You can't trust your AI ministers to even build brick ♥♥♥♥ houses efficiently - so you can't delegate management to them.
- they ALL make treaties, alliances and trades with each other, but totally and utterly ignore your civ! When one of them inevitably goes to war with you, ALL the others join in within a few turns. EVERY game just ends up with the same debacle by about the time you get to around 200BC.

There is NO workaround, NO being able to adjust the AI to use different strategies. The above is still the case even on easiest difficulty and lowest AI aggression settings.

This ruins the entire game. No way did Sid Meier have ANYTHING to do with this turd, other than his name being besmirched by being in it's title!

In fact I think Civ III is one of the WORST games of this kind ever written. Don't believe the dysentery of raving positive spam reviews from the idiocratic majority that seem to actually *like* this kind of AI pisstake gameplay!

Do NOT even get me started on the clumsy, mistake inducing, UI!

Now I await the Civ III fanboi troll parade to throw all kinds of BS at me. Regardless, Civ III is still ♥♥♥♥!

<RANT ENDS>

Sorry (actually I'm not) but I had to get that off my chest........

[Nick]

Civ III, at the time of release, was considered to be one of the best of its kind. Civ 4, 5 and 6 do a much better job of automation of your workers and cities, while also curtailing a lot of the AI's tendency to endlessly expand. Civ III is just that way. In mid-late game any open space is usually found by the AI and settled. I'd suggest you play on smaller maps, or at least settle the desirable lands and ignore the mountains/deserts and let the AI waste resources there. The AI will run into money troubles with overly large swaths of territory if you snag all the key luxuries and resources.

[Mr Noseybonk]

Originally posted by Sauce:

Civ III, at the time of release, was considered to be one of the best of its kind. Civ 4, 5 and 6 do a much better job of automation of your workers and cities, while also curtailing a lot of the AI's tendency to endlessly expand. Civ III is just that way. In mid-late game any open space is usually found by the AI and settled. I'd suggest you play on smaller maps, or at least settle the desirable lands and ignore the mountains/deserts and let the AI waste resources there. The AI will run into money troubles with overly large swaths of territory if you snag all the key luxuries and resources.

Good to hear, as I also note I've got Civ 4 in my library. As for Civ 3, again good ideas, I'll try a smaller map - and less AI opponents.

[Nick]

I personally don't mind building a thousand cities and spending 10-15 minutes per turn directing all the workers and such. In the lower 3, even 4 difficulty settings, you easily outpace the AI if you have decent starting resources. In your case, smaller maps definitely will allow for you to expand a little, then focus on improving your few cities (perhaps towards a cultural victory). I play Civ 5 a lot more than 3, because it's just better. Civ 3 is just nostalgia for me at this point.

Also consider playing on archipelago, so you can island hop before the AI (who follow the rule of no ocean crossing until magnetism/galleons) can, by taking risks with your galleys.

[Syad]

I was going to suggest the easiest difficulty level but it seems the OP can't even handle that.

Originally posted by gartheastwood:

Anyway, Civ III's AI plays the kind of game that I LOATHE AND DETEST the most.
- profanely, obscenely expansionistic, and cheaty expansionism at that.

Yes, the AI plays to win. Horrible thing in 2020 i know( although i wouldn't say it tries very hard)


Build more military. If you are perceived as weak then enemy players, both the AI and human, will attack and will not gift a participation award.

[Mr Noseybonk]

Originally posted by Syad:

I was going to suggest the easiest difficulty level but it seems the OP can't even handle that

Originally posted by gartheastwood:

Anyway, Civ III's AI plays the kind of game that I LOATHE AND DETEST the most.
- profanely, obscenely expansionistic, and cheaty expansionism at that.

Yes, the AI plays to win. Horrible thing in 2020 i know( although i wouldn't say it tries very hard)


Build more military. If you are perceived as weak then enemy players, both the AI and human, will attack and will not gift a participation award.

I'm sorry but that is just not it. "Play to Win" is most definately NOT what Civ III's AI was programmed to do. This was "brutally cheat to a55-rape the player in a 12 (or whatever number of AI civs were one the map) against 1 pi55-take". The original Civ I was NOT like that, as far as I know Civ IV is NOT like that. And as for "horrible thing in 2020", you seem to suggest that here and now all games are made "too easy". That is just an outrageously false claim to make!

And just WTH is a "gift a participation award"? That's just nonsense.

And you're "sorry I couldn't even handle the easiest level" are you?
Now I'm annoyed.......
Are you trying to be a patronising little ♥♥♥♥ or something? So I'm a moron am I? That's what I'm getting from your tone. None of all this upcoming rant would have happened if you'd held your tongue boyo!

Well, that's really rich isn't it? As well as spouting gibberish like "gift a participation award", I see you are one of the hundreds of "one-line false positive" moron reviewers who can't even be bothered or don't have the intelligence to write a proper review (which is a pet hate of mine). Though it's not quite as stupid as some one *word* reviews that just say "gud" or "y" or ".", it says NOTHING about the game itself.

You put:-
If you don't know what this game is this review wont help anyway.
........ and that was it, your entire review. You was right about the "this review wont help" bit though!

My reply to it is already made....... you've probably already read it....... (I was suprised you'd allowed replies, I never do, it just incites conflict)

I'm sorry Syad, but you are in no position to lecture, nor insult, me IMO.

Anyway, why are we even arguing so bitterly? Civ III is a dead game - and was a pile of kack even when alive - it's just a pale imitation to it's granddaddy Civ I, in fact it's a slap in the face to Civ I........ Civ III is ♥♥♥♥ basically, and no amount of fanboi bleating is going to change my opinion!

Oh and BTW Syad........ care to explain your Civ 5 review?

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970547043/recommended/8930/

It's just says "duh", and despite that sounding like you didn't like the game, you gave it a thumbs up!
This is exactly the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I am talking about.......

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970547043/recommended/292140/

Ands THAT review says it all....... you are simply a career "false positive review" spammer.

Get out of my sight boi!




There, another rant over....... plz no one give me reason to rant more!

Nope, Syad already has. He's another nonce who just deletes comments on his reviews he don't like. But for Christ's sake, I gave him two positive, praising comments where they were due, and he deletes them too! What is your problem Syad?

[Syad]

You have some serious issues.. Nobody owes you a review novel or even a review. No idea why you think people do. The reviews are not meant for you, but feel free to read the ones you like and walk past the ones you don't like.

[Mr Noseybonk]

Originally posted by Syad:

You have some serious issues.. Nobody owes you a review novel or even a review. No idea why you think people do. The reviews are not meant for you, but feel free to read the ones you like and walk past the ones you don't like.

Nope, you have the issues. You even deleted the two comments I did give you praise (albeit barbed praise) where it was deserved. There's something seriously wrong with you...... and you've still not explained why your Civ 5 review says just "duh" (even that probably tired you out to write it) whilst giving it the thumbs up. Seriously weird.

I don't *personally* expect "review novels" from you or anyone else. But I expect the community as a whole to get PROPER meaningful reviews. Not just "duh"!
There's NO excusing that kind of BS mate!

And as for your "Final Fantasy XIII-2" review, you even admit you "want to bump up the count" and "can't be bothered saying anything". Well that could be a breach of:-
"Artificially manipulate the User Review system or voting/rating systems"!
And dats in the Steam rules and regs matey!

And you've the gall to say I've got issues, sheesh.

[rodrigo]

Honestly I never felt like AI was overexpanding until I came back to Civ3 after many hours of Civ5 and Civ6... And yes, now I can see how crazy AI is when it comes to expanding.

It will literally build cities non-stop until there's no more space on the map, and if you want to build a wonder early you will have to be ready to have a big portion of your land settled by AI (especially above emperor)

My suggestion is that if you want to play vs. AI, perhaps it is best to play more modern games where more thought was put twd it.

If you want to play vs. other players, then civ3 still have value as it offer some dynamics you can't see more recent games (example.. one unit per title vs. stack battle; which totally change the way battles are fought)

[Mr Noseybonk]

Originally posted by Rodrigo8787:

Honestly I never felt like AI was overexpanding until I came back to Civ3 after many hours of Civ5 and Civ6... And yes, now I can see how crazy AI is when it comes to expanding.

It will literally build cities non-stop until there's no more space on the map, and if you want to build a wonder early you will have to be ready to have a big portion of your land settled by AI (especially above emperor)

My suggestion is that if you want to play vs. AI, perhaps it is best to play more modern games where more thought was put twd it.

If you want to play vs. other players, then civ3 still have value as it offer some dynamics you can't see more recent games (example.. one unit per title vs. stack battle; which totally change the way battles are fought)

You are quite right there......
Thank you for a bit of sanity and politeness Rodrigo!

[Syad]

Hmm ok, since this topic is not particularly interesting anyway i can tell you why there are many short reviews. The obvious reason i stated above already. The less obvious reason is that Steam is a very big place and has a problem, a visibility problem. Lots of reviews make for a popular game and push it to the front page, a game that otherwise would die undiscovered. Especially many indy devs explicitly ask their players for a review for this very reason. They do not have millions for an ad campaign. A game with few reviews and no ads simply doesn't sell and you, as a player, miss on a good game. So yes, it is always best to leave a review of any length if you liked the game, which people who liked the game obviously do.


Also while i do have comments open because i value free speech, i had to remove your commentary because they were less about the game and more about me. But i got the impression my "shorter" reviews gave you a quick impression about a game without taking much of your time reading. So thats a good thing i guess.


Also

Civ AI is designed to lose for some good 20 years already, this is a presentation (one of many) of a Civ game designer. The idea behind it is to keep people play for "one more turn" and people who ragequit don't do that.

[Mr Noseybonk]

It's only "not particularly interesting" because it's not saying what you want it to say.
And that is a very lame excuse for spamming "small reviews". I do not mind "small reviews" that are informative. But once again, reviews such as "Duh", are NOT.

You STILL have not explained why your Civ 5 review was just "Duh" and yet you paradoxically gave it a positive mark. What's your problem? All I want is to hear your justification of it.

And no, you don't value free speech, don't lie to me, I can smell such lies like a fart in a lift!
Like most people, you value your own speech only, and speech that agrees with you.

[Syad]

Ah, my mistake. In this case i revert to my previous reply.

Originally posted by Syad:

You have some serious issues.. Nobody owes you a review novel or even a review. No idea why you think people do. The reviews are not meant for you, but feel free to read the ones you like and walk past the ones you don't like.