Where did the great AI go ? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Where did the great AI go ?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Where did the great AI go ?

Khurg posted 03-11-99 05:04 PM ET
I gotta put my 0.02 in here.
I like SMAC. But I do not think that it is as well done as Civ 2 or MoO 2.
Likes: tech tree is well thought out. good ideas for all factions
BUT
Dislikes: dull graphics, poor sound, lack of easy customization in factions, stupid AI.
My dog could beat this game on Transcend. Where are the grand offensives by factions like the Spartans and Hive ? I have yet to see a large scale invasions ESPECIALLY if the computer is forced to go over water. Heck, the Demon boils I see late in the game give me more problems than the computer opponents. My games at Transcend level always end up with me SPANKING the computer in ALL areas (TECH especially). Where is the tech advantage of the University ?? I never see the computer use Supply units. Morgan should be trying to exploit every energy source he cannot reach with cities.
My wish list....
1. Improve the AI. It is not good at all and makes it boring when there is NO competition at all.
2. Improve the sounds. There are less than a dozen weapons in the game. Instead of voice actors for each tech advance, get some great weapon and battle sounds.
3. Improve multiplayer support. Why has this game not been pushed into Heat.net, MPlayer, Gamestorm and Internet Gaming Zone ?? Alpha.net does not cut it especially when it is still in beta and crashed 50% of the time.
4. Allow players to turn off story and play vs the factions and not have to battle Planet at the end. Even out the Mind Worm attacks throughout the course of the game.
I am sorry to say that Brian Reynolds has shown why he will ALWAYS play 2nd fiddle to Sid. And yes I know that Civ 2 was Brians design but Sid was involved in every step of it. Unlike this great disappointment. Great AI has been a trademark of every Sid game ever made. I expected SMAC to replace MoO and Civ 2 on my hard drive but it has failed badly.
All in all I give it 4 stars on the idea but 1 star for actual gameplay.
Utrecht posted 03-11-99 05:20 PM ET
Khurg,
Actually, the UI is one of the most sophisticated that I have seen. It will respond to your attack style, make pacts that make strategic sense.
What the AI also does not do is cheat. I.e. starting with base facilities. Building 2 units a turn etc.
This i
Utrecht posted 03-11-99 05:24 PM ET
Sorry, somehow posted before I was done.
Contiunuing, the AI in Civ2 would cheat, the AI in Starcraft cheats.
Now, what does this mean in a gameplay sense. It seems that the game is easier to beat on the higher levels. That I can not argue, but it is not the AIs fault. Gameplay...sure, but not the AI.
Just a point of clarification.
fkloster posted 03-11-99 05:34 PM ET
Do you remember all the patches to Moo2 before the AI was sweet?
Utrecht posted 03-11-99 06:45 PM ET
But even with the patches, the AI still cheated.
I guess I am making a fuss over this because hard game <> good AI. and conversly good AI <> hard game.
player1 posted 03-11-99 07:01 PM ET
I want to refer everyone in this thread to the "Constructive Criticism" thread written by Analyst. In it, alot of people made some good comments about the AI. To summerize, I don't think the AI is very bad. In fact, its rather commendible that it performs as well as it does for a game of this complexity, in my opinion. Undeniably, SMAC is more complicated than Civ2 or Moo2, so drawing comparisons isn't really fair, in my humble opinion.
The military AI is fairly decent; it has the capacity to keep an average player on his toes, but a true SMAC master can mop the floor with his AI opponents. Unfortunately, the intelligence of the auto-govs and auto-formers is rather low, and I think this is the REAL cause for the lacking AI performance. Their inefficiency catches up with them in the long run, despite their cheats. This is easily observed on the Transcend level; in the first hundred turns the AI leaves the player in the dust. After that, their advantage rapidly declines as they are unable to properly manage their empires, and they ultimately fall behind and get whooped by the player.
Anyway, go check out that thread if you've got any interest in the matter.
GP posted 03-11-99 11:01 PM ET
Wouldn't it have been more desirable to keep the complexity at a Civ2 level and then make a better AI? Admit it we all want Civ3!!! And we have to choose between SMAC, TOT, and CTP. All of which have drawbacks. seems like they are all civ2.5. That said I'm going to go out and buy SMAC this weekend. goodbye work life...
Achilles posted 03-11-99 11:32 PM ET
Forgive my ignorance, but TOT?
Brother Greg posted 03-11-99 11:42 PM ET
TOT: Test Of Time...
By Microprose. Due out sometime this year...
version2 posted 03-12-99 12:50 AM ET
Ok. Just a little suggestion here. If you are not happy with the gameplay, as far as the AI and how "hard" the game is. Try this. Edit the faction files and give the University a "real" upperhand. Your choices. That is the greatest thing about the whole game. YOU choose how much of an underdog you really want to be.
yin26 posted 03-12-99 01:47 AM ET
Version 2,
That's what choosing a difficulty level is supposed to do. All this messing with the .txt file or whatever it is just goes to show me that this is a Beta. We paid good money to do Firaxis' dirty work.
I agree with Khurg: Even at the highest level, this game's A.I. puts me to sleep. Governers, enemy units, the works.
Funny, isn't it? If this game were designed for dedicated fans of the series (which is the oft-used excuse for why the interface should be let off the hook: "Civ fans are familiar with it. Newbies will learn.")--why, then, didn't these good folks at Firaxis expect us all to use our "Expand like crazy, produce military units like we've snortted bad coke, and kill everybody" strategy? Who playtested this thing? An experimental third-grade classroom of recovering brain-surgery patients?
Yeah. Neat. I can sink and lower the land. Basically, it's a really cool Etch-a-Sketch with annoying "factions" that periodically get in my way of making pretty patterns.
Tweak, tweak, tweak,
Patch, patch, patch.
Good job Firaxis and E.A. You got this thing to market. If you could just find a way to make it challenging, I might almost call it a game.
Gee posted 03-12-99 01:57 AM ET
I love the line about the "brain surgery patients" definately a classic.
Gee
Glak posted 03-12-99 02:16 AM ET
Utrecht:
actually the ai in starcraft barely cheats. It has some map knowledge but not total. It has no production or combat advantage. The amazing thing is that the SC ai is now (since 1.04) about as good as the average human player. It also uses a variety of build orders (not just one anymore) and in games with multiple computer players on the same team they will pick complementary builds. I have never seen ai like that in any type of strategy game. It is still inferior to a competant player, however I think that all games are that way.
version2 posted 03-12-99 02:29 AM ET
Yin,
Point taken. I guess it is just one of my personal enjoyments. I like tweaking stuff. I like being able to mess around with things that most game companies dont let you play with. As for the game being in beta....hmmm, I have not had a crash yet. If they want to patch it to pacify people that do not want to play with .txt files then I guess that is fine and that is what you are waiting for now.
v2
yin26 posted 03-12-99 02:37 AM ET
v2,
I see what you are saying about having the opportunity to tweak things. I'd just prefer it to be an option rather than a virtual necessity.
Like you said, I'm trying to wait. From all accounts, the day should come.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Where did the great AI go ?
Khurg	posted 03-11-99 05:04 PM ET I gotta put my 0.02 in here. I like SMAC. But I do not think that it is as well done as Civ 2 or MoO 2. Likes: tech tree is well thought out. good ideas for all factions BUT Dislikes: dull graphics, poor sound, lack of easy customization in factions, stupid AI. My dog could beat this game on Transcend. Where are the grand offensives by factions like the Spartans and Hive ? I have yet to see a large scale invasions ESPECIALLY if the computer is forced to go over water. Heck, the Demon boils I see late in the game give me more problems than the computer opponents. My games at Transcend level always end up with me SPANKING the computer in ALL areas (TECH especially). Where is the tech advantage of the University ?? I never see the computer use Supply units. Morgan should be trying to exploit every energy source he cannot reach with cities. My wish list.... 1. Improve the AI. It is not good at all and makes it boring when there is NO competition at all. 2. Improve the sounds. There are less than a dozen weapons in the game. Instead of voice actors for each tech advance, get some great weapon and battle sounds. 3. Improve multiplayer support. Why has this game not been pushed into Heat.net, MPlayer, Gamestorm and Internet Gaming Zone ?? Alpha.net does not cut it especially when it is still in beta and crashed 50% of the time. 4. Allow players to turn off story and play vs the factions and not have to battle Planet at the end. Even out the Mind Worm attacks throughout the course of the game. I am sorry to say that Brian Reynolds has shown why he will ALWAYS play 2nd fiddle to Sid. And yes I know that Civ 2 was Brians design but Sid was involved in every step of it. Unlike this great disappointment. Great AI has been a trademark of every Sid game ever made. I expected SMAC to replace MoO and Civ 2 on my hard drive but it has failed badly. All in all I give it 4 stars on the idea but 1 star for actual gameplay.
Utrecht	posted 03-11-99 05:20 PM ET Khurg, Actually, the UI is one of the most sophisticated that I have seen. It will respond to your attack style, make pacts that make strategic sense. What the AI also does not do is cheat. I.e. starting with base facilities. Building 2 units a turn etc. This i
Utrecht	posted 03-11-99 05:24 PM ET Sorry, somehow posted before I was done. Contiunuing, the AI in Civ2 would cheat, the AI in Starcraft cheats. Now, what does this mean in a gameplay sense. It seems that the game is easier to beat on the higher levels. That I can not argue, but it is not the AIs fault. Gameplay...sure, but not the AI. Just a point of clarification.
fkloster	posted 03-11-99 05:34 PM ET Do you remember all the patches to Moo2 before the AI was sweet?
Utrecht	posted 03-11-99 06:45 PM ET But even with the patches, the AI still cheated. I guess I am making a fuss over this because hard game <> good AI. and conversly good AI <> hard game.
player1	posted 03-11-99 07:01 PM ET I want to refer everyone in this thread to the "Constructive Criticism" thread written by Analyst. In it, alot of people made some good comments about the AI. To summerize, I don't think the AI is very bad. In fact, its rather commendible that it performs as well as it does for a game of this complexity, in my opinion. Undeniably, SMAC is more complicated than Civ2 or Moo2, so drawing comparisons isn't really fair, in my humble opinion. The military AI is fairly decent; it has the capacity to keep an average player on his toes, but a true SMAC master can mop the floor with his AI opponents. Unfortunately, the intelligence of the auto-govs and auto-formers is rather low, and I think this is the REAL cause for the lacking AI performance. Their inefficiency catches up with them in the long run, despite their cheats. This is easily observed on the Transcend level; in the first hundred turns the AI leaves the player in the dust. After that, their advantage rapidly declines as they are unable to properly manage their empires, and they ultimately fall behind and get whooped by the player. Anyway, go check out that thread if you've got any interest in the matter.
GP	posted 03-11-99 11:01 PM ET Wouldn't it have been more desirable to keep the complexity at a Civ2 level and then make a better AI? Admit it we all want Civ3!!! And we have to choose between SMAC, TOT, and CTP. All of which have drawbacks. seems like they are all civ2.5. That said I'm going to go out and buy SMAC this weekend. goodbye work life...
Achilles	posted 03-11-99 11:32 PM ET Forgive my ignorance, but TOT?
Brother Greg	posted 03-11-99 11:42 PM ET TOT: Test Of Time... By Microprose. Due out sometime this year...
version2	posted 03-12-99 12:50 AM ET Ok. Just a little suggestion here. If you are not happy with the gameplay, as far as the AI and how "hard" the game is. Try this. Edit the faction files and give the University a "real" upperhand. Your choices. That is the greatest thing about the whole game. YOU choose how much of an underdog you really want to be.
yin26	posted 03-12-99 01:47 AM ET Version 2, That's what choosing a difficulty level is supposed to do. All this messing with the .txt file or whatever it is just goes to show me that this is a Beta. We paid good money to do Firaxis' dirty work. I agree with Khurg: Even at the highest level, this game's A.I. puts me to sleep. Governers, enemy units, the works. Funny, isn't it? If this game were designed for dedicated fans of the series (which is the oft-used excuse for why the interface should be let off the hook: "Civ fans are familiar with it. Newbies will learn.")--why, then, didn't these good folks at Firaxis expect us all to use our "Expand like crazy, produce military units like we've snortted bad coke, and kill everybody" strategy? Who playtested this thing? An experimental third-grade classroom of recovering brain-surgery patients? Yeah. Neat. I can sink and lower the land. Basically, it's a really cool Etch-a-Sketch with annoying "factions" that periodically get in my way of making pretty patterns. Tweak, tweak, tweak, Patch, patch, patch. Good job Firaxis and E.A. You got this thing to market. If you could just find a way to make it challenging, I might almost call it a game.
Gee	posted 03-12-99 01:57 AM ET I love the line about the "brain surgery patients" definately a classic. Gee
Glak	posted 03-12-99 02:16 AM ET Utrecht: actually the ai in starcraft barely cheats. It has some map knowledge but not total. It has no production or combat advantage. The amazing thing is that the SC ai is now (since 1.04) about as good as the average human player. It also uses a variety of build orders (not just one anymore) and in games with multiple computer players on the same team they will pick complementary builds. I have never seen ai like that in any type of strategy game. It is still inferior to a competant player, however I think that all games are that way.
version2	posted 03-12-99 02:29 AM ET Yin, Point taken. I guess it is just one of my personal enjoyments. I like tweaking stuff. I like being able to mess around with things that most game companies dont let you play with. As for the game being in beta....hmmm, I have not had a crash yet. If they want to patch it to pacify people that do not want to play with .txt files then I guess that is fine and that is what you are waiting for now. v2
yin26	posted 03-12-99 02:37 AM ET v2, I see what you are saying about having the opportunity to tweak things. I'd just prefer it to be an option rather than a virtual necessity. Like you said, I'm trying to wait. From all accounts, the day should come.