The main problem is the use of randomly generated maps. Maps that, of understandable reasons, cannot be analysed by an AI-programmer. Its generally easier to program a good AI to campaign-type games, because they use 100% known setup-maps (that IS carefully analyzed and integrated to the game, by the developers).

I dont advocate axing the map-generator. What i would like to see is an add-on alternative. I shall try to explain the idea by a real-life example:

In big city railway-stations you often find a big self-standing electrifyed tourist-map. Then you push a button representing any tourist-attraction, a little red diode lights up on the main map.
Now, what i would like to see added in Civ-3, is a bundle of analyzed handmade maps, with lots of imaginary game-developer placed "red diodes" (= representing possible ideal AI-city locations) on each and every of these special maps.

These "diodes" are of course invisible for the player. Then the first AI-city is founded (on such a red diode spot), the AI has of course produce resources equivalent for a settler-unit, in order to expand to a second AI-city.
But instead of trying to make an AI that can send a settler-unit from any AI-city, then effectively trying navigate that settler on an totally unknown map - only with help of clumsy "if A and B equals X, then it will do Y" type of AI-rules - why not instead do this instead:

1/ The first AI-city produce the equivivalent recourses of an settler-unit (no cheating!).

2/ If an potential "red diode" AI-city location is perhaps 6 squares away from the settler-producing city - the AI simply have to wait 6 turns: then that second city pops up automatically on that predesignated square/location.

The AI can ONLY found cities on these predesignated squares, carefully dotted all over these maps. The Human player can (of course) found hes cities anywhere he wants.

The benefit? Perfectly placed AI-cities, more efficient AI civ-expansions, on effectively utilized islands/continents.
The only snag would be that the AI-programmer would come up with an method to sence human-player precence, and never allow the AI-civ to found cities TOO close to already established human player cities.

This way you can write rules that not only cope with realistic succession of sea, shore, plain, hill, mountain (e.g.), but also consider from scratch where city are more profitable.

Add this to your idea of a list of "hidden" predefined city place, and you should have two birds with a stone: easy life for AI and random map.

However, instead of using single indevidual terrain-squares as guidance for AI "city-place" seeds (that one good square could after all be surrounded with generally bad terrain - or the other way around; a whole area consists only of really good-terrain squares), the map-generator should be able to calculate average values from multiple of potential 21-square AI city-areas (= city-places).
The lower life-sustain threshold-values for such AI-city generated places should of course be manipulatable by the human player - giving him some control over what the map-generator AI should accept, or not.

Infact, once the continents of the map is generated, the map-generator then could calculate potential 21-square "city-place" (or rather "city-areas") locations from up-left to down-right, shoulder-to-shoulder over the whole map. Only those areas who had its central square on terra-firma would be account for.
Above by itself however, would give rather bad results because small 6-10 square island/capes would often be left out, and also not less important: the general AI-city distribution would be relatively squarish and unimaginative (= ugly).

The shoulder-to-shoulder generation of AI city-areas should therefore be alloved to overlap, disjoin, disfigure each others areas max 1 square-row (the outer 12 squares - the 9 inner ones are untouchables). in random ways.
Also, this first map AI city-place sweep is followed by a second one that distribute its potential city-places in an alltogether different fasion. Again, this is perhaps followed by a third sweep.
If the human player chooses that, some few city-places are plucked out between each new sweep, in order to give the end-result a more natural feel.
Finally, any second/third sweep coustal city-place (or "red diode") should always overide any first sweep 2-3 squares-away inland city-place. The reason for the latter is that the terrain on small/medium-sized island can be utilized much better, if coustal city-places have priority.

For those of you who don't know, the map is mostly of the Mediteranean area (apprximately from Corsica to Mesopotamia, and from Crimea down to middle Egypt) and is divided into regions like in Risk. Each region has a number (1 to 5) that is its maximum population, and some regions have a black or white square. The square represents a good city site and makes it much easier to build a city in this region (white squares mean city is vulnerable to floods).

The problem is about artificial intelligence (the AI), and its inability to compete with us human players - at least in such a complex and option-divided game like Civilization.
This thread and ../../Forum6/HTML/001531.html? is about ways and ideas in how to "level the road" for that AI somewhat. Making it easier for it to compete against us.

And it really IS an important problem because playing Civ through the internet can never be anything else then a secondary option. There is simply to many "ifīs" and "butīs" then playing such a complex and longlasting game like Civilization online in multiplaying mode, with real human counterparts.
Most of us know the problem of quitters, the problem of different timezones, the problem of trying to gather enough contenders at the right time, the problem of unnexpected changed prioritys that causes one contender to leave for several days (or for good), the problem of slow unreliable connections, and so on.

The part of the thread applicable was about the way cities are founded, and the gist of it went something like this.

Land squares would each have to contain a certain rural population.

In regions with large amounts of exploitable resources, the rural population would migrate to these places as they provide thim with a means of living.

When an area grew to a certain population, a city would form there. (How and when that city is brought into your civ is for another thread)

This wouldn't mean you have no control on where cities go, because designating an area for settlement subsidies and building infrastructure in an area would attract people.

Now to how this is relevant to AI city placing:

The AI would now concentrate it's city building (via the construction of roads, military instalations, etc)into areas where the rural population has been attracted toward (i.e. "good city sites")

I hope that is clear enough because I have no more time today.

- First of all this idea deprives the human player from the pleasure of topographically modeling his growing empire completely by himself. (Hannibal3 quote: "Instead of having to be constantly concerned about moving into those new territories, the game does it for you").
Well, i really WANT to be concerned about moving into new territories! Thats one of the fun parts of the game! I really d o n t want the game-AI doing it for me.

- The AI-problem! Artificial intelligence has its non-negotiable human-thinking limitations. Its can only be really effective then its restricted to calculating with "if A and B equals X, then it will do Y" type of objective non-fuzzy rules.
Instead of comming up with a more-workload-on-the-AI suggestions that previously had been done by the human player (hence; "Instead...the game does it for you") - we should rather come up with ideas that can BYPASS the AI as much as possible.

Thats the whole basic concept behind this thread and my other thread; "Arguments why its nearly impossible to create an almost human AI".
The two main areas that the Civ-3 AI programmer should primarily concern himself with is unit-moving and diplomacy. Not because the AI does that very well, but because the AI-developer - to the best of his ability - HAS to do it. The reason for the latter is that premises and circumstances in above areas, are constantly changing in unpredictable ways, from turn to turn (theres no "firm point" so to speak, from which the programmer can use automatic "premade templates" or "blindread maps").

Computers/Artificial Intelligence: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Artificial_Intelligence
Computers/Artificial Intelligence/Games: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Artificial_Intelligence/Games
GameAI.com: http://www.gameai.com/ai.html

The AI civ's size, personality, and availability of land will influence whether or not it builds a settler. City location will depend on distance from other cities and a sincere effort to maximize resources. The AI should be able to figure out (not be told) if it's on an island, and decide whether or not it wants to build cities closer together accordingly. I don't think this would be very difficult to program, or be insanely hard on our computers.

quote: Originally posted by Dienstag on 10-09-2000 02:05 PM I personally think the AI should work along the same lines as the human.

Thats a good one! (by the way, have actually read the linked thread in my previous post to you?)