wendigo
Novice
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 77
Hmmph. The AI cheated in Civ 1/2 even more than in 3... and the AI could at least put up a halfway decent fight on "Monarch" and above in Civ 3. The overall AI performance in Civ 2 was *terrible*, so I've never understood why anybody would prefer it to Civ 3. REX, micromanage, win. REX, micromanage, win. Yawn. In the "Test of Time" version it did seem a little better, admittedly. Even so, I can't imagine going back to a version without culture. You could create multi-continent empires by the early iron age in Civ 1/2, for fuck's sake. It was ridiculous.
Has the AI cheating finally ended with IV? I haven't read up on it much. If nothing else, the game has become more subtle about cheating. Not that there's any excuse for cheating at all anymore-- GalCiv 2 has pretty thoroughly proved that you can write AI that challenges the human player without giving bonuses to the computer-controlled players. Here's hoping that Civ 5 takes a page from Stardock's book.
Has the AI cheating finally ended with IV? I haven't read up on it much. If nothing else, the game has become more subtle about cheating. Not that there's any excuse for cheating at all anymore-- GalCiv 2 has pretty thoroughly proved that you can write AI that challenges the human player without giving bonuses to the computer-controlled players. Here's hoping that Civ 5 takes a page from Stardock's book.