Help Soren; lets improve the AI. - Page 2

Panag · November 16, 2003, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
No, it's not fun if you lose all the time.

Unless you have a 'big blue' type of AI/computer (the computer that can sometimes beat the world's best chess players), then an AI can't compete against human intelligence.

I've played this game and surfed the Civ forums 40-60 hours a week for 2 years. If I spent that much time playing and researching the game, imagine how much time it would take them to program the AI to counter all the 'tricks of the trade' I've learned during all that time.

You can make a patch to adjust the AI strategy to counter an exploit or strategy, but then the human just learns from it and changes his strategy a bit and then finds a new way to exploit/abuse/manipulate the AI.

hi ,

well said

have a nice day

vmxa1 · November 16, 2003, 01:47

You come up for air from that mamoth game or did you finish it? Last I heard you were down to 1 civ.

Tassadar500 · November 16, 2003, 01:57

Some balance of power definatly needs to be put in again. Now it is just to easy to get military wins.

alva · November 16, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

You come up for air from that mamoth game or did you finish it? Last I heard you were down to 1 civ.

He won, full conquest in 2048 IIRC ( he finished thursday or friday)

FrostyBoy · November 16, 2003, 03:31

In that case Bam, it's not the AI that is the problem, its the game itself.

JimMac · November 16, 2003, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
In that case Bam, it's not the AI that is the problem, its the game itself.

or the obsessive analytical investigators you get on Apolyton

Actually, I would happily sacrifice the ability to play against an 'ultimate ai' which always makes the best moves in order to see greater differences in personality between the different ai nations

Bamspeedy · November 16, 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
You come up for air from that mamoth game or did you finish it? Last I heard you were down to 1 civ.

Yeah, I can finally breath after 201 hours....

Conquest in 2044 AD. Last few turns were just hilarious. I had the Zulu and Celts both down to an OCC (yet the Celts still had 50-70 units), and they were still fighting each other sending an SOD at each other (they wouldn't dare attack my armies) so I only had to kill 2-3 defenders in their capitals. Killed them both on the same turn, when the Celts had a SOD of 30-40 units knocking on the Zulu's doorstep.

dexters · November 16, 2003, 23:43

Is this PTW?

Kuciwalker · November 16, 2003, 23:43

It was a modified PtW to be like Sid.

vmxa1 · November 17, 2003, 00:05

I will have to finish reading your write up.

dexters · November 17, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
It was a modified PtW to be like Sid.

Close enough, although there were many modifications made to the AI in C3C that makes it more competitive on the micro level. I haven't really touched an arichpelago C3C game yet, but with improved naval AI, it could be interesting.

In terms of macro threat selection, things haven't changed. And I highly doubt it will, short of inserting a ton of new code into the leader AI. So Bam's approximation is fine.

But hey, maybe Atari with see $$$ and decide to ask Firaxis to do another XP. But Judging from Soren's lack of involvement in C3C, it's hard to see how they can bring him back.

Best case if there is a 3rd XP will be minor tweaks to the AI in threat selection. Perhaps the age old cheapo method of ganging up on the human player (i hope it doesnt' go that route)

Panag · November 17, 2003, 07:45

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
Here you go.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=66169

hi ,

great game

, any MP yet Bam

have a nice day

Bamspeedy · November 17, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
It was a modified PtW to be like Sid.

It was modified to be harder than Sid. Sid has an AI cost factor of 4. My game had an AI cost factor of 1. I also gave it more starting military units, settlers, workers, more free unit support, etc.

In my 'Beyond Sid', the AI grows and builds 4x faster than Sid. Of course, due to the unit limit # (4092), it would be hard to compare to using C3C that upped the unit limit (doubling it to 8000+). Both the AI and I were affected by the unit limit, but it hurt the AI more (for me, it just took longer to get a large enough military to get rolling).

One of the hardest parts about the higher levels (impossible on Sid+) is out-expanding the AI. On island maps, the AI expansion is very limited. I didn't start on the biggest landmass, but it was enough and I could claim it at my own pace (no competition for land).

Quote:

but with improved naval AI, it could be interesting.

Improved navy for the AI (landing more units instead of lone obsolete unit), wouldn't have any effect if you use an 'island blockade' like I did.

The AI doesn't use suicide curraghs/galleys.

C3C would make that game harder in some areas, but easier in other areas. With suicide curraghs, I wouldn't need the Great Library. Getting contact with all the civs by 2000 BC, I would have been in a better situation than not contacting anyone until the AD years, with or without the Great Library.

If I wanted to play that game over (on the same map) and make it harder, I would give the AI more free unit support (like 200/city), so the AI doesn't have to turn down science to pay for all his units. Tech pace was horrible in that game (except for Egypt and Mongols who were running at or close to 1 tech/4 turns before I killed them). Nobody ever got to tanks or infantry. 3 techs into the industrial age is the furthest anyone got.

I think one of the things that Snoopy is trying to get at is the fact that I could get the AI to fight pointless wars for thousands of years while I just kept getting bigger and bigger. The AI should not keep signing MA's with me against another civ, if I'm not even doing any fighting. Early in the game I had Egypt fighting everyone (because Egypt was the only one who could reach me), yet I wasn't fighting any battles at all. Two civs would be trading luxuries, but I could break up their trading by declaring war on 1 civ and getting the other to fight them for only 20-30 gold/turn (sometimes less). The loss of the luxury hurt their economy by far more than what I was paying for the alliance (especially when you consider war weariness and keeping them out of republic/democracy). Two AI would fight each other for so long, that they hate each other so much that they continue to fight even without me encouraging them anymore.

You should get a rep hit for signing an alliance and don't do any fighting. The price for alliances didn't even go up after I broke several peace treaties. If you break an alliance, then the prices for new alliances goes WAY up (or is impossible), but not when you break peace treaties.
Maybe no penalty, the first time you do this (for times you just don't have an opportunity to get in on any battles), the 2nd time, the price goes up a little bit, 3rd time the price goes up more, 4th time it goes up more dramatically, and the 5th or more the price is sky-high or is impossible. You shouldn't be able to do this for infinity with no increase in price.

Theseus · November 17, 2003, 22:10

I thought you did get a rep hit for signing an alliance and not fighting... don't you have to do a minimal something, like bombarding at least?

Peter Triggs · November 17, 2003, 22:18

Bamspeedy,

You should be being paid for this. It looks to me like *expert* beta testing.

Panag · November 18, 2003, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
I thought you did get a rep hit for signing an alliance and not fighting... don't you have to do a minimal something, like bombarding at least?

hi ,

it depends , one of the things it depends also on is what gov you have and if the civ you sigend a deal with like your form of gov , .....

somethimes when the war is over before you are on the battlefield the AI seems not to care , but walk away from war with a civ that you can reach , bang , a serious hit , but some diplomacy , a free tech , some lux , etc , and things are more or the less okay , ......

but while saying that , dont forget that some civ's stay angry for oh , what , 5 500 years or so , .......

it just depends on what you have done with the poor AI , ......

have a nice day

Bamspeedy · November 18, 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
I thought you did get a rep hit for signing an alliance and not fighting... don't you have to do a minimal something, like bombarding at least?

When you sign an alliance you get a temporary attitude boost in how your ally feels towards you. During that alliance you also get more good attitude points for killing units of your 'common enemy' and pillaging enemy tiles. This is all temporary bonuses, and disappear as soon as the alliance/war ends. So when an alliance ends, or your common enemy is destroyed, the temporary attitude bonuses are gone, so that may be why it looks like there was a rep hit and has caused some misconceptions about what is really going on.

Theseus · November 18, 2003, 20:24

Ah... thank you, master.