Gee! More BLATANT AI Cheating!

Gatekeeper · August 7, 2000, 19:36

Everyone:

Forgive me for yet one more mini-rant, but the most recent examples of AI cheating simply take the cake:

1. I have a veteran musketeers unit fortified right outside my capital. The AI moves a unit up to it and subverts it. No stunning surprise there. What PO's me is the AI managed to convert the unit for around 200 gold. Yeah, you heard right. 200 gold. Of course, if the human player would try that damn stunt, it'd cost around 1,500 gold. We're talking slightly pre-industrial age gold here, not modern.

2. AI-controlled legions are upgraded to musketeers with Leonardo's Workshop. Pretty cool how an ancient offensive military unit can become a Renassiance Period offensive/defensive military unit. Not.

3. The AI Spanish earned 58 gold in one turn. I went into their bank account and saw that, in actuality, their statements were running to the tune of -12 gold income per turn. Yet the bastards were raking in +58 gold per turn! WTF?! Last time I checked, one could only sell so many improvements per turn, and the AI wasn't doing that.

So right now I'm mad again. To the point of just eradicating the Spanish with the "God" abilities given to human players. I've rationlized this as much as possible, and I really don't care if this is the Emperor level or not. The AI shouldn't need an advantage in every single arena of this game.

Sheesh.

CYBERAmazon

granite00 · August 7, 2000, 20:14

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 08-07-2000 07:36 PM

2. AI-controlled legions are upgraded to musketeers with Leonardo's Workshop. Pretty cool how an ancient offensive military unit can become a Renassiance Period offensive/defensive military unit. Not.

It works like this for the human player. Why is this unfair for the AI?

Gatekeeper · August 7, 2000, 20:45

Granite:

It isn't. I'm just complaining anyway — probably because I rarely build Leonardo's Workshop. Nos. 1 and 3 are the real annoying cheats, though.

CYBERAmazon

SandMonkey · August 7, 2000, 21:27

Cyber - For no. 3, did you check to see that the AI had any caravans near opponents cities? That oculd account for a surplus of gold for one turn. Or was this over many turns they kept getting the same amount?

Gatekeeper · August 7, 2000, 22:54

SandMonkey:

Eep. No, I didn't check. **sobbing** And here I've been, all along falsely accusing the innocent AI of cheating!! AGGHHH!! I can't live with myself!

CYBERAmazon (damn, I knew I forgot something prior to ranting)

jpk · August 8, 2000, 08:53

During one game I played an AI civilization bribed a unit or a city, I have forgotten wihich. On my next turn I looked to see how much money they had. They had a negative balance.

Oldman · August 8, 2000, 09:12

Obviously they had not only discovered Banking but also must have built a wonder to improve the bank managers happiness!!!!! because mine certainly goes ape when i go into the negative?!?!?

inca911 · August 8, 2000, 10:14

You've never heard of defecit spending before?!?

I'm very very glad that the AI cheats as much as it does, and I wish it would cheat even more! The AI is a lame opponent even given all the nice cheating benefits it possesses. If a bit of so-called cheating is what must be programmed to make a competent AI opponent, then I'm all for it. I believe it is simply too difficult to program a compentent AI opponent without giving some easy cheat routes to improve the AI's game performance. All I want for Christmas is a better Civ3 AI!!

Mao · August 8, 2000, 10:47

Well geez, if I started a thread everytime I was pissed at the AI...I would be s-o-o-o-o banned

But Cyber, did you cheating make you feel better?

Gatekeeper · August 8, 2000, 14:43

quote:

Originally posted by inca911 on 08-08-2000 10:14 AM
The AI is a lame opponent even given all the nice cheating benefits it possesses. If a bit of so-called cheating is what must be programmed to make a competent AI opponent, then I'm all for it. I believe it is simply too difficult to program a compentent AI opponent without giving some easy cheat routes to improve the AI's game performance. All I want for Christmas is a better Civ3 AI!!

***

Inca911:

I expect Thue — a Freeciv developer and proponent — to pop up on this thread anytime now, extolling the virtues of his more than competent AI.

CYBERAmazon

Gatekeeper · August 8, 2000, 14:46

quote:

Originally posted by Mao on 08-08-2000 10:47 AM
Well geez, if I started a thread everytime I was pissed at the AI...I would be s-o-o-o-o banned

But Cyber, did you cheating make you feel better?

***

Mao:

YES! I felt the power of GODHOOD flooding through my veins! Then — POOF! — the Spanish civilization vanished, courtesy of the GODHOOD in my veins!!!

**sigh**

Then the oh-so-human guilt trip hit like a ton of bricks. Suffice to say, I reverted the game back ... and the Spanish civilization has since made peace with me and made life miserable for the Russian Empire.

CYBERAmazon

Mao · August 8, 2000, 15:11

Guilt? You're leading thousands of troops to their deaths, and now you feel guilty?

Chainsaw · August 8, 2000, 16:28

quote:

Originally posted by inca911 on 08-08-2000 10:14 AM
You've never heard of defecit spending before?!?

I'm very very glad that the AI cheats as much as it does, and I wish it would cheat even more! The AI is a lame opponent even given all the nice cheating benefits it possesses. If a bit of so-called cheating is what must be programmed to make a competent AI opponent, then I'm all for it. I believe it is simply too difficult to program a compentent AI opponent without giving some easy cheat routes to improve the AI's game performance. All I want for Christmas is a better Civ3 AI!!

That´s 100% my opinion about the AI´s cheating. I guess that´s the reason some of you guys start thinking about all those funny challenges like the Nomad Game (or however it´s called) or playing the WWII Scn with the turks (heh heh).

What I DON`T like about the AI´s cheating are some of the exaggregations the AI allows itself, e.g. like the bribing affair mentioned by CA.
In my current game an barb archer took off a fortified non-vet rifleman on grassland keeping half his hitpoints... Just imagine that! Damn it, if some dumb archer appears next to such a defended city I´m just to lazy to activate my rifleman and convince the barb to leave...

Gatekeeper · August 8, 2000, 18:18

quote:

Originally posted by Mao on 08-08-2000 03:11 PM
Guilt? You're leading thousands of troops to their deaths, and now you feel guilty?

***

Mao:

That's me!

The evil emperor whose conscious can be flipped on and off like a light switch.

CYBERAmazon

Mao · August 8, 2000, 19:56

I don't get mad at the AI anymore really. I start like so many games and never finish them when I'm either too far behind or too far ahead. I never find that happy median, you know?

cavebear · August 9, 2000, 19:58

If I may be allowed to refer to "reality" within a computer game context...

It doesn't bother me that the AI can take shortcuts of certain kinds. Building a unit with slightly less shields is OK; at least it has to build the unit, and I can even see that with a spy. I understand that the game has to be made more even for the computer to give a good fight.

I can accept it getting tech advances at a cheaper beaker cost. Same reasoning as above.

But it shouldn't be allowed to directly contravene things like battle odds, movement, treaties. At some point, the game has to follow its own rules. I shouldn't have to expect my dragoon to die attacking an AI settler on flat ground, for example, or have the AI pop a chariot at a brand-new city the turn I build it on a continent it has not yet found.

It becomes too annoying when you have to remember two sets of outcomes for everything, one human and one AI.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...

Gatekeeper · August 9, 2000, 23:18

quote:

Originally posted by Mao on 08-08-2000 07:56 PM
I don't get mad at the AI anymore really. I start like so many games and never finish them when I'm either too far behind or too far ahead. I never find that happy median, you know?

***

Mao:

**sob** That's the story of my Civ II life! All this time I thought I was alone in the universe ... and now I've discovered a fellow traveler who suffers from the same malady! I am no longer alone, cruel universe!! Ya hear me?!?!

CYBERAmazon

Gatekeeper · August 9, 2000, 23:21

quote:

Originally posted by cavebear on 08-09-2000 07:58 PM
At some point, the game has to follow its own rules. I shouldn't ... have the AI pop a chariot at a brand-new city the turn I build it on a continent it has not yet found.

***

Cavebear:

Exactly. What infuriates me more than anything else is that "I know where your new/undefended cities are!" trick. On more than one occasion, I've obliterated the offending AI civilization after it pulls a stunt like that. Also, if you open the AI view of the map after establishing a city, more often than not you'll see AI units of a nation you're at war with streaming towards your new city, even if it's in a part of the world the AI knows nothing about. A friggin' bee line, I tell ya!

CYBERAmazon

Mao · August 9, 2000, 23:44

You're not alone brother...join us, we are many...we are strong...

I guess this is why people play MP more huh?

Gatekeeper · August 10, 2000, 03:21

Mao:

**begins singing** Together, we SHALL OVERCOME THE AI, WE SHALL OVERCOME ... WE SHALL SEE THE LIGHT OF A NEW DAY ... BURNING AI CITIES ...

CYBERAmazon

Andromeda · August 11, 2000, 11:29

Like most people who only play SP, I have developed a personal code against cheating, and I won't, for example, revert to a saved game after a bad combat. All the more reason, I think, why I find so infuriating the sort of AI cheating which defies all sense of logic and realism, such as Cavebear's example of an AI chariot suddenly appearing literally out of nowhere.

We all accept that the AI should have lots of things tweaked in its favour at higher levels. All sports use handicaps extensively. It's the downright illegal and physically impossible cheats which annoy us so much.

Personally, faced with a blatantly illegal cheat like Cavebear's example, I would have no qualms about reverting to the previous turn, and taking suitable action, KNOWING what was about to happen.

DirkZelwis · August 12, 2000, 00:01

Hello!
I've noticed a similar thing, don't remember whether it was in Civ1 or early in Civ2. I'd fortified a Phalanx in a fortress on a mountain, I think, and the defense value should've summed up to 8. After 7 AI attacks and losses over some many turns, *alway* the 8th attack succeeded. Now that was strange! I guessed, the math's included the loss numbers too.
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."

poppawoppa · August 12, 2000, 02:01

CYBERAmazon... dont berate yourself for not checking on caravans near other cities to account for gold credited to the AI civ.
I played a game, where the AI only had one city left and did like you, had a spy nearby to look in to the happenings of the AI city.
The city had a Temple, Marketplace, Barracks, and several other improvements which would have cost you or me about 12 gold per turn.
But, NO, the AI civ had a gold earnings per turn of only 9 or 10, and each turn their treasury went up by the whole 9 or 10 per turn. THEY DID NOT HAVE ADAM SMITHS TRADING COMPANY. I had that. So there was no way they should have been able to have their cost per turn decreased. Yet they got an increase in their treasury for the entire 100% raised by their taxes.

To make up for this blatant misappropriation of funds, and to put things on an equitable cost basis, about every 5 or 10 turns, I asked them (NO...DEMANDED FROM THEM) Tribute.
and got 50 or 100 gold they were not deserving of. he he he.

Simpson II · August 12, 2000, 14:41

Yeah, it's a recorded fact that the AI pays zero maintainance. Hence it's insane tactic of building cathedrals in size 5 cities. I've never quite decided whether it cheats in combat or not - the combat system is random, so odd things can happen. Mind you, when I lost a rifleman in a city with walls to an attacking catapult...

August 12, 2000, 17:05

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 08-09-2000 11:18 PM
***

Mao:

**sob** That's the story of my Civ II life! All this time I thought I was alone in the universe ... and now I've discovered a fellow traveler who suffers from the same malady! I am no longer alone, cruel universe!! Ya hear me?!?!

CYBERAmazon

we're 3 now...

Tizzy · August 14, 2000, 09:09

And another cheat - bribing my muskateer unit, while my government was Democracy!

Does anyone else find that Issac Newton's College doesn't always work?
Sometimes when I build it, I get the double science output, and sometimes I don't. I can't work out why. Any ideas?

Tiz

Scouse Gits · August 14, 2000, 09:52

The Democracy bribe has been fixed in v2.42 which you can d/l for free from here or from Microprose own site - I guess you must be running one of the early release versions such as 1.07 - If you are unsure open the game and from the menu select Game|Gaem Options and the top bar of the option box contains the details of the version you are using...
As for Isaac - it is generally accepted that the original intent was for Copernicus to double the science output and Isaac to 50% increase (the exact opposite of the Civilopaedia entries) and that is what happens...
Good Civin' and welcome

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

SCG · August 14, 2000, 10:37

quote:

<font size=1>Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 08-14-2000 09:52 AM</font>
The Democracy bribe has been fixed in v2.42 which you can d/l for free from here or from Microprose own site - I guess you must be running one of the early release versions such as 1.07

actually, not true - I have both 1.07 and 2.42 and play democracies a lot and never have had anything bribed. According to an old thread http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/HT...tml?date=01:54 the bug was introduced in MGE and needs the v1.3 patch to fix.

Edit: fixed link to thread
------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*
[This message has been edited by SCG (edited August 14, 2000).]

The Mad Viking · August 15, 2000, 13:32

Really, CYBER, whinging again!

I'm glad the AI cheats. Sure it makes you angry as it happens, but there'd be no challenge at all w/o it. In real life, sometimes really improbable bad luck strikes. Consider this the same way.

I'm currently score-maxing my first game at Deity. It's 1975, and the AI (Spain, one city) just built an Engineer and dropped to size 1 from size 2. My spy checked the city, and found an empty food box, and a hunger of 1. I was afraid the city would disband and the game would end- but thankfully not. Deficit eating as well as deficit spending.

New thought -maybe the Engineer disbands instead of the city- I'll check that.

Interesting game, my SSC had no trade specials, but 5 rivers. So it took quite a while to pump out the science, even with Collosus, Galileo & Isaac just getting 400 beakers. So I delayed flight to keep the Collosus. I ended up with Howitzers before flight, and promptly routed the Spanish, who were far bigger than me!

Paul · August 15, 2000, 14:09

If a city has a food deficit settlers/engineers supported by that city are always disbanded first. If there is still a deficit after all supported settlers/engineers are disbanded the city will lose population.