A Taste Of Honey - CLEAR evidence of the AI cheating

Buck Birdseed · November 19, 2001, 16:48

I'm not sure where this story/bug/strategic question should go, so I'll put it in here. To me, it is clear evidence that the AI in the game cheats, so clear it almost borders on proof. But you be the judge.

I'll be the first to say that I'm not a brilliant Civ player- I could beat both Civ2 and SMAC on deity, but only with difficulty. After dominating my first game on Chieftan (as the Indians), I decided to try an ultramilitaristic strategy on a large map for my second game- enter the Aztecs (love those Jaggies!). I only picked 8 civs because I wanted space to explore.

So, I start the game, produce a bunch of Jaguar Warriors and explore about for a bit. After a few dozen turns, and with a fledging 3-town empire, I stumble upon the hapless americans some 15 squares to the south of me. After meeting, greeting and techschanging, I park four Jaggies outside his capital, capture it, two settlers and another city, and (stupidly enough) raze them to the ground. Unfortunately, his last city seems stronger, and my two remaining Jaggies are killed off by his only offensive unit, an Archer. Oh well. I decide to leave it for the moment. Note that his only contact with me has been through my jaguar warriors. He's never been near my territory to the best of my knowledge.

I now concentrate on exploration and building up my empire, increasing the number of cities to six. During one of these expansion phases, I send out what I thought was one of two spearmen from the capital (but which turned out to be the only one) to protect a new settlement from Malibu Barbie (set to Restless). So, my capital, pretty much at the center of my empire, is undefended- not a single unit is stationed in it. I'm not really paying attention at that moment, but it's important to understand for what happens next.

About a dozen or so turns later, an American unit, an Archer, appears on my southern border. My immediate thought is "stupid AI! I've got six well-defended cities up here!", but I send a jag warrior to intercept him in a few turns. No Workers down there, so I thought myself safe. What happens? He marches on my capital, which I thought was well-defended, and razes it to the ground.

Now, of course, this was entirely my fault. However, as well as showing my stupidity (leave undefended cities during wartime? What was I thinking?), I personally see it as evidence that the AI is cheating. What sensible player, unless he knows that he can do damage (which the AI supposedly didn't) sends up their single attacking unit to a much-superior civ? To me it seems as if it "knew" what was going on in a place it had never seen. Not even been near. I had basically uncovered and patrolled a radius of 5-10 squares from my civ's borders. Before this attack, the Americans had never been up there.

Is this an example of the AI cheating? I think it is. Concievably, he could have stumbled up randomly to exactly the right spot at exactly the right time. Somehow I doubt it.

dr.charm · November 19, 2001, 16:55

I don't know. Once he was in range, obviously he would have known whether or not it was defended, the same way that you do about the enemy (when units are on top)

As to getting there at all, did you run into any other civs? Did you trade maps with them? Did you trade maps with the Americans?

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

Ozymandous · November 19, 2001, 17:00

I believe this has been posted as a "bug" which will be fixed in the patch. As far as I know it wasn't meant that the AI would know which of your cities are the weakest, and will be fixed.

Anyone who frequents this board should check the "bug" area out before proclaiming any sort or "AI cheats!" message as it may be something that will be fixed.

Buck Birdseed · November 19, 2001, 17:00

"In Range" in the game is like two squares away. He went straight at it. No other civs, no map exchanges.

Sevorak · November 19, 2001, 17:09

It's not a cheat, per se. In all games that involve a map and units on it, be they RTS or TBS, it is well accepted that the AI knows the entire map and the location of every unit on it. It's the same thing that's behind the uselessness of submarines, since they're only undetectable to human players. It was this way in Civ II - so why complain about it in Civ III? The AI needs all the help it can get.

-Sev

TCO · November 19, 2001, 17:11

Snap,

In both Civ2 and Civ3, the AI plays with a "revealed map". He knows where your stuff is. The difference you are seeing comes from the better AI algorithms which emphasize attacking targets in sufficent force and concentrating on desirable targets.

If they patch it, the AI will stil know where your stuff is...they'll just change the alsogorithms to make it less obvious.

TCO · November 19, 2001, 17:13

Oh...and Snap? Learn to beat deity in Civ2, ya big wimp!!!

Trifna · November 19, 2001, 17:13

Seems AI cheating to me... The thing to do would be to test the AI: Make some game and be crazy enough to put an undefended city that's in the center of your territory. Anyone wanna sacrifice for Apolyton?

(I would, but I don't have the game. University time and I'm out of games generally. Civ III later...)

Buck Birdseed · November 19, 2001, 17:18

I believe Soren Johnson said the AI would not know where your stuff is. However, Ozzie's reply might have hit the nail on the head- the AI might know where your weakest city is at any one time.

TCO · November 19, 2001, 17:30

Trifna, read the other posts in the thread. Comprende??

TCO · November 19, 2001, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
I believe Soren Johnson said the AI would not know where your stuff is. However, Ozzie's reply might have hit the nail on the head- the AI might know where your weakest city is at any one time.

I kicked some nail ass, too...

KrazyHorse · November 19, 2001, 17:44

I should probably have saved my game, but I'm pretty sure I caught the Egyptians with more cities than was mathematically possible to build in the number of turns elapsed. I'll see if I can catch them again. Also, there have been instances of AI units "disappearing". Does the AI have a fetish for disbanding its own units?

TCO · November 19, 2001, 17:55

KH, that would be a good peice of evidence...

Jaybe · November 19, 2001, 18:21

The "undefended city taken by an AI unit that belined for it" situation has been discussed before here in the forums. Whether it is a "cheat" or not is irrevelant. I have accidently left a metropolis defended by just a cavalry unit, and the city was razed by an enemy cavalry that "must have known" it was lightly defended.

Lesson Learned: Always defend your cities, and always have some defensive reserves (have them wait until the end of the turn - press tab), for situations where you realize you messed up and depleted a garrison.

Compugasm 2 · November 19, 2001, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
... pretty sure I caught the Egyptians with more cities than was mathematically possible... Also, there have been instances of AI units "disappearing".

I've noticed these things also. I play Monarch/China and I've built cities on food squares producing a new settlers. Then, build a city 3-6 squares away on another food resource. After building 5 cities, i quit and viewed the timeline. The Russians had 10-11 cities. This isn't possible and you can't rush build settlers early in the game.

I've noticed my own units disapearing. A few times I've sent a settler to automatically goto a food square and eventually realize he never got there. He could have been captured, but by the time i realize he never got there, its a total mystery.

Compugasm 2 · November 19, 2001, 18:44

Also, on the same map, different game, the Russian and English AI is so "good" at building wonders i don't even bother anymore. I can squeeze out the Pyramids as long as i start on the 20th turn. It must be completed by 1100BC before Japan finishes them, otherwise you've just bought a 300 shield granary.

Sevorak · November 19, 2001, 18:52

Compugasm,

On Monarch it's well known the AI cheats outrageously to the tune of a -20% to the cost of anything it builds. Regent is the highest level where the AI doesn't cheat.

-Sev

mharmless · November 19, 2001, 18:54

The AI does cheat on Monarch and above, no suprise there at all. It has been stated several times that the AI gets no such production advantages on Regent. If you see it cheating there (provable), then we want to hear about it.

Elucidus · November 19, 2001, 19:09

Actually, i've been able to pace and even surpass the AI expansion a couple of times. This is on Regeant. I think it is all luck of the draw. My best was a city with two or three cattle on grassland and plains. I had that city produce a settler every three or so turns. It would take exactly as much time to produce a settler as it would to regenerate the two pop points at city size six.

I don't think they cheat in that respect, but then again, what do I know?

CyberGnu · November 19, 2001, 19:20

Umm, I think Soren said the complete opposite. He confirmed that the computer knows where your units are at all times, but it is intended.

He also claimed the the AI in CTP2 doesn't know where your units are, with the result of an overly passive AI, incapable of waging offesnive warfare.

I wish there was a middle ground... I'm OK with the computer knowing where every unit is, say, four tiles from his border. It's when they launch a amphibious attack out of nowhere on the one undefended city in your heartland it pisses me off.

kamosa · November 19, 2001, 20:03

I've seen the AI march right past perfectly viable cities to attack, just so it can get to that one city in the back with it's original spearman. In the last game I played, I used this fact to my advantage. The Persians were marching threw English lands to get to my spearman defended city. I waited until the got just about to my border and then bribed the English to join my side.

Then I rallied several Samuri to the path they would need to take and ambushed the rest.

dexters · November 19, 2001, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase

Is this an example of the AI cheating? I think it is. Concievably, he could have stumbled up randomly to exactly the right spot at exactly the right time. Somehow I doubt it.

No its not. If you have the option showing units defending cities, you can see other units defending cities of a Rival civ. If the City is empty, you won't see anything.

The American archer was probably sent to harass your empire, saw an open city and went for it.

Like Soren said, unless you put an enemy civ on the defensive, they will attack, no matter how pitiful it is. And I get the feeling it was just an opportunity grab that your city got taken.

CyberGnu · November 19, 2001, 20:36

Quote:

The American archer was probably sent to harass your empire, saw an open city and went for it.

Doesn't anyone read my posts? I just told you people that Soren CONFIRMED the AI cheating... Citing that the AI became to passive when they turned the cheating off.

Raleigh · November 20, 2001, 06:36

If I remember his transcript, he said AI's knowledge of your forces was a "gray" area where it sorta did and sorta didn't or did know but didn't always act on it, etc. I also believe he said, they would continue to tweak it in this gray area and that they never intend a black or white solution of whether it knows where you are or not.

From my own aztec/America experience (do they always start near each other?) I can tell you I found him first and he had no idea where I was. I kept invading him and he sent his military WAY in the wrong direction to find me. I hardly find this dispositive, but it indicates the computer might NOT know where I was at any given time. Maybe the computer's knowledge really isn't black or white?

xane · November 20, 2001, 08:09

I'm clutching at straws here, but what is apparent is the Americans had little choice in your cities and little knowledge to formulate (via an algorithm) which was best to attack, it may have just chosen at random, or if anything, put a weight on the capital.

Lack of knowledge can sometimes be just as dangerous, you can't "bait" or "decoy" an AI in such cases.

Yoleus · November 20, 2001, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
[...] He also claimed the the AI in CTP2 doesn't know where your units are, with the result of an overly passive AI, incapable of waging offesnive warfare.
I wish there was a middle ground [...]

I did not know about CTP2, I agree it was awfully passive, and yes, please, definitely give me a middle grass. I mean, you can't hide!!! The AI should implement an info gathering routine of some kind. Otherwise if they start on a crappy island they will go for mapmaking and mindlessly run to the next best one instead of dying - as they should. Or WORSE, place cities in spots right over RESOURCES they are not supposed to see yet...
Apart from the "amphibious assault" capability, I think that no improvement has been made on the AI since CivII-Smac, just on the game rules. I would like some feedback on this issue.
I do not know if MoO3 will have the AI gathering info, but I hope so.

P.S. CyberGnu: "Gnu ex machina" means "Gnu OUT of the machine"...

zapperio · November 20, 2001, 09:30

Here you go:

Soren Himself>>>

SITS>AI question - Does the AI cheat and know
where your weakly defended cities are?
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> ...as for the AI, well, the AI does not interface with the map like the player does.
There were, however, some AI bugs in the original release in which the AI obviously was target the weakest
city. We are working on that... I just want to emphasize though that the AI is not a human. They don't have
a keyboard, mouse or monitor, so the answer to that question is never going to be "Yes" or "No." It will
always be somewhat grey

That makes it clear doesn't it? Oh, it doesn't? oh well...

Zap

AHO · November 20, 2001, 10:25

Sorry but I just don't buy the argument that the American archers just accidently stumbled on to your one undefended city, nor do I buy the argument that the question of the AI's omniscience is a "grey" area. I went to war (to get the ONLY source of coal in my hemisphere on a "huge world" map--but that's for another thread) and instead of going for the heavily guarded, strategic frontline cities, they made a single-file bee-line to the other end of the continent to attack the only city in my 30+ empire that was only defended with an archer. As some of you have pointed out, there was NO WAY a normal opponent could have known that that was my weak point. The AI OBVIOUSLY sees all.

By the same token, this AI strategy/cheat, while annoying, is completely illogical and can be turned to your advantage. Here's my strategery: when you go to war, PURPOSEFULLY leave a city WAY on the other side of the empire lightly defended--if at all. Now you know where he's going, there'll be no mystery about where his troop strength will be amassed, and you can lay traps for his troops as they string across continent. The AI will send the entire kitchen sink straight towards that city in single-file like ants to a picnic, and you can pick them off one by one as they go by your choice of ambush positions. In the meantime, you can focus your attack on the ACTUAL cities of value while he sends his troop masses off on the wild goose chase. Take the cities you want, then, either wipe out the bee-line at your ambush sites, or take your newly acquired coal and sue for peace. I like to play with a "militaristic" civ like the Germans or Aztecs, which gives you more chance for battlefield promotions and, therefor, leaders who can rush-build your Wonders. Since you've ingeniously stretched his forces across hell's half-acre with your trap, you can keep up the hit and run attacks until you get the leaders you need--or until they get too close, whichever comes first!

Raleigh · November 20, 2001, 10:47

I am not sure that is completely true (that the AI sees all, or goes after the weakest city like ants) because the Americans kept attacking my extremely heavily fortified large city right on their border, the way they should have been. I certainly had much more lightly defended cities further behind enemy lines, and some of them were also big and rich.

Be Quicker · November 20, 2001, 10:54

2 things.

I've also noticed that the AI knows where your weakly/undefended cities are. Moreover Soren basically acknowledged it in the interview. I actually have been alerted to my undefended cities (which I obtained after peace treaties), because I thought: "Where the heck is that Japanese spearman going to? straight through my territory?"

As far mistakenly moving a unit from a city, my major complaint until now with the CivIII interface is that when a unit is active there is no picture in the right hand side of the screen showing which other units are standing at that spot (which has been my major source of loss of cannons and artillery).