What is up with all the cheating by the computer

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Coracle

REX, Rapid Early Expansion, almost certainly includes freebie settlers; there is no way the AI civ could produce that much faster than I can.

The AI sees the entire map AND all my unit military locations ALL THE TIME, and adjusts accordingly.

AI civs work together against the human - why one civ will commit suicide and fight to the death just to weaken the human, resulting in a long tedious war.

I do not understand why you would post these false statements. I posted the doc that refutes any such cheats. What ever the issues are at Regent the AI has no chance to win against anyone that has figured out the proper uses of tiles and citizens. It is true the AI can not produce faster than I can, I can't speak for you, but appearently it can as that is what you said. It does not get free settlers at Regent, look at the editor.
The AI does not even know who is the human and who is for the purposes of strategy. Anyway at Regent it can not make any serious runs at you, it has no chance at all.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Coracle


At Regent.



AI civs work together against the human - why one civ will commit suicide and fight to the death just to weaken the human, resulting in a long tedious war.

The book said no. The AI has not been program to know who the human player is. It know there are 2 or more player, nothing more.

[bongo]

Any civ will be pretty desperate when facing destruction, tou just cannot expect it to roll over and let you have it's remaining cities.

Yes I find som details on CF rather annoying(where do my units go ) but I adjust my tactics according to that.

[Tattila the Hun]

It would be good, if, when flipping would occur, the stationed troops could actually fight against it, taking casualties, and eventually crush the resistance, killing some population in the process, or be driven out seriously damaged, or even destroyed.

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by Coracle


At Regent.

I have seen AI galleys sailing merrily through the oceans, No, they did not have navigation or the Lighthouse.

The may have crossed the ocean. But an AI galley (w/o navigation/lighthouse) will never end a turn in sea/ocean. This has been stated by Firaxis, and I have tested it in maps created especially for this test.

I have seen AI galleys teleported magically to oceans their own maps say they should not have been able to get to as there is nothing but black between their location and the sea near their homeland.

That's how it works when a units is teleported by the "leave or declare war" option, and this works identically for AI and human players. With the exception that human players can exploit this of course.

I have seen invading AI settlers ignore my demands they leave, and then magically teleport themselves to the other side of my civ to set up towns on open tiles they should not even know exist.

This too works identically fro human and AI players, so its not a cheat. I don't like the way it works, but its easy to use it to my advantage.

I have routinely been blamed for stuff I never did destroying my reputation.

The reputation rules are muddy. But its always a logical explanation for the blame. Come with examples, and I will explain it for you.

Civs I didn't meet for a thousand years still hated me for some minor thing I did (or even did not do) to another civ.

Things you do will be remembered the entire game. Why is this a cheat?

Civ cities, when a nearby city is razed, keep cranking out settler/soldier combos to try to settle there even during war - which is not only dumb it is a cheat; they never could produce that many settlers.

Yes, it is dumb. No, it is not a cheat. The AI produces settlers during war and keep them in cities, waiting for a city to be raized. Try espionage and you will see it. Could you please explain why you think the AI couldn't produce the settlers.

REX, Rapid Early Expansion, almost certainly includes freebie settlers; there is no way the AI civ could produce that much faster than I can.

On regent, the AI get absolutely no growth or production advantages and no freeibie settlers (It gets one freebie settler on deity). If it expands faster than you, then you're simply not a very good player. I am not a top player, but I can easily expand faster than the AI on Monarch, where the AI get a 10% advantage.

The AI sees the entire map AND all my unit military locations ALL THE TIME, and adjusts accordingly.

Yes, that's the one cheat (if you include that they also see all (including future) resources).

AI civs work together against the human - why one civ will commit suicide and fight to the death just to weaken the human, resulting in a long tedious war.

This is completely false. The AI will often start war against other AI, much to the benefit of the human player. In my latest (emperor) game, I started on one island together with Russia and Persia. The two AI civs soon started a war and kept on weakening each other until I could easily take out both.

Cultural Flipping will destroy the human's entire strategy when a key city suddenly flips to what has become a tiny, defeated civ across a sea. It has happened (search for the "It Finally Happened" thread by Alexman in the Strategy forum).

Yes, it may happen, but the CF rules apply identically to human and AI players, so even if you don't like CF, there's wrong to list it as a cheat.

All these - and others - are in effect cheats at Regent level.

With this post you have proven that you are (at best) a mediocre civ player that knows very little about how the rules work. One of all your points (map knowledge) is a cheat. One other (reputation hit) is muddy, while the rest is completely cheat-less.

Of course, fans of Firaxis will just call them "quirks" or "concepts". Whatever they are, they stink.

I can understand that it stinks for you to be outbuilt by the AI on regent, and I do understand if you don't like the border-teleportation or culture flipping. But the fact remains that those rules apply identically to the AI and the human and is therefore not a cheat.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Coracle
REX, Rapid Early Expansion, almost certainly includes freebie settlers; there is no way the AI civ could produce that much faster than I can.

REX may indeed include freebie settlers, from goodie huts, for both human and AI. There is also a massive difference in how quickly one can produce settlers at the beginning of the game depending upon whether or not one puts city labour on food rich squares (try putting your labour on a wheat or cow square and watch the population zoom and the settlers pop out).

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Certainly the computer knows the map. According to your guide book (you are not interpreting it wrong), it states that the AI knows the entire map. Hey, I've certainly been wrong before, but I am not convinced by the evidence. It's pretty suspicious when a landrush starts as soon as you reveal your map. Perhaps it is selective memory. . .

Let me briefly go over what was covered in detail earlier this year regarding the map.

The AI sees the entire map and all your units - at Regent.

Example: I once in the Industrial period while at war near a coastal city, conquered it and decided to raze it. Now, I consider "razing" absurdly non-historical and unrealistic, but that one time I did it owing to fear of that Culture Flipping nonsense.

So, there were some empty tiles near the coast. Lo and behiold, with three turns a third civ's transport shows up and deposits settlers and military right there!!

There is no way they could have gotten a transport and units there that quickly. I believe they were all created by the AI after the city was razed. There was also no way they could have known of both the open tiles and my lack of military units on those tiles.

The proof? I reload and this time placed military units on those tiles - the civ's transport never even showed up!

Of course, AI settlers transport themselves like magic all over the board to open tiles they should not know exist.

[Theseus]

Post a SAV.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
You get out produced by the AI on Regent?!

It's funny how you try to attribute your poor playing skill to AI cheating.

It is probably bad manners on my part to point your lack of manners but anyway... Your post seems extraordinarily rude. The use of the laughter icon, in this context, seems sheer ignorance on your part.

Those of us who outproduce the AI at regent may possibly play a little too often?

Anyway there seems a fine line between "AI cheating" and legitimate "AI advantages", perhaps merely a matter of definition.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by vmxa1

I do not understand why you would post these false statements. I posted the doc that refutes any such cheats. What ever the issues are at Regent the AI has no chance to win against anyone that has figured out the proper uses of tiles and citizens. It is true the AI can not produce faster than I can, I can't speak for you, but appearently it can as that is what you said. It does not get free settlers at Regent, look at the editor.
The AI does not even know who is the human and who is for the purposes of strategy. Anyway at Regent it can not make any serious runs at you, it has no chance at all.

Yea, yea, If you say it's true it must be. You and your doc.

REX, Rapid Early Expansion, almost certainly includes freebie settlers; there is no way the AI civ could produce that much faster than I can.

I do not believe for a second the AI can crank out that many settler/soldier combos, send them marching through my territory to set up crappy little towns even on tundra that should never be productive or defendied in time of war owing to their distance from the home capital. If I as the human ever did that I'd end up with a very weak military, little infrastructure, and not enough productive core cities.

The AI sees the entire map AND all my unit military locations ALL THE TIME, and adjusts accordingly.

Damn right they do, as everyone on these boards conceded many months ago. See also my example above.

AI civs work together against the human - why one civ will commit suicide and fight to the death just to weaken the human, resulting in a long tedious war.

Oh, so the AI civ is so stupid it just decides to commit suicide and fight to the death for the hell of it, for no purpose other than to make the game more tedious?? I don't think so. Owing to that Culture Flipping stupidity we almost have to exterminate civs, but even if we needed to make peace they sometimes don't want to. I've seen it happend many times.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Theseus
Post a SAV.

I first posted this account maybe half a year ago. Go look for it. I've barely played the game at all in the past three months.

It is getting really tiresome going over points even people who liked Civ 3 conceded were true last Spring.

[Cyclotron]

And you would know something about tiresome, wouldn't you?

Quite a few of these things aren't cheats at all. Such as reputation, CF, unit expulsion... Apparently, for you things you don't like = cheating.

That's a very 3rd grade attitude...

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by peterfharris


It is probably bad manners on my part to point your lack of manners but anyway... Your post seems extraordinarily rude. The use of the laughter icon, in this context, seems sheer ignorance on your part.

Those of us who outproduce the AI at regent may possibly play a little too often?

Anyway there seems a fine line between "AI cheating" and legitimate "AI advantages", perhaps merely a matter of definition.

If you only knew Coracle.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Coracle
Oh, so the AI civ is so stupid it just decides to commit suicide and fight to the death for the hell of it, for no purpose other than to make the game more tedious?? I don't think so. Owing to that Culture Flipping stupidity we almost have to exterminate civs, but even if we needed to make peace they sometimes don't want to. I've seen it happend many times.

I have had a relatively tiny civ declare war on me a couple of times in an apparently suicidal way. In one case I killed a couple of units and it was suddenly realised the error of its ways and offered peace. In the other case, I took a town and it offered peace and all its money (alas only 10 gold) and I gave the useless town back to it. They are not so suicidal, a bit rash at times but not suicidal. Although I have never tried multiplayer I suggest human opoonents are could also be quite rash at times.

The culture flipping works both ways, if you put in culture buildings your cities are most unlikely to flip but the AI cities might flip over to you.

The mere fact that you "need" to make peace is in itself a reason for the AI not to make peace. If you "need" peace the AI may think it has you on the ropes so why would it not continue the war to obtain further advantages. If I think the AI needs to make peace with me I tend to belt it a bit more to get more territory and a more generous settlement.

BTW If you demand cities in the peace negotiations it seems the AI is likely to refuse your terms, if you smash them they will give probably you everything they have except for cities. Are you demanding cities?

[MosesPresley]

When it comes to ROP violations, the AI cheats big time.

[MosesPresley]

I guess I should add, the ROP thing is the only cheat I have witnessed.

[Theseus]

Is ROP rape a cheat? (if that's what you mean)

I've done it, when desperate...

Hey, Coracle: I saw a long time ago that you are very proficient and know what you're talking about... PTW 1.14, much less all of the previous patches / updates, is a game that I think you would like. Please try it.

[MosesPresley]

What I'm talking about is when the AI violates an ROP agreement and then they are still able to maintain and get new ROP's with other AI civs without a substantial penalty.

[bongo]

MosesPresley , there may be a penalty, you are just unable to see it. OTH I have no problem with making deals with an untrustworthy backstabber, I just make sure to take precautions.

There is no magic involved with the transport appearing out of the blue with an instant city onboard. I have seen lots of AI transports with readymade settlers and infantry, just waiting for someone to clear some land.

[theNiceOne]

Coracle is completely correct when it comes to AI and map knowledge. The AI knows the map and whether there is free valuable terrain in any direction before it has seen it. This has been acknowledged by Firaxis, and I can prove it with custom made map if you want to (or rather search for a thread called "The complete cheat guide" over at CFC.

But I see that Coracle ignores my post where I clearly states why his other claims are wrong. I can understand that, because I couldn't resist the not-too-nice temptation of making fun of him when he argued that the AI must cheat since it outgrows him on regent. That was cheap, but human

Anyway, if Coracle really means that the AI cheats by producing extra settlers, then I challenge him to post a self-made map. It is very easy to create a map with two identical islands, one with a human player and one with an AI player. Then add one scout to each side on the opponent's island so it will be easy to watch. If the AI cheated, then this scenario would easily prove it.

My point is that most cheats would be very easy to discover and prove. So cheat claims by Coracle and other should be accompanied by such a map.

For the record, I made such a map to test whether the AI really knew the map before exploration, and it proved that it knew both all terrain and the location of all (future) resources.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by theNiceOne
Coracle is completely correct when it comes to AI and map knowledge. The AI knows the map and whether there is free valuable terrain in any direction before it has seen it. This has been acknowledged by Firaxis, and I can prove it with custom made map if you want to (or rather search for a thread called "The complete cheat guide" over at CFC.

Excellent job on your thread "The complete cheat guide" at CFC. Great research, as well. I do not have time for controlled tests, so it is very helpful when you (and others) take the time to determine these facets of the game. Thank you! Oh, and I did take note of the "X-Island" experiment.

Now, quoting from the thread:

"Knowledge cheats
I still think some of the map information is hidden to it as the AI seems to come faster with settlers after having bought my map."

This matches my experience. Of course the computer knows the map, but how it allows the AI personality to use this information varies depending on the situation. It certainly uses knowledge of the map -- even the black areas -- when deciding where to explore. This is a requirement of the very simple algorithms used to simulate intelligent behavior.

Nevertheless, I have colonized islands without interference from the AI -- unless I give them the map. They apparently don't know where the island is until they explore it. (But when they do find it, the Galley will no doubt have a Settler on board.) In the (very near) future, with improvements in algorithms and computer power, these compromises may not be necessary.

Still, don't give up your maps cheaply. But assume the AI knows the map anyway.

(Hypothesis: Units on exploration (E-mode) will find huts quicker.)

[vmxa1]

"The development team went to great pains to make sure that if you play and make the same

decissions as an AI opponent, given the same conditions, your game and the AI's game would be

absolutely identical. So, if you think the AI is cheating you, it's just a case of sour grapes

on your part."

This says it all. What ever RoP action the AI does, it is the same for you. Just becasue you do not see the consequences, does not mean there are none. You can violate RoP and later bribe enough to get more deals, it just costs you. Also as the game develops, the AI has to be more flexible with bad behavior as its options are limited. I mean that if there ar 4 players left and one has jobbed you, you may still have to make deals with them under some conditions. Whats the AI's choice?
Anyway the game does not know you from another AI and must treat you and the AI's the same.

"The AI in civilization III cannot differentiate bewteen the human player and other AI players, so the
AI can't gang up on you just because you are the human."
The quotes are right out of the PTW guide.

[Catt]

@vmxa1 - no offense but the strat guide is chock full of errors, omissions and "views" taken out of context. It is not a reliable reference on the game. At least so I am led to believe based upon the comments posted based on the strat guide (since I don't have a copy). Just in the last few days I've seen people postiong that the strat guide says: (1) captured workers cost maintenence, and (2) cruise missles are very effective when loaded on carriers.

With respect to the two points you're quoting, they are "true" but taken a bit out of context. There are no "cheats" other than the map knowledge which Firaxis has acknowledged before (and that cheat is not present in order to "give the AI a fighting chance" as some people claim, but rather as a programming and design descision, IIRC). I believe that there is some degree of confusion about how much, if at all, "reputation" affects AI to AI deals, but certainly not a "cheat" IMHO.

The "AI doesn't know if you're human or AI" came from a quote by Soren and was, IIRC, directly related to a poster's view that the AI would gang up on the human (not true). But, there is at least one aspect of gameplay where the AI "knows" whether you are human or AI -- when trading and when using the AI-AI Trade Rate which is exposed in the editor. Again confirmed by Soren, the trade rate factor means that in certain cases the AI will make better deals with an AI civ than with the human civ. Not a cheat, just an AI handicap / advantage -- but it does serve to illustrate that the specific quote shouldn't be interpreted to be a blanket statement on the AI performance.

No one should bother to debate Coracle. Anything he doesn't like (including features and game concepts) is labeled a bug or a cheat, both here and at CFC.

Catt

[Catt]

BTW - especially for TheNiceOne - great thread at CFC. With respect to AI map knowledge, I still don't fully understand the full range of AI map knowledge. I did a similar test to your X map test and posted my hazily recollected thoughts in another thread not too long ago.

Here was that post:

I hate to throw a small wrinkle into the discussion, but I'm not entirely convinced that the AI knows which resource will appear where, nor am I convinced that it places a tremendously high value on "known" future resources. In other words, I believe that the AI knows that a particular tile is very valuable, but doesn't know that it is valuable because of an iron, coal, or uranium resource will some day appear.

My theory is that the AI assigns a value to each tile on the map, and seeks out high value tiles. Resources (even as yet unknown resources) constitute one of the factors in tile value, but not the end-all be-all.

I came to this tentative conclusion after reading about an editor test originally done by TheNiceOne at CFC, which I reproduced with variations on my own. Here's how I conducted the test: I built a map consisting of two islands - one small for me and one nearby and somewhat larger for the AI. The AI's island was all grassland and was covered in RR for ease of movement. I started the AI in the center of its larger island with 2 settlers. The AI built a city in the center location, but then had to choose where next to place its second city. At each corner of AI island, I included a fish and a whale, so that the AI would be drawn to the corners. At this point, all corners were "equal" with the same proportion of shielded grassland and fish/whales and so all represented equally attractive city sites. Now, for each quick test, I placed a future resource like iron, coal, rubber, uranium, etc. at different corners. I also modified corners so that the corner with iron might not have a whale or might have no shielded grassland, etc. I don't recall the full and exact results of the testing, but the principal noteworthy (to me) results included: (1) sometimes better terrain and bonus resources (fish/whales) trumped any strategic resource every time (i.e., as an example, perhaps shielded grassland w/o iron was viewed more favorably than plain grassland with iron in the city radius); (2) the AI either didn't know which resource would later appear, or valued the reource in an odd fashion -- i.e., one would think iron, a critcal resource available very early in the game, would be more valuable than uranium or aluminum -- both important but not available for thousands of years (assuming survival ).

So, in the end, I concluded for myself that the AI knows which tiles are valuabel, but either doesn;t understand why they are valuable or doesn't value them as a human player might with the same foreknowledge.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Catt
... the strat guide is chock full of errors, omissions and "views" taken out of context.
...

No bleepin' bleep!

The PTW strat guide is so full of misinformation, that I am going to raise a stink about it to both the store and Prima.

[djafrot]

Regarding the "cheat" that the AI knows where everything is on the board. There are two reasons why I think this may not be true at the lower levels.

a) If I attack an enemy civ in a particular place, the enemy will move all of its forces there in defense, leaving the rest of its civ wide open (although loaded with infantry or whatever inside cities).

b) invariably when the other civ's start to run out of space, they start to want to trade maps with me. I assume this is to find more places to settle...

could there be another reason for this?

[player1]

From my gaiming experince,
If AI doesn't have your map, your unsetteled territories are safe.

But, when he gets the map, he starts setteling them as soon as possibile.

This is especily true for isolated island, which you have charted, while AI doesn't know were they are.

This leads to belive that AI settles only territory he which ha has already charted in his map.

[vmxa1]

Catt, those are the only two that are germain. I did not see any where that it said they cost maint, but it could have. LIke you said those two points have been backed up by the designers on this board. I did not put them in for Coracle, I know he is just looking for attention, but for ohters that come behind and think he has a point. I do not even believe him when he says he can not keep up with the AI on Regent, that makes no sense.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
If you only knew Coracle.

Umh, after a bit more reading of various threads I see your point.

I therefore withdraw my remark with apologies.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by peterfharris


Umh, after a bit more reading of various threads I see your point.

I therefore withdraw my remark with apologies.

Hey, no problem.