Save-and-Load is not cheating

[swagled]

I came to this conclusion last night after learning more about how the AI works.

In case you haven't discovered this (and I don't feel like debating this point, go read the other threads and experiment yourself if you don't agree,) any Civ you encounter, automatically knows every unit you have, all of your territory, and how well garrisoned your cities are.

It's especially obvious when you have only one city on your coastline with a single spearman in it.... and the AI omnisciently decides to make a beachhead there... Try restoring a few moves earlier, move some units from the next city into it, leaving city "B" undefended... hmmm! Where does the invasion fleet go now?? It's as if there was radio communication to those frigates and galleons... the supreme commander has new orders for you!

I used to think Save-and-Load was a cheap human gambit. But since the AI has this advantage, I've concluded that it's fair. I'm comfortable now realoding my games and trying to counter the "amazing" ability of the AI to find weak spots in my defense.

[alva]

Whatever tickles your fancy

For me!!, I think it is cheating, and never do it.
I have absolutely no problem with other people doing so (in SP)

And about the cheats your giving; these are well known, there only there to give the AI a chance.
You even could even say, to keep it interesting/challenging

[swagled]

Well I suppose another way of looking at it is to say that the AI was given this ability *because* humans can restore a game at any point and revise strategy.

If the only thing you could do was restore your game at the current year, I think the AI advantages would be much more unfair.

[vmxa1]

Sounds like a rationalization to me. Maybe oral sex is not sex, but I could never convince my ex of that.
Anyway the AI get this cheat as a handicap, no problem, it will still lose. Reloading will not change the out come of a given battle if you leave the RNG the way it comes (and do not alter you play). I play with the RNG as it comes and no autosaves, what ever you get you get.
Most of the post I see about this type of issue comes from games played at the lowest three levels and often at warlord. This is significant as it suggest that the players do not have the game strategies down yet. Not that the game is hard.
Funny how you do not see players at emperor or deity whining about this cheat.

[swagled]

I think that's because people playing at the highest levels have accepted that they're playing a computer, and are comfortable exploiting the weaknesses of computer strategy. (Especially the oddities of the diplomacy engine, how to "make wars happen", etc).

You're right in that I'm approaching it from the mentality of a Warlord-level human. I assumed the computer had to play like I did... that it didn't know what was in my cities. Or that once a "war plan" has been decided, it would follow it to a conclusion.

The fact that AI can change strategy, based on "hidden information" within my cities, is not something I had expected. I thought the AI made its decisions purely based on the visible features of the game, just like me.

I, as a human, might make a tactical decision to lightly defend some points on my map, under the assumption that I'm taking a "calculated risk". A human that attacks me would have to make an "educated guess" where to begin an assault. He might get lucky, or he might get mowed down.

But the AI knows that weak spot up front, and will always hit there (*if* it decides to attack). I think Save-and-Reload makes sense as a counterstrategy to this omniscience. I.e. if I had known that being a diplomatic neighbor wasn't enough, to keep the Civs at bay, I would have built more units.

Or maybe I'll just have to get used to building more military units, under the premise "you can never trust trade and diplomacy to protect you". But either way, it's clear that you can't treat the other Civs as playing with "human" information-gathering abilities, and the decisions that come with it.

[CerberusIV]

I'm trying to step up from Regent to Monarch and I now just accept that paranoia pays and never give the AI an even break. I do still save and reload but now only in the very early game (before about 3000BC). Popping a goody hut near your capital with your first warrior and getting three barbarians who beeline for the undefended city is hard to recover from.

It is a computer not a human player though. I wouldn't waste two units from a single galley landing on a hostile continent in the mediaeval era but the AI frequently does.

[Harovan]

Things I have already done, when I encountered the AI or barbarians approaching an undefended city (without a chance to get a defender there in time), or when I suffered combat results, that seemed, well, a bit rigged (although combat is fair, the AI has no bonus here):

- I hit my keyboard so hard with my right fist, that the "0" key of the numpad was stuck and didn't work anymore. I have a new keyboard now.
- I dumped down my phone (left of the screen) and speakers (to both sides).
- I pushed back my swivel chair, that it hit the table behind me and an open bottle full of beer fell on the rug.
- I yelled at the screen so loud, that my wife heard it through 3 closed doors and came to look if something happened to me.
- I called all AI civs, their leaders, Firaxis, its programmers and Infogrames with every name I can think of, in both English and German and so loud, that my wife asked me if I want to insult our neighbors.

I still consider reloading = cheating. It's well known, that the AI has no fog of war and sees all parts of the map it already has discovered, including all units. It's done, to give the AI a chance to be more competitive. Certainly better to have a total pushover as opponent. It's still easy and predictable. If one can't beat it, he should try another game.

[Carver]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Maybe oral sex is not sex,

It isn't.

But regarding AI omniscience, the strange thing is once they select a weak city for a target they seem to stick with that target, regardless.

In my current game I had an undefended city about 10 tiles inside my border. The peaceful English send a sole warrior on a march to the city. About 3 turns before he gets there, I fortify a knight in the city... but they still sneak attack me. Well, my knight won (with 1 hp left!).

Anyhow, that just seemed peculiar.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
- I hit my keyboard so hard with my right fist, that the "0" key of the numpad was stuck and didn't work anymore. I have a new keyboard now.
- I dumped down my phone (left of the screen) and speakers (to both sides).
- I pushed back my swivel chair, that it hit the table behind me and an open bottle full of beer fell on the rug.
- I yelled at the screen so loud, that my wife heard it through 3 closed doors and came to look if something happened to me.
- I called all AI civs, their leaders, Firaxis, its programmers and Infogrames with every name I can think of, in both English and German and so loud, that my wife asked me if I want to insult our neighbors.

- Spit a full mouth of scotch on my monitor... I forget what it was, but something over in the PTW PBEM forum.

[Pyrodrew]

In case you haven't discovered this (and I don't feel like debating this point, go read the other threads and experiment yourself if you don't agree,) any Civ you encounter, automatically knows every unit you have, all of your territory, and how well garrisoned your cities are.
since the AI has this advantage, I've concluded that it's fair.

If the AI was a human named Arthur Illegit, then I would agree. Otherwise, if you turn the tables are we the ones cheating?
1.The AI does not know how to use artillery offensively, so is it fair for the human to use it offensively?
2.The AI does not know how to place down it's Forbidden Palace. Imagine if your Forbidden Palace was randomly placed down & the AI could choose the best location... would that be fair?
3.The AI does not know how to optimize its play for the available victory conditions that are on to achieve... victory. Imagine if you planned to achieve Diplomatic victory only to find out in the modern age the UN could never be invented or be the AI Babylonians with tons of culture while culture flips & culture wins have been turned off.
etc.
etc.

All too often I see the AI's modern age 'stack of death' attempt to reach an unguarded city not on my front line. Attempting to reach an unguarded city may have worked fine in the ancient & medieval ages with mere roads, but in the modern age I can assemble all my artillery & units to slaughter these 'stacks of death' in the blink of an eye... if the AI had simply conquered a city or 2 of mine on the front line then use of my artillery & aircraft would damage my city/citizens, not to mention provide better defense for the AI... and the ability to raze it.
One could go on forever with all of the AI flaws.
Every game I start I wonder whether it would be more fair to remove artillery & the FP... the AI cheats don't make me feel as guilty for leaving them in.

[fittstim]

Everyone is giving nice reasons defending the AI's ability to "cheat". But people haven't addressed the real issue here: bad AI programming.

People who play at "deity" level usually stick to a typical game plan and modify things based on how the game plays out. Why isn't this programmed into the game (similar to the way Chess tactics are programmed into computers).

It's not that difficult to write a "Forbidden Palace" placement algorithm that would optimally place the FB based on the local conditions, size of the empire and possibilities to expand, etc. and which would then cause the AI civ to build the normal palace in another city in order to optimize the two effects.

[alva]

You are probably right (I'm not that familiar with AI programming ), but I can tell one thing:
If we want all those things, I doubt you be able to buy this game for less then 50€(vanilla one).

A gaming AI that is a good as a human will cost mucho dinero (if even possible with today's technollogy)

[Pyrodrew]

I'm not that familiar with AI programming

I am in the same boat, simply making due with what I have & realize the
AI Advantages/Cheats < AI Weaknesses/Problems.

It's not that difficult to write a "Forbidden Palace" placement algorithm

Since it's not that difficult, could you email a version or 2 to Firaxis/Soren (or post 1 in the Strategy Forum, which Soren sometimes visits)?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by fittstim
But people haven't addressed the real issue here: bad AI programming.

Actually, the real problem is the computer's lack of a brain.

[wilbill]

Swagled...

Whether save & load is cheating or not isn't the point as long as we're talking about a single player game. After all, if it's cheating, the only victims are you and the computer.

Here's how I deal with the ethical problem you've posed. I play two kinds of games - games for self-teaching and experimentation, when I'm moving up to a higher level or just want to try a new strategy, or a different map configuration than I usually use - and "real" games that I'm playing to win. In the first kind of game, I may save/reload several times just to see the results of changing my decisions. In the second type, I don't reload.

I think as you get past your initial frustration at finding out how the AI works, you'll find fewer situations that make you want to save/reload. Have fun with it!

[vmxa1]

Let me see if I follow the gist of this. The ai is dumb and needs to cheat, but people are crying because they are losing due to the cheating? Hum, seem like a contradiction to me. People that are beating the game are not concerned about the cheat.
Anyway, if they made an AI that was clever enough to deal with all of the tactics that people throw at it , we would all be cring about not being able to beat it and it would not sell very well.
I am not sure it could be done anyway, but if it was it would add a lot to the development time and cost.
Yes some of the holes could be plugged, but once the game was out the door, it could be hard to correct them, without breaking other things. It cost money to do that type of work and will not return any income to them.

[swagled]

WillBill, Fittstim:

I pretty much agree with your stand on reloading the game. A lot of my re-loads are attempts to understand better the effects of my choices.

Last night I was playing a game with 3 other civs, and I was in 2nd place. The #3 civ offers me a mutual protection pact. Decisions... Decisions... Would I rather help him out (and get dragged into a war), or rebuff him (and piss him off?)

I played the game both ways for an hour. In both cases the game ends with the #1 Civ hammering me... although I seemd to survive longer by rebuffing #3 and forming a temporary alliance with #1. The weak are the first to perish!

Another consideration with re-loads, is whether you preserve random seed. When you re-Load using unpreserved seeds, you can do things like explore the whole oceans with a single un-Lighthoused galley.

It sank? Try again.
It sank? Try again.
It sank? Try again. Aha! There's new land!

OK. I've resorted to this a few times. But I knew I really was cheating, because it was a cost-free gamble. I may as well have loaded the map into the editor and looked it over.

However, I would not consider it a cheat to build 8 galleys and send them off to their doom, just to get information. The AI may not do that, but that's the fault of the AI programming. It probably *should*.

Someone asked earlier if I thought it was a cheat to exploit weaknesses in the AI. In a way, I think it is. A good AI should have a mix of tactics and moods. You shouldn't know that "leaving an unprotected sttler on your border always draws the AI out to attack you", etc. This is a form of predictability, and it's predictability that is the achilles heel of computer play.

I.e., if the AI made suicide galleys, it shouldn't do it all the time. Maybe with *some* of the civs, *some* of the time....

[CTPFAN]

I would love to see an AI that would read and react to what a human player is doing. But as stated before, not sure how hard that would be.

I will say this about Civ3, the AI has often attacked me with large forces, not the little packs like in some RTS games like AOE2 for instance. You would think it would be easier to program a turnbased AI, since the AI doesnt have to react on the fly. But, I dont think the AI manages its economy as well as a human. So many cities, placed in the worst spots.....they never grow.

All that aside, I am enjoying the game....the AI provides a sufficient challenge, and does on occasion surprise me.

[Gwylim]

Like WilBill told: The victims are only you and the computer, so in my eyes it makes no sense anyway to speak about "cheating". It is part of the game and gives me the control over the game. I am wondering if the "non-save and load" people dont loose fun because they have to be very aware of everything all the times, especially on the upper two levels and on big maps (looking the other civs every turn, checking the cities every turn,...).
For me it is fun to play like if it was a game and not like if it was reality
...and anyway, without a good strategy you can reload 100 times and you will still lose...

[ACooper]

Is masturbation cheating on your spouse?


Don't worry about it, just lock the door before you reload.

[wilbill]

ACooper...

[Pyrodrew]

I am wondering if the "non-save and load" people dont loose fun because they have to be very aware of everything all the times, especially on the upper two levels and on big maps

You have it reverse. The "non-save and load" people do not "have to" be very aware of everything all times. If I make a mistake (like if I have a disorder in the 1st few turns of a game or lose a vital city) I say "oh well" & move on. By me moving on & not reloading I spend more time playing the game. If the actual reloading process is part of actual playing for you, we have very different versions of playing.

The "save and re-load" people also lose more fun since any drastic loss/defeat is not... drastic, simply a reload time. Retribution/Revenge against AIs for killing one's favorite city/unit it not as sweet simply because the reloader never lost the city/unit in the 1st place. Those who never reload are on a more dangerous level with no safety net (reloading) that reloaders have. Those who never reload also learn how to better deal with the aftermath of unexpected surprises (surprise attacks), which the reloader would just reload to avoid. Reloading is often simply a safety net which some need and depend on... and others do not. That aside, I'm all in favor of reloading for learning (aka "I wouldn't do this & I'll keep my regular game seperate, but lets see what happens if I did...")

[vmxa1]

Funny thing, on Might and Magic forum I had a dialog with some one that though reloading as many as 100 times to get what he wanted from a dead dragon or shops was just fine. How much time would that take anyway? I can hardly stand the load time it takes to start the game in the first place.

[Dis]

yes it is if you do it after an unsuccessful combat.

of course it's not cheating if you save the game, close it and come back a few hours or days later to resume playing

[peterfharris]

Would the AI be cheating if it reloaded after losing a battle?

OTH In a single player game who would care if the human cheated? The AI would not care! BTW I agree reloading is not a cheat. I just couldn't be bothered with reloading, waste of time and takes some of the uncertainty out of the game. If ones strategy is bad enough the reloading won't be of much help anyway.

[DrSpike]

If you reload every time something unplanned happens you remove the need to adapt, which is a key element in civ skill. Having said that, if reloading floats your boat, then by all means do so. You just wont be a very good players in many people's eyes.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by swagled
I came to this conclusion last night after learning more about how the AI works.

In case you haven't discovered this (and I don't feel like debating this point, go read the other threads and experiment yourself if you don't agree,) any Civ you encounter, automatically knows every unit you have, all of your territory, and how well garrisoned your cities are.

It's especially obvious when you have only one city on your coastline with a single spearman in it.... and the AI omnisciently decides to make a beachhead there... Try restoring a few moves earlier, move some units from the next city into it, leaving city "B" undefended... hmmm! Where does the invasion fleet go now?? It's as if there was radio communication to those frigates and galleons... the supreme commander has new orders for you!

If you had any grasp of strategy, you could use this to your advantage. Personally, I think it's great that I can influence where an AI invasion force will be concentrated. It makes it easier to defend against, and I really don't see the correlation between this and reloading. I think a better argument for reloading is that it makes you a better player. If things go horribly wrong at some point, then it is a good learning experience to go back to a previous save and see how any catastrophes can be avoided or at least lessened. But, don't brag about a 20,000 point deity win if you reload every time you make a mistake. Reloading is only cheating if you use it to beef up a GOTM or other competition game, or for a HOF game, or to misrepresent your skill level.

[spartak]

Why in God's name can an AI not be programmed that doesn't need unfair advantages to give it a chance?

[alva]

Since no one(not just Firaxis) has succeded in even coming close, me thinks it's an inny pitty wee more difficult then you think it is

[DrSpike]

Of course it is difficult.......how can an AI choose a different reaction to a new circumstance? It can't, the designers just have to consider lots of possibilities......there will always be ways to exploit AI.