Artificial Intelligence or Plain Cheating?

JanB · February 15, 2003, 17:21

You've probably talked about the computer AI till you're sick of it. Still, currently I'm sick of the game which is totally unlike me as I've played these games avidly for years! What's wrong? Well:

1) Computer civs usually attack cities that are badly defended. If I load in the same game and move units about thereby weakening a different city while strengthing the one previously attacked, they attack the weakened city instead.

2) Is there something in the game that gives computer players superhuman strength? I can easily lose 5/6 units of superior attacking strength and higher tech to theirs while they don't lose any. A bit akin to the archer shooting down my bomber!

3) Can I stop the game constantly dodging around to the next unit instead of fixing on the fight in hand? I don't like losing but I suppose that I might as well watch it!

4) Somebody said they completed diety!!!! Didn't they have any opponents!!!

PLEASE HELP - I'm FED UP!!!

Jan

CerberusIV · February 15, 2003, 18:32

1) The AI "knows" the map once it has been revealed and what units are where. This is the only acknowledged cheat.

Either don't let the AI have your map or get used to it. You can use this to manipulate the AI into marching back and forth without getting to actually attack a city.

2) Look at the terrain and experience modifiers. An archer attacking a fortified spearman on grassland isn't 2 against 2. The spearman gets a bonus for being fortified and a 10% defence bonus on grassland. Defensive bonuses are higher in cities.

Use bombardment units to weaken defenders. Use fast units that can retreat and survive. Make sure you are using veteran units (build barracks) as they are significantly stronger than regulars. Sometimes you will just lose. Be prepared for it and have a plan 'B'.

3) I don't think you can slow the game down.

4) Any game is beatable I suppose, it depends how hard you are prepared to go at it. If you can cope with Regent/Monarch that is quite reasonable - that is the level I play at and enjoy.

Sheik · February 15, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

1) Computer civs usually attack cities that are badly defended. If I load in the same game and move units about thereby weakening a different city while strengthing the one previously attacked, they attack the weakened city instead.

Right click on their unit stacks and you too can see how many they have on the tile.

Quote:

2) Is there something in the game that gives computer players superhuman strength? I can easily lose 5/6 units of superior attacking strength and higher tech to theirs while they don't lose any. A bit akin to the archer shooting down my bomber!

A stroke of bad luck or improper unit placement on your part. Although sometimes it seems like the AI has a battle advantage (and maybe it does) remember that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Quote:

3) Can I stop the game constantly dodging around to the next unit instead of fixing on the fight in hand? I don't like losing but I suppose that I might as well watch it!

Check prefrences and see if you have anything you could change. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

4) Somebody said they completed diety!!!! Didn't they have any opponents!!!

Many people beat Diety regularly and yes they play with oponents. What level are you playing?

BTW Regent is considered the fair level.

Inverse Icarus · February 15, 2003, 21:46

Shiek, that doesnt work in cities

Sheik · February 15, 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Shiek, that doesnt work in cities

They should add that in the next patch.

WarpStorm · February 15, 2003, 23:38

No, they shouldn't. This information is available if you are willing to pay for it. This is as it should be.

vmxa1 · February 16, 2003, 00:23

JanB the board if replete with the means to play the game and beat it at any level. I prefer EMP now, but I have beat Deity many times, it is just not as much fun.
Most people do not manage tiles and workers well and give up too much. See master Crackers post on that subject. He has links to the article all ove the board and it can be found at Civfanatics.
You need to view battles as a continuim, over the long haul better units and tactics will win, in the short term bad rolls can cause some battles to go badly.
Over whelming forces and combined arms will get the job done.

PLATO · February 16, 2003, 03:18

Quote:

No, they shouldn't. This information is available if you are willing to pay for it. This is as it should be.

Warpstorm: I agree. I do think that the AI should have to pay also to see this info. Perhaps that is what needs to be addressed in a future patch.

I agree with JanB that the AI being able to identify your weakest city is an unfair advantage when you have to pay to see all their cities to be able to determine which is the weakest.

vmxa1 · February 16, 2003, 04:32

It is a small thing and can be used against them if you like. Anyway the designers felt the AI needed this boost and are unlikely to address it.
Any serious tweaks to the AI are going to require a ton of testing and I am sure that is not in the budget.

WarpStorm · February 16, 2003, 11:16

vmxa1 is correct. Soren, the main AI programmer on CIv3 has said that this is the one area where the AI 'doesn't play by the rules'. He said it was too hard to get the AI to effectively wage a war without it. They don't have the ability to remember troop movements through the fog, compile intelligence data, and make good conjectures on where the axis of the war is going.

I don't see this ever being changed in Civ3.

Theseus · February 16, 2003, 17:02

JanB, try the Strategy forum.

We'll help.

JanB · February 16, 2003, 17:44

Thankyou for all your helpful comments.

1) I hadn't realized that swapping territory maps gave computer civs such an advantage. No more!

2) Good idea about giving them the run around and I will try this.

3) Obviously I need to use the defense bonus of hills etc. Have been wooly about this.

4) The computer doesn't 'watch' battles but goes to the next unit awaiting instructions so that I'm never where it's at. Could this be changed?

5) Finding civs such as Babylonian & Persian very aggressive despite not being militaristic. Seems worse in multiplayer which is almost constant battling.

What happened to culture?

Overall, I find computer civ aggression is worse in multiplayer although I have only played a game or two so no vast experience!

I must read the strategy forum and work on my fighting tactics and try to improve. How could I have thought that I hated Civ?!

Mad Mariner · February 17, 2003, 10:46

Im pretty new to the civ series having spent the last 200 yrs or so playing the command and conquer games, the thing that finally put me off these games was the AI cheating, it seems it was the only way the designers could actually make it give a human player a decent fight (even then it was rubbish), now getting to the point, i wanted to check this issue when i started to play civ lll so i started a game on deity as the scandanavians learnt a couple of techs then stuck a trainer on the game so i could get navigation to see how the AI was getting on, they were located pretty close to me and wow! they were huge!!! i had about 3 cities whilst they had all completely covered the HUGE landmasses they were sited on how is this possible? Would i be right in assuming this is another example of the AI cheating to be able to give u a half decent game? It would be a shame if this is the case coz the game seems pretty decent from what ive seen of it so far. Can anyone suggest any games that the AI is superb WITHOUT cheating that are worth a bash?

WarpStorm · February 17, 2003, 10:52

MM, have you tried Civ3 at Regent where it doesn't cheat much (only the aforementioned map cheat)? You say you started out at diety using a trainer. The AI gets a major price break on all purchases at that level. Try working your way up.

Mad Mariner · February 17, 2003, 12:15

Nope aint tried regent yet but thanx to ure advice im now gonna give it a go, im not too bothered about the map cheat its more fun for the Ai to seize the resources then for little old me to go and bash em off the tiles, will regent be a challenge tho?

Dominae · February 17, 2003, 13:18

Funny that in RTS games like C&C, the designers have to add weaknesses to the AI to make the game fun, since the AI is so good at doing thing in real-time. But in TBS games like Civ3, the designers need to add bonuses to the AI to make it competitive. Both types of AIs are equally dumb, it's just that one is allowed to use a computer's inherent advantage over humans, speed, while the other cannot.

No one is complaining about the RTS method, why complain about the TBS one? They're both tools to create a more fun, competitive game.

Dominae

PLATO · February 17, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

He said it was too hard to get the AI to effectively wage a war without it. They don't have the ability to remember troop movements through the fog, compile intelligence data, and make good conjectures on where the axis of the war is going.

Given these facts, it should not be changed.

JanB · February 17, 2003, 14:25

The human player has the advantage of lateral thinking but the AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail. That seems a fair match to me. I don't see why the AI needs to know how many units there are in a human players cities. The AI plays to its own rules anyway.

PLATO · February 17, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail. That seems a fair match to me.

Quote:

Soren, the main AI programmer on CIv3 has said that this is the one area where the AI 'doesn't play by the rules'. He said it was too hard to get the AI to effectively wage a war without it. They don't have the ability to remember troop movements through the fog

JanB: I think you would be correct if thw AI did have the memory of details, but apparently it does not. This may be a case when having technology cheat is the only way to stay competitive with the Human Mind. I would rather have a cheating AI than a Boring game. Just look at it as an additional challenge to overcome.

Dominae · February 17, 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by JanB
The human player has the advantage of lateral thinking but the AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail.

Good human players rarely forget details, and those things forgotten are irrelevant. Deity difficulty is supposed to challenge human players who are capable of "perfect play".

Dominae

JanB · February 17, 2003, 17:23

That's probably where I go wrong - I lack Dedication to Detail!!

I enjoy a good battle but am not patient enough to consider how I can position myself on a hill to attack the opponent without them attacking me before I get to the hill! Do you get that?

Perhaps I'm not bright enough - no comments thankyou!

Master Zen · February 17, 2003, 17:50

You could also mod the dificulty levels and take away the AI's cheats (like starting with 2 settler, a 160 trade rate, extra production etc.).

WIthout these cheats the AI ain't that fearsome at first, but it's still a much better warmonger than in the lower difficulty levels.

Personally I don't like it when the AI is only better at me if it cheats. I don't consider it chivalrious to get my ass whooped by someone who didn't play by the rules.

So now I'm gonna play at Deity and kick it's ass!!

Dominae · February 17, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
You could also mod the dificulty levels and take away the AI's cheats (like starting with 2 settler, a 160 trade rate, extra production etc.).

So now I'm gonna play at Deity and kick it's ass!!

I hope you realise that by removing the AI's "cheats" at Deity, you're beating the game at Deity level in name only, since the AI itself is exactly the same from difficulty to difficulty.

Dominae

JanB · February 18, 2003, 06:31

I suppose that it says a lot for Civ that some of us feel very peeved about the AI 'cheating'! It's a game that feels very real and becomes very personal. Got to be good.

CerberusIV · February 18, 2003, 06:34

JanB; You mentioned the screen shifts to the next unit so you don't see the outcome of a battle. Do you have unit animations turned off in the preferences screen? If the units are shooting, swordfighting or whatever there is usually time to see what is going on.

Just a thought.

JanB · February 18, 2003, 06:55

Cerberus IV, I think everything is turned on (except the music!) but I will check that out. Thankyou.

Jan

Mad Mariner · February 19, 2003, 10:13

Surely tho there must be people out there who are capable of programing the A.I well enough to give u a good game without allowing it to "cheat"? i can imagine how much time and effort goes into designing something like the civ series but it just smacks of laziness if the only way the A.I gets more difficult is by allowing beneficial multipliers and extra units at start up

PLATO · February 19, 2003, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Mariner
Surely tho there must be people out there who are capable of programing the A.I well enough to give u a good game without allowing it to "cheat"? i can imagine how much time and effort goes into designing something like the civ series but it just smacks of laziness if the only way the A.I gets more difficult is by allowing beneficial multipliers and extra units at start up

I suppose that it is possible, but the number of variables to consider could make cost prohibitive. A well planned cheat would probable cost much less and achieve the same result.

Remember, the AI is trying to compete with the most devious and unpredictable computer ever designed: the human mind.

player1 · February 19, 2003, 13:24

As far as I can see the curent version of Civ3 AI gives a good game for casual players.

Some even compalin that it's too much difficult.

Of course higher level are supposed to be reserved for experts, which can explit any AI weakness.

That why there are cheats at higher levels.

Dominae · February 19, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Mariner
Surely tho there must be people out there who are capable of programing the A.I well enough to give u a good game without allowing it to "cheat"?

Surely. But enter the term "cost/benefit analysis". If Firaxis can get away with a good game with the aid of only only one (very capable) AI programmer, that makes a lot of sense. The trick is to "cut corners" by letting the AI "cheat". Without this trick, no single person could code the Civ3 AI in the timeframe required by the publishers. It is an interesting exercise to wonder whether a four-person AI team would produce a more competitive "cheatless" AI than a one person is allowed to "cut corners".

Similarly with the 'Deep Blue' chess program (and variants). That program was designed to beat one person. That's an "AI cheat" if I've ever seen one. The task of building a general chess program that will beat anyone was simply not undertaken, since it was only necessary to beat one person (the current world champion) to win the competition. Within that framework, "cheats" are acceptable. Within the framework of creating a comeptitive Civ3 AI, "cheats" are just fine too.

Dominae