Ok, word: The AI gets cost cheats at nearly every difficulty level:

[yin26]

Well, for the record, I don't mind that the AI gets bonuses. It's just that when preparing to review a game, for example, it really helps to understand what the AI is capable of doing and why. Also, when gamers see the AI pulling ahead on Noble, I've often defended the AI (mainly on another board) by saying: "The AI is just playing better than you are."

While that is probably also the case, the AI is indeed getting bonuses on a level that the manual, intentionally or not, says no such bonuses are given (at least on those few items mentioned in that section, I suppose). So to my way of thinking, this was just sloppy grammar, ignorance on the part of the manual writer, shifting AI rules when the game was in development, honest mistake, or a very misguided attempt to make the AI look better. I doubt it's the latter, frankly, as Firaxis makes the code so easy to see.

Anyway, I'm glad I know the situation better now.

[yin26]

I do now see in the game launch screen that Noble is called "the most balanced" setting. I had read that, via the manual language, to mean "balanced."

Of course, "most balanced" clearly does not mean just "balanced." Fine by me, but I wish this had been more evident earlier. No big deal.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by dearmad
Uh... yes.

Is this like EU inflation or something...

[Sirian]

Originally posted by yin26
I am quoting the manual, page 167:



Thus, Sirian must correct himself. This is NOT that same thing as "Noble is described as 'The level where conditions are closest to player and AI having identical conditions.'"

Sirian?

I'm glad you quoted the whole passage, because all of the items singled out in that passage are indeed "fair" between human and AI at Noble. Then you highlight one sentence and yes, if read by itself, it would be misleading, but as part of the paragraph it is not incorrect.

*shrug*

If -I- said anything misleading on the topic, it would have had to have been a long time ago, before I became aware that some economic handicaps were in place at all levels.

I didn't find out until very late in the process that Noble still had some things tipped on the economic side. I'm still not convinced that this is the best way to manage the difficulty level handicaps (the poster who pointed out that by definition the AI must be lacking in these areas is correct) but Soren only listens to about 85% to 90% of my advice. ... Which is good on the whole, since there have clearly been times where we disagreed that he turned out to be more right than I did.


I don't think the last chapter has yet been written on the AI and the difficulty settings and handicaps. The AI may (may) yet get more work, and then if it does, the system will need to adjust again.

There is also the wild card of what modders will do once the SDK is out, and what impact that may have.


- Sirian

[Handel]

Originally posted by MattPilot


... i think we will need to demote you from emperor to something ... uhm.... lower

Maybe not. One of the greatest China emperors was very dumb concerning the economics. He caused the first hyper-inflation and counterfeighted his own money

[opaque]

I see absolutely no problem with giving the AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels in order to make it harder. Is there really an alternative? The people that say the AI should be written better really just don't get it I don't think. While I'm sure there is room for improvement, it will ALWAYS need bonuses until the point that the game is in development for five years with non-stop work on the AI and half hour process times between turns.

This is my opinion because I like to be challenged by the AI, whether that's because it plays well, gets bonuses, or both. Obviously, playing well is the better solution, but I like to play up to the moment I win or I'm wiped off the face of the planet. I don't quit because I'm being beaten by the AI.

If I wanted even more of a challenge from the AI, I wouldn't hesitate to turn its bonuses up some more. I don't see the big problem with them.

[duodecimal]

Inflation isn't inflation, it's really just corruption. It's based on your empire's size and the amount of turns into the game you're at. Aside from reducing maintenance expenses, there's no way to affect the rate, according to Trip.

If it was really 'inflation', it would affect more than just the civics/maintenance costs (particularly, gold rushing costs should be affected, as well as the gold costs of all things when they're value weighted).

[dearmad]

Wow, reading comprehension is low for a lot (not all) of you:

My original post: NO complaints regarding bonuses. Complaint was regarding the notion many people hold that the AI is balanced identically to the human at Noble when it is not. This affects playing style and modding ideas.

Also many of you get a failing grade on this part: The AI isn't given MORE bonuses *only* as it goes up in levels, it gets some BIG bonuses at ALL levels of play.

It's sad how many post to threads without bothering to comprehend the original tone and/or topic, but whatever. This isn't about an arguement or accusation, so get your defensive hackles down, doggies...

My OP was meant to alert those of you with reading comprehension skills that as you mod and/or play a game, infer the following:

AI will not experience war weariness and will NOT be paying to support its troops on foreign lands at any difficulty level in a way you would expect. This affects how *I* play the game- I don't expect the AI's economy to collapse at ANY time no matter HOW Long the war before mine... it doesn't face the same rules as I do.

AI will have cash resources to upgrade more units than the human player faster- if you can just get the AI to DO it that is.

AI will not be bowled over by barbarians in the same way the human might- as it has steep advantages.

AI will not pay for civics as the human will.

AI will not face late game inflation like a human player might, at any level of difficulty. (This a good one to help it handle the more complex warfare of the modern age)

[Krill]

-Ab-
couldnt the AI be modeled on the strategys these strong players use

Well, seeing as most humans can't do what the top level players do, I would answer that you have no idea of what you are asking. No, the AI can't be modelled to play exactly like somone who has had decades to learn how to improvise, and can learn from all of his or her past games. The AI can't learn, and so can't improve naturally, like all other players.

Handicapping, and cheating, are two completely separate things. Handicapping I can live with. Cheating, meh

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by duodecimal
Inflation isn't inflation, it's really just corruption. It's based on your empire's size and the amount of turns into the game you're at. Aside from reducing maintenance expenses, there's no way to affect the rate, according to Trip.

Oh, you just mean the costs you pay for each extra city. That's not inflation!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by dearmad
Wow, reading comprehension is low for a lot (not all) of you:

My original post: NO complaints regarding bonuses. Complaint was regarding the notion many people hold that the AI is balanced identically to the human at Noble when it is not. This affects playing style and modding ideas.

Also many of you get a failing grade on this part: The AI isn't given MORE bonuses *only* as it goes up in levels, it gets some BIG bonuses at ALL levels of play.

It's sad how many post to threads without bothering to comprehend the original tone and/or topic, but whatever. This isn't about an arguement or accusation, so get your defensive hackles down, doggies...

I take it you don't read /.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by duodecimal

Is it bad? No. But just because it is extremely difficult to create an AI that can perform as well as a competent human doesn't mean it's not cheating to bend the rules for that AI. Rules is rules, and if you're not playing by the same rules, you're cheating.

When I was little, my father was a lot better at chess than I was. In order to have games that were reasonably even, he would start without a queen or a rook, setting up a game that I could win if I didn't make too many mistakes but could lose if I did. I don't view that sort of thing as cheating because it was agreed to by both sides and was necessary to make for a competitive game.

My only real objection to the advantages AIs get is that I think they should be documented more clearly. If players know the advantages the AIs get, we can feel like we've agreed to accept the differences in rules, and we can factor the differences into our strategy. But when we aren't told, it feels a lot more like cheating because it's hard to feel like we've agreed to accept disadvantages we haven't been informed about, and it's harder to plan strategy when we don't understand the rules our opponents are playing by.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Oh, you just mean the costs you pay for each extra city. That's not inflation!

Kuciwalker, check your finance advisor (F2 I believe?).
In addition to the city maintenance costs, there is a sum called "inflation" that you (we) have to pay. This sum is smaller in the early ages and it becomes bigger and bigger as the game evolves.
I have no idea how it's calculated, maybe it's based on the city maintenance costs or something else too, but it certainly depends on which turn you're at.

[wattro]

problem isn't cheating, it's the AI is weak

the problem isn't that the AI cheats, it's that the game cheats to compensate for a very weak AI. (bah, the term AI is non-existant in this game)

the ultimate goal is to build an AI that optimizes achieving victory conditions. build multiple strategies for this (one or two for each victory condition) and assign them to empires at the start of each game. (CPU A wants cultural victory)

the ai also needs to balance the realistic achievability of its ultimate victory condition against the likelihood of achieving those and change ultimate strategies as necessary (CPU A wants Cultural Victory, Player A is ahead in Cultural Victory Race, CPU B is nearing Space Race Victory; CPU A targets CPU B and Player A)

at deity mode, this should be 100% efficient in obtaining their victory. as the difficulty levels move down, there should be an introduction of fallibility in matcing the AIs current objectives versus its long term goal. (CPU A wants cultural victory; on deity it quickly pursues 7 religions, on chieftan it slowly pursues 7 religions)

[Lucilla]

wattro,

take a course in software development, get a job at Firaxis with your brilliant ideas and then sell us the ultimate game.
Then we have something to lough about.
I notice, that this is your first post. Makes me think that this might be a....DL?