The AI cheats on Noble, correct?

[NFIH]

I've seen people here assert that at Noble the AI gets no bonuses or negatives. However, I checked worldbuilder for the first time and that doesn't seem to be the case to me.

As all too often happens, I started a game (Epic, Noble, 11 AI, Pangea, domination/conquest/cultural victory, no barbs) and got Montezuma, Tokugawa, Caesar and Peter right next to me. Sigh.

Needless to say, I knew Monty would be attacking me soon, no matter what. Then Tokugawa would pile on and game over. But I decided to play it for a while anyway.

Sure enough, Monty declares war. (Caesar comes for me about three turns later--as if he and Monty are allies.) But I'm wondering, how does this clown have enough resources to not only build an army capable of invading me, but also have expanded to have MORE cities than me (never mind even). So I checked WB.

The guy not only has two to two-and-a-half more units than me at about 920 AD, but he's also got axes, catapults and elephants. This means he's outresearched me handily. But he's ALSO got more cities (most garrisoned with three units each) than me, meaning he's somehow escaped the early growth penalties and simultaneously built a large army.

So my question is this: how, WITHOUT bonuses, can an AI have all these things AT ONCE, whereas I must always do one or the other (e.g. growth or defence).

It seems to me that the AI at Noble DOES get bonuses of some sort

[rjwoer]

Noble is supposed to be the most neutral difficulty setting, but I believe that the AI "cheats" on all the difficulties--to a certain degree.

So, short answer: yes. I'll let someone else give the long answer (the wife has just arrived home, time to close my Internet browser).

[Metaliturtle]

Problem is, what the gamers want is an AI that experiments like a human, and although AI have been programmed that "evolve" when playing against themselves, it's only for very simple games like checkers and tic-tac-toe.

Using Tic-tac-toe as an example:

1st we must evaluate the game rules: Get 3 in a row, take turns, prevent opponent from getting 3 in a row.

2nd to make it "evolve" we need to store millions of games and keep statistics on each one until it knows the best move to make in any and all situations.

Realize that the board has 9 squares.

Checkers has 32 (64/2)

CIV has how many?

This is the only kind of AI that "doesn't cheat," and if I could create one that played CIV, I would be a multibillionairre. The computing power, programming know how, and dedication to the project that this would require wouldn't be worth what the game would cost.

AI "Cheating" in CIV seems to be set up around certain principles.

1. Humans are smarter than AI.
2. They are thus more efficient.
3. If an AI bonus hurts gameplay at every level then it is too powerful.
4. If AI weakness limit the amount a human can interact with various features of the game, then it shouldn't be in the game.
5. Gameplay supercedes history.

Several arguments can be formulated from these points.

Point 1: Humans are smarter than the CIV AI: To say that the AI cheats by getting extra units is then as absurd as the AI claiming you cheated for using your brain.

Point 2: Humans are more efficient than the CIV AI: If you're a good player you're outproducing the AI with some ease, because of this, bonuses for combat and against barbs are necessary to level the playing field at higher difficulties.

Point 3: If an AI bonus hurts gameplay at every level then it is too powerful. In CIV, AI gets bonuses against barb attacks, this is commonly cited as AI cheating, but the reality is that without it, raging barbs wouldn't be scary, dumb AI capitals would be getting razed more often, and humans wouldn't have the horror they now do when 5 axemen start creeping on your capital defended by 1 archer with a hill bonus.

Point 4: If AI weakens interaction with game features at every level... along the lines of number three, essentially, Firaxis made AI civs that favor religion, but rarely if ever is it impossible for the human to not get their hands on at least one holy city.

Point 5: The gameplay supercedes history. Think about this one, if the game were more historical, people may throw revolutions randomly, terrorists could just "appear" and other things of that nature (all ways the AI could cheat come to think about it) that are all absent in CIV. Enjoy the game for what it is.

The AI is programmed with a decent strategy, but in order to operate faster, and thus work better on slower machines, an evolutionary AI like you seem to want will not be feasable for a while. Instead, they take a processing saving shortcut that has been the industry standard in gaming, give it some bonuses to help even the field.

[Nugog]

Metaliturtle

Of course the AI "cheats"! Thats effectively how the game changes levels of difficulty.

The game would be dead boring if it didn't, or would cost squillions if the AI was so good it didn't have too!

[Chaos Theory]

Calling using your brain "cheating" is as wrong as calling posting in the forums for help "cheating". The AI plays by different rules than human players. This could reasonably be called cheating, if it weren't part of the game rules, out of the box. Thus, no one is cheating!

That said, I find some of the rule changes for the AI to have perhaps unforeseen consequences:

The AI gets huge bonuses vs barbarians. It's quite appropriate for the AI to get help vs barbarians, but barbarians shouldn't preferentially attack human players just because of that. That's a hidden human penalty vs barbarians.

The AI can upgrade units for greatly reduced costs. This has the effect of giving it a military tech lead, relative to where its technology really is. It also gives it a troublesome "sneak defense". I can't count how many times I've declared war on an AI, then shortly thereafter, seen all its archers change to longbowmen (or the like), killing my ability to conquer anything. A competent human player with resources to do that would have already ploughed them into development or a bigger army, so it's jarring to see an AI do something that is a good strategy for it, but a bad strategy for me.

[Urban Ranger]

The Noble level is the most balanced one, as neither side have significant advantages.

If the computer players are consistently doing better than you on this level I reckon it's more a problem with your play than anything else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Metaliturtle
1. Humans are smarter than AI.

Human intelligence is extremely difficult to compare with computers, because the two are exactly the opposite.

The human brain is a massively parallel machine consisted of neurons, which are slower than transistors. Our brain is capable of doing many things at once, although we can only consciously focus on one. This makes us excel at things such as visual processing and strategic thinking.

OTOH, a CPU in a modern PC can perform billions of instructions a second, but can only do things in sequence and only one at a time*. This makes it exceedingly good at crunching numbers. But crunching numbers do not translate well into the kind of fuzzy, simultaneous thinking required of strategy.



* Not exactly true anymore, but still works very well as an approximation.

[NFIH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Noble level is the most balanced one, as neither side have significant advantages.

So the AI on Noble does have some advantages, then? Do you know what, specifically?

If the computer players are consistently doing better than you on this level I reckon it's more a problem with your play than anything else.

They're not consistently better, just better in ways they could not possibly be unless they were getting some kinds of bonuses. Even at Noble.

The specifics are what I'm trying to determine.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by NFIH
So the AI on Noble does have some advantages, then? Do you know what, specifically?

You have some advantages and the computer players have some other advantages. If you want to know the exact settings take a peek at HandicapInfo.xml.

Originally posted by NFIH
They're not consistently better, just better in ways they could not possibly be unless they were getting some kinds of bonuses. Even at Noble.

The specifics are what I'm trying to determine.

The advantages are very slight, not sufficient to give them the sort of headstart over you that you described.

For example in 920AD you should have at least 4 or 5 cities. Maybe you could post a saved game over at the strategy section so others could take a look at your game.

[Blake]

The guy not only has two to two-and-a-half more units than me at about 920 AD, but he's also got axes, catapults and elephants. This means he's outresearched me handily. But he's ALSO got more cities (most garrisoned with three units each) than me, meaning he's somehow escaped the early growth penalties and simultaneously built a large army.

So my question is this: how, WITHOUT bonuses, can an AI have all these things AT ONCE, whereas I must always do one or the other (e.g. growth or defence).

So the AI has managed to get construction by 920AD? That is an impressive feat!... not. A competent human can have construction (elephants and pults) by 500BC (1000BC if they really try), along with supporting techs like Bronze Working, Pottery etc and maybe some religions for good measure like say Theology so they can all pop out at 6exp.

How do you think poor noble level Alexander AI feels when I hit him with a stack like this at just before 1AD? How big do you think my army would be by 920AD?


A skilled human will destroy noble AI's like they aint even there. A skill human will demolish Monarch AI's. A skilled human playing Inca will take down Deity AI's.
This is actually all due to one big human cheat.
The human has A Plan.

But I don't hear Alexander cry "Planning is cheating!".

Anyway the Noble level AI gets a few bonuses and penalties, the largest bonuses are the barb-combat and the lower unit upgrade costs.
But they pay more in unit upkeep. I think there's another upkeep they might pay more for too, possibly civic.

[One_more_turn]

By 920AD at Monarch level, I'm usually researching toward Liberalism, and by 1250AD, I'm usually mass-producing Cavalries.

[fani]

Let them cheat us as long as they fear us

[Urban Ranger]

They know no fear.







They know nothin'

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Blake
How do you think poor noble level Alexander AI feels when I hit him with a stack like this at just before 1AD? How big do you think my army would be by 920AD?

However Blake you are brilliant at this game, and some of us, like me, are not so brilliant

[fani]

Their ignorange of fear will be their undoing...

"Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger. "
Francis Quarles