The Civ V AI

[mkorin]

While at war, you enter a AIs diplomacy screen is says -for the good of our nations, let's put down our swords - or something meaining it wants peace. So, you click negotate peace and ask what he wants for peace and it says there is no way for that to happen.

[Jaybe]

So, you click negotate peace and ask what he wants for peace and it says there is no way for that to happen.

But if you had just selected Peace Treaty for Peace Treaty it might have been approved. I've seen that behavior in both civ4 & 5.
Just trying to help, not saying it's okay or anything.

[Dinner]

While at war, you enter a AIs diplomacy screen is says -for the good of our nations, let's put down our swords - or something meaining it wants peace. So, you click negotate peace and ask what he wants for peace and it says there is no way for that to happen.

Just more bad AI as far as I'm concerned.

[mkorin]

Jaybe, of course I tried that. I also like when you enter the diplomacy screen and the AI says, I know when I'm defeated and begs you for peace, but then won't even give you open borders, or 1 GP to buy you off.

Or

How come I have to pay cash to convince the AI to go to war with me, but it never even thinks of offering cash to me. That's playing by two sets of rules, which is how I define cheating.

Mike

[Dinner]

You want to see cheating? Look how the AI is allowed to run deficits but never has to disband units or how it gets to ignore unhappiness yet still grow and never face rebellions.

[mkorin]

It's too bad the programmers can't just make it harder without introducing cheats. Frankly, they shouldn't have 7 levels of difficulty if they only do it by adding more cheats.

Mike

[wodan11]

It's too bad the programmers can't just make it harder without introducing cheats. Frankly, they shouldn't have 7 levels of difficulty if they only do it by adding more cheats.

I don't know about that. Your argument seems more against cheats than against the number 7. I'm the first person to say the AI needs considerable effort but I don't know that cheats are intrinsically bad, other than that they might empower the programmers to do sloppy/unintelligent AI.

[MikeH]

The AI has to meet the joint constraints of not much processor power and taking reasonable time before your go.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the concept of cheats if it means I don't need a supercomputer that takes an hour to process each turn.

[Proteus_MST]

Exactly...
it depends a lot on the degrees of freedom you have in your game.

Just look at the difference between Chess and Go.
In the first, you have a very limited degree of freedom...
a very limited set of game pieces as well as a set of rules for every type of game piece.
In the 2nd you have much more freedoms,
as you have only few rules (making it easier to learn than chess)
but have only one type of game piece that can be put on any unoccupied tile of the 361 tiles of the game board.

Well, for chess we have computers that can beat grand masters.
For Go even the best computers / programs are only able to beat pupil levels.

And I assume it is fair to say that for Civ the degrees of freedom are much higher
(deciding which units to move where, which social policies to enact, what to buld/research and so on)

So cheating AIs are still a necessary evil, at least for complex games

[mkorin]

You all don't seem to be understanding my point. Bonuses such as extra guys to start, extra % in combat I can live with, if it is well defined in the rules, but if the AI gets to gameplay different than the player, it is a cheat that I can't stand. It would have been very simple to program different AI behavior into three levels, beginner, normal and advanced with some minor bonuses and just behavior changes to make the game fair and give it different levels of play. Yes, it would have taken more talented programmers, but not that hard. Personnally I think that the only way the game will ever get better is if whomever makes the decisions on how/what to program is a serious player. That is obviously not the cause given the incredibly stupid decisions that are made in the game. Having said that, the AI is better with the new patch, but still no where near where it sound have been when the game came out.

Mike

[wodan11]

Not disagreeing Mike, just wondering what basis you're using for such conclusions / claims such as:

It would have been very simple to program....

Yes, it would have taken more talented programmers, but not that hard.

still no where near where it should have been when the game came out.

[mkorin]

Wodan, that's fair. I'm a CIO for manufacturering firm. I've been programming for 36 years in probably over 40 languages. I put my first program on the internet in 7th grade, which was 1975, long before Al Gore 'invented' it. So, question my opinions, but not my bona fides.

When I say simple, that is relative to the entire program. If you're going to that extent, the modifications I mentioned would have been easy to program if they were designed for in the first place.

I promise, if I had ever put into production a program with as many major flaws as this one, I wouldn't have kept my job, probably because I would have fired myself.

Lastly, the key to a major programming event is the design and oversite. As I mentioned in another thread, whomever leads that team needs to be an addicted player, then we wouldn't have the very stupid things happening that are prevalent in this thread.

Lastly for real, I am a big supporter of the series and am not trying to bash anyone, I just feel there should have been a better job done in CIV V.


Mike

[MikeH]

This concept of three different difficulties of AI comes up after every Civ release it seems, certainly came up with Civ IV. But the problem isn't that you need easier levels of AI, it's that it's very difficult to make more challenging AI.

Even humans are finding it takes some time to adapt to the (necessary) balance tweaks after each patch. Problem with an AI for Civ is you really need the balancing all to be done first before you can tune the AI to take advantage of it but that's not how you develop the game.

I don't think the examples you cited are cheating BTW. Either the AI is not programmed to use those options (oversight) or they are weighted so lowly that it effectively never uses them.

So far I think the AI in CivV is better at offering me stuff, certainly to make peace, than the CivIV one was. I've already been tempted to make peace, where on CivIV they never offered me enough to make it even worth thinking about, unless it was so I could restock my forces.

(but I've only just got the game, so I haven't played a huge amount yet)

[rah]

Even humans are finding it takes some time to adapt to the (necessary) balance tweaks after each patch. Problem with an AI for Civ is you really need the balancing all to be done first before you can tune the AI to take advantage of it but that's not how you develop the game.

The best example of this was CIV IV when they nerfed siege units as a balance issue and changed it so a siege unit couldn't destroy a unit. NO one bothered to tell the AI and it continued to send stacks of JUST siege units into combat. There was nothing funnier than the transports would show up at your doorstep next to poorly defended city and after your initial panic the transports would drop off a stack of just siege units and they would be unable to take anything.

[MikeH]

Wasn't just the AI, we all did that right? (really should read the patch notes sometimes).