Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Perhaps because the AI remains in its peaceful "REX" phase (or something like it) until the OCN is reached. Once its empire is fully "fleshed out", it enters "production" or "military" phase, and looks for reasons to pick fights.

Originally posted by alexman
This for sure is true if the AI is under the OCN and has room to expand.

AU 202? Seems that more than a few of us experienced AI aggression well before the REX phase was even half over (I know, I know, there is more than just OCN considerations in AI aggression ).

But seriously, with the use of a modified OCN the only significant departure from what one might otherwise expect (that I've heard of) is an AI ending the REX phase despite available land.

Catt

[Dominae]

I'd help out alexman, but AU202 put me way back in my schoolwork. I'm eagerly awaiting the results though (my AU202 game could have benefitted from a Killer AI...).

Edit: I just thought of a simple test. Put 2 equally aggressive civs on a very small island and play with the OCN (some tests at around 5, some at around 50). The differene between the overall AI behaviours should become apparent...


Dominae

[Tharsonius]

alexman: how did you test it? Is there a way to set up a game with only AI-players?

[alexman]

I gave myself a 1-tile island and played in debug mode. Join the worker, set production to wealth, remove all animations, and press enter for 20 minutes!

[Dominae]

alexman, here's an improvement on your methodology: put a heavy object (a small paperweight will do) on the Enter key. Although this may not improve results, it could actually allow for more tests to be run (due to lower boredom factor). Hope this helps.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman
PS. Any help to get more data would be appreciated.

I'll help . Haven't tried debug mode yet, and despite my concerns re: OCCing and its effect on the sample, it probably makes sense to get lots of easy samples at 20 min a pop before rolling it out to a wider test in full game mode.

I'll try and do an OCC side-by-side tonight if I can get the time.

Catt

EDIT: at Dominae. I had a slightly diffferent boredom-reduction plan. Beer and Monday Night Football. Lots of beer.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
EDIT: at Dominae. I had a slightly diffferent boredom-reduction plan. Beer and Monday Night Football. Lots of beer.

Oh I get it: you're going to rest your beer on the Enter key! Smart thinking...




Dominae

[Theseus]

Great discussion guys!

(And thanks for chiming in Soren, but you need to be a little less opaque )

My first efforts at generating killer AI civs, based solely on game settings, were ultimately predicated on the theory that differing starting conditions would create 'rich' and 'poor' AI civs, and that there would be a self-reinforcing loop where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Two comments, given all that's been learned since then:

1) I think the changes to AI civ behavior to date, including both ours and Soren's, will contribute to this taking place. Better mining, for instance, will increase the performance gap between an AI civ gifted with shielded grassland and one stuck with jungle.

2) But that doesn't get the AI civs to exploit relative advantage... or at least we don;t know what does. The whole impetus for me originally was the frustration at discovering a new continent equally divided by however many AI civs, when one of them clearly could have pulled an Arrian Deception ( ).

Hmmm...

What are the drivers for AI civ aggression / expansion:
* Resources (I almost always play 3B under the theory that clumping will somehow help)
* Aggression rating
* Military strength
* OCN and room (don;t forget this interplays with map settings too)

Soren at the time suggested giving the AI civs room, and thus time, to more fully develop in order to become killers. I'm guessing that he thinks increasing OCN in the same situation will just result in increased REXing.

With all due respect, Soren, I think you are missing what we are trying to accomplish. It's not that we are looking for more *successful* civs... I think our mutual improvements will already do that, especially for those blessed with good starting environments.

It's OK with me if an AI civ REXes more, in fact I'm sure it's better for the ones with good starting environments... I just want to know that when the rich meet the poor, the rich kick some f-cking ass. To me, that says:

AU Mod and PTW 1.14
125% OCN (maybe even 150%)
60-70% water
1 civ less than max
3 billion
Wet

[Theseus]

Regarding testing, could someone play with this idea:

* OCC for the human

* Squarish main continent with 3-4 AI civs

* Design the map to give each civ wildly different starting conditions, including terrain and resources (i.e., rich and poor)

* Variables to test would be # of useable land tiles per civ and OCN.

Set beer can on Enter.

There's got to be a balancing point between the 'success' of the AI civs and the rich taking advantage of their relative strength.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Regarding testing, could someone play with this idea:

* OCC for the human

* Squarish main continent with 3-4 AI civs

* Design the map to give each civ wildly different starting conditions, including terrain and resources (i.e., rich and poor)

* Variables to test would be # of useable land tiles per civ and OCN.

Set beer can on Enter.

There's got to be a balancing point between the 'success' of the AI civs and the rich taking advantage of their relative strength.

Well . . . [looking down one's nose], we won't be setting our beer can on Enter. We might be persuaded to occasionally tap enter with the fine rounded end of our ale bottle or pint. [/looking down one's nose]

My thoughts are running the other way -- with a random start, or with a more or less equal start, I'd like to get a sense on whether increased OCN does actually produce a greater proclivity towards "killer-ness" or at least towards more aggressive exploitation of advantage. The self-reinforcing loop should naturally follow (although use of "should" in a complex environment is risky in and of itself). Part of the reason I am disinclined to test with starting positions whose characteristics are clearly disimilar is that I think you were on to something with the 3B world maps -- clumping of terrain features necessarily means that starting positions offer different inherent values -- and that the advantageous start is more likely to produce a Killer AI than other tweaks we've played with. But map features themselves haven't seemed to produce the "killer instinct" needed to exploit relative advantage.

My hope is that a test from random conditions (with some degree of natural variation, of course) together with an increased OCN will produce a proclivity towards "killer instinct." If true, then map variations, combined with the "killer instinct" mod, should produce a Killer AI through the strengthening of the self-reinforcing advantage of a favorable starting position.

Now I will open another ale and proceed to press Enter repeatedly (and then play some AU 202).

Catt

EDIT: Completely forgot to make clear my main concern . Given Soren's concern about our OCN idea, I would like to isolate whether it actually produces more aggression or not. If yes, then I think it adds to the likelihood of creating Killer AIs (building on natural advantages). If not, then we need not go further, nor be confused by a "non-Killer AI" simply using its inherent advantages to look "killer" in a random (not necessarily repeatable) fashion.

[Jaybe]

ENTER Key: Doesn't it work to
Change Prefs to Not Wait At End Of Turn?

I disagree with the premise that the AI builds predominately more mines with 1.14. Just haven't seen it in my games. Not AU, no mods to AI build prefs, just a few unit changes and OCN at +50%.

[alexman]

Jaybe, for some reason no wait at the end of the turn doesn't work. Maybe because if it did, since I was producing Wealth, I wouldn't be able to do anything to stop the game until it ended!

I don't believe PTW 1.14 changed the AI's desire to irrigate in general. The irrigation is partly a result of the AI's inability to use the luxury slider and needing more food to support entertainers, so it wouldn't be to its advantage to stop irrigating anyway. What 1.14f fixed was that the AI no longer unnecessarily irrigates grassland tiles in Despotism. This improves its production big time in the Ancient age.

I ran another test last night (beer or no beer on the enter key, it's still boring, and takes way longer than 20 minutes when the AI are at war BTW), and the higher OCN didn't seem to increase aggressiveness this time.

It seems that the AI becomes more aggressive (because it wants to use all the units being built instead of settlers) once it runs out of room to expand, or when it reaches the OCN, whichever comes first.

If the map is such that the OCN is reached when there is still room to expand (which is rarely the case when you play with the maximum number of civs), the AI will actually become more aggressive by reducing the OCN, as Soren suggested. If room runs out before the OCN is reached (which is usually the case when you play with maximum civs), increasing the OCN looks like it doesn't affect the AI's aggression.

If this is indeed the case, I still think that the AI would benefit from increasing the OCN because a) the game has less corruption than when Soren first established that the AI should stop expanding at the OCN, and b) the AI rarely expands enough to win by domination.

However, under Theseus' settings for a Killer AI (one less civ than max) the increased OCN would make the AI spend more time REXing instead of building units and infrastructure to attack its neighbors. Is that what we want?

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Dominae


Why?

Perhaps because the AI remains in its peaceful "REX" phase (or something like it) until the OCN is reached. Once its empire is fully "fleshed out", it enters "production" or "military" phase, and looks for reasons to pick fights. Thus, the OCN and AI aggressiveness may be inversely related (at least indirectly). Just a guess, though.


Dominae

more or less, this is true. Once the land grab phase is over, the OCN's biggest influence on the AI is whether they decide to raze or capture cities (which is also influenced by other factors...)

[BRC]

more or less, this is true. Once the land grab phase is over, the OCN's biggest influence on the AI is whether they decide to raze or capture cities (which is also influenced by other factors...)

A question for Soren: If an AI is trimmed back to half the OCN later on in the game, and there are still open city spots, will the AI revert to it's REX or will it continue in it's "production" phase?

If someone else knows the answer, just throw it down. Don't need to waste Soren's time.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
A question for Soren: If an AI is trimmed back to half the OCN later on in the game, and there are still open city spots, will the AI revert to it's REX or will it continue in it's "production" phase?

The "REX" and "production" phases are just guesses, by the way (the AI always seems to be looking for new land to colonize, although maybe this has something to do with excess Settlers). To answer your question, an AI civ that gets knocked down to a few cities will expand again if land is available (or else Domination would be a lot easier!). I have no idea if this has anything to do with the various phases.


Dominae