Understanding Firaxis's programmers.

[BillChin]

Re: Understanding Firaxis's programmers.

Originally posted by Spectator
Posted by Nathan on another forum and I re-used it to make a point

Civ 3 is a complex game. How complex? Compare it with chess, which itself was a tough nut for AI design teams to crack.
...

Further, a game like Civ 3 has a huge "rock, scissors, paper" element in which a strategy that works great against an opponent who plays one way can be awful if the other side makes different choices.
...
I very much hope Firaxis keeps working to improve the Civ 3 AI. But anyone who expects an AI that can even stay within shouting distance of a top human player in a game as complex as Civ 3 without a lot of advantages is being unrealistic.

Nathan

I agree and disagree. I believe Civ III is a relatively simple game especially when compared to chess. I am a novice player (only three months in). I taught my 14 year-old nephew how to play a half-decent game of Civ III in a day. He was struggling on Warlord difficulty and now can crush Regent difficulty consistently. There is little chance that a three month chess player can play a decent game, much less teach someone else. Even a great chess coach would have a hard time teaching a novice player how to play a half-decent game of chess in a day.

Looking at the number of pieces and the size of the map frames the problem in a difficult way. I prefer to look at what the computer can do easily and build upon that.

I agree with the Rock, Scissors, Paper element of Civ III. Good point.

The Civ III AI is decent. It can beat 20% of casual players. Look at the many threads from players wanting basic help. I believe with a doubling or tripling of AI resources, Firaxis could get the AI up another 20% to beat about 40% of players. Unfortunately, marketing would likely veto such a budgeting decision. Many humans do not want a better AI. They find it frustrating and makes them want to toss the CD in the garbage.

No publisher is going to sign up for higher costs and fewer customers. I believe the AI problem is primarily a matter of marketing and budgeting. With enough resources, I am sure Firaxis could come up with a good AI. Good defined as an AI that can beat 80% of casual players on an even playing field. However, the overall budget might be 50% higher (maybe 10x or 20x more for AI) and the customer base 20% smaller.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Nathan has created an incredibly well written point here, and I totally agree with him. Firaxis has done the best job they could given the time and resources they had, and I'm satisfied with what they have produced in CIV3.

I don't think we will see better computer AI for a quite some time. No AI will be comparable to a human player until software engineers are able to figure out how the human brain works, particularly how the brain uses existing knowledge to create new thoughts.

However, I do believe that once scientists have figured out the basic functions of the brain, they will be able to mimic those functions. At that point, AI will program itself, just like a baby learns basic skills just through trial and error. I think that if scientists can figure out how to make AI teach itself, even something simple, and give it a strong sense of curiosity, AI should develop the ability to store skills and then use them later for other, more complicated tasks. Without the skill to learn, AI will never be better than what we have today, because a programmer can only code so much.

[WarpStorm]

Re: Re: Understanding Firaxis's programmers.

Originally posted by BillChin


I agree and disagree. I believe Civ III is a relatively simple game especially when compared to chess. I am a novice player (only three months in). I taught my 14 year-old nephew how to play a half-decent game of Civ III in a day. He was struggling on Warlord difficulty and now can crush Regent difficulty consistently. There is little chance that a three month chess player can play a decent game, much less teach someone else. Even a great chess coach would have a hard time teaching a novice player how to play a half-decent game of chess in a day.

Ah, but could your 14 year old nephew beat one of the players who regularly plays on Emperor or Diety? Compare apples to apples. The Civ AI is fairly easily exploited at all difficulty levels due to the complexity of system.

[Spiffor]

I don't think chess is more complex than Civ3, it's more a "simple-and-elegant" game, where a very basic design makes it for a great replayability. But Chess, unlike Civ3, is multiplayer since its invention. Had you a clumsy AI (some Chess video games are a joke), you'll teach you nephew to beat it in less than 2 weeks.
I'm not saying that Civ3's AI is clumsy, I consider it as the most advanced AI ever seen in an empire building game. I'm saying that it is much more complex for an AI to handle. But if your nephew was to play against a deity-beater on a MP session, you'd probably think he would need much time to play a decent game.

[WarpStorm]

Spiffor,

You said what I was trying to say, but yours came out much better.

[BillChin]

Re: Re: Re: Understanding Firaxis's programmers.

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Ah, but could your 14 year old nephew beat one of the players who regularly plays on Emperor or Diety? Compare apples to apples. The Civ AI is fairly easily exploited at all difficulty levels due to the complexity of system.

He'd have a shot due to the Rock, Paper, Scissors nature of Civ III. In a seven game series, he might win one game and maybe two if he gets some great starting positions.

My main point is that a better AI is more of a budgeting and marketing problem then a technical problem. I am confident that with enough resources, time and budget, a good AI can be delivered. Unfortunately this may increase the overall budget by 50% and cause much of the customer base to become frustrated. In my opinion, this equation of more costs and fewer customers is the biggest stumbling block to a better AI, not technical factors. People that say it can not be done with the current technology are misguided. It can be done, but at what cost, and with what approach.

My favored approach is a scripting language that lets the fan base direct the AI. Have the game randomly choose from available scripts at the start of the game. Due to the Rock, Paper, Scissors nature of Civ III, a player will lose every now and again. Good scripts will be copied and improved upon. Bad scripts will be weeded out very quickly. This Darwinism will produce a good AI. Again, good defined as one that can defeat 80% of casual players on a level playing field.

"Nothing we do is hard, we make it hard."

[Sze]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I agree with you that the AI can do some strange things at inopportune times.

Perhaps I played a Civ2 that was different than the one you played. In the Civ2 that I played, I found that, among other things, the AI could not use caravans or spies effectively, at least no where near what a human could, would send slow streams of units that I could take apart piece by piece, never seriously threatening me and I could go on and on.

Sure, the AI in civ3 does some odd things, but really, I can't begin to compare the abiliity of the AI to that of Civ2. The challenge is much greater for me now. No more invincible howitzer rushes at the end, thank god.

The AI is programmed to build as many cities as it can and attack in numbers. Really those are the only improvements made to the AI.

Oh wait I forgot, the AI can manipulate spies better; and caravans; and it can get around a ZOC blockade better; and it can use air bases more effectively; and it can manage home cities better; and it can terraform better; and ...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Sze


The AI is programmed to build as many cities as it can and attack in numbers. Really those are the only improvements made to the AI.

I think thats a pretty significant improvement in the game, you do not? For me it changes the AI from a patsy (in Civ2) into something that is more competitive

Originally posted by Sze

Oh wait I forgot, the AI can manipulate spies better; and caravans; and it can get around a ZOC blockade better; and it can use air bases more effectively; and it can manage home cities better; and it can terraform better; and ...

Thankfully, neither the AI nor myself have to bother with those anymore. Though airbases would be alright to have back, as would some limited terraforming.

Have you actually played Civ3 (it seems many of people who complain of the game actually have little or no experience with it)? The AI IS better than in Civ2. Whether this is because of the streamlined trade and spying or because the AI expands rapidly and is more able to attack, I don't care, it makes the game more challenging (for me) and thus more enjoyable. This doesn't mean that the AI will not do dumb things, but the AI in civ 2 did some inane things as well. What about the polar fortresses? Very effective to prevent circling the world by land. And I'm sure that for every critisism of civ3's ai you have, i could find one for civ2, if prompted, but I don't think its necessary.

[Coracle]

The AI being programmed to build cities - as many cities as possible EVERYWHERE - is NOT an improvement. It is asinine and a big joke.

The AI will spend its limited resources building settlers that it dispatches to every open tile it knows of - and it knows of most of them as the AI cheats and clearly can see the whole map.

It settles in deserts, tundra, and deep into a rival civ's territory where the town will eventually likely Culture Flip (another crock). The AI will send a settler wandering across enemy territory right past enemy cavalry to try to settle the open tile where the just razed city was! I saw the AI do that three times in a row, and each time I destroyed the settler and its pathetic foot soldier escort.

The AI shows how STUPID it is when it tries for turn after turn to get to those four open tiles in the middle of my kingdom (which they should not even know of) and I just keep moving warriors to block him. Another waste of resources and time by the AI.

The diarrhea of settlers flooding the map is intensely irritating. None too smart, either.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Coracle
The AI being programmed to build cities - as many cities as possible EVERYWHERE - is NOT an improvement. It is asinine and a big joke.

So I take it you would call the ICS of Civ2 asinine and a big joke as well, eh? I certainly would myself, I tried it once and never bothered again. But I also think that it makes the AI in Civ3 more difficult to handle, as you have to expand rapidly to secure land for later resources. I fail to see how this attribute of the AI is a joke.

[/QUOTE]
The AI will spend its limited resources building settlers that it dispatches to every open tile it knows of - and it knows of most of them as the AI cheats and clearly can see the whole map.
[/QUOTE]

I have seen games where the AI never fills in the entire map. Of course, I play on huge maps either continents or pangea, where there is more than enough land to go around.

[/QUOTE]
It settles in deserts, tundra, and deep into a rival civ's territory where the town will eventually likely Culture Flip (another crock). The AI will send a settler wandering across enemy territory right past enemy cavalry to try to settle the open tile where the just razed city was! I saw the AI do that three times in a row, and each time I destroyed the settler and its pathetic foot soldier escort.

The AI shows how STUPID it is when it tries for turn after turn to get to those four open tiles in the middle of my kingdom (which they should not even know of) and I just keep moving warriors to block him. Another waste of resources and time by the AI.
[/QUOTE]


The diarrhea of settlers flooding the map is intensely irritating. None too smart, either. [/QUOTE]

It has been said by others on this site, that if the AI is irritating, you. it is probably doing something right.

While there are definately problems with the AI, and I agree with you in part, I think that it is an improvement over Civ2.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

You've seen spots unfilled by AI cities? What level? After I raze a city, its a guarentee theat every AI civ with a settler anywhere near will immediately be rushing towards the open spot. thats ok by me, my units use them as cannon fodder

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
You've seen spots unfilled by AI cities? What level? After I raze a city, its a guarentee theat every AI civ with a settler anywhere near will immediately be rushing towards the open spot. thats ok by me, my units use them as cannon fodder

I usually play on monarch or on emperor, but like I said, I usually play huge pangea, which often do get filled, eventually. But I have seen times where this doesn't happen. It also depends on how many civs I'm up against. of course, the more civs you have, the more likely there is to be no open land, but playing against a modest number, there may be.

[PatLasch]

Originally posted by Coracle

It settles in deserts, tundra, and deep into a rival civ's territory where the town will eventually likely Culture Flip (another crock). The AI will send a settler wandering across enemy territory right past enemy cavalry to try to settle the open tile where the just razed city was! I saw the AI do that three times in a row, and each time I destroyed the settler and its pathetic foot soldier escort.

Maybe the AI is planning for a culture flip to put you over the optimal city limit. And into corruption.

[The Thinker]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

It has been said by others on this site, that if the AI is irritating, you. it is probably doing something right..

Declaring war on someone who has been an ally for a thousand years and is 10 times your size, more veterans that you have units, and money to burn, thus ending a trade of luxury for luxury plus gold is not right, but it is irritating.

Rik

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The Thinker


Declaring war on someone who has been an ally for a thousand years and is 10 times your size, more veterans that you have units, and money to burn, thus ending a trade of luxury for luxury plus gold is not right, but it is irritating.

Rik

That does sound quite irritating, though if I was as large as you, I would be glad for the opportunity to take the luxury off their hands.

but, you're right, that doesn't make sense. if that is "not right", well, I don't know if I would go that far. were you at war with other countries? perhaps they were bought out by another power?