Yes - It's More AI CHEATING!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Level
If you pay attention you can tell also but you can't start a war with it.

hi ,

that is true , ...

what is really intresting is to make a unit like a destroyer "flagged" , ......

like a modern day highjacker , ....héhéh

there should be a modern unit that allows special missions , however the true identity should have a chance of getting discovered in 10 - 20 %

that would rock !

have a nice day

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Grumbold


That was my point - the game is intellectually challenging, not intellectually challenged. So some people understandably feel that, with the much stronger AI in the latest Civ game, that there is no need for it to play in an annoying style or by different rules to the human opponent.

The AI plays by the same rules except for having some small bits of knowledge that we don't.

For example not respecting your borders for at least a few turns after agreeing to retreat.

How that heck does that constitute a cheat? You can do the same thing. I certainly do upon occasion.

Areas where it seems the AI is cheating are therefore especially hot topics and produce a lot of extreme language on both sides. Kicking someone for not having savegame proof or using the emotive language like 'whining' is hardly helpful.

Making unsupportable claims is not helpfull. Correcting erroneous claims is helpfull.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Galvatron
Well I can back this statement 100% the AI cheats like hell it's even more than in Civ II.

Tick tock, tick tock.

We are waiting for the evidence.

Tick tock. Tick tock.


I won't hold my breath.

Furthermore the AI is overly aggressive: They reject my demands all the time, they often declare war due to minor incidents (e.g. some very small demands from my side) and in the end you are being hatred by the whole world.

That was satire wasn't it? Please tell you were joking. You make demands and have the gall to complain that the AI gets annoyed. I get annoyed when they make demands so why shouldn't they?

I assume the AI is special programmed to hamper the human civ whenever possible.

Bad assumption. It does not match the available evidence. As far as I can tell the AI doesn't even know I am different from the other civs.

You claim to be able to support this stuff. Please do so.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ethelred
The AI plays by the same rules except for having some small bits of knowledge that we don't.

That depends on how (in)significant you believe the knowledge of terrain, resources, unit locations and suchlike are. We are ignoring production, happiness, tech cost and other benefits that are affected by the difficulty level, but sometimes players can suspect cheating when they first see the effect those can have.

The way in which the production phase is split from the rest of the player turn also causes confusion. The way it is coded the AI effectively gets a "cheat" in that it can capture a city and get 1 turn of production before you can respond but you do not get the same advantage. I'll be interested to see what happens in PtW about this. If it stays the same then the players later in the sequence (if not playing some form of simultaneous) will have an advantage over earlier in the sequence.

How that heck does that constitute a cheat? You can do the same thing. I certainly do upon occasion.

Persistent border incursion was an example of the annoying behaviour. I do occasionally enter the AI territory for a set purpose, but I know I have to be out within 2 turns or be kicked out. The AI expect to be allowed to march for indefinite periods across your land, and not just when it is intending to go to war.

Making unsupportable claims is not helpful. Correcting erroneous claims is helpful.

It all depends on the language used. For example the Civfanatics thread lists some cheats as suspected but unconfirmed. Thats a lot more helpful than aggressively shooting down in flames anyone that cannot provide a before and after savegame.

[Panag]

hi ,

the only cheat that was confirmed was the that the AI sees the whole map , ...

so is the rest then a group of bugs , ....

or just simply stuff that is never calculated to begin with when the game is build , ....

have a nice day

[Level]

As I said in one of the other IA cheat thread
The AI folows the rules (if you give automate to all units you can see it), The only cheats have to do with difficulty level (which are in the rules) and how the AI gets information, as the computer has to have all information and the AI is the computer so they have to set what the AI knows.
The AI can't see the map so it has to Know the map, the AI can't guess what you will accept so it has to Know what you can, the AI can't rember what you did last turn and it can't plan a sratagy so it has to know where your units are and where you are weakest, There are more like this I can't think of right now.
The AI also knows everything it can do and does it (pop rush when you start a war, how to trade tech, etc.) and it doesn't miss anything (can't forget to wake a unit, can't press space at the wrong time, etc.).

So to make the AI smarter it has to know less and make more mistakes.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Grumbold


The way in which the production phase is split from the rest of the player turn also causes confusion. The way it is coded the AI effectively gets a "cheat" in that it can capture a city and get 1 turn of production before you can respond but you do not get the same advantage. I'll be interested to see what happens in PtW about this. If it stays the same then the players later in the sequence (if not playing some form of simultaneous) will have an advantage over earlier in the sequence.

I would argue that your example gets it backwards - it is a human advantage in SP, IMHO; and the player who gets to go first in PtW will enjoy the same advantage.

Although the later player gets an opporunity to rush an improvement (most likely unit) and/or draft a unit (after Nationalism), I would argue that this is not so tremendous an advantage - rushing requires no resistors, and drafting generates an unfortified conscript - an advantage yes, but a very small advantage.

On the other hand, the player who gets to go first in the queue will be free to use his or her Great Leaders to rush wonders without fear of wasting them. Imagine you're player 2; unbeknownst to you, player 1 either: (i) generates a GL and immediately uses it to rush Sistine Chapel, or (ii) has finally gotten his normal build of Sistine Chapel down to 1 turn; during your turn, you generate a GL and also rush Sistine Chapel; production turns roll around and lo and behold, you get the pop-up that player 1 has built the Sistine Chapel; better have another wonder available for a production switch or you just used that GL for a university / courthouse / whatever

Imagine if the turn order was reversed in SP. How many threads of "AI Cheating!" would we have already seen after wasted GL wonder rushes?

Unless they figure out how to deal with "burned GLs" in PtW, (i) I expect players will have to agree to act honorably so that the player 2's of the world can say via chat: "I have a GL; I am going to rush Sistine; please confirm that no one has Sistine down to 1 turn;" or (ii) I expect to hear howls of protest from the player 2's of the world . . .

Catt

[Theseus]

I'd think it would be relatively easy to do than in code... the rushing of a GW just simply wouldn't be allowed if some other player were 1 turn away from completion.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'd think it would be relatively easy to do than in code... the rushing of a GW just simply wouldn't be allowed if some other player were 1 turn away from completion.

hi ,

, well no , why , simple , because we rush it also sometimes , .....

have a nice day

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'd think it would be relatively easy to do than in code... the rushing of a GW just simply wouldn't be allowed if some other player were 1 turn away from completion.

One would think.