Speeding up game with 100+ Civs

[jrhughes98]

Again, a simple solution: Allow a maximum of about 10 human players and about 90 AI's on a HUGE map (with units that can move around much faster than in Civ2). In the game setup you can choose the maximum number of human players you want, and the minimum and maximum number of AI's you want (for when tribes split apart, form federations, etc.).

Now of course we all know that human players are slower than the computer. Humans have to think; computers just "get up and go!" But some people have very slow computers, so to compromise an extra utility should come with the game that takes into account such things as the speed of your processor, the amount of system RAM you have, how much video memory you have, the speed/size of your hard disk, etc., and calculates the maximum number of tribes that your computer is capable of handling without having any problems.

Tah Da!

------------------
JRH

[Ralf]

Jrhughes98, your hopes for a 100+ civs on a gigantic map are absolutely hopeless to implement. Firaxis will never even TRY to realize this idea. NOT because they dont want to (and they dont), but because its simply is mathematically and AI-logistically impossible. Its really as simple as that.

At least those who limit themselfes to 12-18 AI-civs* have some distant hope to be realized. But *only* if BAB is implemented intelligently, *and* with some handy shortcut solutions (like the "Alien - eighth passenger" workaround). More of that in another threadh.

* S.Kroeze quote: "I am much in favour of a game with about 20 civilizations, major and minor; I also would recommend the concept of neutral cities/regions. Expansion by settlers (new colonies) should be the exception".

Well, S.Kroeze, maybe it wouldnt be at all impossible. I have same ideas that are currently in a fetus-stage, and you touched some of them. I will come back on this one.


Below is a cleanwrite from an earlier thread. Just ignore it if you already have read it.

------------------------------------------------------

Artificial Intelligence has ONE major advantage over humans, and that is a huge advantage in pure numbercrunching capability. AI-Programmers can use this to setup a bunch of expressions, conditions and variables - then letting a flood wave of oncoming tasks fall through a logical boolean maze, and repeatedly getting relevant and speedy task-solutions.
By comparison humans alone compare rather pathetically (but only in terms of speed, that is).

There is a snag, however (that tips the scale heavily back in favor of the human player):

Considering today’s computer- and programming-technology, above approach only works really outstanding if the world is relatively confined (like the 8x8 square-world of chess), the variables are simple (only black and white tiles/pieces, and only 6 of the latter) and the rules are few and distinct (I don’t know how many rules chess has, but they certainly aren’t many, and there is nothing fuzzy about them either).
If any of above three factors (world size, possible variables and rules complexity) - not to say all three of them, is added to, the AI: s ability to "analyze several moves ahead" and "follow a game plan", with "intuitive" and "long reaching" tactical maneuvers, is SEVERELY limited.
To rub salt into the wound most Civ game-sessions take place - not in 100% known setup-enviroments (like in campaign games) - but, instead on random computer-generated maps, not previously analysed by the AI-programmer.

Thankfully, no one asks for an IBM Deep Blue-AI in the upcoming CIV-3 game anyway. Still, many of the upgrade-suggestions found on Civ-forums often ask for the impossible - an almost human AI, that "schemes" several moves ahead, and then moves around hordes of coordinated army-units, with tactical brilliance.
Why is it impossible (and perhaps also unnecessary)? To understand this we have to come to grips with the principal difference between human (living) intelligence and artificial (dead) intelligence:

What the human Civ-player can do (and the AI simply cannot do) is to literally OVERVIEW (experience) the game situation, and, within a blink of an eye, sort out huge parts of not-so-promising strategic/tactic solutions, and instead concentrate directly (and only) on those very few plans and ideas that actually DO seem promising.
We can describe this as a "bird eye sort out" ability, something unique the living (in our case; human) intelligence.

By comparison, the game AI (or any silicon-based intelligence for that matter) is 100% dead and non-experiencing (of course). It lives in a 2-dimensional "flat" world, figuratively speaking - by that i mean it cannot possible "overview" anything.
In practice this means that if a Civ programmer tries to create something "almost human" in terms of AI-software, he is forced to write an AI that meticulously analyzes and evaluates all the myriads of possible combinations of choose-, build-, upgrade and move-possibilities that each civ in each and every individual game-turn has to offer, no matter how irrelevant or less promising 95% of these possibilities are.
The reason for the latter, is (again) the lack of an living "bird eye-sort out" ability. Because of this, the programmers has to gather ALL possibilities BEFORE they can let the software evaluate and rank any appropriate countermeasures.

Also - he has to program it to analyze each-and-every of these combinations; at least 3-4 game-turns AHEAD! (or "deep", using chess-language). Again, remember that the AI cannot "overview" anything from above. To compensate it has to take the "flat world" approach in order to gather constantly changing game-situation data. Like in computer-chess.
This is (as we all know) not that difficult to achieve then it comes to a relatively simple and clean-cut strategy (perhaps more tactical) game like chess. But, in a MUCH more complex and option-divided game like CIV-3; the massive amounts of calculations involved to mimic any hardcore human Civ-veteran playingstyle is absolutely staggering and mind-boggling. Today’s programming-technology is simply too primitive, and our home computers are, at present state, just too slow to achieve anything near this.

Thankfully however, the AI difficulties for the upcomming Civ-3 isnt necessarily so struggling that it first seems. There reason for this is:

One is that above comparison with chess is - to a certain degree, misleading. Chess is in some ways a very different beast than Civilization. Then playing chess it can be enough to do one (1) bad tactical move in order to loose the entire game. Provided that the opponent is good enough he can exploite that single rash mistake ruthlessly and grind you into submission. In this respect chess (at least on the higher levels) is perhaps a 95% tactical game and only about 5% strategical.
Playing a turnbased computer strategy-game like Civ is a different story. If the human (or the AI-) player makes a few unadviced unit-moves - so what? Nothing that drastic will happen, that cant be repaired in later stages of the game.
One could argue that Civ is a 95% strategical game, but only about 5% tactical (give or take). Above is actually good news in terms of AI-developing. This means that the Civ AI developers can concentrate most of their efforts on tinkering with the overall strategical logistics, rather then wasting (to much) time on trying to mimic the human pathfinding and unit-moving tactics.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 27, 2000).]

[chrispie]

Wow, some people post long here! That's great, love to see people getting really involved in this. Just to add my two pence worth, I think Civ3 will have 32 players total, that's all players, human AI and barbarians etc. Simply cos 32 divides into 8, the number of bits in a byte, just like the 8 total (7+1 barbarian) in Civ and Civ2.

[Builder]

I would go towards the 16 chrispie.

[Seeker]

This quote also had many responses to it, showing how Civ AI could be radically improved with a few simple tweaks.

My plan was for a few dozen simple "IF,THEN" lists of variables and responses that could allow the 'AI' to do such basic things as: build taskforces to capture cities, attack weakpoints, and defend strategic bottlenecks. You DON'T need some sort of cyborg to be a better Civ computer opponent, you just need to know what sort of tasks and routines you want the program to follow. As of now those routines are few in number, and simple (in number of variables) in scope.

An example where a simple tweak of something like an IF, THEN list of variables would help is 'destroyer syndrome'. The AI currently judges cost and defence strength, so it won't use them against Mech Inf at 6, but it will hurl endless streams of destroyers, one at a time, versus riflemen, when the chance of victory is approx 50%. This could be solved without inventing SkyNet by giving the AI a routine to run to attack coastal cities, which is to build x units of x attacking power versus y defenders at y defence power, move them, and have the survivors attack at once.

[Tim White]

I want at least 15 MORE civs to choose from in civ3. And at least 12 to play with at a time. I also want the AI to be smarter, like what Seeker had in mind. For example, defending strategic narrow passes, attacking in armies (not just a few minor battles over land), etc.

[Adm.Naismith]

Ralf, I emphatize with you: fans simply don't want to understand what they perfectly read, because the mind often mask the difference between our desire and the reality.

Oh, never mind!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[UltraSonix]

quote: I also want the AI to be smarter, like what Seeker had in mind. For example, defending strategic narrow passes, attacking in armies (not just a few minor battles over land), etc.

I have little faith that this can be done. (SMAC can be won by building a single city...)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...