What is up with all the cheating by the computer

[MosesPresley]

I guess I should add, the ROP thing is the only cheat I have witnessed.

[Theseus]

Is ROP rape a cheat? (if that's what you mean)

I've done it, when desperate...

Hey, Coracle: I saw a long time ago that you are very proficient and know what you're talking about... PTW 1.14, much less all of the previous patches / updates, is a game that I think you would like. Please try it.

[MosesPresley]

What I'm talking about is when the AI violates an ROP agreement and then they are still able to maintain and get new ROP's with other AI civs without a substantial penalty.

[bongo]

MosesPresley , there may be a penalty, you are just unable to see it. OTH I have no problem with making deals with an untrustworthy backstabber, I just make sure to take precautions.

There is no magic involved with the transport appearing out of the blue with an instant city onboard. I have seen lots of AI transports with readymade settlers and infantry, just waiting for someone to clear some land.

[theNiceOne]

Coracle is completely correct when it comes to AI and map knowledge. The AI knows the map and whether there is free valuable terrain in any direction before it has seen it. This has been acknowledged by Firaxis, and I can prove it with custom made map if you want to (or rather search for a thread called "The complete cheat guide" over at CFC.

But I see that Coracle ignores my post where I clearly states why his other claims are wrong. I can understand that, because I couldn't resist the not-too-nice temptation of making fun of him when he argued that the AI must cheat since it outgrows him on regent. That was cheap, but human

Anyway, if Coracle really means that the AI cheats by producing extra settlers, then I challenge him to post a self-made map. It is very easy to create a map with two identical islands, one with a human player and one with an AI player. Then add one scout to each side on the opponent's island so it will be easy to watch. If the AI cheated, then this scenario would easily prove it.

My point is that most cheats would be very easy to discover and prove. So cheat claims by Coracle and other should be accompanied by such a map.

For the record, I made such a map to test whether the AI really knew the map before exploration, and it proved that it knew both all terrain and the location of all (future) resources.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by theNiceOne
Coracle is completely correct when it comes to AI and map knowledge. The AI knows the map and whether there is free valuable terrain in any direction before it has seen it. This has been acknowledged by Firaxis, and I can prove it with custom made map if you want to (or rather search for a thread called "The complete cheat guide" over at CFC.

Excellent job on your thread "The complete cheat guide" at CFC. Great research, as well. I do not have time for controlled tests, so it is very helpful when you (and others) take the time to determine these facets of the game. Thank you! Oh, and I did take note of the "X-Island" experiment.

Now, quoting from the thread:

"Knowledge cheats
I still think some of the map information is hidden to it as the AI seems to come faster with settlers after having bought my map."

This matches my experience. Of course the computer knows the map, but how it allows the AI personality to use this information varies depending on the situation. It certainly uses knowledge of the map -- even the black areas -- when deciding where to explore. This is a requirement of the very simple algorithms used to simulate intelligent behavior.

Nevertheless, I have colonized islands without interference from the AI -- unless I give them the map. They apparently don't know where the island is until they explore it. (But when they do find it, the Galley will no doubt have a Settler on board.) In the (very near) future, with improvements in algorithms and computer power, these compromises may not be necessary.

Still, don't give up your maps cheaply. But assume the AI knows the map anyway.

(Hypothesis: Units on exploration (E-mode) will find huts quicker.)

[vmxa1]

"The development team went to great pains to make sure that if you play and make the same

decissions as an AI opponent, given the same conditions, your game and the AI's game would be

absolutely identical. So, if you think the AI is cheating you, it's just a case of sour grapes

on your part."

This says it all. What ever RoP action the AI does, it is the same for you. Just becasue you do not see the consequences, does not mean there are none. You can violate RoP and later bribe enough to get more deals, it just costs you. Also as the game develops, the AI has to be more flexible with bad behavior as its options are limited. I mean that if there ar 4 players left and one has jobbed you, you may still have to make deals with them under some conditions. Whats the AI's choice?
Anyway the game does not know you from another AI and must treat you and the AI's the same.

"The AI in civilization III cannot differentiate bewteen the human player and other AI players, so the
AI can't gang up on you just because you are the human."
The quotes are right out of the PTW guide.

[Catt]

@vmxa1 - no offense but the strat guide is chock full of errors, omissions and "views" taken out of context. It is not a reliable reference on the game. At least so I am led to believe based upon the comments posted based on the strat guide (since I don't have a copy). Just in the last few days I've seen people postiong that the strat guide says: (1) captured workers cost maintenence, and (2) cruise missles are very effective when loaded on carriers.

With respect to the two points you're quoting, they are "true" but taken a bit out of context. There are no "cheats" other than the map knowledge which Firaxis has acknowledged before (and that cheat is not present in order to "give the AI a fighting chance" as some people claim, but rather as a programming and design descision, IIRC). I believe that there is some degree of confusion about how much, if at all, "reputation" affects AI to AI deals, but certainly not a "cheat" IMHO.

The "AI doesn't know if you're human or AI" came from a quote by Soren and was, IIRC, directly related to a poster's view that the AI would gang up on the human (not true). But, there is at least one aspect of gameplay where the AI "knows" whether you are human or AI -- when trading and when using the AI-AI Trade Rate which is exposed in the editor. Again confirmed by Soren, the trade rate factor means that in certain cases the AI will make better deals with an AI civ than with the human civ. Not a cheat, just an AI handicap / advantage -- but it does serve to illustrate that the specific quote shouldn't be interpreted to be a blanket statement on the AI performance.

No one should bother to debate Coracle. Anything he doesn't like (including features and game concepts) is labeled a bug or a cheat, both here and at CFC.

Catt

[Catt]

BTW - especially for TheNiceOne - great thread at CFC. With respect to AI map knowledge, I still don't fully understand the full range of AI map knowledge. I did a similar test to your X map test and posted my hazily recollected thoughts in another thread not too long ago.

Here was that post:

I hate to throw a small wrinkle into the discussion, but I'm not entirely convinced that the AI knows which resource will appear where, nor am I convinced that it places a tremendously high value on "known" future resources. In other words, I believe that the AI knows that a particular tile is very valuable, but doesn't know that it is valuable because of an iron, coal, or uranium resource will some day appear.

My theory is that the AI assigns a value to each tile on the map, and seeks out high value tiles. Resources (even as yet unknown resources) constitute one of the factors in tile value, but not the end-all be-all.

I came to this tentative conclusion after reading about an editor test originally done by TheNiceOne at CFC, which I reproduced with variations on my own. Here's how I conducted the test: I built a map consisting of two islands - one small for me and one nearby and somewhat larger for the AI. The AI's island was all grassland and was covered in RR for ease of movement. I started the AI in the center of its larger island with 2 settlers. The AI built a city in the center location, but then had to choose where next to place its second city. At each corner of AI island, I included a fish and a whale, so that the AI would be drawn to the corners. At this point, all corners were "equal" with the same proportion of shielded grassland and fish/whales and so all represented equally attractive city sites. Now, for each quick test, I placed a future resource like iron, coal, rubber, uranium, etc. at different corners. I also modified corners so that the corner with iron might not have a whale or might have no shielded grassland, etc. I don't recall the full and exact results of the testing, but the principal noteworthy (to me) results included: (1) sometimes better terrain and bonus resources (fish/whales) trumped any strategic resource every time (i.e., as an example, perhaps shielded grassland w/o iron was viewed more favorably than plain grassland with iron in the city radius); (2) the AI either didn't know which resource would later appear, or valued the reource in an odd fashion -- i.e., one would think iron, a critcal resource available very early in the game, would be more valuable than uranium or aluminum -- both important but not available for thousands of years (assuming survival ).

So, in the end, I concluded for myself that the AI knows which tiles are valuabel, but either doesn;t understand why they are valuable or doesn't value them as a human player might with the same foreknowledge.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Catt
... the strat guide is chock full of errors, omissions and "views" taken out of context.
...

No bleepin' bleep!

The PTW strat guide is so full of misinformation, that I am going to raise a stink about it to both the store and Prima.

[djafrot]

Regarding the "cheat" that the AI knows where everything is on the board. There are two reasons why I think this may not be true at the lower levels.

a) If I attack an enemy civ in a particular place, the enemy will move all of its forces there in defense, leaving the rest of its civ wide open (although loaded with infantry or whatever inside cities).

b) invariably when the other civ's start to run out of space, they start to want to trade maps with me. I assume this is to find more places to settle...

could there be another reason for this?

[player1]

From my gaiming experince,
If AI doesn't have your map, your unsetteled territories are safe.

But, when he gets the map, he starts setteling them as soon as possibile.

This is especily true for isolated island, which you have charted, while AI doesn't know were they are.

This leads to belive that AI settles only territory he which ha has already charted in his map.

[vmxa1]

Catt, those are the only two that are germain. I did not see any where that it said they cost maint, but it could have. LIke you said those two points have been backed up by the designers on this board. I did not put them in for Coracle, I know he is just looking for attention, but for ohters that come behind and think he has a point. I do not even believe him when he says he can not keep up with the AI on Regent, that makes no sense.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
If you only knew Coracle.

Umh, after a bit more reading of various threads I see your point.

I therefore withdraw my remark with apologies.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by peterfharris


Umh, after a bit more reading of various threads I see your point.

I therefore withdraw my remark with apologies.

Hey, no problem.