Save-and-Load is not cheating

[swagled]

I came to this conclusion last night after learning more about how the AI works.

In case you haven't discovered this (and I don't feel like debating this point, go read the other threads and experiment yourself if you don't agree,) any Civ you encounter, automatically knows every unit you have, all of your territory, and how well garrisoned your cities are.

It's especially obvious when you have only one city on your coastline with a single spearman in it.... and the AI omnisciently decides to make a beachhead there... Try restoring a few moves earlier, move some units from the next city into it, leaving city "B" undefended... hmmm! Where does the invasion fleet go now?? It's as if there was radio communication to those frigates and galleons... the supreme commander has new orders for you!

I used to think Save-and-Load was a cheap human gambit. But since the AI has this advantage, I've concluded that it's fair. I'm comfortable now realoding my games and trying to counter the "amazing" ability of the AI to find weak spots in my defense.

[alva]

Whatever tickles your fancy

For me!!, I think it is cheating, and never do it.
I have absolutely no problem with other people doing so (in SP)

And about the cheats your giving; these are well known, there only there to give the AI a chance.
You even could even say, to keep it interesting/challenging

[swagled]

Well I suppose another way of looking at it is to say that the AI was given this ability *because* humans can restore a game at any point and revise strategy.

If the only thing you could do was restore your game at the current year, I think the AI advantages would be much more unfair.

[vmxa1]

Sounds like a rationalization to me. Maybe oral sex is not sex, but I could never convince my ex of that.
Anyway the AI get this cheat as a handicap, no problem, it will still lose. Reloading will not change the out come of a given battle if you leave the RNG the way it comes (and do not alter you play). I play with the RNG as it comes and no autosaves, what ever you get you get.
Most of the post I see about this type of issue comes from games played at the lowest three levels and often at warlord. This is significant as it suggest that the players do not have the game strategies down yet. Not that the game is hard.
Funny how you do not see players at emperor or deity whining about this cheat.

[swagled]

I think that's because people playing at the highest levels have accepted that they're playing a computer, and are comfortable exploiting the weaknesses of computer strategy. (Especially the oddities of the diplomacy engine, how to "make wars happen", etc).

You're right in that I'm approaching it from the mentality of a Warlord-level human. I assumed the computer had to play like I did... that it didn't know what was in my cities. Or that once a "war plan" has been decided, it would follow it to a conclusion.

The fact that AI can change strategy, based on "hidden information" within my cities, is not something I had expected. I thought the AI made its decisions purely based on the visible features of the game, just like me.

I, as a human, might make a tactical decision to lightly defend some points on my map, under the assumption that I'm taking a "calculated risk". A human that attacks me would have to make an "educated guess" where to begin an assault. He might get lucky, or he might get mowed down.

But the AI knows that weak spot up front, and will always hit there (*if* it decides to attack). I think Save-and-Reload makes sense as a counterstrategy to this omniscience. I.e. if I had known that being a diplomatic neighbor wasn't enough, to keep the Civs at bay, I would have built more units.

Or maybe I'll just have to get used to building more military units, under the premise "you can never trust trade and diplomacy to protect you". But either way, it's clear that you can't treat the other Civs as playing with "human" information-gathering abilities, and the decisions that come with it.

[CerberusIV]

I'm trying to step up from Regent to Monarch and I now just accept that paranoia pays and never give the AI an even break. I do still save and reload but now only in the very early game (before about 3000BC). Popping a goody hut near your capital with your first warrior and getting three barbarians who beeline for the undefended city is hard to recover from.

It is a computer not a human player though. I wouldn't waste two units from a single galley landing on a hostile continent in the mediaeval era but the AI frequently does.

[Harovan]

Things I have already done, when I encountered the AI or barbarians approaching an undefended city (without a chance to get a defender there in time), or when I suffered combat results, that seemed, well, a bit rigged (although combat is fair, the AI has no bonus here):

- I hit my keyboard so hard with my right fist, that the "0" key of the numpad was stuck and didn't work anymore. I have a new keyboard now.
- I dumped down my phone (left of the screen) and speakers (to both sides).
- I pushed back my swivel chair, that it hit the table behind me and an open bottle full of beer fell on the rug.
- I yelled at the screen so loud, that my wife heard it through 3 closed doors and came to look if something happened to me.
- I called all AI civs, their leaders, Firaxis, its programmers and Infogrames with every name I can think of, in both English and German and so loud, that my wife asked me if I want to insult our neighbors.

I still consider reloading = cheating. It's well known, that the AI has no fog of war and sees all parts of the map it already has discovered, including all units. It's done, to give the AI a chance to be more competitive. Certainly better to have a total pushover as opponent. It's still easy and predictable. If one can't beat it, he should try another game.

[Carver]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Maybe oral sex is not sex,

It isn't.

But regarding AI omniscience, the strange thing is once they select a weak city for a target they seem to stick with that target, regardless.

In my current game I had an undefended city about 10 tiles inside my border. The peaceful English send a sole warrior on a march to the city. About 3 turns before he gets there, I fortify a knight in the city... but they still sneak attack me. Well, my knight won (with 1 hp left!).

Anyhow, that just seemed peculiar.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
- I hit my keyboard so hard with my right fist, that the "0" key of the numpad was stuck and didn't work anymore. I have a new keyboard now.
- I dumped down my phone (left of the screen) and speakers (to both sides).
- I pushed back my swivel chair, that it hit the table behind me and an open bottle full of beer fell on the rug.
- I yelled at the screen so loud, that my wife heard it through 3 closed doors and came to look if something happened to me.
- I called all AI civs, their leaders, Firaxis, its programmers and Infogrames with every name I can think of, in both English and German and so loud, that my wife asked me if I want to insult our neighbors.

- Spit a full mouth of scotch on my monitor... I forget what it was, but something over in the PTW PBEM forum.

[Pyrodrew]

Re: AI Bashings

In case you haven't discovered this (and I don't feel like debating this point, go read the other threads and experiment yourself if you don't agree,) any Civ you encounter, automatically knows every unit you have, all of your territory, and how well garrisoned your cities are.
since the AI has this advantage, I've concluded that it's fair.

If the AI was a human named Arthur Illegit, then I would agree. Otherwise, if you turn the tables are we the ones cheating?
1.The AI does not know how to use artillery offensively, so is it fair for the human to use it offensively?
2.The AI does not know how to place down it's Forbidden Palace. Imagine if your Forbidden Palace was randomly placed down & the AI could choose the best location... would that be fair?
3.The AI does not know how to optimize its play for the available victory conditions that are on to achieve... victory. Imagine if you planned to achieve Diplomatic victory only to find out in the modern age the UN could never be invented or be the AI Babylonians with tons of culture while culture flips & culture wins have been turned off.
etc.
etc.

All too often I see the AI's modern age 'stack of death' attempt to reach an unguarded city not on my front line. Attempting to reach an unguarded city may have worked fine in the ancient & medieval ages with mere roads, but in the modern age I can assemble all my artillery & units to slaughter these 'stacks of death' in the blink of an eye... if the AI had simply conquered a city or 2 of mine on the front line then use of my artillery & aircraft would damage my city/citizens, not to mention provide better defense for the AI... and the ability to raze it.
One could go on forever with all of the AI flaws.
Every game I start I wonder whether it would be more fair to remove artillery & the FP... the AI cheats don't make me feel as guilty for leaving them in.

[fittstim]

Everyone is giving nice reasons defending the AI's ability to "cheat". But people haven't addressed the real issue here: bad AI programming.

People who play at "deity" level usually stick to a typical game plan and modify things based on how the game plays out. Why isn't this programmed into the game (similar to the way Chess tactics are programmed into computers).

It's not that difficult to write a "Forbidden Palace" placement algorithm that would optimally place the FB based on the local conditions, size of the empire and possibilities to expand, etc. and which would then cause the AI civ to build the normal palace in another city in order to optimize the two effects.

[alva]

You are probably right (I'm not that familiar with AI programming ), but I can tell one thing:
If we want all those things, I doubt you be able to buy this game for less then 50€(vanilla one).

A gaming AI that is a good as a human will cost mucho dinero (if even possible with today's technollogy)

[Pyrodrew]

I'm not that familiar with AI programming

I am in the same boat, simply making due with what I have & realize the
AI Advantages/Cheats < AI Weaknesses/Problems.

It's not that difficult to write a "Forbidden Palace" placement algorithm

Since it's not that difficult, could you email a version or 2 to Firaxis/Soren (or post 1 in the Strategy Forum, which Soren sometimes visits)?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by fittstim
But people haven't addressed the real issue here: bad AI programming.

Actually, the real problem is the computer's lack of a brain.

[wilbill]

Swagled...

Whether save & load is cheating or not isn't the point as long as we're talking about a single player game. After all, if it's cheating, the only victims are you and the computer.

Here's how I deal with the ethical problem you've posed. I play two kinds of games - games for self-teaching and experimentation, when I'm moving up to a higher level or just want to try a new strategy, or a different map configuration than I usually use - and "real" games that I'm playing to win. In the first kind of game, I may save/reload several times just to see the results of changing my decisions. In the second type, I don't reload.

I think as you get past your initial frustration at finding out how the AI works, you'll find fewer situations that make you want to save/reload. Have fun with it!