How about making the AI fight fair?

[Father Beast]

Having read the discussion on bugs in the "poll" thread, I realize, as DaveV said, that many of the bugs are design decisions - like the settler cheat in civ1.

Now there is another list of things the AI does to keep ahead of the game. it's here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/HT...tml?date=08:38

compiled by SilverDragon

things like how the AI doesn't worry about pollution, never has a democracy fall no matter how long their cities are in disorder, and the well documented fact that roads and irrigation simply "grow" on AI contolled land.

My favorite absurd story is of the guy who discovered a tile with roads and irrigation WITH A HUT ON IT!

I realize that almost all of these must be design decisions. like how enemy civs in civ1 were simply "given" Wonders of The World.
But They did fix that in civ2.
I wonder what is the possibilty that most of these AI cheats will be "fixed" in civ3, and players can look forward to more realistic competition against the AI
[This message has been edited by Father Beast (edited March 18, 2001).]

[Henrik]

quote: nd the well documented fact that roads and irrigation simply "grow" on AI contolled land.

It works like this:
Every time the ai builds an improvement a tile in the city radius gets irrigation and roads.
I discovered that while giving a barbarian town some improvements in a scenario I was making, someone probably found out how it worked before me but it is still very strange.

[Father Beast]

Henrik...
Hey, I didn't know that there was a method to it.

the point is, SilverDragon's list is pretty comprehensive, I wonder just how much of these things will be fixed for civ3?

[Jeje2]

Firaxis can of course fix all the problems, but...
Then we have a question about AI-goodness.
Those small computer cheats were a way to balance game if they aren't there you need a much better AI or the game will be easier.

So do you relly want them all away for singlegame?

[Spekter]

Father Beast:

quote: I want to compete with the AI in ways that would work with me. I want to be able to knock out settlers that are trying to improve their land.

Actually, they could do this and keep the cheat in if they had a settler unit appear on the square that was going to be worked over when the improvement was done. If the settler is not killed or stolen before the improvement is constructed, the square is modified and the settler appears on the next square when the next improvement is started. If the settler is killed, the square is not modified. A new settler appears on the next square when the next improvement is started.

As much as it bugs me to say it, I do have to say that the cheating is necessary to keep the AI in the game.


[This message has been edited by Spekter (edited March 19, 2001).]

[Urban Ranger]

But didn't SMAC fixed a lot of that? For example, they actually have terraformers running around doing stuff? I am sure more improvements can be made so the computer players cheat less.

I always hate it when computer players cheat.

[Guest]

I agree, the AI should be "smart" enough, using logic and predefined algorithms that are executed at rates of 1000's per second to achieve the neccessary "knowledge" to perform against a human opponent. This would be nearly immposible to do in an everyday environment, but since the game has all variables predefined (as a set of rules) the calculations to make those variables can and should be executed at differnet skill levels to allow for a playable AI that doesn't "cheat."
Does the AI have short, medium, and long term goals? Or does it renew every decision without thought of consequence for the previous decision? Or a little of each? The latter would seem to be the most desirable, but the hardest to code for. Why should we not want the best AI, maybe a radical approach is needed? I'm not speaking of something that would pass the Turing Test, just some hard core logic placed up against known equations.

Becareful what you ask for, you just might get it!

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by Jeje2 on 03-19-2001 10:29 AM Firaxis can of course fix all the problems, but... Then we have a question about AI-goodness. Those small computer cheats were a way to balance game if they aren't there you need a much better AI or the game will be easier. So do you relly want them all away for singlegame?

Well.. Yeah!
I mean, would you like to go back to the old civ1 days where all of a sudden you hear that caeserea has built the collosus? I would rather get into a race with them to build wonders
I want to compete with the AI in ways that would work with me. I want to be able to knock out settlers that are trying to improve their land. I want to make their democracy fall when their cities go into revolt for too long. the idea that they are simply immune to a lot of things we have to deal with just strikes at my sense of unfairness. doesn't make for a balanced game.
I don't play on the high levels currently, so the useless AI isn't that big of a deal to me, but difficulty levels can still be tweaked so the AI has advantages, like unhappiness levels, production bonuses, etc.

And lets not count out the AI yet. the possibility still exist for some way to enhance the AI (at least I hope so), and we can count on there being improvements over civ2 AI at initial release, I think.

[Jeje2]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-19-2001 10:49 PM But didn't SMAC fixed a lot of that? For example, they actually have terraformers running around doing stuff? I am sure more improvements can be made so the computer players cheat less.

Yes the cheats have becomned less obvious and personally I think SMAC is quite good in not cheating. Not perfect, but good enough for not dastroying the pleasure of game.

quote: I always hate it when computer players cheat.

So do I, so do I.
But one must see the whole picture and if it takes some small cheat to make it then let it be. If the trend continues (CivI -> CivII -> SMAC) then CivIII will need almost no cheats.