Artificial Intelligence or Plain Cheating?

[Mad Mariner]

Agreed, to start of with the preprogramed cheats do seem fine but then (whilst playing civ) and learning refining u suddenly see why the A.I has plonked cities down it what seems like pointless locations ie thar be oil down there! this kind of game play, i feel, really detracts something from games.

It is kinda sad that the games companies would rather rush out a quick money spinning sequel based on the same tired cheat system than to break into that big ol pot of profits and give us the ultimate in A.I I know its pie in the sky expecting this to happen but still...

[CerberusIV]

I do wonder whether the AI planting cities on resource tiles is as much a cheat as some people suggest. I find that there are a fair number of occasions when a resource pops up under one of my cities, especially salt. I may be good or lucky but sometimes it must be chance for the AI as well. You can see times when the AI has put a city next to but not on a resource tile so it is not simply going straight for a yet to appear resource.

Also there are usually plenty of AI cities in rubbish locations with no resources

[theNiceOne]

CerberusIV: I can assure you that its 100% sure that the AI values a tile higher if it has a resource, even if the resource is a future one and the tile is in a place where the AI not yet has a map to.

I have made a scenario to verify this, and Catt has done similarily.

This, and the fact that the AI knows everything else about the map (including unit position) is the only real cheat that exist in the game though.

[CerberusIV]

Thanks for the info.

I don't regard it as much of a cheat though since if I want that resource I will simply take it. I do think it is a bit of a pointless debate since an AI that can run on a PC and be good enough to take on a human on equal terms would change a lot more about our world than how TBS games are programmed.

[bongo]

Finding the weak spots in the AI is part of the fun with civ3. It would scare me if the AI were able to beat me on a regular basis cause it was smarter than me..

[Mad Mariner]

don't regard it as much of a cheat though since if I want that resource I will simply take it. I do think it is a bit of a pointless debate since an AI that can run on a PC and be good enough to take on a human on equal terms would change a lot more about our world than how TBS games are programmed.

Very true!! Dont spose we wanna encourage computers to go all "skynet" on us, and at the end of the day the A.I no matter how good it is will still be operating and making decisions based on pre programed tatics ( ie if player one does this then A.I will do that) which any decent games player will eventually suss out

[PLATO]

I can assure you that its 100% sure that the AI values a tile higher if it has a resource, even if the resource is a future one and the tile is in a place where the AI not yet has a map to.

Didn't know that was part of the cheat. Thanks for the info.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
vmxa1 is correct. Soren, the main AI programmer on CIv3 has said that this is the one area where the AI 'doesn't play by the rules'. He said it was too hard to get the AI to effectively wage a war without it. They don't have the ability to remember troop movements through the fog, compile intelligence data, and make good conjectures on where the axis of the war is going.

I don't see this ever being changed in Civ3.

Why don't they go find some of the guys who programmed "Warlords"?

IIRC, the AI in warlords (at least as far as Warlords 2, and possibly 3) had the same issues to contend with and:

1. Didn't cheat in any way.
2. Only knew what a human player in the same position would know, including fog of war, unexplored areas, and city defenses.
3. Could hand you your ass pretty nicely on the highest level, unless you were really on your game.

Feel free to throw egg on my face if I'm wrong about any of this... it's been a while.

[vmxa1]

I don't know about eggs, but Warlords is in no way as deep and complex as CivIII or any civ. Note I did not say which is better, as I love Warlords as well.
Warlords II is even less complex as it does not have to deal with routing units that are queued up to be built, IIRC.
Anyway, trade is not in the game, diplomacy is really nothing more than peace or war or not. Not a complex set like Rop or Mpp and if one conflicts with another.
No land with borders, only defend the castle.
What about structures, only upgrade or not, not a long list of building and tech requirement, not to mention resources that may need to be available to that city.
Even the pathing is much easier as you do not have to honor cultural borders.
What about happiness, it just goes on and on.
I dare say not many games have the complex interactions and myriad of components to meld together.
I will call shrines with quest more or less the same as huts, although more decisions are made, they are not more than choose A or B.

[vmxa1]

P.S.
SSG is working on Warlords IV so they are busy (lets hope).

[gnome]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I don't know about eggs, but Warlords is in no way as deep and complex as CivIII or any civ. Note I did not say which is better, as I love Warlords as well.
Warlords II is even less complex as it does not have to deal with routing units that are queued up to be built, IIRC.
Anyway, trade is not in the game, diplomacy is really nothing more than peace or war or not. Not a complex set like Rop or Mpp and if one conflicts with another.
No land with borders, only defend the castle.
What about structures, only upgrade or not, not a long list of building and tech requirement, not to mention resources that may need to be available to that city.
Even the pathing is much easier as you do not have to honor cultural borders.
What about happiness, it just goes on and on.
I dare say not many games have the complex interactions and myriad of components to meld together.
I will call shrines with quest more or less the same as huts, although more decisions are made, they are not more than choose A or B.

This is very true, that Civ has a lot more depth, and a lot more for the computer to contend with. It's a far greater AI challenge (and the increased depth is exactly why I abandoned Warlords to become a Civ addict)... BUT my point was that the challenge regarding position and movement of troops, and organizing attack and defenses... and map views...is not that much more complex than Warlords used to be... and I'm disappointed to see a game 10+ years later that doesn't seem to do as good a job of that.

[vmxa1]

I think I understand your point and maybe it not all that wrong, however..
Consider that Warlords has a stack of units, they may be mixed or not and have a leader (usually). Combat is not tactical, so really it is just rock/paper deal with a few traits to use. Well I won;t go into the whole thing, but what does the Ai have to deal with in Civ3.
Maybe a large number of units that have completely diffent skills, planes/art/swords/retreat and so forth.
They move at differnet speeds. They have tactical combat. They have terain.
So if you want to say they are both the same level of difficulty, I am not so sure.
If you say they could do some thing better, ok.
Should they and would it be easy, I am not sure.
Remember that with a complex AI like this any changes are fraught with danger and places to mess up.
If it was much better, then even more people would complain about it being to hard to beat. Note that people are for the most part, here are very well aquainted with the game. That means we are not the norm. I go on other boards that have noting to do with Civ and see all kinds of people that still claim to be clobbered at chief.

[Azeem]

I go on other boards that have noting to do with Civ and see all kinds of people that still claim to be clobbered at chief

So we suck. Is that a crime?

I seriously suck at CivIII because I can never get pass Regent level. My first time at Chieftain level was a disaster.

[vmxa1]

NO that is perfectly fine, we all stink at something, some at everything.
I was only saying that devs have to be careful about making a better AI. It will make more players shy away from the game. It is a fine point to make it a challenge, without making it way too hard.
AoW2 had that problem. Many people (me too) with tons of TBS playing and a vet of AoW found it tough sleding when it came out. The very first misson of thefirst campaign. This make many toss the game, not a good thing. They actually came out with a patch to making an easier level, but I bet they have forever lost sales, especially for any possible addon.
Not too worry, I never think it is a problem to "suck at a game".

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Mad Mariner
Surely tho there must be people out there who are capable of programing the A.I well enough to give u a good game without allowing it to "cheat"? i can imagine how much time and effort goes into designing something like the civ series but it just smacks of laziness if the only way the A.I gets more difficult is by allowing beneficial multipliers and extra units at start up

Many different companies, with different programmers coming from different backgrounds, and often with a lot of funding, have tackled this problem. All have had results similar to what you see here.

My guess is that it's not any specific flaw in any particular company.