Artificial Intelligence or Plain Cheating?

[Dominae]

Funny that in RTS games like C&C, the designers have to add weaknesses to the AI to make the game fun, since the AI is so good at doing thing in real-time. But in TBS games like Civ3, the designers need to add bonuses to the AI to make it competitive. Both types of AIs are equally dumb, it's just that one is allowed to use a computer's inherent advantage over humans, speed, while the other cannot.

No one is complaining about the RTS method, why complain about the TBS one? They're both tools to create a more fun, competitive game.


Dominae

[PLATO]

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.

Given these facts, it should not be changed.

[JanB]

The human player has the advantage of lateral thinking but the AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail. That seems a fair match to me. I don't see why the AI needs to know how many units there are in a human players cities. The AI plays to its own rules anyway.

[PLATO]

AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail. That seems a fair match to me.

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

JanB: I think you would be correct if thw AI did have the memory of details, but apparently it does not. This may be a case when having technology cheat is the only way to stay competitive with the Human Mind. I would rather have a cheating AI than a Boring game. Just look at it as an additional challenge to overcome.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by JanB
The human player has the advantage of lateral thinking but the AI has the advantage of never forgeting even the slightest detail.

Good human players rarely forget details, and those things forgotten are irrelevant. Deity difficulty is supposed to challenge human players who are capable of "perfect play".


Dominae

[JanB]

That's probably where I go wrong - I lack Dedication to Detail!! I enjoy a good battle but am not patient enough to consider how I can position myself on a hill to attack the opponent without them attacking me before I get to the hill! Do you get that? Perhaps I'm not bright enough - no comments thankyou!

[Master Zen]

You could also mod the dificulty levels and take away the AI's cheats (like starting with 2 settler, a 160 trade rate, extra production etc.).

WIthout these cheats the AI ain't that fearsome at first, but it's still a much better warmonger than in the lower difficulty levels.

Personally I don't like it when the AI is only better at me if it cheats. I don't consider it chivalrious to get my ass whooped by someone who didn't play by the rules.

So now I'm gonna play at Deity and kick it's ass!!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Master Zen
You could also mod the dificulty levels and take away the AI's cheats (like starting with 2 settler, a 160 trade rate, extra production etc.).

So now I'm gonna play at Deity and kick it's ass!!

I hope you realise that by removing the AI's "cheats" at Deity, you're beating the game at Deity level in name only, since the AI itself is exactly the same from difficulty to difficulty.


Dominae

[JanB]

I suppose that it says a lot for Civ that some of us feel very peeved about the AI 'cheating'! It's a game that feels very real and becomes very personal. Got to be good.

[CerberusIV]

JanB; You mentioned the screen shifts to the next unit so you don't see the outcome of a battle. Do you have unit animations turned off in the preferences screen? If the units are shooting, swordfighting or whatever there is usually time to see what is going on.

Just a thought.

[JanB]

Cerberus IV, I think everything is turned on (except the music!) but I will check that out. Thankyou.

Jan

[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

[PLATO]

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

I suppose that it is possible, but the number of variables to consider could make cost prohibitive. A well planned cheat would probable cost much less and achieve the same result.

Remember, the AI is trying to compete with the most devious and unpredictable computer ever designed: the human mind.

[player1]

As far as I can see the curent version of Civ3 AI gives a good game for casual players.

Some even compalin that it's too much difficult.

Of course higher level are supposed to be reserved for experts, which can explit any AI weakness.

That why there are cheats at higher levels.

[Dominae]

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"?

Surely. But enter the term "cost/benefit analysis". If Firaxis can get away with a good game with the aid of only only one (very capable) AI programmer, that makes a lot of sense. The trick is to "cut corners" by letting the AI "cheat". Without this trick, no single person could code the Civ3 AI in the timeframe required by the publishers. It is an interesting exercise to wonder whether a four-person AI team would produce a more competitive "cheatless" AI than a one person is allowed to "cut corners".

Similarly with the 'Deep Blue' chess program (and variants). That program was designed to beat one person. That's an "AI cheat" if I've ever seen one. The task of building a general chess program that will beat anyone was simply not undertaken, since it was only necessary to beat one person (the current world champion) to win the competition. Within that framework, "cheats" are acceptable. Within the framework of creating a comeptitive Civ3 AI, "cheats" are just fine too.


Dominae