Artificial Intelligence or Plain Cheating?

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by 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 agree that with strategic resources this can be quite a bonus for the AI. I have noticed, however, that more often than not the AI tends to found cities on top of other resources such as cattle and wheat and consequently not getting the tile bonus, since for some reason they decided in Civ 3 that the city square cannot produce 5 food or anything like it, even when it is on a bonus resource. I always steer away from bonus resources, founding my cities next to them to get the maximum bonus.

As for the original problem of jumping to next unit in a war, I think the writer meant that if you have units on the same square or next to each other, the game doesn't always offer to move all of them in a row but instead sends you to the other side of the world to move other units in between. I agree that this could be made better with a patch, so that the original movement order of units would be linked to their geographic location.

Of course you can still change the order during the turn by selecting the units to move right away and using the Wait command to move some later... but it indeed is irritating that all of your units in the war front are never activated right after each other.

[Rommel2D]

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

I haven't purchased PTW yet, but have read that one of the MP features includes a turn timer. Is this available for SP also?

Limiting the player's time available to micro-manage and doublecheck settings would help balance out the computer's strategic shortcomings. IMO, from a historical perspective, this would make for a more realistic RTS game than anyting in the proper RTS genre.

Alotting the player a certain amount of time WRT the last AI turn
would produce a fair and challenging game without resorting to AI cheats.

[Just a matter of semantics: If the only AI cheat is its ability to see through the Fog, what is an AI that receives extra starting units and reduced production costs? "Procedurally challenged"?]

[player1]

[Just a matter of semantics: If the only AI cheat is its ability to see through the Fog, what is an AI that receives extra starting units and reduced production costs? "Procedurally challenged"?]

That's difference between Chieftain and Deity.

At chieftain that's penalty to AI, at deity it's bonus to AI.

All that to adjust challenge for different types of players (beginers vs experts).

It still plays by the rules.

You just set them the begining of the game.

[PLATO]

if you have units on the same square or next to each other, the game doesn't always offer to move all of them in a row but instead sends you to the other side of the world to move other units in between. I agree that this could be made better with a patch, so that the original movement order of units would be linked to their geographic location.

This is, to me, the most irratating thing that can be easily fixed. Firaxis: Please address in the next patch!!

[Mad Mariner]

That's difference between Chieftain and Deity.

I disagree, the A.I to A.I trade multiplyers are fine as an enhancement but giving extra units and reduced costs is just another A.I cheat, the A.I is never penalised by these factors as u suggest, at the lower skill levels of the game the A.I is just forced to start on a level playing field

Ps is this a world record for mentioning the word A.I in a three line quote?

[vmxa1]

It is called a handicap, not a cheat. The AI has only one level of play for all levels. If it is to have a chance on Monarch and above, it must get a handicap. As you go up the handicap is larger. What is the problem with that? If they did not do that, we would only have on level.

[Mad Mariner]

It is called a handicap, not a cheat. The AI has only one level of play for all levels. If it is to have a chance on Monarch and above, it must get a handicap. As you go up the handicap is larger. What is the problem with that? If they did not do that, we would only have on level.

Yes and this is exactly the problem that i (and others) are complaining about, with the level of technology and programing ability around today this form of A.I is well past its sell by date. Besides there are many other factors that could be used to give the A.I the chance to keep up with the human player (such as the trade multiplyers and born happy citizens) without using the lame old see all know all extra units ect

[JanB]

We know that the AI must have certain advantages. It seems to me that this is not the real problem but rather that the AI is in your face - it brings its advantages to your attention! This must be well hidden to enable us to suspend our disbelief.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Mad Mariner
Yes and this is exactly the problem that i (and others) are complaining about, with the level of technology and programing ability around today this form of A.I is well past its sell by date. Besides there are many other factors that could be used to give the A.I the chance to keep up with the human player (such as the trade multiplyers and born happy citizens) without using the lame old see all know all extra units ect

It is not as easy as you make it out to be. I have not seen the code, but I have been in computers since 1963 and I undestand that it cost money to write a better AI.
If you were to do, it would it require too much in the way of resources to accomplish the task. Would it actually be pleasing to th eplayers? As you add levels of complexity the amount of effort to do it and test grow expotentially.
I am not saying it could not be done, only that I am not sure it could and should be given all of the constraints.

[Azeem]

I'm won't complain about the AI because I think the advantages given to them are understandable.

And because I suck.

[Mad Mariner]

It is not as easy as you make it out to be. I have not seen the code, but I have been in computers since 1963 and I undestand that it cost money to write a better AI.

This is the whole crux of the matter, yes i agree to develop a better form of A.I it will cost money but surely the big games companies are making plenty of money and to plough some of those profits into making this a reality wouldnt hurt em too much? and in the long run they would benefit. Unfortunatly it seems the quick quid earnt is the one they are after, and while the buying public allows this and continues to buy the games and add ons at ( to a large degree) the exhorbitant prices they are sold at, then no changes will be made

[vmxa1]

Mad, the reason for that are many, but one that I have mentioned is that the vast major of people do not need a better AI, they are having all they can handle already.
People on these boards are sort of fanatics and are beating it and are teaching others to beat, most buyers do not visit these sites. This is why the companies do not spent time and money.

[Master Zen]

Well, I would have liked it if the AI would be less predictable at war. Many wargames have great AI and I would like to see a Civ game with that type of logic built into it.

As it stands, I cannot but think that the AI is cheating on Emperor/Deity since it can only win with those handicaps (and usually it can't even with those )

[Mad Mariner]

Mad, the reason for that are many, but one that I have mentioned is that the vast major of people do not need a better AI, they are having all they can handle already.

Yeah i know just had to get me rant out of my system

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Mad Mariner
This is the whole crux of the matter, yes i agree to develop a better form of A.I it will cost money but surely the big games companies are making plenty of money and to plough some of those profits into making this a reality wouldnt hurt em too much?

The problem with this logic is that the developers of strategy games are the big game companies. Firaxis, for example, is a fairly small company. According to their website they have around a dozen programmers total.