Too fast!

[Pedrunn]

Re: Re:Too Fast

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Than you should have been here around Easter, there it wasn't so full here the same as last year but after Ester last year the forum was much emptier than before and now the other way around,

I was here last year until octuber and i do remind being really bad. Easter was worse !?!
We did a great work didnt we?

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs

It's undeniable that the original game was too easy. (I have a theory about why it was - and it applys to why so many people are complaining about Civ3's AI - but that's for another thread.) I think that's probably the main reason why people like the Mods so much, they make the game more difficult.

IMO, the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet.

I meant to get back to this thread sometime ago. I am interested in what your (or anyone's) theory on why the original AI was too easy (and even by my very limited experience, it was fairly easy). My guess would be that for most people, the ones who are not showing up here with tons of game experience, the AI was not easy at all. That combined with the fact that most people don't like to play a game they can't beat, so they made it beatable.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


I meant to get back to this thread sometime ago. I am interested in what your (or anyone's) theory on why the original AI was too easy (and even by my very limited experience, it was fairly easy). My guess would be that for most people, the ones who are not showing up here with tons of game experience, the AI was not easy at all. That combined with the fact that most people don't like to play a game they can't beat, so they made it beatable.

Not theory, simply fact: it is very, very hard to design AI code that can challenge experienced players, especially experienced players who share tips on strategy, tactics, and exploits. The customary "solution" is for the AI to cheat. It's still stupid, but it's stupid and dangerous because it has lots of units, lots of cities, and lots of development...and usually because the AI is programmed to treat the human as utterly untrustworthy ( moi? ) and to preferentially attack human civilizations.

So the Frenzy mod made the AI much more dangerous, and many of the mods give the AI more units, more tile improvements, and so forth, and many try to make the AI seem more intelligent and less artificial.

There's another major factor: the designers can't possibly anticipate all the techniques that good players use. The designers of CTP2 called the top level "Impossible," but it turned out to be roughly equivalent to "Prince" in Civ2. The designers of Civ2 apparently didn't know if "Deity" could be beaten, and it could be beaten with only one city, and even with only one city with never more than one population.

Damn. These guys are GOOD.

Then there are other critical factors: the developers have a limited budget, and top-level AI programmers are very expensive and very busy. Further, the developers are under enormous pressure to get the product out the door where it can generate revenue for the company. So there isn't enough money, and there isn't enough time to make the AI truly challenging without cheating.

Ever consider the dollars, hours, and dedicated computer resources required for Deep Blue? Remember that the rules of chess are exceedingly simple: only 6 unit types, each with a single movement pattern and a single attack pattern, and only two "special abilities:" castling and pawn promotion. Further, there are absolutely no random elements, information is complete, and there is NO interaction or diplomacy of any sort. These last three are why it is much harder to write a strong program to play bridge than chess.

-- Hermann

[Locutus]

Excellent analysis, Hermann You hit the nail on the head.

[TheArsenal]

Always interesting to get the view points of people well versed in these matters.

Danke.

[Dinner]

Pedrunn is right things have picked up quite a bit around here. Personally, I consider that a good thing though. Does anyone else remember when we were lucky to get a handful of posts a week?
I'll take to fast over to slow any day.

[Immortal Wombat]

amen

[Peter Triggs]

TheArsenal,

This might be totally off the wall, but I've always had the suspicion that one of the main reasons why CTP2's AI is 'easy' is the new Diplomatic Victory condition. When I first heard about this I remember thinking "That's a good idea", but now with hindsight I don't think it was.

I suspect that in order to allow for the very possibility of a diplomatic victory, the AI programmer was forced to give the Human player too much control (by his proposals) over his enemy's regard and trust levels. I don't know whether you know this, but in the game every player maintains a regard level and a trust level towards every other player. These levels are affected by what diplomatic proposals you make to an AI player and what treaties you have with him (amongst other things). So, for example, when you give him gold he likes it and his regard level towards you goes up. Since it's the regard levels that determine what goals the AI players pursue against you (e.g., whether or not they'll launch slave raids against you) and, I think, ultimately when they want to go to war with you, this makes it too easy for the Human player to be in control of the entire game situation and leads to the complaints "The AI's not aggressive." And even if the Human player doesn't actively pursue a policy of pacifying potential enemies, like I say in order to allow for the possibility of a diplomatic victory the regard/trust mechanism got skewed too much in the 'friendly' direction.

I expect the programmers thought of this. There's a "DesireWarWith" flag which is probably somehow keyed to the personality of the AI civ's leader and which may be part of a system that was intended to make things more difficult for the Human. But this is more idle speculation because I've never been able to figure out what determines this flag.

My guess would be that for most people, the ones who are not showing up here with tons of game experience, the AI was not easy at all. That combined with the fact that most people don't like to play a game they can't beat, so they made it beatable.

Hard to say how difficult 'the silent majority' found the game. All I know is that in the past year or so of brousing both here and at Civfanatics, it's the complaint I recall hearing over and over. Mind you my memory might be a bit selective here: as a result of CTP2, I've developed an obsessive interest in Artificial Intelligence in computer gaming.

As for "they made it beatable", I suspect you're right on there. The more I learn about how CTP2's AI works, the more impressed I am. I'm sure that they could have made it much more difficult, in ways better and more subtle than anything we've been able to come up with here.


Peter