Analysis: the AI Dilemma

In the ideal world, we'd like to have AI's that are as smart as a player, convincing us that Hammurabi or Lincoln is actually a human being. But that ignores a very important question: how do humans play Civilization? The answer depend on who you ask.

Some people say humans play to win. That's why they break Right of Passage agreements, favor conquest over any other strategy, and pick on the weak.

Others disagree. The argue that Civ is in some ways like a simulation. That's why some humans forego the highest profits, to give them a sense that they have real interactions with their allies, enemies, and population.

My point has nothing to do with designing the rules of the game. It has everything to do with Artificial Intelligence. If the AI is supposed to be as smart as the smartest human, which kind of human are we talking about? The kind who plays ruthlessly, or the kind who plays immersively?

The Solution: Two Types of AI

Type A: Competitive AI or Game AI

These AIs would be rare. When a civilization is controlled by a Type A (competitive) AI, they play to win. They don't keep friends, they betray them when it's convenient. They don't have hard feelings towards Napoleon or Hitler for trying to conquer the world, they COPY them. In other words, they play like the most ruthless game player, and race to the finish.

Type B: Reactionary AI or Sim AI

These AIs would be more common to give the constructed world an immersive experience. 7 out of 10 Civs would play in a way that builds at their own pace. They want to be on the side of "good", and thus hold grudges against those who have wronged them.

They do start wars. Not war for profit, but because they somehow calculate them to be morally right. This Civ is Fascist, I am Democratic -- so I will fight him. This Civ is from the Middle East and they are attacking a fellow European Civ, so I will join the crusade against the Middle East. It might join wars it knows it cannot win. But otherwise this AI is quite receptive to peace, since they have no desire to win the game -- they are merciful to the extent that nations in real life can be merciful.

Interaction:

If your Civilization and the Type A Civilizations are the main characters, the Type B Civilizations are the supporting roles. If your Civilization and the Type A Civilizations are the masters, the Type B Civilizations are the pawns. If your Civilization and the Type B Civilizations are the monkeys, the Type B Civilizations are the trees.

In other words, the player and Type A Civilizations *use* the Type B Civilizations. When you start a crusade, you get them to join you. When you start your quest to world domination, they're the first one to get conquered. They are your long-term trading partners. And if America and USSR are Type A Civilizations in a Cold War, then you win the Cold War by converting the Type B Civilizations to your side. It is compatible with many gameplay ideas, new and old.

Simple Implementation: How to Cut Corners with AI

Type B: Don't Need to Win

Type B Civilizations are incredibly easy to implement. Why? Because they don't need to win. The only balancing and speed-adjusting you need to do is to make sure that they stay relevent later in the game. Otherwise, it's a question of giving them "realistic" reactions. You know you have a good Type B Civilization when it's possible for a Human Player to be allies with them for an entire game. They generally play honest and steady.

Type A: Don't Need to be Real

Type A Civilizations are something trickier. But all that realism stuff doesn't matter. The only thing that matter is if it can maximize the benefits it acquires in conquest, production, growth, gold, and science. They don't need to follow reptutation, or who's furious. They need to stay neck-at-neck with a highly intelligent player.

Which is why I suggest the Type A Civilizations cheat.

Some would argue that a Type A Civilization that cheats would feel fake. But they don't need to be realistic, the realism comes from the Type B Civilizations. The world would still feel real.

Some would argue that a Type A Civilization shouldn't cheat, it should genuinely outwit the player. Granted, that would be great. But I ask you to hear me out. To outwit the player, the AI would need to master multiple aspects of the game AND avoid being exploited by some flaw in the programming -- a level of complexity that might not be feasible for the programmers, nor your Pentium 4.

Cheating by Catching Up

If you've played a racing game, you'll know that it's easy to smash your second-place opponent and make it impossible for them to catch up. Which is why so many racing games have "catch-up" cheats, where the nearest competitive car will get a little speed boost to stay within striking distance of first place.

Implementing a "catch-up" cheat would be much easier than implementing an AI that outwits the player. Not to mention that catching up will never cream the player so bad that the player quits half-way through, unlike a botched game at a high difficulty level. And catching up prevents the game from being won in the middle ages, such that the rest of the game is a waste of time -- unlike 99% of the Civ games I play.

If the player were fighting a Type A Civ, that Type A would not try to catch-up. It would fight vigilantly, but gradually drop off, as expected. But as that Civ is conquered, another Type A Civ tries to keep pace with the player by conquering other Type B Civs -- and cheats to do so. By the time the player has taken out one of its top competitors, a new competitor has emerged that rivals the player's strength.

Wrap-Up

This simple solution gives the game both realism AND competition, sidestepping the difficult question of what kind of human the AI should imitate. And it doesn't need the processing power of deep blue to do it.

I love the idea of more then one kind of civilization. Maybe if there weren't any type A civilizations left a type B could become one. Also, maybe type B civs could emerge all the time, through barbarians learning about civilization, civil war, or rebellion.

I think if all the Type A civs die out, then you deserve the win.

You can play against "Type A" any time you want. 'Tis called "multiplayer". Why turn single player into a pale imitation of that?


Besides, there's an inherent assumption in DH's thesis that says that "Type B" cannot be competitive. However, I suggest that far more important than any single civ is what the civs do in relationship. Several Type B's combining can easily open a can of wh00p@$$ on a Type A, and give the bully a good working over in some dark alley into which they drag his lame self.


All civs ganging up on player (or strongest civ) like Civ1 and Civ2 grows stale.

All civs being unable to form coherent alliances like Civ3 means player has won as soon he's the strongest civ.

We need something in the middle, and I don't think DH's solution gets there. What if all the Type A's draw bad starts? They're not going anywhere. What if all the Type A's end up on one continent and stalemate one another? What if player is playing a small map with three opponents? How do you divvy up the Type A and B personalities in any reliable way?

Civ3 games often break on pure luck anyway. Anybody who has watched the Epics tournament knows how often the Civ3 AIs split on performance. One player's game, Blue trounces, the next player's game, Blue is wiped out in BC times. Some maps, you can see that terrain dictated who would be strongest. Others, it breaks on a wonder, or a leader pop, or the random rolls of dice to determine timing on who attacks whom and when. Game A, the big dog takes on targets one at a time and gobbles them. Game B, the big dog gets two-timed in the ancient era and ripped a new one. Game C, the big dog eats one neighbor, then the rest gang on him and they play to stalemate. Game D, little dog pops a leader and forms an army, pops a sci leader and gets to Pyramids first, and becomes the big dog.

Either terrain dictates, or luck dictates, because all the AIs are playing the same strategy. Throw player into the mix, and things get murkier, but we don't know how good a "Type B" AI in Civ4 might be.


I know DH believes strongly in the split AI concept, some playing clean, others playing dirty. His aim is to please both sets of humans: those wanting MP type competitive action, and those wanting more immersion. I wonder if neither side would be pleased with this fusion. Since the way that the alliances break down would override this distinction anyway, I don't see it as a deciding factor. Maybe the Firaxians will agree with DH, but I hope they focus more on the diplomacy. I think diplomacy is the overarching issue of single player. That, too, involves the AI, but not along the lines drawn here.


- Sirian

I'm glad you guys like the essence of the idea, even if it does raise new questions. I'm definitely open to debate about those add-ons, but by no means does the rejection of one necessitate the rejection of the essence of this idea.

If killing off the Type A civs guarantees victory, then you're essentially changing the way domination victory is faught. Then again, maybe killing off the top 4 superpowers in a game with a dozen Civs would be pretty damn close to hitting that 50% mark required for domination. Either way, it couldn't hurt to make domination happen faster.

Then again, assuming that you kill off the Type A Civs without acquiring the traditional domination victory, some people like to keep playing. Type B Civs only would be kind of a drag. I could see a situation where after the USA takes out superpowers like Britain, Germany, and Russia, suddenly Poland steps up. (Just an arbitrary example, seeing as Poland is right in there behind Britain, and should not be forgotten.)

I think the idea of new Type B Civs added as the game goes on is a thought that could be explored. Barbarians for one. But this gives me another idea.

The Type B Civs, not too concerned with victory, could be the stage for world events that no competitive player would ever want to encounter themselves but would like to see in the game for realism or even strategic sake. Sudan is a Type B Civilization, for example, that is dealing with genocide. The Type A Civilizations could use these as opportunities to leverage their power on a world stage, or they could ignore it as a part of the crazy complex world that we live in. Just throwing that out there as a platform for other people's ideas.

Thanks for the thought, Sirian. Sorry I didn't get to your topic, didn't see your post until after I finished mine.

You're right about the "hidden assumption". That Type B AI would have to be non-competitive to be realistic. But I think this assumption is well grounded in the way that Civ 3 was won.

In Civ 3, the winner is the person who pulls a "Right of Passage Rape" as someone once called it. The winner isn't the person who competes with the biggest dog in the yard, but who picks off the smaller threats one by one until their empire is bigger than the biggest dog in the yard. Discriminating against people is a bad strategy too -- in real life, racism and bigotry guided a lot of diplomacy, but in Civ it's smarter to be fair and hate everyone equally. There is no incentive to cooperate. Loyalties don't last, and neither do grudges, because players have no incentive to hold a grudge or a loyalty. It is much more prosperous to turn around and backstab an ally at their weakest, or to cooperate with a former enemy so you can focus your conquest on easier pickings. In other words, playing with realism (aka sanity) is a surefire way to lose. Much more profitable to be an untrustworthy psychopath.

This assumption is totally thrown into question, however, if they manage to make a game where cooperation is a necessity. Then breaking and burning all your bridges would make you pretty damn vulnerable (as it does in real life). In which case, I think you're onto something, Sirian. Putting a greater emphasis on diplomacy might be the answer to having an AI that plays realistically *and* competitively. But that would also require players to play realistically, and breaking your deals would be a much riskier strategy.

Giving this a bump because I'm curious how many people support it if they all voted.

DH, I doubt the poll will make any difference. If nobody but you supported the idea, yet you and your case persuaded any Firaxians looking on that you've got the right answer, then your idea might get used. If the poll has 100% support but the Firaxians disagree with your concept, it won't get used. Thus the poll would seem to be irrelevant. Your analysis is likely the most important thing. That seems more likely than polls to change minds.

In Soren's slideshow presentation, he mentioned something about all the tons of suggestions forwarded by fans. By now, your concept may have gotten a look. Either way, they've said nothing at all about anybody's suggestions as yet, so what more can you do? For me, at least, I see no need to beat a drum. Say it once, say it well, then move on, that's my motto. If I come up with good ideas and they don't get used... ::shrug:: Out of my hands. :( If I keep it pithy and everything I write is meaty, maybe my name will draw more attention when they see it. :cool: We can only do what we can do, then the rest is up to them. :hammer:


- Sirian

Here are a few paradigms that would lend themselves to competative and somewhat realistic gameplay.

1) Cooperation with others over time lends itself to greater rewards then unilateralism. Currently in Civ trade is weak, since the only benefit of trade are things you can aquire by conquest.
2) Relative power is more important then absolute power. Civs should try to have 'power' over his environment, since controlling a thing is cheaper then owning it. Currently in Civ the only real measure of power is territory.

That leads to the next point....
3) Followers will tolerate a leader until they become too powerful to stop. This means whenever someone is becoming so powerful they cannot be stopped, civs will try to put them down. This includes AI civs, something Civ 2 did not address.
4) Civs will do what is necessary to protect their interests, this includes protecting the security of profitable foreign territory.
5) Civs will try to do whatever it takes to control their destiny as long as it improves their situation.

If the AI could learn to think like this, it would simulate real world interaction.

Hey Sirian, my intent is not just to get a vote but to get a discussion :) I figure getting people to run with the idea can also infect the way people talk about other aspects of the game. If "Type A vs Type B" becomes a distinction people use, it might help them to discuss other issues such as intelligence, religion, diplomacy, culture, or international economy.

Always love a meaningful discussion.

Sir Schwick, I think you're onto something with the difference between owning and controlling something. In Civ 3, it is easily more profitable to own it yourself. In Civ 4, it ought to be profitable to control and leverage something without having to pay the costs and maintainances involved in owning it. Otherwise more nations would try to conquer the world.

But with that said, does that mean you're not fond of the AI proposal here?

*cue hallelujah chorus in background* wow, this is it. this is what we've been looking for two types of AI the only question i have is why didn't anyone think of this before? although i would possibly include a third type, i'd call it a loyal AI. this AI holds grudges, and keepes allies, but they play to win too, but the two emotions are more or less equal

I think A vs. B fixes the symptoms rather than the core problems. The problems are that cooperation is not rewarded, manipulation is not rewarded, and diplomacy is not rewarded. Also, the current AI does not think ahead, but thinks one turn at a time. An A vs. B system would certainly not have the same symptoms, but requires adjustment each time you change part of the game. By fixing the causes, the AI plays correctly without having to tell them how.

Glad you like it, Yybor. I figure it might not be the most thorough solution to AI issues, but it has an elegance in its ability to resolve the realism AND challenge issues without having to deeply overhaul the game *and* program a deep blue.

Like Sir Schwick says, it does kind of solve the symptoms rather than the problems. While you end up with a stable world with a lot of order, being shaken up by a few superpowers... the player still only really has the option of playing like a megalomaniac. Even allying with Type B civs (or a third type that is also loyal), the player has no incentive to keep these alliances but their own personal sense of "honor". There are few penalties for breaking the alliances, and they're penalties that are easy to live with. It's easy to live as an isolationist.

I'd like to think, though, that this AI idea is very compatible with adding a new focus to the game.

Still, feel free to vote for agreeing with the problem but disagreeing with the solution, Sir Schwick. I figure it's fair to represent multiple viewpoints, and maybe someone will notice that fixing the underlying problem is still an important issue. I definitely agree with you there.

I'm also asking, does anybody think that this kind of balancing act is just unnecesssary?

Does anybody think that Civ 4 playing like a board game is a good idea? Where realism is out the window, and it's a question of who can conquer the world -- like a game like "Risk" with a bit more of a historical timeline? (Only Type A Civs.)

Does anybody think that Civ 4 playing like a sim is a good idea? Where building is the real focus, and war is just something you do, but it's less focused on traditional winning conditions? (Only Type B Civs.)

I'm actually a bit surprised nobody has taken these stances.

Does anybody think that Civ 4 playing like a board game is a good idea? Where realism is out the window, and it's a question of who can conquer the world -- like a game like "Risk" with a bit more of a historical timeline? (Only Type A Civs.)

Does anybody think that Civ 4 playing like a sim is a good idea? Where building is the real focus, and war is just something you do, but it's less focused on traditional winning conditions? (Only Type B Civs.)

I'm actually a bit surprised nobody has taken these stances.

Holds up hand, waves. :wavey:

Ahh, Sirian, you should have picked "Good Analysis, Easy Dilemma: I solved the dilemma by picking one over the other. (Post below)" ... oh well, no biggie.

I'm curious, I forgot exactly. Did you want to see Civ become more of a sim? Or did you want it to be a board game like Risk, where everyone plays ruthlessly? (and I think Civ 2 and 3 are already pretty close to Risk.)

I think Civilization IV should play like Civilization IV. It should be related to Civilization III, but I'd like to see it create a whole new standard as seen in the likes of Grand Theft Auto III. Lofty expectations? Maybe, only I think it could be done.

In the poll I picked hooray for everything, but I've changed my mind. I now want good analysis, bad solution, yes to shortcuts. While the idea of having an A1, B1, C1 etc has a good intent, I don't like the principle behind it. Every civilization should have an equal chance at being great. With an A1 programmed to go for the win, the B1 programmed to be mediocre, and the C1 programmed to be a good ally, not every civ is getting a fair chance to win. Now I know that a random start location, and different civ traits are not perfectly equal, but the principle behind these ideas is to make civs different, yet still give them each a fair chance.

I have an idea of my own (surprise surprise) but I basically got there from reading this thread. My theories are always as directly applicable to the game as I can make them, so here goes:

Reputation is the single most important factor in determining AI behavior towards other civs.
Catch up events are used to balance out the game when civs pull too far ahead or fall to far behind.

Right now reputation is basically a record of all the good and bad things you have done in relation to other civilizations. Reputation would be made ten times more important than it currently is, influencing every interaction between you and the AI. For example if both the player and the AI civ have had friendly relations all game, then the AI will be more likely trade techs, offer fail deals, give gifts, loan gold, and will generally be a good ally. When the player has a bad reputation, the AI will be very unlikely to trade at all, and will never enter into any treaties with the player as they can no longer be trusted.

The balancing power of a strong reputation rating is isolation. Think of getting a bad reputation like being stuck on a starting island in the middle of the ocean, your by yourself with no one to trade with. The added disadvantage is, that as well as not trading with the evil reputation civ, good reputation AI would often join together to attack the "evil" civ. The player would be encouraged to follow the same guidelines when dealing with different reputations, but they are only guidelines and not carved in marble (which would make a good luxury resource btw :P).

So take two AI civs starting on an adequately sized island. If both civs get a fairly equal start, then most times the reputation system would keep their aggression in check, and they would trade with each other rather than try to wipe each other out. As the game went on, if they both remained in good standing, their alliance would grow to the point that one civ was attacked, the attacking civ would lose reputation with both civs as the second would enter war to defend their trading ally.

I'm sure some people would find keeping a clean reputation and playing by the rules a boring game, so there are a few exceptions. So long as a civ stops doing activities that generate a bad rep, its rep will make its way back to neutral over time. Therefore razing cities and knocking civs out of the game in the ancient age is tolerated much more than in later ages because time passes quicker. Breaking a ROP is still breaking a ROP, but it will take much less time to recover if the act is committed in the ancient age. This simulates the fact that almost all civs were barbarous in their primitive states.

Catch up events happen at about the same time for every team. The way to think of them is not that well played civs are getting punished, but that they are getting a speedbump thrown their way. It is essentially dh's system to prevent early victories but with an emphasis on averaging out the civs.

So for example lets take the late ancient events. If there is a civ that is dominating in science they would go into the dark ages where their research would slow to a crawl and they might lose a few techs. An large civ that had killed their neighbor early would probably have a civil war against some of their conquered cities. A medium powered civ might just have a barbarian horde invade and pillage their territory until defeated. A weak civ would get a golden age boost to catch up to the other civs.

Obviously that is just a summary of the events, but you can see how they'd work. There would be two more timed events. One in the middle ages that would feature the black death spreading between the powerful teams, and a renaissance for the lower powered teams. The great depression would follow after WWI. As far as the game is concerned, knowing when to trigger these events would be based on how far along a civ is on the tech tree, and knowing how hard to hit them would be based on demographics like % population and the number of techs it has in lead of other civs.

There are also tie-ins between this repuation system, the caravan system (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101488) and multiple civ agreements (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92184), governments and some reorginization of the tech tree but I already wrote way more than I planned so if anyone wants to hear those ideas I could post em later. The basic idea is pretty simple, a good reputation becomes much more important and the events try to keep the game competitive.

Civ4 should be able to offer both types of AI. Why both? Type A AI is needed for multiplayer to shine: a competent AI if someone drops so that large games are not automatically "over" when the first players quits or has to leave. Likewise, a good Type A AI can be used as a placeholder for late arrivals, and they could hold their own in a Free For All, opening the chance to INCLUDE AIs BY CHOICE in a large game, without them being walking suckers to be exploited to death.

Yet that kind of AI is no fun in an epic single player environment, in my view, so we also need Type B AI. Yet it needs to be stronger, and I already spelled out my thoughts about how to do that: via diplomacy. Being stronger military and economic performers wouldn't hurt, either.


I chose correctly for how I feel: good analysis, bad solution. Yet even good analysis may not completely cover a subject. I disagree that the choice is between "strong" Type A and "weak" Type B. Type A can end up being weak, too, and Type B might be strong. Plus, if the rules themselves are better, there won't be as many loopholes for players or Type A's to exploit, so the Type B's might not be as disadvantaged as you indicate.

Do we know enough to make detailed suggestions? I question it. Looking around the forum, there are a lot of suggestions here. I can't imagine they'd all fit in one game. That's part of why you don't see me offering a lot of details, but instead focusing my comments on concepts. A good concept... they might pick up the ball and run with it. If they like a concept, they'll have to adapt it to fit with the new game anyway, right? And if they don't like a concept, there's no chance they'll use a proposal on how to implement it.


- Sirian

Sirian's a very conceptual guy. To a fault, I believe, at times, though I'm sure he'd argue that. ;)

Nope, that's fair, Trip. Idealistic to a fault, at times, too.

Nevertheless, I can show a surprising capacity to get things done every now and then. Between all the bloviating, that is. :lol:


Hi Sirian

Tha map I enjoyed most in Railroad Tycoon 2 was your Grand Prix Map. Do you plan to bring it to RRT3 as well? MAny fans would be thankful...

Greetings

Mat

Hi Mat.

I haven't gotten RT3 yet. Not sure if I will. I've been busy with many things. My RT2 maps... I'm always glad to hear when a player is enjoying them. I appreciate the call for a new version, but I cannot make any promises at this time, and no plan is in place for the short term.

Not the answer you were hoping for, but all I can do is reply sincerely. :)

Perhaps others in the community will produce good maps. Ought to be some good ones out there.


Best wishes.

- Sirian

Hi Sirian

Ah, well. Too bad, but still I want you to know how much I (and many others) enjoyed your maps. That's enough for me, an we don't expect you to jump and design a new one :-)
And yes, there are already a bunch of maps around. I try to do my own, but it's not that easy...

Thanks for your RRT2 maps

Mat

My RT2 maps are included with the Platinum version of the game. And of course, I also loved the original Railroad Tycoon. I'm looking forward to the new version of Pirates. Should be fun.

One of the best AI's I ever encountered was Sid Meier's Covert Action. The game balance in that one was nothing short of BRILLIANT. Playing on the highest level with no reloads... one of my most challenging yet playable gaming experiences. Took everything I had to win half the time. Yet the AI was not designed to be omniscient (Type A) but rather to behave with some realism (Type B) and it left just enough openings for a good strategist to get by, if you also had the twitch reflexes to back it up when things went wrong.


If Sid Meier's Civilization Four can produce a Type B AI of the caliber seen in Covert Action, it should entertain me for many hours. :cooool:


- Sirian

Nope, that's fair, Trip. Idealistic to a fault, at times, too.

Nevertheless, I can show a surprising capacity to get things done every now and then. Between all the bloviating, that is. :lol:
Well, putting the two of us together is definitely not always a good thing, at least for bystanders. ;) Though at times I wish I had as much free time as you. :p

Back to reading about WWII in the Pacific I go... :cool:

Hmmm, a LOT of interesting thoughts here. I agree with Sirrian about needing a middle ground between Civ1/2 system and Civ3 system! Additionally, though, if we have a 'multiple victory' win system as I have suggested elsewhere, then part of our problem is solved, as it would be nigh impossible for a single civ to achieve victory in all areas.
In addition, though, changing the WAY in which the victories are achieved, and adding new victory types, would also allow all civs (player and AI) to remain competitive right up until the 'end-game'.
Having 'minor civs' might also help the situation, and fits nicely into DH_Epics model for type B civs! As I have mentioned in previous threads, if you gave sufficient incentives for peaceful relations with minor civs, then their lack of competition would not be a great hindernace.
Last of all, perhaps if you tied the way in which a civ tries to achieve victory to its civ traits and, to a lesser extent, its current government type. For instance, militaristic, expanionist and seafaring civs will mostly focus on a domination victory, and will probably do so through a combination of squashing less powerful nations, and attacking their closest rivals before they can threaten them; these civs will also probably eschew military alliances and/or MPP's, except for very short term gain.
Agricultural, Scientific and commercial civs, OTOH, will probably seek more peaceful routes to victory-they will probably strive for an economic and/or diplomatic victory, and will probably seek victory through careful alliances with smaller powers against a very clearly percieved threat, and will try and give a leg up to less powerful civs in return for 'future considerations' trade and tech deals will also feature strongly in these civs reportoire.
Industrial and Religious civs will adopt playing styles somewhere in the middle, with their overall style probably being dictated by their other civ trait. They will be more agressive than their ag and sci counterparts, but will usually go to war if they feel 'boxed in', or in pursuit of a specific goal (like a luxury and/or resource in the hands of another player). They will form alliances and trade pacts, but usually only with those who 'share their values'-all others are merely 'grist to the mill'! They will mostly try to pursue cultural, economic and religious victories, as appropriate!
Lastly, if the 'evolving' civ traits model is adopted, then this could create intriguing situations for the human player. For instance, he sees an AI civ that began as agricultural/scientific, so thinks its a bit of a pushover-what he DOESN'T know, however, is that the civs start point dictated a more ruthless Militaristic approach, changing its civ trait accordingly-and that is how it now plays. The *hunter* might end up becoming the *hunted* in this scenario!
Anyway, this is a great thread, and a subject worth delving even further into!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

It looks like there's a lot of support for the problem -- which I think is MORE important than support for my solution.

I think most people would agree with this statement: The AI needs to offer a better challenge to the player, but they also need to play realistically and cooperatively as much as it makes sense to do so.

The difference is that some people support my solution, whereas other people are (correctly) pointing out the real problem: gameplay. There IS no reward for playing cooperatively and realistically -- much larger reward for breaking treaties, isolating yourself, and changing your mind with the suddenness of a megalomaniacal psychopath. There is a big reward if you copy Hitler, Napoleon, or Julius Caesar (and even Hitler had a few close allies). This is why the AI will generally play like a Caesar (and so should the player) -- because it's the only way to keep up.

Plastiqe is onto something when he talks about making reputation a much more important factor. In Civ 3, I pretty much disregard reputation, and win (almost) every time. As such, the AI needs to be equally as nasty.

Aussie is also onto something when he talks about pulling victory conditions apart. Domination victory is obviously rewarded by playing like a Napoleon. Cultural victory is supposed to be an alternative to that, but it isn't: Napoleon is actually more likely to have a great culture, too, since conquesting grows his economy, production and population. Pulling current victory conditions apart and/or introducing new victory conditions would be a huge step in the right direction -- it would mean that Napoleon couldn't conquer the world AND be in good position to win all other victory conditions. It would mean that the players AND AI would have to make choices as they go along about which goal to pursue, depending on which they could reach faster.

Problem: AI Perception of Other Civilizations
Only one quantity exists for AI to judge opponents against.
Currently all Civ A has to judge Civ B's future actions on is reputation. Reputation mostly is based on how much Civ A likes Civ B. Unfortunately 'reputation' combines threat probablity, integirty, and a few other different fields into one, creating a confusing quantity.

Solution: Create New Set of Parameters Civs Judge Each Other By
Concept
Being fond of someone and trusting them are two completely different parameters. Civ A may agree with the ideology and culture of Civ B, but doubts that the massive troop deployment on his border is benign. In CIV various leaders would judge opponents through a variety of filters. The interaction of these filters would help predict probable enemy actions and guide their own actions.

Parameters
Direct Military Threat - This is a gauge of how dangerous your opponent would be in a direct military conflict, not proxy. Part of this determination woud also include the evaluation of likely allies. Contributing factors include; the borders and terrain that must be crossed, military technology levels, military deployment, military size, current engagements, and potential military production.

Indirect Military Threat - This is how much your opponent could threaten non-domestic targets militariliy. This includes important trading partners, allies, or other interests abroad. Many of the same consderations as direct military threat are factored, of course adjusting for your and the opponents logistical concerns.

Integrity - This is how much your opponent honors reasonable agreements. Opponents who regularily break ROP treaties and trade treaties without the proper notice will be percieved as devious. Turning on your allies in a losing war does not hurt your integirty, but will be noted, as discussed below.

Expansionism - This is a measure of how much expansion is likely of a player. Players who invade often or frequently are expansionistic. Those who turn on allies once they win a war are expansionistic. Those who eventually try to extort or otherwise expand territory are expansionistic. A very high degree of this trait might make an empire powerful but unpopular, even to the point of being allied against.

-------------------------------------------------------------

More explanatino is coming, but I have some work to do now.

Dh_epic, and everyone else these ideas are great, this is a great thread.

I’d like to see type B (& C, D) played another way. These other civs would try to win by the other means; Cultural, Economic, etc. (wasn’t it you, dh, that suggested additional methods of winning?). To win economically, for example, you HAVE to play co-operatively to win.

Style could evolve and adapt too. An AI could start out as type A, and never get a chance to attack, thus have a tarnished reputation, but realizes that it has a lot of excess resources, luxuries (and commodities) to trade, and changes it’s play style to match.

The mix of tye A, B, etc. opponents should be more or less random. Or maybe by degree: Opponent 1 this game, is 80% type A, 20% type B, Civ 2 is 33% A, 33% B and 34% C, civ 3 is 100% type C (but may adapt later).

One idea about reputation. Romans captured, enslaved and conquered many Germanic tribes. Later they became allies in WWII and with Democratic systems are allies today. I’d hate to see the Rep thing overdone. This has been said before, but similarities of governing philosophy should also significantly affect relations.

Military victory should remain a viable way to win in Civ IV. There shouldn’t be so many diplomatic changes made that physically conquering the landmasses can’t be done.

A player (or AI) should not be able to always win with the same formulaic approach. Circumstances of starting locations, terrain, resources and discovery of opponent’s “style” should force you to adapt your play style to achieve victory. When playing against several type As, you’ll probably have to play as an A to keep up. Playing as an A amongst mostly type B almost ensures a defeat.

Looks like the solution alternatives are coming in. By all means, let's keep the discussion rolling.

The Basics: Seperate the AI into two categories, with one category truly playing for victory, with the others as pawns to be manipulated towards certain ends. This is what got this whole thread started.

Random Crisis: The Type B civilizations could undergo important historical events, that stimulate the rest of the world to respond. For example, a Type B Civ is engaging in genocide within its own borders.

New Type A Civs: Certain Type B Civs would become Type A Civs if the other Type A Civs are getting slaughtered.

New Type B Civs: Barbarians can become type B civs by conquering a city or by surviving for a long enough time.

Type B Civs Everywhere: Barbarians ARE type B Civs, or a special kind of AI Civ that has only one real city, with no culture, and are easy to negotiate with / buy off / assimilate.

Overhaul Gameplay: Force a combination of Type A and Type B gameplay styles by rewarding aspects like cooperation, and adding new victory types that cannot be achieved with the overall expansion strategy. Suddenly a Type A civ needs to be a little historically accurate -- keeping a lot of allies, and avoiding atrocities. No need to pull the AI apart, there are now multiple equal strategies.

Many Types of AI: Instead of seperating AIs into those who compete and those who don't, seperate it into those who pursue one goal, and those who pursue another... assuming that there are multiple victory types that are independent (e.g.: expansion doesn't improve your chances to be a cultural powerhouse).

That sums up a lot of the suggestions so far, no?

OK DH, I like the general thrust of your most recent post but, as I have put forward in another thread, I would like to add the following 'wrinkle':

Barbarians and goody huts would now be a 'catch-all' Type B, or Minor, civ. They may have no cities, a few cities or quite a few cities, depending on how 'sedentary' they are. Also, whether they are considered 'barbarians' or goody huts will depend on their characteristics and the general 'agression' level you have set. So, for instance, a type B civ with religious/commercial characteristics is liable to settle down early, build a few cities (at most) and try and estbalish peaceful relations with their neighbouring type A, or major, civs (and even other type B civs if possible!). This would be achieved by offering certain bonuses which only type B civs would possess (an idea I got from Minor Races in 'Birth of the Federation', where you are actively encouraged to form peaceful alliances with minor powers, due to the benefits they grant you!)
A militaristic type B civ, OTOH, would have lots of military units, would build very few cities, and would probably optimise said cities to churning out military units to go out and attack neighbouring type A and type B civs. The thing is that even these militaristic civs would offer benefits to a player who could successfully 'tame' them ;)! Anyway, hope that makes sense.
Another point I wanted to make was that I DO agree with the idea of 'semi-random' events, both positive and negative, which could keep people in the race! What makes this different from simple 'catch up', though, is that semi-random events are in large part based on player/AI actions. So though an economic crash might happen regardless, the chance of it happening would increase significantly if the player was being very 'economically irresponsible'
Again, hope that makes sense!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think that Civ IV should be released in the same pattern as Civ III, the basic game will give you single player and there will be an expansion for multiplayer (and it should work out of the box!!!). I think Siran is right about a different AI for multiplayer, it needs to be way more competitive (probably to the extent of cheating) to keep up with many human opponents. Siran, what aspects of the Covert Action AI would work well in Civilizations?

dh, I strongly disagree with your basics. All civs need to be playing for victory, and they can't be programmed to go for a certain victory right from the start. Imagine starting on an island next a "B1" civ and knowing that they will hold all their treaties and be your "pawn". And I'm sure that players would be able to figure out which kind of civ each one is pretty quickly. I also disagree with Aussie in that civ traits should determine the type of victory a civ pursues. Both of these ideas make opponents too predictable.

AI (artificial intelligence) means trying to play like a human, correct? An AI civ could have a plan of which victory they are going for, based on their early game conditions, but they need to be adaptable. If the AI has a weak civ next to them, they should attack and take them out. If the AI is alone on an island, they should build up their cities and have a strong culture. So the "A1"s and "B1"s would emerge in the game, but would not be programmed that way from the very start.

sir_schwick I like your idea of separating reputation into more factors (you mis-labeled expansionism, it should be aggression). ;) There is a feature in Civ III that could be used for the AI in Civ IV to cover your ideas: the advisors. The human players Greek advisor says (unhappy) "Rome has a bigger military than us, we need to build up our military". If the AI was hearing the same thing from their "advisors" then those factors could influence their behavior. The AI Roman military advisor is saying "attack Greece we are stronger than them!" But the Roman foreign advisor says "Greece is our ally, don't attack them". And the Roman trade advisor says "Greece has incense that they won't trade to us, attack them!" The AI would weigh these factors and choose their actions, in this case to attack.

Now obviously there wouldn't be any actual advisors, it would all be programmed in the AI, but you get the idea. I still think the history of hostility and honored treaties (currently reputation) between two civs should be the most important factor.

Now as to the separating of cultural and military victories, this is very necessary. Maybe captured cities don't grow culture till you've had them longer than another civ, so you would have to rely on your first few cities (homeland) to produce most of your culture.

OK, once again you have misunderstood me Plastique! First up I said it should act as a GUIDE to how the AI plays and what victory it pursues! However, a civs starting situation and how things progress through the ages may impact on its final decision! For instance, a militaristic civ trapped in the heart of a mountainous land mass is probably going to eschew a domination victory, and might instead pursue an economic and/or scientific victory! This, of course, will cause its traits to evolve accordingly, which will effect its playing style even more! Later in the game, however, they might encounter lots of rival civs, win a few wars, and decide that a domination victory is best! Again, this might cause yet ANOTHER evolution in its civ trait(s)!! One thing I agree with, though, is that the AI MUST be adaptable to its situation, and be prepared to change its behaviour according to need! Traits SHOULD act as a rough guide, however!
Also, unless I am mistaken, what DH is referring to is 'minor civs' vs major civs! Your class A civs will be your Germany's, Englands, Zulu's etc, wheras your type b civs will be your Hungarians, Poles and other 'good hut/barbarian' civs we know from prior civ games! In 'Birth of the Federation', there was a lot to be gained from forming alliances and membership agreements with your minor or type b civs-and I RARELY tried to crush them with military force-unless I was playing the Cardassians! But I digress ;)! The point is that you would have MAJOR powers similar to what you have now, but you would fill out the map with a few dozen minor powers whom you can either try and crush or try to woo over to your cause! Type B civs, due to their slow growth and poor development would not try to win-merely try and survive. If they are very aggressive, then they will do this via attacking everyone they can get away with, if they are passive, then they will do it via co-operation and diplomacy-offering their 'gifts' in return for their survival!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Must be that Aussie/Canadian language translation, eh. http://www.chatcity.com/images/haha.gif

I think your putting too much emphasis on traits determining a civs strategy. Starting location would by far be the most important factor. If their starting location has/doesn't have a resource. If they are near other civs or isolated. If they have enough room. These are all more important than being commercial or religous, although those traits would make some strategies easier.

I've been disagreeing with there being "A1"s and "B1"s in the five/six/seven starting civs. Barbarians could be programmed differently.. they are barbarians and not civs. If you wanted "minor" civs, why create a whole 'nother AI for them, just have them start later than the starting civs. So if there was an unsettled area at 1000 bc you could have another civ spring up. They'd be way behind in techs and easy to conquer, but thats not to say they couldn't catch up and become powerful. Instead of just minor civs being programmed to co-operate and offer gifts, any civ should do that when they are in a very weak position.

OK, to answer your first point-ummm, thats EXACTLY what I said-traits are not the be all and end all, and starting position, resource access, neighbouring civs etc should play a bigger role, but traits should play a role as well-and traits should EVOLVE through the game!

Also, I don't WANT minor civs to appear just late in the game! I want them to be the natural successors to 'goody huts' and barbarians, but as a long term rather than one off effect! In order to achieve this, the AI behind them would have to be less 'competitive'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'll go back to my map filling idea. There would be no more static goody huts, instead they would be players. Each game would be populated by many, many players(100+ would be good for normal). Each player would have 'stages of nationalism'(does not described my concept well), some would stay at one stage for the whole game, others not so much. Here are the stages:

Nomadic - These players will wander around and create camps for maybe a couple years at a time(a turn possibly). They presumably follow the herds and occasionally raid. Militaristic nomads will raid a lot more often, while religious nomads will pick up more nationalized religions. Commercial nomads will create tradeable products. Nomads will settle into villages at different points, maybe even early in the game.

Villages - These players form villages(2-4), which act like small, one radius cities of up to pop four. Their technology is usually comparable to other players around them(including civs). They can usually defend themselves and have a strong sense of defence. Some villages even have good road systems. Scientific Villages would tend to be equal or even greater than the region leader in tech. Industrious villages would produce many monuments and other memorial structures, as well as industrial buildngs. Villages might consolidate into a city-state.

City-State - Ruled by whatever means, a city-state controls the territory around it. These players would not expand beyond their initial city. Any settlers they produced(from overpopulation) would form new city-states or colonies. These states do not expand, but are very territorial. Eventually city states will want to expand their territory to a more secure position of Passive Nation.

Passive Nation - These players want to ensure prosperity without being overly expansionistic. They tend to control 8-12 cities and any villages in between these cities, all domestic. They will join in alliances with expansive powers in major wars and keep terriotry gained that way. They will also start wars with similair sized nations over critical resources or territorial disputes. They will only seek to influence their corner of the world, not the entire world. Eventually a successful passive power will want to become an expansive one.

Expansive Powers - These players would seek to increase their influence or direct control over as much of the globe as possible. They will often use espionage, diplomacy, or massiv emilitary force to accomplish their goals. They are the human civ player, minus the exploits. These are the players vieing for the top. An expansive power who fractures or losses badly might become a passive one.

All these players do some research and keep up with the technology around them. They also might eventually evolve or devolve in states. The mix will require you use diplomacy, especially early on.

Fair enough, some people don't like the whole seperation of AI types and think that the game should be fundamentally altered so the AI doesn't have to choose. But if the game is not fundamentally changed, what it means to play like a human is what it means to be a complete bastard with no regard for history or reputation or anything -- to be vicious and nasty and backstabbing. That's the only way to stay competitive with the best players.

Again, Aussie pretty much nailed it with minor Civs. We're talking about Cuba, Syria, Somalia, El Salvador, Malaysia, Croatia... guys who have no chance at victory but can still change the balance of power. Guys who would be difficult to pick in a world-wide scenario, but who you'd still want to be there. (Playing through an actual game, of course, America could end up being the minor civ that affects the balance of power, and the Poles could be the superpower. The point is the way the world's power is distributed.)

I still think you could sufficiently randomize and control for starting location such that it's no more a factor for your victory than it is now.

But you're right, pulling apart the victory types and rewarding more peaceful, diplomatic, or loyal/consistent behaviors would offer an equal incentive to the traditional route (warlike, isolationist, psychotic).

I think the key for culture, for example, would involve making it more dependent on cooperation. How could you have a culture that is admired around the world if everyone hates you? I think culture should be something you actually cram into peoples' borders with units and luxuries. That way a city no longer just has X points of the home culture, but an additional Y points of alternate cultures. Not only would the Y accumulate from more trade and sending more missionaries/artists/philosophers to their city, but it would also start to subtract when you declare war on that Civ. If they hate you, they start to redefine themselves in a way that is very different from you, spiteful towards you.

I've wanted to do a post about culture for a while. Maybe this weekend or the next.

Hey, thanks for that DH_Epic. I also agree that who is a major civ and who is a minor civ should change from game to game. The way I imagine it would work would be: in the setup screen, you select the number of major civs you want in the game (much as you do in civ3), and you can even select who you want it to be (or choose random, as in civ3). Next you click on how many minor civs you want-'None', 'almost none', 'quite a few', 'many' and 'lots'. This will determine roughly how many minor civs will be in the game. They won't play to win, unlike the majors, but they will defend themselves and, if agressive enough, will attack other civs as they see fit. They can grant unique benefits, however, to whomever brings them into their nation (most likely peacefully). These benefits could be a unique unit, wonder and/or improvement, a boost to research in a particular field, an overall research boost, production, food or wealth bonuses, culture bonuses and the like! Also, each minor civ that you deal with in a peaceful fashion might help you towards a diplomatic victory!
Lastly, I do agree that culture victory should work more like the way you said. Though culture points from improvements and wonders should still have an impact on borders, culture victory should depend more on how many of your products and ideas you can export to other nations. Perhaps every time you trade a tech and/or resource, your culture victory points increase!
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I've wanted to do a post about culture for a while. Maybe this weekend or the next.
Heh, me too, but I'll post my idea here since we are talking about it.

Culture Corruption would work the same way as commercial (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101545) corruption. The further away from your capital city , the more culture a city would lose to corruption. It is pretty simple, and it would reflect that your civs culture comes from your homeland and not from your outlying provinces. The other thing I was thinking is that captured citys should have a delay on when they start generating culture for you, maybe in years or maybe till you have assimilated the population. I don't think it matters if everyone liked you or not, that would be combining cultural and diplomactic victories. Look at the U.S., they have a huge culture but aren't the most popular country by any means.

Not a bad idea in principle, but somehow I'm worried it could be nearly as annoying as actual corruption. I think the problem with corruption isn't that it exists, but that it's inevitable. Of course you should keep expanding. Of course it's good to have more cities than fewer cities, even if those last few are really corrupt. Thus, you end up having a whole pile of cities with corruption, and you have no real choice. A real choice would either be a way of expanding without corruption, or a way of dominating without expanding. But that's a whole other discussion.

I'm kind of into the idea of dragging minor (type B) civs into your commonwealth / union, and it offering unique / random benefits. Not unlike goodie huts. I think minor civs is way more interesting than goodie huts.

What about htis on Culture Corruption. The Culture is not lost, but becomes either 1) culture of another Civ, 2) a local culture. The second could contribute to eventual succession, since they have a strong sense fo regionalism. this woudl be especially true of overseas provinces.

Coming back to this thread, I definitely tried to offer a deeper meditation on culture.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134

If you have these Type B Civs or Minor Civs that don't necessarily fight for victory but stick around for realism... adding a culture-spreading model becomes very interesting. You could have a minor Civ that is attacking you because they're just barbaric. But you send a few missionaries their way and infiltrate their culture, and suddenly that Type B Civ feels a certain amount of similarity with you. They even ally with you.

You beat the Type B Civ without even lifting a weapon!

Easily said than done! Unless one is in the designer/programmer shoes, it's hard to imagine the problem that one may have to deal with. Is it possible to build a good AI (type A, type B, type C or whatever)? The answer is not "yes" or "no" but "time". On top of that, there are two major types of time: development time and runtime. Development time: If it takes 10 years to develop Civ4, chances are Firaxis won't go for it; on one will. Runtime: If the it takes forever for the AI to make a move, chances are no one will play it.

Well, the truth is, I kind of threw out this solution not only to show what the AI should strive for... but why it's easier than a lot of suggestions people have put forth for programming "deep blue", that holds loyalties and is still competitive, and overhauling the gameplay to make the AI less exploitable.

Not to say my model will be easy to implement, but easier than the "perfect solutions" people are recommending. They can basically recycle old AI's with some tweaks for the Type A AI. And the Type B AI just has to be there. Again, not to say these will be easy to code, but certainly easier than trying to build an AI that is both realistic and competitive.

I also put in a "shortcut" where the Type A AI catches up using a relatively "dumb" algorithm. It artificially speeds up to stay close to where the player is. Much easier than trying to close game exploits and helping the Type A to play consistently and intelligently. Not everyone likes this one though.

Still, I think this is actually an elegant solution to a problem that could be much more complex.

So you think you know AI programming better than Soren, masters of comp sci from Stanford and Oxford? ;)

Haha, not to play the expert card or anything... but looking at Soren's GDC presentation, it appears we have a common background.

I got two Honors Bachelor of Science degrees. One, a specialist in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, and two a specialist in Human-Computer Interaction. Not the same as a Masters in Comp Sci, because I never went through some of the graduate level courses for computational theory and discrete mathematics and computer science. But the 4th year specialist courses in AI and HCI are the same courses the grad students take for their masters in Comp Sci.

So if there's two things I argue quite passionately about, it's about interface usability, and artificial intelligence. Although I'd definitely concede that I don't know *more*.

Although I'd definitely concede that I don't know *more*.
Aha, so you admit it. http://207.44.245.200/forums/images/smilies/nono.gif

Ha! Well, I think I know more than enough to make my point though. I'm sure the developers know more just by virtue of their experience, if not an additional year or two of education. But the point is still the same:

Deep blue, while great, might take a long time to develop.

Does deep blue play to win -- which involves psychotic, megalomaniacal behavior?

Or does deep blue play to show human emotions when it comes to diplomacy, like loyalty and grudges and a sense of moral pride? If this is the case, then deep blue cannot win -- unless you ask yourself, do you want to change the rewards and penalties in the game to make this a viable strategy? There are huge design implications for this.

I haven't come up with a "deep blue" model. But I've got something that would work -- they could do it rather quickly in Civ 3, even, if the architechture is flexible enough.

I have more to say on AI issues than is healthy, but I'll summarize it into a single line:

AI civs need to act coherently, gathering information from the world, analyzing it, determining what needs to be done, then allocating available resources to meet those ends.

To me, that is the key in making the AI competitive and "better." The problem the Civ 3 AI had was that it 1) lacked coherence in its actions and 2) allocated ends to resources (hmmm, we have a Worker... send him there!), rather than resources to ends like it should have (We have a list of x tiles that need to be improved, therefore we grab a Worker and send him there).

Therein lies the problem, though:

Acting coherently isn't profitable. It's much more profitable to judge the value of your alliances not by loyalty, but by power. "This person is weaker than me: attack". "This person is stronger than me, or equally as strong: avoid a conflict." Being incoherent is profitable.

But I do see what you mean, there's a lot to be gained from at least thinking ahead even in the most selfish ways. (e.g.: worker management) This takes a lot more processing than you think though.

I have more to say on AI issues than is healthy, but I'll summarize it into a single line:

AI civs need to act coherently, gathering information from the world, analyzing it, determining what needs to be done, then allocating available resources to meet those ends.

It should also be able to learn from its previous mistakes too.;) Anyway, I think that may be beyond today technology.

To me, that is the key in making the AI competitive and "better." The problem the Civ 3 AI had was that it 1) lacked coherence in its actions and 2) allocated ends to resources (hmmm, we have a Worker... send him there!), rather than resources to ends like it should have (We have a list of x tiles that need to be improved, therefore we grab a Worker and send him there).

I think Civ3 does have a list of x tiles that need to be improved; therefore, it often grab a worker and send him there (if that tile is in the middle of the battle field, so be it).:lol: Perharps, this subroutine needs to be fine tune a little bit. For example, if tile x is at the front line while we are in the middle of a war or something, don't do it.

Program the AI right from the start and it won't need to learn because it won't make mistakes. ;)

My point applies for multiple areas, not just Workers. ;)

AI declares war on neighbor without taking into account where its units are currently.

AI builds units without taking into account what it actually needs.

AI sends units to attack without organizing them or having a target planned out besides "whatever is weakest" - a problem clearly exhibited by playing ping-pong with AI units as they dash towards from one undefended city to another.

I am suprised Firaxis has never fixed the 2 units at a time syndrome. It would be a lot more effective if it waited until it could send 15 units to attack.

It's not as easy as it may sound...

The best way to do it is to program the AI from scratch with the intention of having it work a certain way. Once you have a complete AI then it's hard to change it to make it do what you want without a lot of work and possibly breaking something.

I've never taken the time to understand the AI... but if what you say is true and the AI basically makes up its mind about what to do based on the current state (with a few variables that might constitute memory -- like reputation, and a few priority queues) then the AI has a long way to go to do any kind of planning.

I'm not saying this to state the obvious but more to indicate that there's probably some serious coding to be done. You'd need some kind of mechanism that would build a "tree" of the next few turns and possible outcomes. So Trip would be right, you'd probably need to start from scratch.

I think diplomacy is the overarching issue of single player. That, too, involves the AI, but not along the lines drawn here.

This is the central issue for Civilization IV. Diplomacy is the heart of the SP game.

Since the AI (we assume and hope) will be built to competently execute all features and each AI civ will be playing more or less in the same way (there is only 1 AI playing each AI civ) what we really need is a way to effectively simulate good diplomacy between the AIs and the AIs and humans.

That's of course not to say the AI need to gang up, or need to be aware they are AI. One of Civ III's biggest achievements was the AI didn't care who was AI or human, they are equal opportunity attackers. What's needed is a diplomacy AI that can sort out threats, allies, and keep track of all these variables to make them create a coherent foreign policy, or as Sirian puts it, a coherent alliance system.

But here's the problem:

What's needed is a diplomacy AI that can sort out threats, allies, and keep track of all these variables to make them create a coherent foreign policy, or as Sirian puts it, a coherent alliance system.

Allies make you weak.
A coherent foreign policy is a weak foreign policy.

If Civ 3 were a parable, that would be the moral of the story. Megalomania pays.

I agree with dh, its core mechanics that cause the symptoms of backstabbing we see. There are few if any rewards for cooperating. Military cooperation might be easier if you could coordinate attacks with allies ala SMAC(although they would need to delvier this time).

Allies make you weak.
A coherent foreign policy is a weak foreign policy.

If Civ 3 were a parable, that would be the moral of the story. Megalomania pays.

How so? pure conjecture and the way human plays disagrees with that statement.

Civ III AI doesn't have a coherent foreign policy that's why its so weak. Read Sirian's initial reply again. He hit the idea perfectly. I'm merely agreeing and expanding on it.

Civ 3 AI is weak for a lot of reasons, and coherent foreign policy isn't one of them. If anything, the semi-coherence in its foreign policy makes it weaker.

I'll tell you what foreign policy the AI should have if it wants to win Civ 3.

If opponent = strong, then relations = peaceful, secretly cautious
If opponent = weak AND wars = 0, then relations = sneak attack
If opponent = weak AND wars > 0, then relations = peaceful

Civ 3 AI is weak for a lot of reasons, and coherent foreign policy isn't one of them. If anything, the semi-coherence in its foreign policy makes it weaker.

There's no proof of any coherence in the AI's foreign policy in Civ3 because it has none.

This is old news. I covered this stuff in my thread on AI suggestions which I'm tempted to revive. It's all explained there how the AI functions in Civ3 and how we suggests it be changed for 4 to be more interesting. Sirian and others made lots of comments there too that contradicts with your assertions.

Sirian put it best. In Civ1 and Civ 2 where the AI cheated extensively, the AI ganged up on you once you get powerful.

In Civ III, the AI dwaddles and do nothing while the human player play one faction against another.

We need something in the middle of these two extremes.

Where the action is is in the diplomacy and that's where I think they should really be improving the AI. Giving the AI Type A and B flavours sounds interesting, but I tend to agree with Sirian that it's probably not the best solution given the problems he pointed out in his threads.

Right. The most powerful AI is the one that has no coherence in foreign policy. In Civ 2 and Civ 1, mortal enemies become close friends and unite against the player. Even the player's closest allies side against him, because he's getting too strong.

Civ 3, the AI actually tries to use reputation and attitude as a model of its diplomacy. That's a thought process that makes the AI weaker.

At a conceptual level, a problem is civ is that most of the strategy is about when to have a strong military. Developement is a strategy to survive later because you think there will be little chance of needing tha tmilitary now. RUshing is the opposite, taking out opponents before they can develop. There is little or no inherent joy in making a civilization of enlightened scholars rather than warriors besides getting to the next tech.

OK, one interesting possibility is one I saw in SuperPower, where the AI doesn't know which nation is being run by the player, which means that, on balance, it treats all the nations the same.

Another poins is that I have no problem, in principle, with two AI civs ganging up on a more powerful human or AI civ-its just that (a) said ganging up should not HAVE to be military in nature and (b) such 'ganging up' should be a part of each AI civs broader foreign policy agenda. i.e. two nations who have previously spent the ENTIRE game engaged in brutal wars with one another will not suddenly drop everything in order to gang up against another civ JUST because the are becoming powerful. Factors like mutual trust and common interests, culture and government type should all play a part in the decision making. Hell, I can more than accept just outight greed as a motive for working together 'you help us to bring down Civ X, and I will shower you with gold and 100 turns supply of oil and coal' ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The Mycenean city-states of Hellenes were definitely friendly in any terms. However, Illium was way too powerful so they decided it was better for them to take out this non-Hellenic enemy before going after each other again.
Sparta, Delphi, and Athens all teamed up twice because Persia was too powerful. There was little to no love in that relationship.

You guys raise a good point -- is it realistic for mortal enemies to become friends in the face of a looming threat? It's been known to happen, but doesn't always happen.

I still think that this dodges the tougher issue...

If teaming up is realistic, is it fair, does it make for good gamplay?
If staying enemies is realistic, is it challenging, does it make for good gameplay?

I think the key is making realism an inherent part of gameplay. Not to the point where you need to follow China's path to victory, or where if you do anything really dominating you are penalized. But having realism a part of the gameplay. This thread talks about makign 80% of the AI civs play "realistically", regardless of competition.

But an alternative certainly is making realism competitive -- keeping allies and holding loyalties have equal rewards to backstabbing. Right now, backstabbing has obvious rewards, and they try to penalize you with a reputation hit. But it doesn't mean much if being hated by everyone isn't much of a barrier to victory. Not to say the penalty for backstabbing needs to be harsher, but maybe loyalty and honor need to have bigger rewards. One way of doing that would be increasing the value of reputation count for more -- have it boost trade, production, growth, efficiency, happiness in various ways, direct or indirect.

an alternative certainly is making realism competitive -- keeping allies and holding loyalties have equal rewards to backstabbing.

That's the line of thinking that I favor. I hope Civ4 makes some bold leaps. The diplomacy in Civ has always been its most shallow element. If they could breathe more life into it, a lot of possibilities open up.

- Sirian

I'd love to see it too, Sirian. But I'm not exactly optimistic. I suspect they'll keep Civ as a war game, plus a few meaningless frills. If Civ stays this way, then I'd definitely want them to pursue this AI split (Type A versus Type B). But if they managed to make diplomacy, peace, and loyalty profitable, then I'd easily throw out this entire thread. :ar15:

I've noticed almost all of the us veterans of the Civ 4 forum are being extremely cynical. We have almost lost faith that Civ 4 will be anything we want it to be.

That's because it's Firaxis' game, not the CFC Civ 4 ideas forum's game. ;)

Hahaha, yeah, we are pretty cynical. But I have a few shreds of hope that they'd listen to reason, in combination with a little vision and sense of fun.

And Trip, if you truly believe what you're saying (not that what you're saying is false), then why are you even hanging out on these forums?

That's a good question. :D

I disagree with catch-ups for the same reason I disagree with it taking an AI civ half (or twice) the shields to produce something. And I think the poor AI has more to do with lack of resources (time and manpower) devoted to programming good AI.

But I still think the idea two sim types strikes me as an idea with good potential. What I would ask is that the player be given the option to choose how many AIs are of each type.

My prefered method for doing this would be either:

Each civ has a "Type" setting - A, B or random. The player selects whichever option. In the case of random, the players are never told - they have to find out themselves the hard way!

A slider is placed which the player can use to determine the number of type A and type B civs, with the obligatory "random" button if they're feeling daring.


This would allow players to play entirely "realistic" games, entirely "cutthroat" games, or one of a wide range of games in between. I feel that the second method of selection would be better, but for the most customisation the ability to have both would be ideal.

I've noticed almost all of the us veterans of the Civ 4 forum are being extremely cynical. We have almost lost faith that Civ 4 will be anything we want it to be.

I wouldn't say that. No use being pollyanna here. The game is NOT going to have everything we want. It wouldn't have room for everything imagined here even if they tried to include it all. :eek:

That's got to be the main reason Firaxis says nada. The expectations game... If they raise expectations, they may lose sales. And yet how can they keep hopeful fans from raising their own expectations? Anything said will be seized on by hopeful fans -- including those who are pollyanna, expecting way more than is possible, and those who are embittered, who've expected good things from games before and been sorely disappointed. That's a minefield best avoided. The only way for Firaxis to win is to say nothing. At least for now.


If you notice, I only post in a few threads here. Certainly less than Trip. :lol: So one might conclude that Trip actually has higher hopes than I do. The cynical facade is just a defense mechanism, to try to keep those hopes in check and avoid the certain pain of disappointment should they grow too high.

Half Life 2 has gone gold. That will distract me a good bit, I expect. I've also been playing some other good games. Tropico is one I missed, but I'm playing it this fall. Lots of fun. Scratches my Civ itch better for the moment than Civ3 itself, but chiefly because I've run my course with Civ3 and there's very little newness left in it for me, even with wild and wacky variants. :crazyeye:

Another good game, in fact a surprise of a gem, is Gothic II. The combat engine in that game is tough to master, and the difficulty is actually a little too high. (The number of reloads I've had to do is sickening). However, once I got to be decent with the combat mechanism and accepting of the number of reloads (and how much saving I have to do! Arrgh) the game itself has turned out to be a real winner. Great writing, some of the best AI I've seen in a long time, loads and loads of content, lots of interesting adventure. In fact, this game is actually scratching my Ultima itch -- and it's been a decade since Ultima Seven last scratched that itch at all. :eek:

If you don't have all your eggs in one basket, it's easier to maintain a steady outlook on Civ4. Sure I'm hopeful, sure I'm doubtful about some things. But I can avoid the twin pitfalls of pollyanna and cynicism by being somewhat detached. I can only control myself, right? Some things are out of my hands.


- Sirian

Point taken, Sirian. By the way, I think Civ 4 would be great if it had a little bit more Tropico. I know a lot of people have an impulse to push Civ in the "Age of Empires" or "Rome Total War" direction... but Tropico really has a lot of depth and lets you play the same game with multiple pursuable strategies. Something sorely lacking from Civ -- with only conquest really worth pursuing, and the other strategies being something you can grab for at the last second if domination doesn't work out.

I can't say I expect Firaxis to use every single idea either.

But I'm optimistic that if you get enough people repeating something, and enough people putting their own spin on something, then that something has a high probability of being implemented in one way or another... even if it's not the way you or I anticipated.

I guess my hope in this thread is to either get people talking about Type A and Type B civilizations... or to get people talking about making realism (holding loyalties, holding grudges, hating a tyrant, loving a peacekeeper) a more rewarding gameplay style.

If Firaxis listened to either one of these demands, I think Civ 4 would be better by leaps and bounds. (If they didn't do anything else, I'd still be pretty damn happy.)

Yes, I agree I would like to see the people you lord over having more significance then they do. Like I said before, history is basically the interactions between humans, whether it be leaders or populations. Tropico was a game about population control, which civ should incorporate more.

Also, Sirian, have you never played a Total War game?

Total War? Not yet. A good friend was so totally into the concept before the first one came out... His enthusiasm alone had me looking at it. But the first one got delayed, fell off my radar... I'm not the biggest RTS fan.

I've got enough games to occupy me for the moment, but maybe I'll think about it later.


I'm optimistic that if you get enough people repeating something

Not me. I don't believe much in petitions. I believe in the power of single voices. Leaders, not mobs. The worth of an idea is not measured by the number of people supporting it. In fact, allowing "the polls" (so to speak) to sway design decisions has had near-universally bad results for developers. It's one thing to heed the call of fans in a wider sense, and another to become chained to numbers games of various kinds.

Great games aren't designed by committee. They require vision.

I should think that if Firaxis really knows what they are doing, they already have their own vision for the game. They shouldn't alter that just because twenty or even a few hundred fans manage to repeat something a lot. In fact, if I see that happening, I may lose confidence in what they are doing. :lol:

Maybe you're right, and noise will make a difference, but I'll put my bets on good ideas. In fact, it's almost a sign that an idea is a bad one if it starts trying to round up the backing of petitions, in one form or another. Because after all, if Firaxis doesn't recognize a good idea when they see it, we can forget about them acting on it anyway. Right? :)


- Sirian

I may not always agree with Sirian on the specifics, but I believe his philosophy is spot-on. To make a great game you have to come up with a great idea and impliment it. You can't simply take a previous idea and tack improvements onto it. I expect Civ 4 to be similar to Civ 3 in some ways, but the point is that it will be a completely new game that goes in a new direction. It won't be Civ 3 with a better AI, religion, civics and whatever else is new. It will be Civ 4.

If you notice, I only post in a few threads here. Certainly less than Trip. :lol: So one might conclude that Trip actually has higher hopes than I do. The cynical facade is just a defense mechanism, to try to keep those hopes in check and avoid the certain pain of disappointment should they grow too high.
Oh, and who are you to say what I'm here for? ;) :p

Point taken, Sirian. But I don't think about repetition in the "yes i love that idea" sense. I'd hate to see design by committee, because if that were the case, we'd all have ice cream for dinner -- which might seem good at first, but would become very harmful in the long term.

I should have articulated myself better. Not so much repeating as getting people to use it as a part of their vocabulary, as a way of talking about other problems, applying it to other gameplay concepts... not so much to demonstrate its popularity, but to demonstrate its application. Its "gameplay power", the fact that with a few small changes you can impact a lot of different mechanisms in small ways that sum up to a big improvement.

Although getting lost in a sea of noise, a bit of repetition certainly helps.

I am not an RTS person either, but TW breaks that rule. The combat has to be won with tactics. You can often win with the wrong type and lots less numbers by being the better general. Also, a lot of the game is planning war strategy to take into account administrative problems(your king is a good general but put him to far away from the center of your empire and you have disloyalty pop up), political issues(the pope will really **** up your catholic desires), and your generals. Also, you can autocalculate battles and concentrate on strategy, although beating back 5000 frogs with 500 elites in a 1 1/2 hour epic battle feels sooooo good.

Oh, and who are you to say what I'm here for? ;)

We always hurt the ones we love. :love:

Er... Whoa. May have said too much there. :p :crazyeye: