The purpose of this thread is to report questionable behavior on the part of the AI.

If you have found a specific bug, that is clearly a bug, then please report it on the bug reports thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204045).

On the other hand, if you have seen something which falls more in line with a judgement call, please report it here.

Did the AI do something which you think may be incorrect? Would you like to see more defenders? Less defenders? Did the AI declare war at a time you thought was inappropriate? Did the AI build a wonder that did not make sense? Vote inappropriately for/against a UN resolution? This is the correct place to report such things.

Please try to include screenshots or even better, save game files. You want the save before the questionable behavior occurs, if possible.

example questionable behavior report

Version: 1/16/07 build

When automating exploration, the unit went southwest, to a flat forest, rather than going west to a hill, which I think would be better.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/95686/exampleunit.jpg

Save game is enclosed, right before the move.

To duplicate, select the warrior to the east of the city, and click the explore button.

--- reserved ---

I'm in the middle of my first game with the 1/25 build. And honestly, IMO the unit spamming is still there. Here is a screenshot of a nearby Egyptian city.

There are 50(!!) units just sitting in it. And they've been there for at least the last 20 turns just sitting. Meanwhile, Egypt is running dog on tech and development....

There is just nothing good about having the AI have that many units just sitting idle. I dont believe they should be building stacks that size at all, but if you are going to make the AIs do this, then they need to do SOMETHING with them. Otherwise they are just crippling themselves to little effect. And unfortunately if the AIs are going to continue to do this then the only recourse is to change the nature of the game to something akin to 'always war' (since the only way for those insane piles to pay off is to conquer with them).

I also fought a war with the nearby Celts. And he too had 15+ units per city on the border. And with the right amount of Cannon and a few Grenadiers, I was able to take those cities with very minimal losses. I just dont believe that having piles of units like that really adds defense in proportion to the cost of building and maintaining them (or even remotely close). The collateral damage quickly renders those units ineffective. The only hope would be defending with massed siege, but even that doesnt do much unless it fully up to date (ie, the Egyptians 15 Catapults arent going to do much to a properly put together attack force of Rifles/Grens/Cannon).

I still firmly believe that the mod is moving in the wrong direction. Massed units do NOT make the AI better at all. Its weaknesses are just as exposed, but the ability to actually tech and move ahead are diminished. The AI is never going to be able to handle proper usage of collateral damage and dispersal to prevent the same on your own troops. So with the AIs having more troops and forcing the player to build more troops its actually skewing things against the AI IMO.

I would note that with the same customized difficulty settings, the 2.08 AI still seems to perform better as a whole than this build. Yes, I can conquer a neighbor on occasion with little effort, but I can still do it here with ease with the only difference being that all of us are investing more in troops than anything else. But in the end, its not really any 'harder' to take those same cities.

FWIW, I still believe that the number of units being built by the AI should be cut by at least half again. Having only 2-3 defenders is not enough, but having 10-15 (with the occasional 50+) is just a complete and total waste.

I definately appreciate the effort for the build, but the results (IMO) are not getting better as the builds go by. I think it 'peaked' somewhere around in December and has been moving away ever since.

I'm in the middle of my first game with the 1/25 build. And honestly, IMO the unit spamming is still there. Here is a screenshot of a nearby Egyptian city.

There are 50(!!) units just sitting in it. And they've been there for at least the last 20 turns just sitting. Meanwhile, Egypt is running dog on tech and development....

....

FWIW, I still believe that the number of units being built by the AI should be cut by at least half again. Having only 2-3 defenders is not enough, but having 10-15 (with the occasional 50+) is just a complete and total waste.

I definately appreciate the effort for the build, but the results (IMO) are not getting better as the builds go by. I think it 'peaked' somewhere around in December and has been moving away ever since.

totaly agree..i was implemented this into our TotalRealism mod, but from some revision (don't remember #) there is still too big stacks which do nothing, too much (or too few) defenders.... i am sorry, but i start thinking to remove this (or make this as optional DLL) because players noted this AI as very annoying

It seems as if this AI build an attack stack and when it was finished, it noticed that the potential targets had gotten to strong and aborted the attack.

How long does it take the AI to build such an attack stack? It seems like a long term project. Maybe it should reconsider the option to build an attack stack periodically. In that way it could decide that the attack stack is not going to be effective enough before it has finished it.

Agreed on the stacks. Seems like there are 2 decisions the AI needs to make:

1) Yes, let's do Dagger or Crush or whatever, so start building units instead of growth in terms of infrastructure / settlers / workers. (You can literally see this happening... last game, Ragnar is sitting there with just his capitol while other AIs have 2 or 3 cities. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he's doing.)

2) Actually begin the attack.

It seems that somewhere between #1 and #2 the AI sometimes gets stuck. Maybe it rechecks the power graph, maybe a shared religion has spread so that relations are much better, or maybe it looks over the border and sees a bunch of spearmen or something. In any event, the net result is that the AI is left with crappy infrastructure, fewer cities, and a bunch of obsolete units.

That said, sometimes the Dagger strike works, and it's wonderful to see.

Wodan

One other thing I've noticed, on several builds. Was wondering if it would still happen with the 1/25 build but I'm seeing it this morning too.

The AI has a ton of units sitting there. Fine, we've been discussing that.

BUT at the same time, barbs are having a field day, coming in left and right. So, one possibility with all those units is to teach the AI to do a better job at fogbusting. Just a thought.

Wodan

I just played out my game for a while longer but gave up in boredom. I'm now over 1000 points ahead of the next leading AI and continuing to pull away. And again, with the exact same difficulty settings I can rarely pull that off against the 2.08 AI.

It feels like we are back to the days of being able to get an early lead and then just cruise to victory. As long as you keep up your Military Score you are fine. So its just a matter of having a few cities continually pumping the latest troops while you build up some reserve cash for an occasional upgrading of the older guys.

But the AI is never going to stage any form of comeback like it used to be able to do because it is following the same predictable pattern of trying to keep up militarily even when I have 2.5x the next highest AI's production. It seems to be 'obsessed' with building those troops but regardless of how many it builds, I can build even more and continue to move ahead with my now superior econ.

FWIW, 'Aggressive AI' is not turned on. There has been quite a bit of scrapping between some of the other AIs and Ragnar has vassalized Rome and was working on Egypt when I stopped playing. But he is hopelessly behind me in tech and his GNP and Productivity are laughable in comparison.

For the AIs, it just takes too much investment to gain militarily with these builds. Even if it wins a few wars, its still going to be backwards so in the long run those Civs become less and less of a threat. I could smash him out of hand despite having relatively close military levels. And the reason is because I have massed, modern siege weapons which will easily dispatch his ridiculous stacks with little loss. That is another legacy of these massed unit builds...giving even more power to siege weapons.

Anyways, I hope after 1.0 is released that you can perhaps find time for a 'sub mod' that simply corrects the bugs and problems with the 2.08 AI. I understand that trying to maintain multiple mods would be difficult, but perhaps just a 'patch' for 2.08 to catch the bugs rather than adding in the other routines that I feel arent really making the AI 'Better' anymore.

Again, thanks for all the effort, but I believe that the project is going farther than the I would have considered as the original scope. Gameplay IS being altered quite a bit simply by the ways the AIs behave. And the game is significantly more military focused than I think is good for the way the game is designed.

Personally I don't feel it's at the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

2.08 had/has some huge problems with the basic AI algorithms. So huge, and so fundamental to AI behavior, that any adjustment is without a doubt going to result in massive swings in how games play out. To my thinking, that's a matter of fact and that outcome was to be expected all along. So, I guess it seems to me that pointing to this outcome and using as a justification to backpedal is a bit gratuitous (unreasonable).

Anyway, without a doubt some huge progress has been made, with worker actions, war management, and more. Yes some more adjustment needs to be done with the huge garrison stack generation, but to me that feels minor. It will have a big effect on the way games play out, but the actual adjustment itself is minor. I'd be disappointed if that adjustment wasn't made before the BetterAI release, but Blake and Iustus will do what they think best.

I think your feedback is good, Uncle Joe, and I agree with the intent of most of it, just not with the premise of your conclusion. Just my opinion.

Wodan

I think its a bit too much military yes..It is specially because of the defensive spam, that also cripples completely the AI(what also cripples is an unused dagger, but it was 'OK' before the defensive thing), but lets not forget that Blake is only working in this because YOU guys complained about the low number of defense in cities..

I think the program definetely is improving. You must be wondering why I say it Uncle Joe? Because while they are trying to fix this spam problem, they are also making other improviments! Look at the logs of the versions! Finally Im using the automatic governament(in small cities because I prefer to look myself in big ones hehe)! Now the AI is even back to pillaging as far as my first game with the new AI goes!
And if the AI decides to use that dagger stack against you...

Well, I think I know why its hard to calculate how many defendes is needed of each type and make it balanced! Probably because the AI dont think in long term but turn by turn..
But Im sure they will find a way.

I think the problem with the economy is that the AI should build less dagger stacks, only build them when the difference in military between them and the aim will surely not drasticlly change while making the dagger up! AND disband units if they are gonig to sit in a city for 50 turns waiting a mass upgrate without any use while it!! Just build again a little before a military tech comes!
What about it guys? AI start to build dagger when they start to tech(or going to the path of it) a important military tech? Then upgrate the units that were built before it(while it was being researched) and keep building some more turns and attack!!

I think that with some smarter defensive tatics(meaning less units) and smarter use of dagger the AI will get better again in management of gold!

They are trying to 'fix' it and eventually they will. The AI didnt defend good before, probably its not defending good now also, but the objective is make it defend better than vanilla, one way or other.

'1 steps backward for 2 forward'. Or something like that :p

2.08 had/has some huge problems with the basic AI algorithms. So huge, and so fundamental to AI behavior, that any adjustment is without a doubt going to result in massive swings in how games play out. To my thinking, that's a matter of fact and that outcome was to be expected all along. So, I guess it seems to me that pointing to this outcome and using as a justification to backpedal is a bit gratuitous (unreasonable).

But at the end of the day, 2.08 WORKS. It provides a competitive and fun game (given proper handicaps). It doesnt pigeon-hole the player into following one basic militaristic strategy. And the AIs feel far more dynamic. Are they easier to conquer? Perhaps. But that isnt necessarily a BAD thing. As long as there is a cost associated for doing so (in this case, potentially letting other AIs get ahead), then I think its OK.

But overproduction of military creates cascading effects that ripple through the entire AI and game balance. This has continued through the last three builds with the stated intention of not reverting back to the 'easy to conquer' AIs. I dont believe that 'easy to conquer' was the problem per se.

I think 2.08 with bug fixes would be a lot closer to the design parameters for the game. Civilization was never meant to be a 'conquest game'. I have dozens of games I can play for that. The current trend is to emphasize military (whether defensive or offensive) over other aspects of the game play in the name of making it 'harder'. But really, it only makes it 'harder' if you intend to win by conquest. If you are trying other types of victory, its not really any harder at all...its just more tedious.

So, what I'm simply asking for is a quick-fix for the worst of the 2.08 AI bugs without all of the changes to the AI's military routines. I'm willing to accept that it will not play as 'smart' militarily because I believe that that 'smartness' comes with far too high of a price tag in terms of the way the game plays out. I would wager that I am not alone.

I think the program definetely is improving. You must be wondering why I say it Uncle Joe? Because while they are trying to fix this spam problem, they are also making other improviments! Look at the logs of the versions!

Many of the other improvements are great, but since the underlying foundation is flawed (again, IMO), they arent contributing as much as they could if they were retrofitted to 2.08 base. I would fully understand if its just too much work to do this.

Its becoming clearer to me that its not going to be possible for one AI project to 'fix' the game for all people. The warmongers want an AI that will match their military build up. The people who didnt try to overcome the AI will military force every game see this enforced military as 'annoying' or distracting or tedious.

But I dont see many middlegrounds within one AI. Either its going to build enough military to try and oppose human conquests or its not.

But at the end of the day, 2.08 WORKS. It provides a competitive and fun game (given proper handicaps).
You remember that this is a beta test of BetterAI, right?

Giving feedback is great, and why we're here. Let's not jump to prejudge the end result, though.

But overproduction of military creates cascading effects that ripple through the entire AI and game balance. This has continued through the last three builds with the stated intention of not reverting back to the 'easy to conquer' AIs. I dont believe that 'easy to conquer' was the problem per se.
One of the biggest problems IMO with 2.08 (and prior) is that the AI has a weakness in war management. High level players fully admit that rushing and such are the main/best way to win on Emperor and Deity. Basically you have to exploit the AI weakness at war in order to compensate for the insane production (etc) bonuses the AI gets on those levels.

So, you point out that BetterAI has a weakness here. That's no different from 2.08 IMO. Plus, I think that BetterAI can (and I hope will be) fixed/tweaked to stop the huge garrison stacks.

Whereas 2.08 AI is plain stupid. It can't be tweaked... it will always suck at war and the human will always be de-facto encouraged to go to war to beat it.

I think 2.08 with bug fixes would be a lot closer to the design parameters for the game. Civilization was never meant to be a 'conquest game'. I have dozens of games I can play for that. The current trend is to emphasize military (whether defensive or offensive) over other aspects of the game play in the name of making it 'harder'. But really, it only makes it 'harder' if you intend to win by conquest. If you are trying other types of victory, its not really any harder at all...its just more tedious.
Rather, I think that bumping up the AI military is to compensate for its current biggest weakness. The basic idea is that if the AI becomes harder to conquer, then human strategies other than war become more viable. This is in line with your stated goals/objectives for Civilization.

Its becoming clearer to me that its not going to be possible for one AI project to 'fix' the game for all people. The warmongers want an AI that will match their military build up. The people who didnt try to overcome the AI will military force every game see this enforced military as 'annoying' or distracting or tedious.

But I dont see many middlegrounds within one AI. Either its going to build enough military to try and oppose human conquests or its not.
The latest build decreased the odds that AI will choose Dagger. This is an improvement. Further, the BetterAI includes such improvements as rush production / whipping if invaded. Which gives the AI a suitable alternative to building a massive army to "oppose human conquests".

Wodan

You remember that this is a beta test of BetterAI, right?

Giving feedback is great, and why we're here. Let's not jump to prejudge the end result, though.

I'm going by the recent trends. With this build, my understanding was that the 'unit spamming' was to be decreased. I see no measurable difference. The AI is still swimming with units and forcing the player to do likewise.

What I'm getting at is that I accept that my perception of a 'Better AI' might be differing from yours or theirs or anyone elses. I think a lot of players enjoy the 'standard' gameplay from Civ and dont feel the need to see the military aspect accentuated.

One of the biggest problems IMO with 2.08 (and prior) is that the AI has a weakness in war management. High level players fully admit that rushing and such are the main/best way to win on Emperor and Deity. Basically you have to exploit the AI weakness at war in order to compensate for the insane production (etc) bonuses the AI gets on those levels.

That doesnt make sense to me. If the AI is 'improved' to the point where it doesnt need massive bonuses anymore (where I think we were a handful of builds ago), then the need 'rush' the AI is diminished greatly. And if you are 'rushing' and AI while the rest of the newly improved AIs are teching and not building redundant troops, you will quickly fall behind. The massive bonuses were necessary as a result of poor opimization. That is largely gone, obviating the need for those bonuses (and as adjusted in the Better Handicaps).

So whats left is that perhaps it was too easy to get a material advantage by attacking the AI early. That can be tweaked with a FEW more units. As demonstrated repeatedly, 12 Lonbows does not provide any more realistic defense than 6, but costs twice as much. There are SEVERELY diminishing returns at work here.

Rather, I think that bumping up the AI military is to compensate for its current biggest weakness. The basic idea is that if the AI becomes harder to conquer, then human strategies other than war become more viable. This is in line with your stated goals/objectives for Civilization.

But it doesnt work this way. Bumping the AI's military just results in the PLAYERS building more military. The AI is still at a disadvantage and still loses to a skilled player in warfare. All the larger militaries really do is slow the pace of the game down and ensure that constant attention is given to the military They dont make it much harder overall.

The only way it becomes truly 'harder' is if the AI continue to have more and more units than a human player can produce. And to do that, it needs massive bonuses. So perhaps going this route removes the ability to 'rush' the AIs, but the whole of the gameplay suffers to prevent a few players from 'abusing' the AI. IMO, its not a worthy tradeoff. Others will differ on that, hence my request for something that simply gives some economic opitimizations whilst leaving the rest of the 'decision-making' intact. It may be flawed, but it allows the game to progress unimpeded unlike the enforced military buildups.

The latest build decreased the odds that AI will choose Dagger. This is an improvement.

It not an improvement if the AIs are still playing as if military were the primary goal. It just means that fewer will beat themselve to death on a neighbor, but the arms race continues.

That doesnt make sense to me. If the AI is 'improved' to the point where it doesnt need massive bonuses anymore (where I think we were a handful of builds ago), then the need 'rush' the AI is diminished greatly.
You're advocating leaving the AI's military management static, while increasing its ability to do other things. This clearly leads to a situation where if you don't attack the AI, it will perform research (etc) faster and better than before.

The whole point of attacking the AI (and exploiting its weakness at warfare) is a pre-emptive strategy, not a reactive one. (That's why high-level players swear by early rushing.)

Does that make more sense?

So whats left is that perhaps it was too easy to get a material advantage by attacking the AI early. That can be tweaked with a FEW more units. As demonstrated repeatedly, 12 Lonbows does not provide any more realistic defense than 6, but costs twice as much. There are SEVERELY diminishing returns at work here.
I agree.

But it doesnt work this way. Bumping the AI's military just results in the PLAYERS building more military.
Clearly I didn't explain very well... when I was talking about "bumping" I wasn't talking about simply building more units. Rather, it's about unit management, effective movement, use of mixed unit types, having cats for counter-stack defense, etc.

Simply building more units chokes the AI and is what everyone is complaining about right now. I think most everyone is agreed that this needs to be tweaked/changed.

Wodan

You're advocating leaving the AI's military management static, while increasing its ability to do other things. This clearly leads to a situation where if you don't attack the AI, it will perform research (etc) faster and better than before.

The whole point of attacking the AI (and exploiting its weakness at warfare) is a pre-emptive strategy, not a reactive one. (That's why high-level players swear by early rushing.)

Does that make more sense?

But if the AI's bonus is reduced to a more manageable level, then the need for that 'pre-emptive strike' is obviated.

On another note, when playing multiplayer games, highly skilled players often 'rush' too. And other players arent getting any bonuses over them. Its just a preferred way to play for some people (wargame rather than builder game). Its not a bad way to play nor is it 'wrong'. But I feel that the AI is being catered to employ and counter that strategy far too much to exclusion of doing other things. My 2nd game is an indicator of that (see next post).

Clearly I didn't explain very well... when I was talking about "bumping" I wasn't talking about simply building more units. Rather, it's about unit management, effective movement, use of mixed unit types, having cats for counter-stack defense, etc.

Simply building more units chokes the AI and is what everyone is complaining about right now. I think most everyone is agreed that this needs to be tweaked/changed.

My impression was that most everyone was in agreement before this build too. And yet the same strategies are being employed. Rather than pressing people to conform to my standard of what the AI's 'should' be doing, I'd just as soon see a few simply bug fixes for the worst offenders in the original AI. Then, if the wargame style AI is to be pursued there is at least an option for players who prefer the original (and IMO intended) styles of play.

As I said above, I dont believe that its going to be possible for the AI to be all things to all people. Its either going to be optimized to fight the warmongers (and in turn become a warmonger) or else its going to follow the original path of a more varied AI with commeasurate weakness to a warmongering style of play. I dont say that in a bad way or to disparage the capabilities of the AI team at all.

1/25 build, second test game.

After losing interest in the first game, I fired up a second with all of the same parameters (modified difficulty, Epic, no Aggressive AI, everything else standard).

This time, Alexander went balls out attacking in the early game. He quickly eliminated Isabella (good riddance!) and shortly thereafter killed Hatty. Both of these conquests were completed during the early/mid Classical Age (ie, no siege weapons available).

I, as Russia (Catherine) was somewhat slowed by a pretty crummy peninsular start, but was in 2nd place behind the now-bloated Alexander. He eventually DoWs me and sends in the hordes. My military is smaller, but I am holding my own. He sends stacks and stacks and stacks. Eventually he starts to bludgeon his way through. Its hanging in the balance when Monty hits me from the other side...game over (tip of the hat to Alex).

What I observed here is that the AI is FAR better about conquest in the early game than later when their is prolific siege weapons available. The 'monster stack' is a huge liability against massed siege and the AI never reacts accordingly.

But the problem with Alexander's approach was that was all or nothing. After I conceded, I looked at his set up and he was completely stagnant in tech. He had little to no economic buildings or other improvements (outside of Barracks). Yes, he would have beaten me down, but in the end, he ruined himself to do it. If he had been beating himself against another AI rather than the only player, I would again have easily pulled ahead and eventually outteched him to the point where he would no longer be a threat with his backwards piles of units.

And that is folly I see in the strategy...its not going to possible to WIN the game that early (unless on Pangea). So mortgaging the future to win a few wars is not an effective strategy. You'll eventually run out of steam and be left in the dust.

On another note, because he was going so balls-out on the attack, about the only way to survive that would be to equally be spamming units. Its evident that Hatty and Isabella didnt do that and they were QUICKLY dispatched. So the existance of this AI strategy again compels military buildup as the only viable strategy, even in early in the game (unless you want to play with fire).

In order for this AI to work and not convert the game into a simple wargame, there is going to have to be a LOT of moderation put in here. The AIs should not commit to all-out attacks, particularly early in the game. It detrimental to gameplay and to the AI doing it even if it succeeds.

That was probably the first time I've actually lost militarily to an AI in the early game. In some ways that is a good thing. But in the future, I know to start the spamming of my own military a little earlier if there is an aggressive AI player attacking randomly like that. Which in turn starts the loop all over again...build military, military, and more military. Even if you have no intentions of 'rushing' an AI, you still have to commit to the military route because unless you do, you'll have no chance against an AI that is soley pursuing a military strategy, heedless of the longterm results.

1/25 build, second test game.

After losing interest in the first game, I fired up a second with all of the same parameters (modified difficulty, Epic, no Aggressive AI, everything else standard).



What does "modified difficulty" mean?

I ask only b/c I was positioned next to Alexander in a noble-level 1/25 game (small, techtonics, 8 civs, no aggressive AI) -- we shared a continent together. He did not attack at all...in fact, in the mid-game he actually looks like he is trying for a culture win. If anything, it looked like he hasn't been building enough units (the Mongols were able to launch an amphibious attack and burn one of his cities.)

1/25 build, second test game.

After losing interest in the first game, I fired up a second with all of the same parameters (modified difficulty, Epic, no Aggressive AI, everything else standard).

This time, Alexander went balls out attacking in the early game. He quickly eliminated Isabella (good riddance!) and shortly thereafter killed Hatty. Both of these conquests were completed during the early/mid Classical Age (ie, no siege weapons available).

I, as Russia (Catherine) was somewhat slowed by a pretty crummy peninsular start, but was in 2nd place behind the now-bloated Alexander. He eventually DoWs me and sends in the hordes. My military is smaller, but I am holding my own. He sends stacks and stacks and stacks. Eventually he starts to bludgeon his way through. Its hanging in the balance when Monty hits me from the other side...game over (tip of the hat to Alex).

What I observed here is that the AI is FAR better about conquest in the early game than later when their is prolific siege weapons available. The 'monster stack' is a huge liability against massed siege and the AI never reacts accordingly.

But the problem with Alexander's approach was that was all or nothing. After I conceded, I looked at his set up and he was completely stagnant in tech. He had little to no economic buildings or other improvements (outside of Barracks). Yes, he would have beaten me down, but in the end, he ruined himself to do it. If he had been beating himself against another AI rather than the only player, I would again have easily pulled ahead and eventually outteched him to the point where he would no longer be a threat with his backwards piles of units.
This feedback is gold. In 2.08 an AI would NEVER have been able to conquer two neighbors (at least not without massive luck) so the AI didn't have to worry about "when to stop and consolidate" - it never reached that position in the first place...

Do you happen to have any saves from this game? Particularly during Alex's wars with the other AI's (I'd like to see his economic stats).

By the way I'm thinking of tying unit training levels to aggressive AI... so aggressive AI would be militaristic AI.

In order for this AI to work and not convert the game into a simple wargame, there is going to have to be a LOT of moderation put in here. The AIs should not commit to all-out attacks, particularly early in the game. It detrimental to gameplay and to the AI doing it even if it succeeds.

The unconditional statement about committing to all out attacks is too strong. I think this after reading a large number of posts from players who wanted to see the AIs launch devastating attacks. Many players requested AIs that go to war more often. Sometimes the result is going to be a benefit to the warring party, sometimes not. Maybe more often not. However, this was what was called for by many posters.

Speaking for myself, I find totally peaceful games really boring. If the only reason AIs go to war is because I've manipulated them, that's boring too. Sometimes you need that insane leader that goes to war, even though the poor result can be predicted. This happens in real life. :(

The unconditional statement about committing to all out attacks is too strong. I think this after reading a large number of posts from players who wanted to see the AIs launch devastating attacks. Many players requested AIs that go to war more often. Sometimes the result is going to be a benefit to the warring party, sometimes not. Maybe more often not. However, this was what was called for by many posters.

Speaking for myself, I find totally peaceful games really boring. If the only reason AIs go to war is because I've manipulated them, that's boring too. Sometimes you need that insane leader that goes to war, even though the poor result can be predicted. This happens in real life

I dont think people really were looking for an AI to turn 'berserker' on them. ;)

But yes, I understand what you are saying. IMO though, its not good for the game as a whole. If the AI wants to attack a neighbor and secure some resources or some expansion room or even just to hurt a competitor, I'm all fine with that. But it was making no efforts to consolidate its gains and was running itself into the ground to sustain the attacks.

And as I said, the only way to resist such an attack is to be spamming military left and right yourself. Sure, that makes the game more difficult, but then again I could always play with 'All AIs vs the player' too and it would be even more difficult. But it dramatically changes the game from one of 'Civilization' to a simple wargame.

So to sum it up, yes, the AIs should attack (and they always have IMO), but no, they shouldnt commit 100% to the attack...even if they win, they lose in the long run. The only way the 'win' is if their target is the human player and they make the game untennable for him. Beyond that, it simply eliminating competition and weakening itself in the long run.

This happens in real life

And in real life, nations dont prepare properly for war and trust in diplomacy or luck or divine providence not to be killed off either. Yet when the AIs do the same, its criticized for being 'stupid' and 'not knowing how to defend'. Either the AIs have to be playing 'to win' or they have to be playing 'to feel like other nations'. If all of the AIs are trying to win, then you shouldnt see either of these cases because neither is beneficial in the long term (although both have happened time and again in history).

Therein is the same problem I noted above. The game cant be tweaked to play smart and play 'real' in the same build. Because in the real world, nations tend to a lot of things that aren't really smart. My fear with the current AI is that it is no longer acting as opposing nation states but instead, as simply another player looking to keep the player from winning.

Do you happen to have any saves from this game? Particularly during Alex's wars with the other AI's (I'd like to see his economic stats).

I've attached all of the autosaves I had. I dont know how far back they go or if they will show you want to see but you can take a look.

What does "modified difficulty" mean?

I've tweaked the heck out of it. :) Essentially the level is still called 'Noble', but the parameters are closer to Monarch/Emperor in terms of Inflation/Maintenance/Upkeep etc. The AI doesnt get many bonuses either (although they are close to the 'Better Handicaps' file).

What I was shooting for was a level where the economic side matches the higher difficulties but the AI bonuses were not drastic.

By the way I'm thinking of tying unit training levels to aggressive AI... so aggressive AI would be militaristic AI.

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean on the 'Aggressive AI' setting that the AI would 'spam' units but not so much on the standard setting?

Thanks for the saves.

I've made a new thread for AI Aggression levels (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204248), please move the discussion on this topic over to there.

Just finished (gave up) my first game on the new build (27/1).
3 continents, 6 AI
Americans and me on one continent. After a short while they went for me and would not let up. I could stop thier penertration into my lands, but had any counter attacking stacks wiped out, so fairly stalemate. (neither of us had siege weapons).
Unfortunately my tech research was slowed to a real crawl, and I checked the world builder - the 3 AI's on the big continent were so far ahead in tech it was not worth continuing (I don't normally ever give up, but the constant war grind and no hope of winning got to me)
On the third continent the Mongols had wiped out the Malinese.

Checking the power graph it was interesting to see that the Mongols had the most power up until the defeat of Mansa, and then kept thier power level the same - obviously adopting a different stratagy after winning the war.

edit: sorry - posted this in wrong area

@Uncle Joe

I gather you have never modified a large computer program.

Blake and Iustus are working at breakneck speed making many many changes to a game that sorely needs the changes.

The first set of changes - 2.08 - thats the cherry picking part of the changes. Change all the easy stuff.

The second set of changes is quite a bit tougher. Now the AI makes many more units. OK that wasn't too hard. Now the hard part is: use these units in an effective way. This is a substantially tougher project.

Yes they need to have the AIs make more siege units for collateral damage, make more offensive units etc etc etc. All the factual stuff you said... yes it all needs to be done, accounted for, and taken care of. However this is not a trivial project they are undertaking.

And yes what this means now is that sometimes the side effects of given changes will be worse for the game than the bonus the change was supposed to give to the AI. Thats part of programming too. We are not doing beta testing - more like alpha testing. They WILL make the AIs use all of this military in an effective way.

And then I guarantee that you will be forced back a difficulty level or two :) And with lower AI bonuses, there will be smaller stacks of AI units to contend with!

No one - least of all Uncle Joe - claimed that Blake and Iustus had an easy "job" or that they weren't doing their best to make it work.

That doesn't change the fact (and neither will your imaginary "guarantees") that Better AI has gone worse lately. And if we don't tell Blake and Iustus, how are they supposed to know? If they noticed themselves or knew exactly what the problem was, they surely would have changed it for the better instead of making it worse, right? There's only so much testing one or two persons can do, after all. Adopting a "it's all right, all will be fluffy and sweet sooner or later" attitude never did any good and it won't in this case either.
Especially considering Uncle Joe only brought up valid and reasonable concerns. In a polite manner, I might add. So far, I fully support his point of view.

Has anybody else noticed Barbarians being a bit more aimless than usual? In the game I'm playing (07-01-25 build), the Barbs hung around outside my property well after the usual date when they rush in. In fact, they haven't stepped into my boundaries yet and its the Medieval Era.

Just a fluke, or something that has changed...?

Or you just built the Great Wall and missed this crucial fact.

Or you just built the Great Wall and missed this crucial fact.

Hee, hee. Yes, I built it in my sleep. JK! :lol:

I could stop thier penertration into my lands, but had any counter attacking stacks wiped out, so fairly stalemate.

I lost my first 25/01 game too! (And i reloaded a couple times... :rolleyes: )

Monarch, Terra, Standard. Non aggressive AI.

I (Carthago) expanded quckly, very good start position for my early cities with plenty of production and resources. My south neighbour was Mehmet and i hit him hard in an early war and conquered his capital (with great lighthouse) and two other cities. Then I gained tech lead and adopted Hinduism to tigh myself to the most powerful civ, the French (Ludwig). Then Montezuma attacked me. Brutal. After I lost two key border cities i reloaded.

Second attempt:
I expanded quickly, and this time I made friends with Mehmet and especially Psycho-Montezuma and settled all my cities by myself. I built reasonable Military, in all cities a few Units. I didn't choose a religion (which sucks, because you can't take the 25% production bonus or great persons take longer) and have big positive modifiers with almost all Civs. Tech race is okay, the french only have five cities but are leading.

Then Stalin attacks me, the turn before he was pleased with me. :confused: Thanks to my early focus on production i manage to throw back his attack (btw: Numidian Cavalry sucks against normal horse riders) and with knights, trebuchets, pikeman and maceman i invade the russion land. Ask for peace. Stalin wants one of my cities. Slaughter medium size stacks of him. No peace. Conquer a city from him. No peace, but Mehmet declares war on me. I produce every turn knights, but Mehmet has musketman. After some time i give up, i am not losing, but war against two enemys is crippling me serious.

It was great fun! Good job on the 25/1 build :goodjob:

But i don't know what i could have done better. The other AI sucked as friends, my best friend Ludwig never helped me. Only the Mongols could be bribed to war.

Then, if you are in a long stalemate with an enemy your research is hurted. Which means you never gain enough Techs to bribe a builder Civ to war. Or get your enemys to a truce. Which sucks. Or i suck. Back to prince i think... :king:

Long story short:
It should be easier after a long war to sign for a ceasefire.

Long story short:
It should be easier after a long war to sign for a ceasefire.

Blake changed it, and for good. The reason is simple(not sure it was your case exactely), if the AI really thinks it still has more to gain in the war, it wont want peace then.

Blake changed it, and for good. The reason is simple(not sure it was your case exactely), if the AI really thinks it still has more to gain in the war, it wont want peace then.

I have to agree with this sentiment. The AI shouldn't show any mercy; you wouldn't. :mischief:

The AI shouldn't show any mercy; you wouldn't.

IMO, the AIs should act according to the way they were originally intended, not as bloodthirsty killers. 'Better' AI should be just that...better efficiency of the original intent, not changing the way the AIs operate to such point that the game of Civilization is lost in the shuffle.

Civilization was not intended to be solely a wargame or a game of military conquest. Changes like these and the unit spamming and the all-out commitments to war threaten to reduce the game to just that...a game of military conquest.

I dont want to see this turning into something that is geared simply towards a military style of play. That is not making the AI 'better', it changing the focus of the game. IMO, these types of changes are not good for the game at all.

That said, I dont believe the AI should give up in a war simply because a certain amount of time has expired etc. If it has no WW and is still making gains at reasonable cost (and not following behind in the tech and development race), then by all means it should continue the war. But if its cities are under blockade and their land is being torn up by pillaging etc then continuing to grind out even a slightly successful war is not good strategy. A human player may do it out of spite or whatever, but that doesnt make it too terribly bright.

That said, I dont believe the AI should give up in a war simply because a certain amount of time has expired etc. If it has no WW and is still making gains at reasonable cost (and not following behind in the tech and development race), then by all means it should continue the war. But if its cities are under blockade and their land is being torn up by pillaging etc then continuing to grind out even a slightly successful war is not good strategy. A human player may do it out of spite or whatever, but that doesnt make it too terribly bright.


Im guessing here but I think it's probably al ittle hard ot the AI to determine exactely when its better stop.. But in vanilla it would stop after 30 tuns(was it?) doesent matter what. That is a little dumb if you are just before the capitol of your enemy for example..
The thing is, the going for war should depend more of their personality, but after they are in a war, it should be for win or at least not lose, right?

And did you see my reply in the other thread aobut agressiviness? The AI in my continent is not agressive AT ALL, maybe because they are both 'peacefull' and as we didnt meet any other AI yet, they dont get more power cuz they think they are fine in comparation with the others that they already met..Or something like that.


Sorry if didnt make much sense, my english skills are not 100% and my keyboard skill is near 0.

I find the question "what should the AI do" quite annoying. The answer is simple:

The AI should pursue the goal which is its victory in the game (no matter what type of victory it would be). I don't think it should have only one type of victory in "mind", it should simply do its best to win.

So: should the AI show mercy or not? Lol, obviously not. It should pursue the GOAL = victory. It should end the war it is winning only if it pays. Eg., it expects some difficulties in close future (say, the enemy is about to develop a new kind of weapon that might enable it to take back a city or two). Another reason for such a cease-fire would be the need to build up more units just to continue the war after several turns. A reason could be also the size of the empire and the need to develop the new acquisitions so that they don't pull the national economy too much down.

I absolutely disagree with the argument that the game "should let the player d o X and Y, so the AI shouldn't be too aggressive towards the player". The AI should pursue victory, period.

The reason why overinvestment in military is dumb is simply that it induces general arms race. But if the arms race actually harms the other civilizations more than it hurts us, it pays to stimulate the race. If my economy can sustain 100 units and nobody else can sustain this much troops, I might go for the arms race. I might not do so if other countries have weaker economies, but they are involved in military pacts that provide enough protection to them even if each of said states can only upkeep 50 units without much harm to its economy.

I mean, the AI should analyze what is best to it and do what is best to it. If some player has problems about it, they should reduce the difficulty level.

The "AI should pursue victory" point of view is only one. It leads to SP becoming MP game with AI opponents.
The other point of view is that the AI is meant to be an obstacle to the human player, not an opponent.

I think the Aggressive AI behaviour is a good change. Maybe in time that little checkbox will be what separates MP-type AI from SP-type AI - one that is going for a win and also prevention of victory by someone else, the other a more docile version.

The "AI should pursue victory" point of view is only one. It leads to SP becoming MP game with AI opponents.
The other point of view is that the AI is meant to be an obstacle to the human player, not an opponent.

I think the Aggressive AI behaviour is a good change. Maybe in time that little checkbox will be what separates MP-type AI from SP-type AI - one that is going for a win and also prevention of victory by someone else, the other a more docile version.

Im my opnion(MINE), that is just stupid.

Anyway if the AI is winnig too much over somebody, that person clearly needs to go a level down.

The objective of this as far as I know is to make AI better. One of things is to make it also able to win, hence the Cultural victory.

Now if somebody want the AI only as an 'obstacle', well, maybe its not the right project for them?

And because of that Im 99% sure Firaxis wont introduce much of it in the game anymore. So who dont like a 'better'(still needs improviment, but I mean an AI actually trying to win and not only being an annoyance and doing nothing good) AI, well...

Thread:What is Better AI . (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204041)

A little part of it:

"Better AI improves the AI's decision making, enabling the AI to put up a stronger game with less reliance on handicaps and ultimately to play a balanced game more like a human."

The AI should pursue victory, period.

OK, so by that rationale, why bother to have 'relations' with the AI? Why bother trying to develop good relations or share a religion or anything of the sort because if the AI is playing only to 'win', then none of that would matter a whit. If it 'thinks' it can get something out of a war with you, then it should attack regardless of previous dealings? After all, human players would never care about 'favorite civics' or 'years of peace' or anything else. So you are saying all of that should be thrown out for the AIs too?? (because thats exactly where this is leading).

Sure, that might make the AIs 'better' in some ways, but its throwing out crucial concepts of the game of CIVILIZATION. All of those modifiers and attitudes and whatnot are there for a REASON....to give the illusion that you are dealing with rival nation states and NOT just another random player out there trying to 'win the game'.

And this is EXACTLY why I proposed branching the product between those who want the AI to try to win at any cost and those who still want to play Civilization, but without the bugs and poorly optimized AI economic routines.

Dont get me wrong, I CAN play a militaristic style of game and I CAN win when the AIs are building piles of units and trying only to win the game. But its no longer the SAME GAME as Civ4. My impression was that the Better AI was not going to change fundamental elements of the game, but making the AIs play solely to 'win' regardless of other circumstance is COMPLETELY throwing the core concepts of Civilization out in favor a game of conquest.

OK, so by that rationale, why bother to have 'relations' with the AI? Why bother trying to develop good relations or share a religion or anything of the sort because if the AI is playing only to 'win', then none of that would matter a whit. If it 'thinks' it can get something out of a war with you, then it should attack regardless of previous dealings? After all, human players would never care about 'favorite civics' or 'years of peace' or anything else. So you are saying all of that should be thrown out for the AIs too?? (because thats exactly where this is leading).

Sure, that might make the AIs 'better' in some ways, but its throwing out crucial concepts of the game of CIVILIZATION. All of those modifiers and attitudes and whatnot are there for a REASON....to give the illusion that you are dealing with rival nation states and NOT just another random player out there trying to 'win the game'.

And this is EXACTLY why I proposed branching the product between those who want the AI to try to win at any cost and those who still want to play Civilization, but without the bugs and poorly optimized AI economic routines.

Dont get me wrong, I CAN play a militaristic style of game and I CAN win when the AIs are building piles of units and trying only to win the game. But its no longer the SAME GAME as Civ4. My impression was that the Better AI was not going to change fundamental elements of the game, but making the AIs play solely to 'win' regardless of other circumstance is COMPLETELY throwing the core concepts of Civilization out in favor a game of conquest.

I probably didnt make myself clear enough as I was afraid.
Here is one of my phrases:
"The thing is, the going for war should depend more of their personality, but after they are in a war, it should be for win or at least not lose, right?"

I meant that, the AI shouldent go in a war against their personality or against a friend(unless the AI has a backstabber personality). But if the AIis in a war at the moment, doesent matter the reason of the war, then YES it should get as much as it can, after all its in a war anyway no? If its in a war, the AI decided to attack according with its personallity and relationships, or got attacked. Either way its against an enemy and should try to win.


Did I make myself clear now?

I probably didnt make myself clear enough as I was afraid.

and

I meant that, the AI shouldent go in a war against their personality or against a friend(unless the AI has a backstabber personality).

You are quite clear, dont worry. ;) But what you are saying is not what some seem to be wanting and that is that the AI should play like a human player and disregard all the same things a human player might with the sole goal of victory.

I freely accept that there are players out there who desire this and think it would make for a better game. I just disagree. I believe it would make a different game, but not necessarily a better game. What drew me to the mod was the fact that gameplay was not going to be altered. But making radical changes to AI behavior (including rampant unit spamming) IS altering the gameplay quite a bit.

Look at it this way. Going from Warlords 1.0 to Warlords 2.08, there is marked improvement in the AI. The 2.08 AI runs its econ better and manages teching and production etc better than 1.0. But the gameplay is completely UNCHANGED.

Going from 2.08 to the 1/25 build, the game does not play even remotely closely. Military production HAS TO BE your main focus. Otherwise you will be crushed. There is no other way around it. You either 'keep up with the Joneses' or you lose. And just like the AI, if you are going to build a huge military, then there is a need to get some payoff from it. And that means that I'm far more likely to warmonger in 1/25 than in 2.08 (but I'm sure not everyone feels that way).

What I would like to see is the logical progression from 1.0 to 2.08 to the next build where the AI is better optimized, but the entire way the game must be played is not so radically different (ie military stressed above everything else).

And having the AI's behavior changed to 'win at any cost' is going even that much further off the baselines of the game established in Civ Vanilla, Warlords 1.0, and 2.08. In all of those upgrades and changes, the core gameplay did not radically change as it has between 2.08 and the last couple of builds. I, personally, do not want to see it to continue moving even farther off. At the same time, I recognize that apparently others DO want to see that. Hence again, my simple proposition for a more optimized 2.08.

I think the game shouldent go againt their personality, BUT they should be able to win in some situations even when they personality is quite hum..Ah well you got my meaning I hope.


Man, in vanilla I ALWAYS had the worse power graph and NEVER got dogpilled for example. Nor any near of get wiped out. That is kinda dull even if no agg. AI is on.

I always hated the fact that AI only tried Space Ship victories, and not even all of them.


And so on..For me that is the meaning of this project.

Maybe right now its not 100%, but it will get there eventually in my opnion :)

IMO, the AIs should act according to the way they were originally intended, not as bloodthirsty killers. 'Better' AI should be just that...better efficiency of the original intent, not changing the way the AIs operate to such point that the game of Civilization is lost in the shuffle.


Hey Joe,

I did not mean to imply that I thought that the game should be converted into an all-out slugfest. What I *did* mean, however, was that in the appropriate context, the AI should follow through with an effective war plan. In this case, it sounded as though the player was caught up in a bad situation -- but it also sounded as though the AI behaved exactly the way Firaxis intended. Stalin declaring war when relations were "pleased". (That's what I expect out of him -- I would only 'trust' Stalin if I knew he was completely in love with me or utterly terrified of me....and even then, I'd keep an extra defensive unit for each city on the Russian border, just in case). Monty doing a rush with his UUs (that's what I expect out of him.) Mehmet joining in on a dogpile just when his UU comes on line. (I don't have any expectations for Mehmet, but whatever, that sounds like a good idea.) Coupled with the fact that the OP was on Monarch level, this sounds like a not-unreasonable outcome.

I'm not saying that the AI should always DoW you just because you happen to be the weakest kid on the block (no -- that's what the 'relationship' dynamic is all about.) The AI should, however, act in accordance with its personality AND with what is appropriate given the overall game situation as it sees it. If Ghandi's #1 on the power graph and you're #10, but 'pleased' I'd be shocked if he DoW's you. Stalin or Monty not so much.

Going from 2.08 to the 1/25 build, the game does not play even remotely closely. Military production HAS TO BE your main focus. Otherwise you will be crushed. There is no other way around it. You either 'keep up with the Joneses' or you lose. And just like the AI, if you are going to build a huge military, then there is a need to get some payoff from it. And that means that I'm far more likely to warmonger in 1/25 than in 2.08 (but I'm sure not everyone feels that way).



I have to confess, I am not seeing this to the extent that you are. Again, I have only been playing on straight Noble level, but I have gotten away with not doing a complete military crush in many of my games on Better AI.

Are you only playing it on your modified difficulty level, or have you tried some of the 'standard' levels? I ask only b/c I'm not sure what your mods are doing (and, btw, I would love to have a crack at them if you're interested in sharing....)

I agree that abandoning diplomatic relations would be "just too much", but there is something wrong about Civ IV not punishing the human player for backstabbing a close friend. This is not in the scope of this project, but I think that backstabbing a friend should cause more unrest home or something of this sort. Diplomatic relations DO work in both directions, though. How? What discourages us from attacking a civ that we have good relations with is the fact that they are our friend and it is better to do harm to enemies than to friends. I don't think anyone here will claim that they don't care about the diplomatic relations status when picking a target for invasion. And this is how having good relations with us actually gives the AI some certainty that they won't be backstabbed. Unexpected attacks from our close friends should sometimes happen, though.

So I don't mean that any aspect of Civ IV should be abandoned, I mean that the AI should pursue a goal and not just fill in the empty space (because it would be boring to win the game without civs around). Builders hate the fact that there are warmongers around that might do them harm, but this is what we call life.

Personality does indeed limit the AI to some extent and I would prefer it to be a hidden, random feature about the AI Civs than some overt fact (like now). It is a bit unfair that you do know what to expect from Isabella, but she doesn't really know what to expect from you. This is where I would alter the gameplay, also because this is a new aspect in Civilization and nobody should claim it is something that we should not ever question. I know it is "cool" to know that the Leadeheads Have Personalities, but I would find it cooler if I didn't know what's in their Leaderheads.

And personality should not cause the AI to do stupid things, like in my last 2.08 game where Isabella would keep declaring war on me even though I had twice more power than she did. So: no Suicide in the name of Personality. Let's not move that far. Militaristic should mean that you prefer to use military to pursue victory, scientific - that you prefer scientific solution. But victory is the same goal for everyone, not just being there and moving units around.

What Blake and Iustus are doing here is impressive, because they seem to be able to teach the AI to be much more effective in their attempts to win the game. It seems they can teach the AI to get the cultural victory - this is what we should head for. And I think AI should be able to make use of every feature of the game that we are able to use - like the new Warlords forts.

PS Wouldn't it be possible to give the player an option to randomize AI personalities? Or is it already possible and I'm just not paying enough attention.

PS Wouldn't it be possible to give the player an option to randomize AI personalities? Or is it already possible and I'm just not paying enough attention.

ROFL Ishon. That was an option avalable in the standard civilization game when it was first released.

It's in the game options... good luck :P


Also, you guys are getting nowhere. Uncle Joe and arguers, Blake has already said this about half a dozen times. the Aggressive AI will become an option for people who are like the people arguing with Joe. (sorry guys, just too many people to list) If you want to play like Joe does, Don't turn on Aggressive AI. Also, for the defender spam, I think Blake and Iustus now realize that it needs more fine tuning after reading it a dozen times. Wait until the next build, if there still is a problem, let Blake or Iustus know.

The M'Hael

Also, you guys are getting nowhere. Uncle Joe and arguers, Blake has already said this about half a dozen times. the Aggressive AI will become an option for people who are like the people arguing with Joe. (sorry guys, just too many people to list) If you want to play like Joe does, Don't turn on Aggressive AI. Also, for the defender spam, I think Blake and Iustus now realize that it needs more fine tuning after reading it a dozen times. Wait until the next build, if there still is a problem, let Blake or Iustus know.

The M'Hael

I agree. There have been really no new arguments in the last few days, so I don't see a reason to continue it but stubbornness. But then again, stubbornness is the reason for many endless arguments. ;)

Edit: I can sometimes be a stubborn guy too by the way. :)

I agree. There have been really no new arguments in the last few days, so I don't see a reason to continue it but stubbornness. But then again, stubbornness is the reason for many endless arguments. ;)

Edit: I can sometimes be a stubborn guy too by the way. :)

Well, winning an argument on the Internets is important.


By the way, I did spot some questionable AI behavior....Wang Kong overreliance on collaterial units...looks like that's all he has in two cities. Check Pyongyang (which has traded hands a couple of times between Korea, Carthage, and Greece,) and another outpost city off to the west. Please don't laugh at how badly I'm sucking in the game.

Please?
:goodjob:

Well, winning an argument on the Internets is important.

:lol: :lol:

Look at it this way. Going from Warlords 1.0 to Warlords 2.08, there is marked improvement in the AI. The 2.08 AI runs its econ better and manages teching and production etc better than 1.0. But the gameplay is completely UNCHANGED.

It's not that simple.
2.08 AI is better than 1.00 at teching but worse at war.
2.08 is even worse at self-defense. 2.08 AI's usually have around 4 defenders in mature cities (which is a :lol:) while 1.00 usually had around twice as much or more and were tougher at offense too.

By the way..Ah well, probably this can be left alone at least for a while, but IMHO Catherine is not as nice going to Cultural victory as being a bitc..

Why? We all know Catherine asks a lot and demands a lot, and if you refuse too much she send a stack of cossacks to deal with you. But when she is going for cultural victory(note that i think that it makes sense she going for it.), she can ask as much as she wants and I dont need to care because I know she doesent have an offensive military..


OK Im probably being idiot(:crazyeye: ) or so(more likely retarded), but I think it takes off a bit of her 'hot' personality..What about, when you have time and if you want, put her probability of go for Cultural victories a little lower? Unless its already too less leaders gonig to it(I actually dont know)..


Just think about it :lol:

In addition to each individual's personal preferences, we all observe only the very limited sample of games we each play. Given all of the various options each map, map type, and number and variety of opponents in each game, any person's individual experience is of very little value in isolation.

Example--My current game is huge lakes, 11 civs, normal aggression, latest AI build. In the middle ages, the Incans are cruising to a cultural victory, I'm Persia, sandwiched by Tokugawa and Gengis Khan and in a recent war with both but hanging on. Roosevelt is about to be wiped out by Alexander in a war that has been going on and off from 1000BC. This game has no defender spam, very good logic by the AI (pillaging, attack stacks---I even saw the AI wait when I sent defender stacks to my border to augment their attack stack before proceeding, something I've never seen before). The Incans are cruising to a cultural victory because they are surrounded by friendly civs, while Roosevelt and I struggle because our neighbors are aggressive/psychotic in their behavior. The game plays better, and the leaders seem to still react logically to their personalities and situations.

This game in isolation proves nothing, but it does suggest that the current build does not always produce constant warmongering (my first war was in 1200AD despite my two neighbors), defender spam or other behavior that ruins the Civ flavor.

In addition to each individual's personal preferences, we all observe only the very limited sample of games we each play. Given all of the various options each map, map type, and number and variety of opponents in each game, any person's individual experience is of very little value in isolation.

Example--My current game is huge lakes, 11 civs, normal aggression, latest AI build. In the middle ages, the Incans are cruising to a cultural victory, I'm Persia, sandwiched by Tokugawa and Gengis Khan and in a recent war with both but hanging on. Roosevelt is about to be wiped out by Alexander in a war that has been going on and off from 1000BC. This game has no defender spam, very good logic by the AI (pillaging, attack stacks---I even saw the AI wait when I sent defender stacks to my border to augment their attack stack before proceeding, something I've never seen before). The Incans are cruising to a cultural victory because they are surrounded by friendly civs, while Roosevelt and I struggle because our neighbors are aggressive/psychotic in their behavior. The game plays better, and the leaders seem to still react logically to their personalities and situations.

This game in isolation proves nothing, but it does suggest that the current build does not always produce constant warmongering (my first war was in 1200AD despite my two neighbors), defender spam or other behavior that ruins the Civ flavor.

Well, in my recent game(played only 2 hours, need ot study) with the last version, also I got no defender spam from the 2 CIVs I saw(still in axeman-horse archer era, and its 3 continents) when I declared war on t5hem.

Cathy was real easy to kill, with only 1 chariot in one city and a warrior in other(!!).

Ramses was a little harder but also no difficulty. He did only one archer extra before I destoryed his 3 cities. One had a warrior only, other 1 archer and the other 2 archers. There was also an archer defending a cow that didnt do much..

I shall report more about unit spamming when I actually see the other 6 AIs..

But if the AI's bonus is reduced to a more manageable level, then the need for that 'pre-emptive strike' is obviated.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Had a weekend trip. :)

Anyway, I think we're still not quite on the same page. By "AI bonus" (above) I think you're talking about the handicaps. Which, for those who install the Better Handicaps (separate mod, available on SourceForge along with the BetterAI mod), will cut back on AI production and AI economic bonuses on higher levels.

But, look at what we're talking about here. You're saying basically "throw out all the improvements made since 2.08 except for bug fixes". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Such improvements include better citizen management, better unit movement / tactics, etc. These have nothing to do with the handicap bonuses and definitely have an effect upon the AI research rate etc.

So, to repeat my assertion.... This clearly is a situation where the AI will perform research (etc) faster and better than before. Therefore, if you don't attack, then you are leaving the AI to its strength, and it will do better than it would have with the previous algorithms.

The whole point of attacking the AI (and exploiting its weakness at warfare) is a pre-emptive strategy, not a reactive one. (That's why high-level players swear by early rushing.)

Therefore, I maintain that improving the AI military management MUST remain a goal. If the biggest weakess of the AI is military, then ALL players are de facto encouraged to adopt a military strategy, because that is the surest and best way to succeed and do well in the game.

I'll also repeat my caveat... I think the current BetterAI doesn't quite meet this goal. The huge garrison stacks aren't what we want and need to improve Civ's gameplay. So, I agree with you, Uncle Joe.

Is your suggestion better (go back to 2.08 AI with bugfixes only)? Beats me. However, I personally would prefer to throw my vote for the BetterAI team to spend their limited time fixing the deficiencies, rather than "punting", "going back to square one", "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", or whatever idiom floats your boat. ;)

And that is folly I see in the strategy...its not going to possible to WIN the game that early (unless on Pangea). So mortgaging the future to win a few wars is not an effective strategy. You'll eventually run out of steam and be left in the dust.

In order for this AI to work and not convert the game into a simple wargame, there is going to have to be a LOT of moderation put in here. The AIs should not commit to all-out attacks, particularly early in the game. It detrimental to gameplay and to the AI doing it even if it succeeds.
I think there other options available than the only one you present.

Let's look at what humans do. They might adopt an early all-out attack, sure. They often do. However, a human is smart enough to know when to stop. Go for it, cripple your opponent, take a few cities, but don't waste time butting heads against the enemy capitol (with its cultural defense), and definitely don't grab too many cities. Sue for peace and start building infrastructure. The goal was met... the enemy was set back a few rungs, you have bigger territory and a larger empire, etc. Time to stop and consolidate.

The bigger question here is whether it is preferable to teach the AI to act like humans do, or to teach the AI to act in such a way that it makes for an entertaining game for the human. Getting pwned isn't usually entertaining. So, if that is the goal, then I agree, AIs should never go all out.

However, I'm not sure that's the goal. Personally, I would like the AI to act like humans do, and that includes the knowledge of when to stop throwing bad money after the good.

This is a good question, though, I think, and worth discussing. It's good to know the goal before we start arguing about how to get there. :D

OK, so by that rationale, why bother to have 'relations' with the AI? Why bother trying to develop good relations or share a religion or anything of the sort because if the AI is playing only to 'win', then none of that would matter a whit. ...making the AIs play solely to 'win' regardless of other circumstance is COMPLETELY throwing the core concepts of Civilization out in favor a game of conquest.
I disagree, both with the premise and with the conclusion.

Here's an analogy. Every play the board game Diplomacy? Seven human players, each with a country (on an Europe map), and each with the blatant goal of conquering 3/4 of the map. It's in your face. So, we have to ask, how in the world is this simply not a wargame? Simple: the game mechanics allow players to support each other. So, if two players gang up on a third, then they will have an advantage. Seems obvious, but there it is.

So, in Civ, "why bother trying to develop good relations"? Because the game mechanics give you a benefit for doing so. You get economic benefits by trade routes. You can get military benefits by both attacking a third player. You can trade techs. etc.

Yet, despite all this, the human, and the AIs too, each have a goal of "winning" the game. And that's how it should be. This doesn't change the fact that one way to get an advantage to win is by making a tacit alliance with another player/AI. Call this a Catch-22, or a dichotomy, or a paradox. At some point, there may be a backstab or change of alliances, and that's fine too. All part of the game.

Wodan

The bigger question here is whether it is preferable to teach the AI to act like humans do, or to teach the AI to act in such a way that it makes for an entertaining game for the human. Getting pwned isn't usually entertaining. So, if that is the goal, then I agree, AIs should never go all out.The goal seems to be as stated "ultimately to play a balanced game more like a human". Blake wrote an interesting post at the end of the 2nd page in the AI aggression level thread regarding the design goal.

I tend to share the views of Uncle_Joe and Elandal on this so I'm interested to hear what you think.

My personal preference is towards entertainment, I play primarily for fun. Though it's nice to have a challenge once in a while, I don't look for it every game. That being said I quite liked Elandal's post re: the AI being an obstacle not an opponent.

It's tough to strike a balance that pleases everyone. Hopefully a combination of the Aggressive AI option and difficulty levels will allow for variation in AI playing styles.

You're saying basically "throw out all the improvements made since 2.08 except for bug fixes". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Not precisely. What I'm saying is the the 'military buildup or die' every game is extremely 'unfun' IMO. And in fact, its so 'unfun', that I would be willing to throw out the rest of the improvements to avoid it. By the same token, I know that the 2.08 AI is a bit too soft. I know that the Better AI team doesnt want to bother with tons of parallel mods and all of the versioning headaches that would involve.

So, if the heavy military emphasis is going to continue as part of Better AI (for whatever reason), then I was hoping for a one-time 'sub mod' that doesnt develop further that simply catches the worst of the problems of the 2.08 bugs. I can always tweak the handicaps to season to taste for difficulty, but the gameplay is what I believe CIVILIZATION should be.

Since then, Blake has mentioned potentially controlling the military aspects via the Aggressive AI setting. It remains to be seen how that works out and if it provides what I'm looking for. If not, then again I would ask for an update to 2.08 which I know already has the gameplay I'm looking for but unfortunately with the AIs neglecting defense a little too much. My hope is that such a 'quick fix' wouldnt be a ton of work since most the bug fixes would already be known quantities.

Here's an analogy. Every play the board game Diplomacy? Seven human players, each with a country (on an Europe map), and each with the blatant goal of conquering 3/4 of the map. It's in your face. So, we have to ask, how in the world is this simply not a wargame? Simple: the game mechanics allow players to support each other. So, if two players gang up on a third, then they will have an advantage. Seems obvious, but there it is.

Yep, I've played Diplomacy numerous times (as well as tons of multiplayer strategy games). But that is not even the same ball park as trying to program an AI. You can get a 'read' on people and you can leverage betrayals as currency with the other players. Some times it might be 'tactically' sound to backstab someone, but if that means others dont trust you then perhaps in the long run its not worthwhile. Trying to get an AI to duplicate the nuances of multiplayer diplomacy is not realistic (until we get self aware AIs and then we have that whole Skynet thing or the Cylons turning on their masters etc etc ;) ).

Given that, the only thing we have is the diplomatic modifiers. In many cases these arent even 'in game' events. But they give the illusion of nation-states as opponents. But trying to base actual diplomacy off of them is folly. How can you convince another AI that double-teaming the leader is a good thing even though all of you are 'friends'. You'll get the 'We couldnt betray our good friends' response regards of how beneficial it is. And there is nothing you can do. That is only the barest hint of the limits on diplomacy between humans and AIs.

To me, trying to go down that particular path is a waste of time and effort. Its not going to work within the framework of Civ4. So again, that leads me back to square one. If that is going to be the focus of the mod from this point, then its something I can personally do without. Trying to make the AIs behave like humans is just going to suck the suspension of disbelief out of the game IMO. On the other hand, there are so many improvements made to the way the AI handles things such as expansion or the way it distributes its econ. I hate to miss out on those too. Which is why I'm asking for a 'quick fix' if the situation cant be compromised with the Aggresive AI setting toggle. I dont intend to say that the project should 'punt' or 'fold' or whatnot, but simply that the direction that the mod is heading makes the game LESS fun for me, not more...unlike the original improvements that were added with the first versions of Better AI.

I realize that the mod cant be all things to all players. And obviously Blake and company are doing this 'on their own time with their own dime' so they can shape the project however they please. If they want AIs that try to play as humans always going for the win, then thats fine since its their hard work going into it. But along the way, if they can throw a bone to those of us who would prefer the AIs to play closer to 'roleplaying' than as 100% direct competitors, I think it would be greatly appreciated by those fans. I'm hoping the current compromise with the Aggressive AI does just that, but I fear it may start the whole diverging of the project that they were trying to avoid by not developing concurrent mods.

Interesting though this discussion is, can i suggest that Uncle Joe, Wodan etc. move it to a new thread within this forum so that it doesn't overwhelm this thread.

I think the agressiviness thread and this one are talking abotu the same things :lol:

Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Did you ever see military AIs trying to win in the Vanilla? Getting out at least 2 AIs? I didnt..

Before we move the discussion to another thresd let me pitch in with my comments.

I am coming to the same conclusion as Uncle Joe.

I am now on game 4 with the 25/1 build.
all games 3 continents, 6 AI, standard aggression, no tech trading, the first 2 games on prince, the second 2 on noble, and with my own custom speed mod.

My custom speed slows tech down to marathon, has most other things on slow, except unit building on normal and culture just a bit under marathon. (this does tend to lead to unit spam in early game and some financial problems, but this has been fine up until this build).

The first 3 games had me sharing 1 continent with 1 other AI. Each game they went for me in an all out attack soon after they got bronze working, even if they were previously friendly towards me (I had spread an early religion in one game).
In one game I could of held out, but I was aware by the wonders being built that the rest of the world was out teching me badly. (I also never had copper in any of these games - not the better AI's fault but annoying). One of the games it was Roosevelt who went for me - I was surprised.

In my current game I started on a big land mass with 4 other AI, chinese, greek, korean, spanish.
The spanish were going for religions, the Koreans for wonders and the other 2 for military build up.
Greeks slaughtered the spanish, Chinese slaughtered the Koreans (just after bronze working). I had been concentrating on keeping a large military this time.
Greeks then attacked the Chinese, and the Germans from another continent found the main land mass, adopted the same religion as me, traded some goods with me and then next go declared war on me.

It is almost as if there is a bit of code that says 'if have bronze working and military is greater then neighbour then attack'

This is not fun.

In my current game the 2 AI's that were adopting a peaceful stratagy died too easy, and as a builder player (only being aggresive if I have to be) I get attacked too frequently, even when I am fostering good relations with the people near me.

This level of aggresion has only appeared in the new build. I would expect a war at some point in earlier builds, but not the genocidal tendancies I am seeing from the AI now.

Could it please be toned back a bit.



edit: (Arlborn posted while I was composing this)

QUOTE:
Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Exactly! What I am seeing is the military AI's having the upper hand too much. They need to be toned back a bit. I was surprised to be attacked by Roosevelt, and even more surprised by Frederick attacking me when we shared a religion, were trading goods and had no negative relations at all.

I think the agressiviness thread and this one are talking abotu the same things :lol:

Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Did you ever see military AIs trying to win in the Vanilla? Getting out at least 2 AIs? I didnt..

My thougts exactly. :)

I don't have any problem moving to a new thread. Though, I think I'll just move my response here over to the Aggression one.

Wodan

(from bug reports thread)
Assert Failed

File: .\CvPlayer.cpp
Line: 11483
Expression: isHuman() || isBarbarian() || ((getGold() + iGoldChange) >= 0)
Message:

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

This is the second time I got this. I didn;t have frequent enough auto-saves last time, so I'm just posting this one.

It always appears between turns (while the AI is presumably moving). It's non-recreatable unfortunately.

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/96162/Brian-Fractal.CivWarlordsSave) is a save before the assert failure.

I made my moves the first time and hit enter and it froze between turns. (I had to minimize the window to see the assert.)

The second time (trying to recreate it) I just loaded the save and hit enter. It didn't get the assert.

The third time, I loaded the save, duplicated my original moves, and hit enter. Again I didn't get the assert.

The moves I made were:
-Promote all cannons outside istanbul to CR2
-Launch all the non-critically-injured cannons into Istanbul
-Then attack with all the Infantry on the same tile.
-Using the bombers in Alexandria, attack Edrine, then the unused ones into the Mehmed's other city (can't remember name.)
-Set all infantry in Alexandria to heal (for one turn).
-Then move all the other bombers into Alexandria
-Then hit enter.

It should be noted that both repeat attempts, on the new turn, Frederick offered me 830 gold for Democracy. That didn't happen the original time I got the assert. I don't know if that's significant or not.

Julius Caesar managed to get himself in quite a financial hole in this one. He is at 100% to gold, and still negative, and this is not the first turn he has been so. I am happy to see that too many units is not the cause for his financial hole.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/95686/jcfinancialpickle.jpg

It seems it lost Rome to Wang Kon, but took all his other cities and then vassalized him (Rome is Wang Kon's only city).

Being at war with Washington isnt helping JC, but it isnt hurting him that much, it looks like he just took Washington's capital, that gold influx probably helped some.

The real problem is he is paying high maint cost because his capital is now in a poor place, and he has not built any courthouses or even his UB market.

This may be a case where he has been using wars to finance himself, but that is causing him to fail to build enough buildings, keeping the war effort going.

-Iustus

For some reason AI especially Japan i think is neglecting a place to settle which i consider would be quite a good resource outpost.
1 sheep for food so not a totally crippled city and also 2 furs and 1 whale worth an outpost city in my calculations without doubt even more for someone so close as Japan.

AI (Korea) is training a settler in an 1 pop 'city' Cheju while there's nowhere to settle.

Coastal cities are almost undefended (1 defender or 2) which is not right IMO.
It's ok the AI is not that great at invasions right now but that's just too much gamble. And I can attack from the sea hard enough and can also amphibious ! so they'd better care for their people more. Not to mention i'm sure AI's invasion/amphibious skills will also be improved in the close future.

I don't see unit overspam at noble* at all so if we gonna turn them down it has to be tested very throughly to not leave civs defenseless.
At least a fast-response defensive stack or 2 would be necessary to defend the otherwise quite open cities.

I think barbarian intruders should be attacked by the defenders with more courage.
Maybe inner cities are considered under low-threat so much they won't train anti-pillagers. This should be dealt with somehow. (like fast response antipillagers)
Also this could maybe to avoid luring out defenders. In such a case if victory is sure and there are no enemies nearby defender could move out for a kill nonetheless.
Maybe barbarian cities hold out longer than they should. AI's might do some kind of limited military buildup to take barb cities considered worthy.
Because of the new handicaps (bigger threat) AI's should consider escorting settlers with more units not just 1.

All this with betterai handicaps 1.00

For some reason AI especially Japan i think is neglecting a place to settle which i consider would be quite a good resource outpost.
1 sheep for food so not a totally crippled city and also 2 furs and 1 whale worth an outpost city in my calculations without doubt even more for someone so close as Japan.

Do you have this save?

I'm looking into coastal defenses, especially post-astronomy.

Do you have this save?

I'm looking into coastal defenses, especially post-astronomy.

All my recent observations are from this game.
I now have got astronomy. Probably others don't have it.
This might be a factor i didn't think of.

Coastal cities are almost undefended (1 defender or 2) which is not right IMO.
It's ok the AI is not that great at invasions right now but that's just too much gamble. And I can attack from the sea hard enough and can also amphibious ! so they'd better care for their people more. Not to mention i'm sure AI's invasion/amphibious skills will also be improved in the close future.

There seems to be a difference between the number of defenders on the left below the spy and the number of defenders shown vaguely visible next to the spy on the bottom of the screen. Is the information from 2 different spies?

There seems to be a difference between the number of defenders on the left below the spy and the number of defenders shown vaguely visible next to the spy on the bottom of the screen. Is the information from 2 different spies?

Yes i think the icons show the stack beside the spy that's moving (i've placed spy to every AI cities to observe 'unit overspam' which i didn't find)

And the text list at left-bottom shows the city on the screen because the pointer was hovering over these cities when the shots were taken.

Sorry for a bit of confusion.

Always look at the text list.

(from bug reports thread)


Julius Caesar managed to get himself in quite a financial hole in this one. He is at 100% to gold, and still negative, and this is not the first turn he has been so. I am happy to see that too many units is not the cause for his financial hole.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/95686/jcfinancialpickle.jpg

It seems it lost Rome to Wang Kon, but took all his other cities and then vassalized him (Rome is Wang Kon's only city).

Being at war with Washington isnt helping JC, but it isnt hurting him that much, it looks like he just took Washington's capital, that gold influx probably helped some.

The real problem is he is paying high maint cost because his capital is now in a poor place, and he has not built any courthouses or even his UB market.

This may be a case where he has been using wars to finance himself, but that is causing him to fail to build enough buildings, keeping the war effort going.

-Iustus

Well, this was a weird game. What happened was that Wang Kon launched an attack against Ceasar, took Rome, and eventually Vassalised him. (Wang Kon and Ceasar were not adjacent civilisations, Wang Kon was near me, Ceasar was on the far side of the pangea.) A little while after that, Wang Kon then abruptly attacked me (and thus his vassal Ceasar had to declare too). After fending off the initial wave, I launched a viscous counter attack (as you do) against Wang Kon. Ceasar didn't get involved in any of the fighting because as I said, he was far away on the pangea.

My counter attack captured and razed all of Wang Kon's main cities, leaving him with only the captured Rome. This freed Ceasar as a vassal as Wang Kon's population had plummeted. Rome was meanwhile under trememdous cultural pressure from Ceasar's surrounding cities. And not too long after I ended the war, Wang Kon now became Ceasar's vassal as the slave became the master!

Ceasar also gained I think Shaka as his vassal a while later and ended up back on top in score, and quickly entered a war with Washington shortly after all this as well.

Testing the newest build.

The German scout ignored a barb village, which enables me to take it in the next turn. I enclose two savegames + a screenshot.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8280/civ4screenshot0000dz9.jpg

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/89703/AutoSave_BC-3835.CivWarlordsSave
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/89703/AutoSave_BC-3820.CivWarlordsSave

I'm looking into coastal defenses, especially post-astronomy.

How does the AI handle colonisation post-astronomy?

Terra, standard, monarch, non-aggressive, 01/25 build:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2752/newworldkb4.th.jpg (http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newworldkb4.jpg)

Saladin beat me to the circum-navigation (something around 1200 AD), so in frustration I didn't concentrate on the new world. But later in 1750 the barbarian continent is still pristine like a virgin! I conquered without effort the northern half of the continent (infantry vs barbarian macemen). Till 1900 no other Civ settles in the southern part, so i can grab that too.

The game itself was good. There were many wars and powershifts among Victoria vs Napoleon vs Isabella. Saladin managed for the most part to stay out of war and could keep up (almost) in tech with me, but was backstabbed by Isabella.

No defender spam (or unit spam in general), but the wars, especially those the AI lost to me, were costly for the other Civs.

How does the AI handle colonisation post-astronomy?


I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that Terra's "old world" is a sort of "mini-Pangaea", meaning that the AI civs tend to go into land warfare mode to the exclusion of interest in overseas colonization? (All the more so since you were steamrollering them!)

I noticed in my recent Tectonics map game, a variety of land masses were generated, and the AI not only colonized some, but also fought wars over those colonies, too. (The civs starting locations were spread out over two or three continents, but there were also one or two empty island continents worth settling; I didn't try to grab them myself b/c I was focused on a culture strategy....)

Testing the newest build.

The German scout ignored a barb village, which enables me to take it in the next turn. I enclose two savegames + a screenshot.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8280/civ4screenshot0000dz9.jpg

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/89703/AutoSave_BC-3835.CivWarlordsSave
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/89703/AutoSave_BC-3820.CivWarlordsSave

Hmm. This is an interesting case. I am not sure if it makes sense to 'fix' this or not.

Basically what happened here is that the AI decided where to move before he saw the hut. I know I have done the same thing on accident.

It is pretty easy to change it so that explore units only move one plot at a time, but that will slow down the turn times more, as scouts will make twice as many decisions.

If you did not take the hut that turn, he would definitely grab it the next one.

Anyone have any thoughts? Is it alright for the AI to make some 'mistakes' or should it act perfect every time?

-Iustus

Hmm. This is an interesting case. I am not sure if it makes sense to 'fix' this or not.

Basically what happened here is that the AI decided where to move before he saw the hut. I know I have done the same thing on accident.

It is pretty easy to change it so that explore units only move one plot at a time, but that will slow down the turn times more, as scouts will make twice as many decisions.

If you did not take the hut that turn, he would definitely grab it the next one.

Anyone have any thoughts? Is it alright for the AI to make some 'mistakes' or should it act perfect every time?

-Iustus

if it slowdown times i think things should stay as they are now.Missing a hut the first time is not an huge mistake and the AI can compensate for its error a turn later.
I think this is also common among expert humans to use the scout moving 2 movement for time.
If the slowdown is unnoticeable why not improving this aspect otherwise, this "mistake" is not worth a slowdown

I vote we leave it as is.... It balances out all the errant keystrokes that I make during a game.

I vote for perfect movement. I never move 2 tiles at a time through unexplored territory. Far to risky. You never know where you're going.

Does this really make turn times that much longer? It's just one of the many things the AI does in its turn. Or is the movement aspect that important for turn times. It's also only while exploring unexplored terrain with 2 move explorers where this specific error can happen.

If the slowdown is about 1 second or more(I think you cant tell it, can you?) then nah, not big importance over slowdown...

I vote for perfect movement. I never move 2 tiles at a time through unexplored territory. Far to risky. You never know where you're going.

Does this really make turn times that much longer? It's just one of the many things the AI does in its turn. Or is the movement aspect that important for turn times. It's also only while exploring unexplored terrain with 2 move explorers where this specific error can happen.
I would hazard to guess that this would also happen with any two move unit when dealing with fogged terrain. Such as pillaging horse units. They move two and get whomped by your pike. Or, they move one, see the pike, and then run away.

Wodan

I also vote for perfect movement, as I also never move 2 tiles at one time while exploring - this could be costly if you have bad luck. If an AI scout moves 1 tile and then finds out it's facing a dangerous animal/barbarian, it should pull back to some 50%/75% defense tile and not commit suicide.

If Wodan is right and this is just a natural feature of units that are capable of moving more than 1 tile/turn, I think this becomes a very serious issue. But I don't know how much this would make the game work slower. If it's 10-25% slower, I think it's acceptable. If it's more than 50%, let's think twice.

I would hazard to guess that this would also happen with any two move unit when dealing with fogged terrain. Such as pillaging horse units. They move two and get whomped by your pike. Or, they move one, see the pike, and then run away.

Wodan

Which is another reason why I'm skeptical of making the change -- at least, not at this juncture. If the AI is designed to function this way, I'm inclined to let that process stand for now. (At least, not for the 1.0 build). Goes under the "ain't broke/don't fix it" heading.

(Look at me! Talking as though I'm the one who has to do the work on this project! :cool:)

I would hazard to guess that this would also happen with any two move unit when dealing with fogged terrain. Such as pillaging horse units. They move two and get whomped by your pike. Or, they move one, see the pike, and then run away.

Wodan

That would be a similar issue and even worse. It would be extremely stupid if they would just attack a pikeman with a knight just because they didn't take the time to look. Such a thing has never happened to me before since playing civ (and that is since civ1).

That would surely not be an acceptable error from the AI. However, I must say that I haven't seen this type of crazy 2 move attack behaviour from the AI, so maybe they don't do this.

That would be a similar issue and even worse. It would be extremely stupid if they would just attack a pikeman with a knight just because they didn't take the time to look. Such a thing has never happened to me before since playing civ (and that is since civ1).

That would surely not be an acceptable error from the AI. However, I must say that I haven't seen this type of crazy 2 move attack behaviour from the AI, so maybe they don't do this.

Oh -- I thought he meant that they move two, end up next to your pike, then get whomped when you attack the next turn. (Which is, sometimes, an acceptable loss, especially if you are scouting....)

Oh -- I thought he meant that they move two, end up next to your pike, then get whomped when you attack the next turn. (Which is, sometimes, an acceptable loss, especially if you are scouting....)

In that case, the knight probably couldn't have seen the pikeman after 1 move and I don't see how stopping and looking again could have helped the knight. If the knight can see the pikeman after 1 move (standing on a hill for instance), then I don't think it should move next to the pikeman.

Yes, that's what I meant... move two, and then you attack with the pike on your turn.

As for the "haven't seen this type of crazy 2 move"... what about the old move-onto-a-hidden-sub-and-cause-declaration-of-war?

Wodan

Yes, that's what I meant... move two, and then you attack with the pike on your turn.

As for the "haven't seen this type of crazy 2 move"... what about the old move-onto-a-hidden-sub-and-cause-declaration-of-war?

Wodan

Yes, that was an ugly bug in civ3. The human player would get a warning that the move would cause a war, but the AI would just attack completely oblivious to the fact that the move would declare a war. It's slightly different again as what you were describing above.

It could surely be true that the AI will just attack the pikeman with the knight. But it is also clear that this is not a good AI decision and thus should be avoided if the betterAI team can program the AI better.

Tried 1/30 MP game and got an OOS early on. Neither computer had a file called MPLog.txt that Blake mentioned, even though we turned on logging in the INI that was recommended. The game and all files in the log folder from each of the 2 PC's are attached.

Basically what happened here is that the AI decided where to move before he saw the hut.

It is pretty easy to change it so that explore units only move one plot at a time, but that will slow down the turn times more, as scouts will make twice as many decisions.

Anyone have any thoughts? Is it alright for the AI to make some 'mistakes' or should it act perfect every time?

This seems like a good non-quantitative difference of bahaviour for the various difficulty levels: Let the higher AI levels play smarter by thinking more (or more often, as in this case).

1-30 asserts build, Monarch level.

Maybe this particular goof is due to the AI's inability to recognize UU's. But anyway, I had 2 Immortals parked at Berlin's doorstep after doing some pillaging. Suddenly a Settler from Germany's only other city shows up one tile away from my Immortals, on a flat plains tile, escorted by a single archer! Needless to say I won easily with > 99% odds.

Just for kicks, I left a scout to guard the captured worker to see if Berlin's LONE DEFENDER, a Garrison I archer, would seek vengeance. (Frederick had been sending his other defenders, of which there were as many as 3, who-knows-where every time I would go pillage something and lose sight of Berlin for a turn.)

Lo and behold, the Garrison I archer DOES attack the scout on the next turn, and of course is plucked easily by one of my Immortals. I don't know why he did that, since the AI doesn't get to keep captured workers. Now Berlin is left with a newly popped, unpromoted archer with no fortify bonus. It's not even on a hill, although it is on the other side of a stream from my Immortals.

FYI, Frederick had spent the first 100 turns or so founding Judaism and building the Temple of Artemis in Berlin. His only other city was in a really poor location. He should have known better with Alexander next door (who is the AI who brought me into the war in the first place).

Kudos to Alexander though for waging a very organized war! He ended up unlucky though. I decided not to risk my injured Immortals on Berlin, and Alexander showed up a few turns later with a Stack of Doom. After he battered down the new wave of Berlin's defending archers (obtained I assume thru slavery), I just picked off the last two injured ones and got Berlin for myself.

Incidentally, I suppose that's a much more advanced issue to address, but I have noticed that the AI can sometimes make the dumb mistake of leaving a big prize to an ally like that.

I'll try to get you some screenshots and savegames soon. I saved every turn during this bizarreness.

1-30 asserts build:

I was Russia, prince level, in a long term war with my only direct neighbour - Ramses. While I surrounded his capital with axes, and he had another city SW, another W, and another SE - but I was sitting on his only metal... whenever I left a gap he'd send out a settler with a couple of units (archer/archer or archer/warrior) to the north toward me, which I'd kill off within a turn or two. Happened 2 or 3 times. Not the best prioritization, if you ask me.

I also had Toku declare war on me from the other continent when I'm pretty sure he only had caravels. Then Izzy vassalized him, and later sent her first galleons to attack me, just as my first Cossacks rode up to slaughter her attackers. :D

Other than those slight oddities, its been a great game - I finally stomped Ramses after a while, but my new southern neighbour is Roosevelt and he has Mansa as a vassal, and he's doing really really well - and starting the naval assault on Brennus on the other continent. I'm curious to see how that goes - and whether Izzy comes up with any better ways to come at me navally in the future. I'm thinking I'll probably have to try for a space race - using my UU to help it go quickly... because militarily I don't think I can ever rival Roosevelt with Mansa as his in-house tech-whore. :(