I see this often on the forum. Someone complains about something the AI did, and someone else points out that "finally, the AI acted like a human would have done" (some horrible backstab, or refusing to trade techs, or whatnot).

I don't want the AI to play like a human. But what does it do if it doesn't do that? Right now, it seems to focus on delaying the human player, or annoying the hell out of me without any clear intention to win... Just a bunch of AIs brainstorming together on how to make my life hell. So no, I don't want to feel like I'm playing against entities who are aware that they are playing a game (human who attacks for no reason). No, I don't want to play against AIs that make me feel like I'm the focus of the world and all AIs have to annoy me and slow me down (what the game is right now, with AIs constantly badgering me). My ideal AI just makes me feel like I'm part of the civ world.

I guess sometimes it succeeds at this, but things like the secret warmongering respect will make an island populated by Tokugawa, Shaka and Montezuma really annoying.

In othe words:

I don't want the AI to be dumb, but I don't want it to be smarter than me either.

It depends. I've heard that in MP all players will gang up on you if you get close to a space race or cultural victory. This makes MP more like an Age of Empires game or something where you're constantly at war with others and people are looking for opportunities to eliminate others from the game.

No thanks. There's a reason why I don't play games like AOE.

It depends on why you're playing the game.

In your wording it looks like you are mixing up the ideas of AIs playing like humans and AIs playing with a deliberate bias against the human player. I'm all for AIs playing more like a human but I am against any bias against the human player. For example, I appreciate that changes made to the AI in BtS to allow it to go for cultural victories. However I would be against the idea of making an Agg AI setting which puts a permanent -3 on all diplo modifiers with the human player (note: this is AFAIK nothing like how agg AI works but if it did work this way I would oppose it).

An AI that attacks its neighbours rather than overseas opponents is an example of an AI playing more like a human.

I have played many multiplayer games and I have found them to be among some of my most challenging and exciting games. I think that if an AI were to challenge me in way similar to what a human player would I would be happy. Honestly I am already pretty impressed with the state of the AI in BtS.

Having said all that, there is one thing I can think of where I would never want the AI to act like a human. I would hate to see an AI do a reload on me! :lol:

By the way, the real point of the discussion is whether you want an AI to play like a human and disregard all historical accuracy, or whether you want them to behave in a way that allows you to immerse yourself in the game more, with a peaceful Gandhi and a pysco Montezuma.

I'm against the idea of an AI player being there only to hinder the progress of a human player towards victory. I think every player should try to win the game, including AIs.

In your wording it looks like you are mixing up the ideas of AIs playing like humans and AIs playing with a deliberate bias against the human player. I'm all for AIs playing more like a human but I am against any bias against the human player. For example, I appreciate that changes made to the AI in BtS to allow it to go for cultural victories. However I would be against the idea of making an Agg AI setting which puts a permanent -3 on all diplo modifiers with the human player (note: this is AFAIK nothing like how agg AI works but if it did work this way I would oppose it).

An AI that attacks its neighbours rather than overseas opponents is an example of an AI playing more like a human.

I have played many multiplayer games and I have found them to be among some of my most challenging and exciting games. I think that if an AI were to challenge me in way similar to what a human player would I would be happy. Honestly I am already pretty impressed with the state of the AI in BtS.

Having said all that, there is one thing I can think of where I would never want the AI to act like a human. I would hate to see an AI do a reload on me! :lol:

By the way, the real point of the discussion is whether you want an AI to play like a human and disregard all historical accuracy, or whether you want them to behave in a way that allows you to immerse yourself in the game more, with a peaceful Gandhi and a pysco Montezuma.

I'm against the idea of an AI player being there only to hinder the progress of a human player towards victory. I think every player should try to win the game, including AIs.

See the problem is in the real world there's no such thing as "victory". Queen Victoria didn't say "okay, I've won a Domination victory since the British Empire covers 1/4 of the world's land area" and stopped.

This is the problem I have with Civilization as a game in general. The victories make players too addicted to pursuing a goal and that is not really realistic.

Something like Europa Universalis is much more realistic.

Maybe they could fix some of the aggressive AIs to delay their rush to when they develop more advanced units. Usually if you can withstand Montezuma's (or any other agg AI) initial rush, then he is trapped into rebuilding his army rather than teching and multi-tasking like you are. If he could be reprogrammed to realize when it would be better to devote more to science then his following rushes would be more successful. As it is, those following rushes just inch us closer to a GG as he hopelessly bounces off our more modern units/walls.

Soren Johnson (ex lead programmer for CIV) made a very interesting talk once about "Creating an AI to lose", or something like this. I'll try to find it if I have some time.

See the problem is in the real world there's no such thing as "victory". Queen Victoria didn't say "okay, I've won a Domination victory since the British Empire covers 1/4 of the world's land area" and stopped.

This is the problem I have with Civilization as a game in general. The victories make players too addicted to pursuing a goal and that is not really realistic.

Something like Europa Universalis is much more realistic.

Yes that is the point. IMO if it is to be a game at all, then by definition there must be a way to "win", if you like.

I prefer game over simulator. With other games like air combat sims for example, I prefer simulator.

In other words, I think it's a bad idea for a game to have realism as a goal in of itself.

By the way, if Queen Victoria's empire covered 60% of the world's land area then she may have been justified in saying she'd won a domination victory! :)

with regards to Vic declaring domination victory would someone else not be able to say.

Just one more Decade: :mischief:

I want the AI to be a very good, unbiased, human-like, tactical player that keeps me on my toes every time. An AI that does'nt see all, and makes minor mistakes etc. depending on difficulty setting. No AI starting bonus!

At least this could fill the gap until the upgrade off a real online multi-player Civ is implemented; one that is as easy as single player to hook up and play with. :groucho:

i think it is great the AI is improving gradually, at some point it will be really challenging to play against it without giving it all those bonuses. maybe at some point it will become even "smarter" than many of us, just like computers are hard opponents in chess.

i think making the AI play more "like human" will also force players to be more careful in your choices. it would be possible to make "real friendship" and alliances between AI and human players. of course some leaders would act more greedily, as others could be more loyal depending of their own characteristics.

Civ is a great game that would be amazing to play against other humans. unfortunately that's near to impossible bacause of the amount of time it requieres :( i haven't try much the multiplayer tho... but mainly because i'm extremely slow between turns :$

I want the AI to be more historically accurate, not more human.
Like Stalin should be hard to invade, but his empire is always in a state of chaos and he can't keep his population up. Or every time Mao researches a tech, he should lose 1-3 population in each city.

Maybe have the Roman leaders really, really suck at taking care of Barbarians.

"My ideal AI just makes me feel like I'm part of the civ world."

I agree. I don't really play MP civ because for me civ isn't supposed to be an RTS. I think the distinction that needs to be made is between the AI playing as a "human", vs. the AI playing as a "gamer". I love the fact that when I see Monte on my borders, I know I have to take certain precautions. Why? Because Monte has a personality. He does play like a human, he plays the same way Motecuzoma (Monte's real name) actually behaved when he ruled his Mexica empire. A gamer doesn't do this. A good gamer will do everything in his power to hide his personality when playing a game, so as not to be predictable.

As far as IQ goes, I am always thoroughly impressed when the AI appears to have outsmarted me, so yes, I want it to be smarter than me. But I don't want it to be dogmindedly pursuing a victory at any cost, as a gamer would.

In short, what I love about civ is that feeling that I am immersed in an alternate history, that I am interacting with the great rulers and civilizations that have existed throughout history.

"My ideal AI just makes me feel like I'm part of the civ world."

I agree. I don't really play MP civ because for me civ isn't supposed to be an RTS. I think the distinction that needs to be made is between the AI playing as a "human", vs. the AI playing as a "gamer". I love the fact that when I see Monte on my borders, I know I have to take certain precautions. Why? Because Monte has a personality. He does play like a human, he plays the same way Motecuzoma (Monte's real name) actually behaved when he ruled his Mexica empire. A gamer doesn't do this. A good gamer will do everything in his power to hide his personality when playing a game, so as not to be predictable.

As far as IQ goes, I am always thoroughly impressed when the AI appears to have outsmarted me, so yes, I want it to be smarter than me. But I don't want it to be dogmindedly pursuing a victory at any cost, as a gamer would.

In short, what I love about civ is that feeling that I am immersed in an alternate history, that I am interacting with the great rulers and civilizations that have existed throughout history.

Well, I sincerely doubt very much that Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin was a crazy and reckless warmonger as our dear Monty in Civ4... He conquered most south of present day Mexico using the mighty aztec military, but he actually was too peaceful when he met the spanish. He welcomed them in Tenochtitlan and treated them as Gods (literaly)... but Cortes was a very clever backstabber...

well, anyway i get your point. But I think as leaders had a personality, also players have their own. If the AI was smarter, then the human player would have to "behave" in the game. It would be much more interesting from the diplomatic point of view. If you make a reputation as a backstabber then the other AIs will never become your allies, and eventually, they could kick the crap out the human player. It would get much more difficult for human and AI warmonger civs, and cultural and diplomatic victories would happen more often. If you like history then you may see that not many of the warmonger Civs have actually stood the test of time ;)

I want a smarter AI .... I want a AI that do not trap his CR troops in recently conquered cities with my army next to it, I want a AI that will delete my gifted AP missionary if that means I'm going to win next vote, I want a AI that prefers to defend his core cities instead of conquering Highly culturally pressed cities in the other side of the empire, I want a AI that will not move his tanks 1 tile/turn just to keep with infantry, I want a AI that makes decent bombing runs, I want a AI that really beelines for space......

Not sure if this was what SimonL had in mind though..... If the all the AI starts to act like Blake, this will become a slaughter party that will end before gunpowder. IMHO not fun.....

If the AI acted more "human" then the next question would be what traits make something more human? What if a human-like AI was dumb, crazy or lazy as oppossed to "smarter".

If the AI were smarter it would "realize" that the most efficient way to win the game is through war. Louis would stop building his wonders, Isabella would stop whoring religions, and Ghandi's fast workers would soon chop him an army worthy of Rome. Hrm..

I would like to see the AI stop doing the astoundingly stupid things it does, of which rolo gives some fine examples, but the AI's intelligence should stop at that.

I would like that AI doesn't make any difference between other AI civ and human, they all are equals when they start. AI also should realize that asking tribute too often makes me angry.

I see too often that AI bribes another into war against me but it is almost impossible to bribe as me... and even if it is possible this is not free as AI asks, they want 3 of my techs and money what is unfair.

I don't care about some bonuses/penalties if everything else is equal and fair.

Soren Johnson (ex lead programmer for CIV) made a very interesting talk once about "Creating an AI to lose", or something like this. I'll try to find it if I have some time.

I think this is the one you mean:

http://www.intrinsicalgorithm.com/IAonAI/2008/02/gdc-2008-soren-johnsons-lecture-on-civ.html

I think someone also highlighted the distinction between realism and game-world. Of course, realism in a game just for its own sake is a bad idea, but I do think that programming the AI to want to win exactly in the same way a human wants to win would have negative impact on realism and on how much I enjoy the game. Someone quoted my "I want to feel like I'm part of the civ world", it's pretty much the one thing

I played a lot of Starcraft and Age of Empires and even turn-based strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic. For these, it was a lot about Competition with a capital C. However, when I play Civ, I get a different feel, I want more realism, and it might involve programming the AIs to not focus on me and treat me like an equal compared to all other opponents in the game. Might make the game easier, but there must be other ways to make the AI more competitive than making the player's life "miserable" quote quote... So when war is declared, I shouldn't be able to kill my enemy with less than half is power rating only because I'm not stupid with unit-management. I think the AI needs to be improved in terms that rolo pointed out, it shouldn't do stupid war decisions and manage units in questionnable manners.

EDIT: I was reading posts more in depth and it made me realise that in the end, I wouldn't even mind if there was no "victory" per say at the end. Maybe there should only be a measure of how nice your empire is, so that you can compare how well you did compared to others, and maybe more importantly, to yourself! So that's almost like a more detailed time victory, hehe.

I would like for the AI to behave more like the leader he/she is supposed to be, and less like a human player who will do anything the rules allow to win... but I would also like for the AI to get smarter as I turn up the difficulty level, instead of just cheating more.

I think this is the one you mean:

http://www.intrinsicalgorithm.com/IAonAI/2008/02/gdc-2008-soren-johnsons-lecture-on-civ.html

Thanks for the link. :goodjob:

I think the following quote from the link is a good summary of the comments in this thread so far as well as why the AI may not quite meet your expectations.


What are the best environments?
Good AI tends towards Multi-player
Fun AI tends towards Single-player

Tactics available to AI?
Good AI will do everything available.
Fun AI will do limited tactics.

.
.
.

The question is: Play to win or Play to lose?

With Civ IV, the AI does have limited options. There are a lot of options that they do not put on the table for the AI. Esp. with diplomacy. E.g. fighting a war... as a player, you can ask them for stuff if you promsie to quit war, then attack them over again. AI doesn't do that.

Well; I must be a wild goose ;) , but , in spite of not like to lose , I also don't like to the other competidors in game to be more concerded in making my life dificult than to win by themselfs. I would like to see a AI passing a Civ IV Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) :p ( unfortunately it seems that I'm a minority in here :( )

I played a lot of Starcraft and Age of Empires and even turn-based strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic. For these, it was a lot about Competition with a capital C. However, when I play Civ, I get a different feel

I don't. Civ is a fairly direct descendant, albeit in simplified form, of board wargames of the style put out by Avalon Hill back in the 70s and 80s (Sid even admits to lifting a bunch of ideas from an Avalon Hill title called Civilization). These were extremely competitive games, and have nothing whatsoever to do with RTS.

RTS competition is, basically, about the ability to multi-task or prioritize tasks better than your opponent, and speed/practice with certain routines (eg build the town hall, then this, then that, in that order, and very quickly); whereas board wargames (and Civ) are a more deliberate and ponderous sort of competition that involves long-term planning and careful considerations.

I don't. Civ is a fairly direct descendant, albeit in simplified form, of board wargames of the style put out by Avalon Hill back in the 70s and 80s (Sid even admits to lifting a bunch of ideas from an Avalon Hill title called Civilization). These were extremely competitive games, and have nothing whatsoever to do with RTS.

RTS competition is, basically, about the ability to multi-task or prioritize tasks better than your opponent, and speed/practice with certain routines (eg build the town hall, then this, then that, in that order, and very quickly); whereas board wargames (and Civ) are a more deliberate and ponderous sort of competition that involves long-term planning and careful considerations.

In board wargames, you play against a human, hence the competition.

I don't. Civ is a fairly direct descendant, albeit in simplified form, of board wargames of the style put out by Avalon Hill back in the 70s and 80s (Sid even admits to lifting a bunch of ideas from an Avalon Hill title called Civilization). These were extremely competitive games, and have nothing whatsoever to do with RTS.

RTS competition is, basically, about the ability to multi-task or prioritize tasks better than your opponent, and speed/practice with certain routines (eg build the town hall, then this, then that, in that order, and very quickly); whereas board wargames (and Civ) are a more deliberate and ponderous sort of competition that involves long-term planning and careful considerations.

LOL. I actually still have that boardgame. When Civ first came out, I actually thought it was just the computer version of that board game.

What was your favorite AH game? I thought Ambush was awesome.

(Sid even admits to lifting a bunch of ideas from an Avalon Hill title called Civilization).

AFAIK, Sid claimed to have never even played the game, although it is disputed

What was your favorite AH game? I thought Ambush was awesome.

Toss up between Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and Anzio. I really liked Anzio for some reason, can't say why, its not that remarkable.

I think this is the one you mean:

http://www.intrinsicalgorithm.com/IAonAI/2008/02/gdc-2008-soren-johnsons-lecture-on-civ.html

That's the one, thanks a lot :)

AFAIK, Sid claimed to have never even played the game, although it is disputed


Well, he said he "hadn't really played it" which is open to interpretation - he hadn't played it all, or hadn't played it that much?

I can't really substantiate it all that well ... but it's around ... eg Counter Magazine:

"Sid Meier was inspired by several board and computer games to design a seminal computer game called Civilization. Among the games that he garnered ideas from was the Hartland Trefoil classic of the same name."

http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=013615

If it isn't true it's a rumour with alot of currency in some circles.

At the least, his background in the board wargaming scene is pretty well-documented in numerous interviews and in his early Microprose projects like NATO Commander etc.

Like this interview:

You started, I think, in board games?

I played a lot of board games when I was young – I never designed any but a lot of the early inspiration from computer games came from board games. They inspired me because we could do them so much better on the computer. With board games it took so long to set them up and you had to worry about the rules – on a computer you just turn it on and it is ready to go.

Computer Bismarck was an early example – what that showed us was that it is easy to hide things using the computer. On a board game you had to use very complicated mechanics like dummy counters.

Mechanics like dummy counters are a feature of the kind of advanced wargames of the Avalon Hill style ... you just don't see mechanics like that in light war-games like Risk or Axis and Allies. It's a little hard to believe that Sid never knew about Trefoil's game and that he wasn't at all influenced by the idea; it wasn't a casual hobby and the community was never very big, with only two or three major publishers, the biggest by far being AH.

Anyway, the whole old Trefoil debate aside ... it's pretty clear that Civilization's roots lie in an intensely competitive hobby, not any sort of immersive experience or role-playing game background.