Some of this is moved from the other thread. It seems to belong more properly here.
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.
Just read Blake's post. The one about the 1/N win chance?
There are two things being talked about, both by Blake and others. One is simple task implementation (we might call this "tactics" though not in a strict military sense); two is strategy (again, not necessarily in a military sense).
A task might be the worker algorithms, citizen governor, or military unit actions. We should recall that one of the things BetterAI did was remove the blind "road everything" from the worker algorithms. There are many more changes to this type of routine task that I've seen the BetterAI change. These little things add up to an overall "smarter" AI. So, in this sort of "tactical" sense, the AI is acting much more like humans.
The strategy is what most people are immediately leaping to here. Talking about Dagger, or turtling/teching, etc. We've been so focused on the military but this is really an overall question... what path does the AI pursue to victory, each time it selects how to govern each specific civ in a game.
I tend to share the views of Uncle_Joe and Elandal on this so I'm interested to hear what you think.
I think it might sound like I'm disagreeing with them, which is why I've tried to be careful to put in some "agree with you" etc.
I do think that the current BetterAI is not what
*I* want, and based on the 1/N post by Blake, is not what he wants either. That said, I don't want to go back to 2.08 either, I think they're making huge progress.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't expect miracles, and I expected all along to have some wild swings in the "strategy" behavior. So, now that we're actually seeing some of those wild swings, it doesn't bother me. Oh, it bothers me in the sense that I will continue to give feedback and that we're not quite there yet, but it doesn't bother me in the sense that I think everything since 2.08 (except the bug fixes) is trash and needs to be thrown out. To me, that would be a huge mistake.
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.
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.
Agreed!
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.
That makes sense.
I guess the question then becomes what do you mean by "military emphasis".
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.
I don't think it's a question of "going down that particular path". All I'm suggesting is to recognize the similarities between the diplomacy modifiers and how humans act in a game such as Diplomacy (or MP Civ).
You mention backstabbing. Exactly... there is a Civ modifier by "you attacked our friend" as well as one for "we remember what you did to the English" or something like that.
I'm going to back up a minute, because we lost the quote trail. How does this relate? You originally said
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.
Maybe I'm overlooking your qualifier "regardless of other circumstance" but to me, if you backstab an AI, then other AIs should have a bigger military on their borders with you. If you have good relations with an AI, then they should have less.
And, programming the AI to win means that they should recognize when it is a good idea to double team the leader.
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.
Wait a second... are you saying that you want the ai to recognize when it is a good idea to double-team the leader, or you don't want that?
That situation probably distills this debate down to its essence. If I'm good to an AI (say, Isabella), adopt her religion, give her stuff, help her fight her enemies, don't backstab anybody (including her of course), then let's give a situation where someone, let's say Catherine, is #1, I'm #2, and Isabella is #3. Let's assume we're all friendly with each other, and Catherine is about to win, with whatever victory condition. Should Isabella be amenable to me getting her to join me in a war on Catherine?
Personally, I would be disappointed if the AI was programmed to preclude that possibility. I spend all game doing my "builder" strategy or other non-warlike game, which we like as part of Civ. Then, I discover Catherine is about to win. And, I can't do a thing about it?!? How disappointing is that. It makes me say, "I should have converted to a war strategy earlier and wiped her out."
Yet, it sounds like you're saying that's preferable to the alternative, which is to program the AIs to recognize some human goals, such as ganging up on a leader.
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.
To me this becomes a question of what is meant by "the direction the mod is heading"... the observed results, or the stated goals of the BetterAI team.
The ways to avoid this depend on the neighbourhood. You can go for two different gambles:
1) Go light on military and work diplomacy to make sure you still can keep out of wars. You need enough land to keep economic advantage, and might try to capitalize on that advantage by beelining an advanced military tech that allows you a window during which you can go on offensive with fewer units, units that are technologically superior to those of your neighbours.
2) Go all-out war. Mass units, throw the kitchen sink at your neighbour. You still need to make sure nobody is going to attack you while you're going for someone - possibly by making sure everyone is busy warring.
3) Build enough units for defense. Reserve the capability to rush build in case of attack. (Note that the AI has this option too, and the BetterAI does a pretty good job at this, though it could still be improved.)
4) Get land via other methods... opportunistic settlers wandering around through the war zone of two neighbors, waiting for cities to be razed (very likely in the early game), isolating large chunks of territory by not having open borders (or by closing them when the AI sends a settler or galley over), etc.
As I said earlier, I don't have a solution that would make warring hard but possible - I don't know how to make the AI smart in warring.
IMO, teach it to:
1) know when to quit a war
2) either upgrade or disband old / worthless units
3) be better at rush / whip of defender / counter-attack units
4) better use anti-stack defenses (cats)
5) better distinguish garrison troops and counter-attack troops
6) not create so many garrison troops
I do believe that between humans, diplomacy would play a huge role with the wars that are started by deals being decided more by the dealings before than on the field using units - the units are just an endgame for the diplomacy.
This gets back to #1 above... the AI needs to know when to quit.
-- Part of that is to not overexpand and thereby suffer economic penalties to an empire size that the current economy can't afford.
-- Part is the ability to recognize when the goals have been met (the goal is not necessarily total victory over the opponent, but simply getting more territory for one's self and/or hamstringing the opponent's growth).
-- Part is recognizing the "big picture" in terms of victory (in particular the power graph... this gets back to ganging up on the leader... B and C are warring enough that both their power drops to a certain level below A, then a decision has to be made in regard to what is remaining to be gained from continuing the war or suing for peace because A is the real enemy who is threatening to win the game)
I can't say I'd envy Blake's or Iustus' position here. There are good reasons why the AI needs to mass units (so the human player won't take them out easily), but OTOH that leads to other problems (unit spam spiral of death). If a solution that satisfies all parties exists and is found, great. If not, then the division of AI behaviour using the Aggressive AI setting is a good way to go.
My own personal feeling (from direct observation of my games using the recent builds, as well as from posts by Blake and Iustus) is that the current BetterAI builds and designates too many units as city defenders. Change that, and we've achieved 80-85% of the goals here.
Wodan
