NapoléonPremier
Warlord
This question remains somewhat intriguing to a non-programmer : why, all in all, does the AI remain pretty dumb ?
This is not to criticize the programmers, which I'm sure did the best job possible given the technical and financial limitations. The AI keeps getting better and better with eveny new version of Civ. In Civ 3, it was some sort of psycho robot, throwing huge hordes of zombie units at you, and gangbanging on each other like maniacs - which, to many, was fun, despite all the exploits possible. Some points remained strangely weak : the AI was pretty lethal with bombers, but unable to handle artillery, which was of course a major exploit. In Civ IV many flaws have been corrected, but new weaknesses had to be generated to prevent greater problems - AI turtling up in cities, few AI-AI wars, AI always going for space race and so on - creating (necessary ?) unfun elements, but resulting in a more interesting game.
But all in all, a bland fact remains : the AI is, on the whole, pretty stupid. Put to play against a decently competent human with no handicaps whatsoever, it doesn't stand a chance. And then a comparison with another game comes to mind : chess. Chess programs, on the contrary, are frighteningly efficient, even in standard commercial versions. In fact, in most of the chess programs you buy, the expertise for the AI is to be able to dumb itself down to be able to play at your level. Not even to mention the professional computers and programs, like the famous IBM's Deep Blue and its fearsome hardware power, which is now practically at the level of the very best players in the world. Of course, one might say, chess is not civ. Chess is a pure result of strict mathematical combinations, thus ideal for a computer to work on. But still, Civ is in fact not that different from chess. Sure, it has a lot more more parameters and uncertainties, but in essence it's pretty close.
So here is my question, and I guess it's primarily addressed to people with expertise in AI programming : is this limitation of the Civ AI just a matter of computing power and financial resources to do more in-depth programming ? Or are there some fundamental limitations in our AI programming capabilities at present that wouldn't allow for a very different result, even with more resources.
To put it differently : if a (very) wealthy sponsor was able to rent the Deep Blue hardware and engineers and the whole Firaxis crew for, say, a year, with no financial limitaions, do you think it would be possible to come up with an AI that pretty much plays the way a human do (real initiative, real adaptation, playing to win, ability to evaluate the real balance of power at any given moment to support or hamper different players, selecting a victory condition best adapted to its personality and position in the game, etc...) ? Well, if yes, I guess you will know how to spend your first million dollars if you're really a Civ fanatic...
This is not to criticize the programmers, which I'm sure did the best job possible given the technical and financial limitations. The AI keeps getting better and better with eveny new version of Civ. In Civ 3, it was some sort of psycho robot, throwing huge hordes of zombie units at you, and gangbanging on each other like maniacs - which, to many, was fun, despite all the exploits possible. Some points remained strangely weak : the AI was pretty lethal with bombers, but unable to handle artillery, which was of course a major exploit. In Civ IV many flaws have been corrected, but new weaknesses had to be generated to prevent greater problems - AI turtling up in cities, few AI-AI wars, AI always going for space race and so on - creating (necessary ?) unfun elements, but resulting in a more interesting game.
But all in all, a bland fact remains : the AI is, on the whole, pretty stupid. Put to play against a decently competent human with no handicaps whatsoever, it doesn't stand a chance. And then a comparison with another game comes to mind : chess. Chess programs, on the contrary, are frighteningly efficient, even in standard commercial versions. In fact, in most of the chess programs you buy, the expertise for the AI is to be able to dumb itself down to be able to play at your level. Not even to mention the professional computers and programs, like the famous IBM's Deep Blue and its fearsome hardware power, which is now practically at the level of the very best players in the world. Of course, one might say, chess is not civ. Chess is a pure result of strict mathematical combinations, thus ideal for a computer to work on. But still, Civ is in fact not that different from chess. Sure, it has a lot more more parameters and uncertainties, but in essence it's pretty close.
So here is my question, and I guess it's primarily addressed to people with expertise in AI programming : is this limitation of the Civ AI just a matter of computing power and financial resources to do more in-depth programming ? Or are there some fundamental limitations in our AI programming capabilities at present that wouldn't allow for a very different result, even with more resources.
To put it differently : if a (very) wealthy sponsor was able to rent the Deep Blue hardware and engineers and the whole Firaxis crew for, say, a year, with no financial limitaions, do you think it would be possible to come up with an AI that pretty much plays the way a human do (real initiative, real adaptation, playing to win, ability to evaluate the real balance of power at any given moment to support or hamper different players, selecting a victory condition best adapted to its personality and position in the game, etc...) ? Well, if yes, I guess you will know how to spend your first million dollars if you're really a Civ fanatic...