A Better AI.

[darrelljs]

If people don't like the AI bonuses, can't they just go down a difficulty level or two?

True, however think of this change as restoring the dynamic range in the difficulty levels. Or, another way to look at is the inevitable outcome of making the AI better. A lot of the handicaps were in place to cover the AIs inability to develop its economy. Now that the AI is capable of growing its cities to a large size in a reasonable timeframe, they are no longer necessary. Its a bold change and bound to be controversial, but I think it was the right thing to do. Especially the cheap unit upgrades, IMHO that shouldn't have been included in the first place

Darrell

 

[darrelljs]

I personally think that the unit supply cost, the unit upgrade cost and the war weariness modifier should be scaled to the size of AI armies at the various difficulty levels. If not, the large armies of the AI at high difficulty levels will hurt its economy a lot when upgrading or when going to war and the AI will get war weariness a lot sooner at the high difficulty levels.

Alternatively, the AI could be smart enough to build research when it has nothing better to do and doesn't need more units, and/or it can build contemporary units and disband old units in a 1:1 deal through the course of the game.

Darrell

 

[darrelljs]

nI haven't played 1-1 build yet, don't know how smarter AI got. But under 12-21 build if those effects went in. I can actually dominate AI on tech research on Deity so I can have more advanced units than AI coupled with the fact AI can support less units, its alot easier to win. In my previous game, It was a tough game all the way through renaissance, because I was 3 or 4 techs behind leading civs. But I still managed to catch up and become #1 in industrial age. IF the ugrade and supply cost is increased, I probably could dominate AI around late medieval age.

That's impressive, I would be curious to know what strategy you employ. I'm usually so busy focusing on production to try and take the land necessary to compensate for the AI bonuses that it is a major struggle to keep up in technology. It gets harder late in the game when lightbulbing doesn't give enough beakers to discover tradeable techs, so you have to hit the window early.

Darrell

 

[weimingshi]

That's impressive, I would be curious to know what strategy you employ. I'm usually so busy focusing on production to try and take the land necessary to compensate for the AI bonuses that it is a major struggle to keep up in technology. It gets harder late in the game when lightbulbing doesn't give enough beakers to discover tradeable techs, so you have to hit the window early.

Darrell

I play at deity level, but doesn't mean I don't cheat a little Deity is usually kinda impossible at start, So I gave myself bronze working and masonry from get go. once you manage to survive ancient era its alot easier to play. The reason why I choose to cheat at start instead of playing a less difficult setting is because If I play less difficult setting once i get past ancient era the game will be too easy. With deity setting the AI can put up a good fight all the way to industrial age at least.

Anyways, for difficulty above emperor, I really don't think upping suply inflation and upgrade cost is a good idea. what will happen is AI will still attempt to upgrade all its archers to longbow, but this time do it at the cost of research speed. Ai is still not smart enough to know when to disband outdated units and how many units to keep at different stage of game.

Oh another thing is about barbs, I play with raging barb on too, i give myself an archer at get go to survive barb attack. If you decrease the AI bonus vs. barbs, AI gonna really have a tough time with raging barb option on. Because they don't know how to set up fog busters. The last game I played, my neighbor hashepsut almost got annilated by barbs on deity. I had to give her 5 archers for her to survive ( using worldbuilder of course).

 

[cf_nz]

Please always post any saves which cause a crash or hang. You do not even have to ask. I was about to make a build to post today, but I will wait a few hours to see if you can post the crash. I would prefer to fix this before posting a build.

-Iustus

OK, I'll email a couple of save one pre-war and one post-war. As I said, there is no guarantee that the BetterAI mod is the cause though.

 

[Iustus]

OK, I'll email a couple of save one pre-war and one post-war. As I said, there is no guarantee that the BetterAI mod is the cause though.

Can you post the save on this thread instead?

-Iustus

 

[cf_nz]

Can you post the save on this thread instead?

-Iustus

Sure. Just remembered about the easy upload system for larger files.

Pre-war
Post-war

 

[Blake]

A clarification on what the upkeep types means.

Unit SUPPLY refers specifically to supply costs for units IN ENEMY TERRITORY. The AI is still getting full free-rides for the units in it's own territory.

 

[JimMac99]

Just read Alexman on 'Poly state that "CustomAssets should not be loaded in MP."
They are, are'nt they?

In a couple of days I am due to start a LAN game with my bothers and intend using the latest version of Better AI. Is it sufficient to put the Better AI Gamecore.dll in the custom assets of all players or should I get them to back up their original and replace in the standard game files folder?

 

[Blake]

CustomAssets "should not" be loaded be loaded in MP, but CustomAssets ARE loaded in MP so for now it is sufficient for all players in a MP game to have the DLL in their CustomAssets folder. The Correct way is probably using it as a mod for all players but I've never actually tried doing that.

PS. Hopefully the next build will be tomorrow... had quite some traveling to do today. Sorry for not getting a lagfix build out...

 

[Elhoim]

Don´t worry about it

 

[scu98rkr]

Hi I'd like to state I now have BetterAI working in LAN mulitplayer. The better AI .dll is in the custom asests folder.

It didnt seem to work previously but now does which is pretty strange.

I've also added the cheatcode chipoble or whatever it is. I dont know if this has made the difference.

 

[Zombie69]

I agree with Roland and the others. The handicap bonuses should remain scaled with difficulty level, though the range can be changed to give them less of an advantage overall. But don't go with a flat (across levels) bonus where one isn't warranted.

 

[Newcomer24]

I agree with Roland and the others. The handicap bonuses should remain scaled with difficulty level, though the range can be changed to give them less of an advantage overall. But don't go with a flat (across levels) bonus where one isn't warranted.

I agree too.

 

[Iustus]

Sure. Just remembered about the easy upload system for larger files.

Pre-war
Post-war

Your changes including things which modify the save file format, so I cannot investigate this crash.

If you can post a zip with your sourcefiles (leave out all the python and boost stuf, you can also leave out any files you did not modify, if you have that handy), then I can look into the issue. Without your sources though, it is impossible to even run these saves.

I still hope to look into this, but the plan is to post a build in the next 12 hours, and most of those I will be sleeping, so if this is a real bug, the fix will likely not make it in the next build.

-Iustus

 

[Powerslave]

Every time we give the AI bonuses, instead of giving the human penalties, aren't we basically saying that the AI sucks?

I hope that we can finally retire the AI bonuses one day. When that happens, increasing the difficulty slider will probably involve decreasing the happiness and healthiness threshholds, increasing the rate at which inflation rises, etc. Maybe certain "tricks" like chop-rushing wonders should only exist starting at Prince or Monarch. Also, maybe we could limit the dagger opening strategy to Prince, minimum. This would allow Noble players to basically play like Noble players, while giving more veteran players (Prince/Monarch) a challenge, as they discover advanced concepts (chop rushing, slavery abuse, etc).

If you can currently win on Immortal or Deity, with Better AI, I doubt you're ever going to truly be challenged by this game. I salute you.

However, for those casual players, currently on Noble - Monarch, I think we can pretty much assume that AI bonuses will eventually be much reduced. On Emperor, Immortal, and Deity, where, traditionally, the obsessive micromanagers and master strategists dwell, I feel much less strong about "no AI bonuses". Perhaps to these folk, only AI bonuses keep them interested in the game, and an "unfair" handicap is called for.

It's my hope that I'll eventually start winning games on Monarch difficulty again, but, failing that, I'm perfectly willing to fall back to a lower difficulty level. My concern is not about my ego (though indeed I have a very large ego) but about pride in the strides taken by the Better AI team. Giving the AI such excessive bonuses as exist today is tantamount to saying that the AI is rubbish. Our AI today is no longer rubbish, and I think we can proudly reduce some of those handicaps.

If we go the opposite way and continue to grant the AI such excessive bonuses, that's fine, too. But I'd prefer to see the difficulty levels adjusted with respect to my ability, rather than the AI's ability to be a thorn in my side.

The beauty of Civ IV modding is that we can all have whatever we want -- given that we have the inclination and motivation. So, hopefully, all can be satisfied.

 

[Wodan]

I think the main problem with the "computer player" is that it is expected to do two or three sometimes mutually exclusive things all at once: (1) play according to his "character" and "circumstances" like religion, etc (2) try to win (3) prevent the human player from winning easily. Suppose you are playing an MP game of civ but you cannot attack unless your opponent has a different religion and you are expected to attack the leading player no matter what. How frustrating would that be?
The AI is expected to do so many silly things like refusing an advantageus offer just because the other player "has the wrong religion" and it is also expected to play "smart". You just can't be stupid and smart at the same time.
Perhaps, it is best to have 2 different builds of this AI, one historic AI and another human-like AI that just ignores religion, gifts, borders, etc.

I think a better solution would be to simply take into consideration such things as this.

If an offer is a good deal, it's a good deal no matter the religion differences (or other negative modifiers).

The effect this would have is to make it possible to overcome past negative modifiers. That might have implications that need to be considered, such as to be able to force a totally peaceful game. However, with the AI capable of declaring war no matter the + modifiers, this may be a moot point.

In any event, having two different builds seems not so great to me, and will delay impactful improvements because it will cause additional management overhead.

Anyways, for difficulty above emperor, I really don't think upping suply inflation and upgrade cost is a good idea. what will happen is AI will still attempt to upgrade all its archers to longbow, but this time do it at the cost of research speed. Ai is still not smart enough to know when to disband outdated units and how many units to keep at different stage of game.

Teaching the AI how and when to upgrade vs disband should be easy to do. A simple function to compare upkeep cost and upgrade cost. Same for fogbusters. Let's simply ask the BetterAI team to add this to our "wish list" for the next major version.

Wodan

 

[Quagga]

If an offer is a good deal, it's a good deal no matter the religion differences (or other negative modifiers).

I don't agree with this. The religion and other negative modifiers are the AI's only foreign policy. Just like a human player or just like real life, foreign policy can and should be able to override other concerns.

 

[Elandal]

A good deal that brings you "traded with our worst enemy" demerits from half the world isn't necessarily so good..

There may well be reasons to not take a good deal, and even after considering the diplomatic and technological implications (I don't want to aggravate half the world, nor do I want to feed the tech leader much), there's the personality. I simply don't like some AI leaders, and prefer not to trade with them unless that's the only way to get something done - they can offer me half the world for all I care (ok, slight exaggeration) and I'll rather cut a deal with someone else. I don't expect Isabella to lose her religious integrity easily either.

 

[uberfish]

Building so many AI units as it does now and letting it still have free upgrades and negligible WW isn't making the AI smarter, just better at exploiting its cheats. Both WW and unit upgrades were balanced based on a lot fewer units used in wars. Right now fighting wars at deity feels a lot more like fighting against the AI cheats than anything else. Making 50+ units just to capture a few cities only to find that you're crippled by WW while the AI is still running at full research/production and just upgraded everything to the next tier of military tech with its free, innate, permanent Leonardo's Workshop anyway is 1) a completely artificial situation that has nothing to do with what Civ is supposed to be, and 2) more importantly, not fun in any way.

The goal of improving the AI should be to gradually reduce the level of outright cheating it needs to do to maintain a given difficulty.