A Better AI.

[Willem]

I think the changes to the AI so far only make aggressive warmongering even more essential. Not good in promoting different ways to play the game.

I diasagree. With the AI now capable of easily out teching the human, having a large army and empire can be a real detriment. You have to closely balance your military accomplishments with the basic infrastructure of your empire, otherwise some civ is going to leave you in the dust tech wise. I think if anything, these changes are forcing more of a builder mentality on the game, since you have develop your territory much more effectively in order to compete.

 

[Blake]

The only way that Blake etc. will be aware of the need/demand for this is if the subject is raised in this thread.

I think I noticed already .

I just don't care .


I am sure that people are going to whine that the only way to stop an AI cultural victory is to conquer them. Thus they need to war more. And the only way to survive an attack from an aggressive AI is to build a massive army, = more war.

And I would just ask, to everyone who complains about this sort of thing: WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE AI'S TO DO!?

Listen. As far as I'm concerned, it'd be like complaining "I usually lose in multiplayer ffa games, it's not fair!". Well, in a 4 player FFA game, the average player loses 75% of the time.

Why the heck do you want to win against the AI every single time?

Will you let an AI you are friendly with win? Are you willing to hang off an AI's coattails? Or do you have to steal their glory? Do you have to rain on their parade?

You Humans are TOO DAMN OBSESSED WITH WINNING.


I am however considering tweaking the diplomatic modifiers, possibly removing the aggressive AI human-diplomacy penalty (just making them more generally aggressive) and I've already removed some "isHuman" stuff from the AI decision making (like if AI Alexander is able to come knocking with a bazillion units it makes no sense to treat him as less of a military threat than a human).

On the whole though I think it's the Humans who need an Attitude Adjustment!

 

[Arlborn]

I still think the solution is pretty simple, just make the AI better in the military situation and it will balance things out. I mean, dont make the AI more agressive, just better in war strategies, and then it iwll really balance with the research thing and then we just need to drop a level or two down, without need to go to war again and again as the only way to win the AI because it sucx in war...So simple..

Great job Blake, just keep it up! Dont make AI more agressive, just better in war tatics

 

[aelf]

This is Civilization 4: Lost in Translation.

 

[Murky]

I think what is needed is more variety in difficulties where you can not only adjust how smart the AI is but also what bonuses it gets and how aggressive it is. I don't mean 1-click options, I mean sliders or different levels. There should be a CPU cycles setting, a bonuses setting and an aggressiveness settling where each gets a scale of 0-100%. So if you set the CPU cycles to 50%, bonuses to 0% and aggressivness at 50% then you would have something similar to noble difficulty level.

 

[drkodos]

You Humans are TOO DAMN OBSESSED WITH WINNING.

Not all of us. Mostly only the ones with low self esteem.


Many Native American tribes had no concept of winning and losing, only participation. I try to take this same approach to much of life's challenges.

Like posting on message boards. There are really only participants and losers. Anyone trying to win will consistantly lose to one who is merely particpating.

Chauncey Gardner likes to watch. I am merely a participant.

 

[Willem]

In ideal case they would be competitive in Noble where the rules favor the AI and human roughly the same.

He's definitely succeeded there. There's been a few games I had to abandon since the AI was so far ahead of me in techs. I've had to change the way I play quite a bit in order to keep up with the AI.

 

[Powerslave]

Not all of us. Mostly only the ones with low self esteem.

Man, that's harsh. And when I think something is harsh, that means it's well beyond the pale. Regardless, you've got a good point here. Winning isn't everything; having fun is the name of the game. That doesn't change the fact that I take much glee in razing every Malinese or Aztec city in a Duel game, once I reach the boiling point. Those games are so cathartic...

Really, I think that I do understand what Aelf wants. He wants a game where your pleased AI neighbors don't suddenly backstab you; where Montezuma declares war on his worst enemy, instead of you; where Isabella declares war on her worst enemy, instead of you. I wish that the United Nations had been implemented better and served some purpose other than just getting a diplomatic victory or forcing everyone into Environmentalism.

But this is a war game. It's not a nation-building game. If you want to create an empire and manage its day-to-day operations, another game would be more appropriate, such as SimCity 4 or Caesar 4.

Oblivion is basically an FPS with magic, and Civ 4 is basically a war game with a bone tossed to SimCity fans. If you don't like FPSes, you'll hate Oblivion. If you don't like war games, you'll certainly be left feeling a bit empty after realizing that the only viable strategy in most Civ 4 games is war.

Deal with it. I love SimCity, so I play SimCity when I get the urge to build without Montezuma interrupting me with his hordes of underpowered swordsmen. ("Fear my Jaguar!" hee hee)

Anyways, this belongs somewhere else. I truly would like to see moderator intervention soon, if this thread doesn't get back on topic soon. The topic is Blake's AI improvements, not how much you love builder games.

 

[DevilJin]

Aelf
If you don't want the big bonuses for the AI, use the XML or drop down a level.
If you don't want wars so play always againts india, mali, and other peaceful civs.
If still you aren't satisfied , play with the "Always peace" i n the costum game menu.

 

[Arlborn]

But this is a war game. It's not a nation-building game. If you want to create an empire and manage its day-to-day operations, another game would be more appropriate, such as SimCity 4 or Caesar 4.

Oblivion is basically an FPS with magic, and Civ 4 is basically a war game with a bone tossed to SimCity fans. If you don't like FPSes, you'll hate Oblivion. If you don't like war games, you'll certainly be left feeling a bit empty after realizing that the only viable strategy in most Civ 4 games is war.

Deal with it. I love SimCity, so I play SimCity when I get the urge to build without Montezuma interrupting me with his hordes of underpowered swordsmen. ("Fear my Jaguar!" hee hee)

No, sorry. But in this point I disagree 201.09% with you. CIVILIZATION(got it?) didnt suppose to be only about war but Also about war. Or they adress that problem(and hey, for me Blake is in the right way ) or they change how they use marketing to sell this game, because right now they say you can win the game by many meanings that arent only war and war.

I think you all also missed some of the points of Aelf but OK..

Blake is in the right way and that is all that matters.

 

[drkodos]

Man, that's harsh. And when I think something is harsh, that means it's well beyond the pale. Regardless, you've got a good point here. Winning isn't everything; having fun is the name of the game. That doesn't change the fact that I take much glee in razing every Malinese or Aztec city in a Duel game, once I reach the boiling point. Those games are so cathartic...

Reality is a harsh mistress. She is not suited for everyone. And it seems that this current generation has no taste for her at all.

And please notice I did not say all. I used a parsing word. Just read through these pages and I believe you will find ample substantiation for my assertion.

 

[kettyo]

I think I noticed already .

I just don't care .


I am sure that people are going to whine that the only way to stop an AI cultural victory is to conquer them. Thus they need to war more. And the only way to survive an attack from an aggressive AI is to build a massive army, = more war.

And I would just ask, to everyone who complains about this sort of thing: WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE AI'S TO DO!?

Listen. As far as I'm concerned, it'd be like complaining "I usually lose in multiplayer ffa games, it's not fair!". Well, in a 4 player FFA game, the average player loses 75% of the time.

Why the heck do you want to win against the AI every single time?

Will you let an AI you are friendly with win? Are you willing to hang off an AI's coattails? Or do you have to steal their glory? Do you have to rain on their parade?

You Humans are TOO DAMN OBSESSED WITH WINNING.


I am however considering tweaking the diplomatic modifiers, possibly removing the aggressive AI human-diplomacy penalty (just making them more generally aggressive) and I've already removed some "isHuman" stuff from the AI decision making (like if AI Alexander is able to come knocking with a bazillion units it makes no sense to treat him as less of a military threat than a human).

On the whole though I think it's the Humans who need an Attitude Adjustment!

Welcome Mr. Blake!

I've been a witness to an AI stack of 30 or so units in action recently so huhh my first complaint with the previous build is FIXED

The tweaking of the 'aggressive AI' setting is a very good idea, thought of that myself too. The diplo-penalties make this option useless.
I also experience that AI's are not much more warlike with this option on so maybe their taste for war should be increased too
Peace-dudes won't whine it's an optional setting.
I just need more warlike AI.
And maybe giving them more negative diplo-modifiers against each other because they tend to be quite fine with each other most of the time sadly.
Or at least make attitude related to the modifiers like in the human AI relations not 'AI attitudes rounded up' like it is now mostly.
More conflicts = more enjoyable and memorable game.

A bit off and personal but i think i may slow tech development generally because it's so fast it causes stress. The pressure is so high to build everything, upgrade everything etc. it's not so fun. You never have the feeling it's 'fine' you always have to rush for something.

 

[kettyo]

I think that I do understand what Aelf wants. He wants a game where your pleased AI neighbors don't suddenly backstab you; where Montezuma declares war on his worst enemy, instead of you; where Isabella declares war on her worst enemy, instead of you.

Never experienced anything like this.
It's rare when i'm declared war on.
It's actually rare when someone declares war at all. At least for my taste.
AI's are in too good terms with each other most of the time and they're afraid to declare war on me (this may change with the new Huge stacks)

 

[kettyo]

I've already removed some "isHuman" stuff from the AI decision making (like if AI Alexander is able to come knocking with a bazillion units it makes no sense to treat him as less of a military threat than a human).

It's in the last version yet?
Sounds cool!

 

[Arlborn]

Looks like from my point of view that the AI is a bit more pushed to attack the human rather than other AI, but its possible its just a side-effect of them being easier buddies with each other, with diplomatic bonuses like NEVER ask demands or help from each other(did somebody ever saw an AI with "you didnt give us help" or "you gave us help" with other AI??) and so on..

But then again I'm probably only one more whiner peace-dude..

 

[kettyo]

Dizzy question:

Could you also tweak the Civ1/Civnet AI too?

I still like that game too, for MP it rulez

 

[Civbowl]

Well this is a fascinating thread, but I have some questions.

1. How come Blake is the one doing these improvements and not Firaxis. They have many qualified programmers and have made a fine program. It seems to me that what Blake is doing is a natural follow up for the program. Are the programmers too busy with other projects to improve Civ 4, or are they trying to avoid the controversy that his improvements could cause. Is Firaxis already working on this and a possible level adjustment for the next patch, which leads to

2. Will Firaxis release another patch for Warlords, and will Blake contribute to this patch. I would think they would, there is the stack problem with the spy and I am sure other things that could be patched.

3. I do not know if I can convey this question correctly, but how much of what Blake is doing personal choices and how much is fundmental improvements. For example, is there a programmer at Firaxis right now saying that the changes that Blake made are tipping the balance one way or the other, or are they saying yea I wish I had thought of that.

4. Are Blake's changes using more computer oomph and maybe Firaxis did not want to make some changes like that so the program could continue to work on some lower computer specs. I do not know if this is even a consideration since I am not a programmer.

I am glad to see talented people like Blake get involved in helping to improve the game, and I am sure that he gets a rush when he sees other people use and enjoy his modifications.

 

[kettyo]

Looks like from my point of view that the AI is a bit more pushed to attack the human rather than other AI, but its possible its just a side-effect of them being easier buddies with each other, with diplomatic bonuses like NEVER ask demands or help from each other(did somebody ever saw an AI with "you didnt give us help" or "you gave us help" with other AI??) and so on..

But then again I'm probably only one more whiner peace-dude..

No it's because you build too few units or don't mass-upgrade them (AI can mass-upgrade much cheaper).
They almost never attack me.
I usually have at least 5 units / city defense maybe more on dense areas.

In my experience for a war declaration they need a bad diplo-relation AND a stronger army generally.
They can have -8 in diplo if you're the stronger in troops.

I would rather see more cases when a strong civ attacks someone without the bad relations just for getting more stronger simply.

Also i think having strong friends could deter an attack.
Just look how often a civ, the only with the given religion, so hated by everybody else is attacked.

 

[Arlborn]

No it's because you build too few units or don't mass-upgrade them (AI can mass-upgrade much cheaper).
They almost never attack me.
I usually have at least 5 units / city defense maybe more on dense areas.

In my experience for a war declaration they need a bad diplo-relation AND a stronger army generally.
They can have -8 in diplo if you're the stronger in troops.

I would rather see more cases when a strong civ attacks someone without the bad relations just for getting more stronger simply.

Also i think having strong friends could deter an attack.
Just look how often a civ, the only with the given religion, so hated by everybody else is attacked.

Did you ever see the modifiers of diplomacy that I talked about between AIs?

 

[kettyo]

Civbowl,

I think 2.) will be the case.
Blake's new improvements will be incorporated to the new patch.
Even more if the 'warmonger AI' strategy will prove to be working well.
I have seen huge troop concentrations yet but no massive warfare just short wars.

More serious wars would be good too. I haven't seen the "... civilization is destroyed" (by someone else) for too long.
Since 2.08 it's still not happened.