A Better AI.

[Elhoim]

I think that this new war AI makes the game better, and I´m not a warmongerer, but a builder. But sometimes I go to war to break the tedium of peace. Last time, playing as Augustus Caesar, I attacked England across the sea. Churchill didn´t have much of an army and I took four of it´s cities. I could have stopped after this, but I was greedy. And that was almost my downfall of my invasion. He became a vassal to his neighbour, the most powerful civ, the new Kublai Khan. He already had a vassal, Frederick, who sent me an antique but powerful stack of units, which I had some trouble to keep away. And then he attack with his own SoD. I literally gave a city to him, removing my units, and he didn´t continue with his onslaught, as he seemed happy to show his power to me. England made some unit and started attacking me, but I could sue for peace with his master for 1500 gold.

It was great! It was an easy war, almost a clean up mission, and then things just went awfully wrong. It was challenging and epic. Now the AI is really a challenge.

 

[Arlborn]

Yes but you can beat him if you do YOUR job well
And after all he made a huge investment to his SoD so deserve some benefit.
If attacking would be useless it would be an all peaceful game = boring.

For it you have to use all your money, time and production always producing units, now THAT is boring, sorry.


About the XML, just change the aggressive AIs attitude to even worse hehe.

 

[Elhoim]

You don´t need the same amount of units to put them off, as you can make more intelligent choices.

 

[Arlborn]

You don´t need the same amount of units to put them off, as you can make more intelligent choices.

Gets hard when I only know what kind of units is in the SoD when they attack me... Anyway its not really about me, but I have the impression that the peaceful AIs are a bit too weak..

 

[Naismith]

Aggressive AI is crap because it restricts human-AI trade as a part of the option i don't know why and it kills diplomacy. They would better be just more warlike.

I think it's because the diplomatic model is too simple. Everything (war, trade, U.N. votes) is driven by the one set of diplo modifiers. If war decisions were augmented by additional (or even separate) modifiers, then you could affect AI aggression without affecting AI attitude towards trade and the U.N. I could be wrong.

I certainly don't want Civ to turn into a game where all I do is furiously build military units. If anything, I would like to see military conquest become more difficult for the human player, and other styles of play be encouraged.

 

[kettyo]

Gets hard when I only know what kind of units is in the SoD when they attack me... Anyway its not really about me, but I have the impression that the peaceful AIs are a bit too weak..

I have seen in the event log 'Spanish civilization destroyed' long before i could have met them and they are not the most peaceful anyway

I understand your points though.

AI-Dagger could be made an option either as a replacement to the 'aggressive AI' crap or as an alternative version of this mod.

Or maybe Blake's should implement an extra routine for AI's so they check if some of their enemies (annoyed/furious) power is more than theirs by a given value (130% 150% etc.) then adapt dagger or something like it until defense is adequate.

Something that could make this system even better if warmongers wouldn't like each other by pure sympathy.
It's ok for peacemongers but seems odd for warmongers and even for racionalists (peaceweightvalue 4-6)
It's cool when civs with 2 such huge stacks clash.
But it's rare by their own motivation due to the warmonger 'brotherhood' which is quite pointless.

I gave free mysticism to everybody to counter this somewhat. The more religious distribution the more early conflicts which results in more hatred and big wars, even between 2 dagger-armies, by religious hatred cancelling out the warmonger sympathy.
I hate when 2-3 civs get all the religions. It makes things too peaceful for me.

I've also personalized the 'nowarattitudeprobs' values in leaderheadsinfo file.
It seems silly for a total warmonger like Brennus to hold back his armies on his annoyed rival.
For the biggest warmongers i also let them fully 'handle' cautious rivals too.

You can spy on enemy SoD's by caravels or something before the war to plan your counter.

 

[kettyo]

I think it's because the diplomatic model is too simple. Everything (war, trade, U.N. votes) is driven by the one set of diplo modifiers. If war decisions were augmented by additional (or even separate) modifiers, then you could affect AI aggression without affecting AI attitude towards trade and the U.N. I could be wrong.

It's not that simple as i see in the leaderheadsinfo file.
There are a lot attitude modifiers and numerous separate values for war decision among a lot others.
You can even set them to attack the cautious or pleased rivals too if they're in the position.
There are a mass of personality values there for a miriad things.
I'm afraid to mess them up.

Surely it's not necessary to restrict trade that much to make the game more warlike.
And it's not even THAT MUCH more warlike so i never use that option.

 

[naminator]

How can i tell if this MOD is running in my current game ? I`ve put folder in my "Custom Assets " folder as instructed and am back in my saved game. I just wanted to check that its running ok but didn`t know how to ??

 

[Arlborn]

How can i tell if this MOD is running in my current game ? I`ve put folder in my "Custom Assets " folder as instructed and am back in my saved game. I just wanted to check that its running ok but didn`t know how to ??

You put a folder in your customassets folder? If yes its wrong! Its just the dll inside the folder that goes to the customassets, that is all!
ANd oyu can see when the AI kick you badly

 

[kettyo]

How can i tell if this MOD is running in my current game ? I`ve put folder in my "Custom Assets " folder as instructed and am back in my saved game. I just wanted to check that its running ok but didn`t know how to ??

It's in the readme:

- holding down ALT when mousing over the active player will show "=== Better AI ==="

Don't put the folder just the dll file to the customassets folder. (my games\warlords\customassets i think)

 

[ToxicBones]

Just downloaded.

Normally that no one does a dagger in a 12 civ game on standard, monarch diff, aggresive AI?
Hoped to see one, than none does :/
Btw, ottoman defenses are weak, 1 archer per city, could too easy destroy them. (Defeated 585 BC)
Seems he was just waiting for me to kill him, he adopted slavery and had bronze by trade, but didnt slaved.

The automatic more growth is nice
2x food resource instead of 1x food, 1x unworked hill.

Can you also create something to mke the OCC a REAL OCC? And always war also for AI?

 

[Elhoim]

I agree that the warmonger "brotherhood" is kinda ilogic. I think that a warmonger would see another warmonger as a threat instead of a friend.

 

[Harrier]

It's in the readme:

- holding down ALT when mousing over the active player will show "=== Better AI ==="

Don't put the folder just the dll file to the customassets folder. (my games\warlords\customassets i think)

To clarify - as this confused me to begin with. Mouse over the list of players on the bottom right of the screen and press Alt. Then the info displayed on the left of the screen will show "=== Better AI ===".

If you do it over an active unit, as I tried initially nothing extra is displayed.

I agree that the warmonger "brotherhood" is kinda ilogic. I think that a warmonger would see another warmonger as a threat instead of a friend.

I agree also.

3 votes for 0 against (so far).

 

[a4phantom]

I agree that the warmonger "brotherhood" is kinda ilogic. I think that a warmonger would see another warmonger as a threat instead of a friend.

Right. Stalin and Hitler allied to carve up Poland, but they were bound to clash. The US and USSR allied to defeat the Nazis, but then we fought (economically and by proxy) for almost 50 years. Warmongers might respect eachother but they don't like eachother.

 

[Mutineer]

Warmorder Brothehood is logical.
One warmonder will avoide to attack an other - too expencive and go after softer targets first.

 

[a4phantom]

I don't think so. I always go after Alexander, Monty and Genghis as soon as I can, because I know they'll attack me sooner or later. From this forum I gather that others do the same.

Besides, as long as you're a stronger warmonger, it's much easier to justify attacking a fellow aggressor. Look at Bush's America invading Saddam's Iraq, compared to Iraq invading Kuwait.

 

[Mutineer]

About better AI, difficulty and balance and keeping it a game.

Lets look on war related AI and Multiplayer.

Right now civ is unbalanced, mostly because it is breaking one main rule of balance = there should be a way to counter any tactic/strategy.

Parking siege/attack/defense stack on hill or (god forbid) forest next to city does not have an efficient counter, well, not befor catapults and even after.

For stack > 4 rule would be have 1.5 times more units and half of them cats.
For stack <= 4 - have 2 times more units.

Problem is there are no units with bonuses to attack in forest/hill and no way to get them.
As result in multiplayer one has to cut forests next to city as soon as possible, no matter any other consideration, but one still can do nothing about hills.

It is not always possible not to build a city next to a hill.

Firaxis trying to address this problem by giving some promotions bonus to attack in these ties, but it&#8217;s come to late (3 rd promotion).

What is missing is Rangers/partisan line of units, type of scouts but with ability to attack and bonuses to attack in forests/hills/jungles.
Now, many Civ players think about war as a very profitable activity. If some one played Civ game in multiplayer (But probably not online as online Civ4 rules usually have very remote connection to traditional civ4 game), let&#8217;s say Pit boss game.

You will find out that wars are extremely expensive and are really clashes of Civs. If AI starts to react to war as reasonably competent human player war will stop to be a profitable at all.
Now, nothing wrong with that. There still will be diplomatic, tactical, strategically ways to overcome this problem. It would just stop to be matter of moving your Sod to nearest city.

Civ 1.61 difficulty levels more or less correct.

AI bonuses counter AI stupidity and flavor.

Now, let&#8217;s talk about AI flavor.
In addition to usual AI stupidity each AI has set of rules about how to react in certain cases. This gives each AI different flavor, making Masta trade whore and Monty creasy.
It is an intentionally put in AI weakness. One AI usually going for Specialists economy, other cottage spawn.

In each situation one plan could be better then an other, but AI mach more likely will do his flavor thin. In some situation it would be a right plan, in other it would be wrong.
Game creators have to balance this different AI so in average AI flavors does not create situation when one AI is always dominant and other is always underdog.
They were more or less successful in that, but that where Warmonger respect is coming from. It is one of way to balance AI&#8217;s. So, as Blake noticed, he now has to balance AI&#8217;s for his AI.

Should AI have flavors? I think they should. We want to keep it a game, when Gandy is not going for global domination if he can help it and Cesar does not give to each demand and never declare war.
In addition we want different stiles of play to be voluble. Balancing AI that use different stiles help us to balance game play for human players to.

Conclusion:

1). Game need to way to counter forest/hill defense, so chopping forest and parking your sod on forests/hills stop to be the only valid thin to do.
Right now Firaxis made City the worsted defense tie possible, as there are a lot of units with bonuses to city attack and city attack promotions and a way to completely remove city defense.
Next bad ties are fort. You can not remove fort bonuses, but you can use city attack promotions.
Hills and forests are the best defense ties. You can not remove bonuses, nothing has bonuses to attack and you have promotions to increase defense.

2). AI creator should keep AI flavors and attempt to balance AI using different flavors.

 

[a4phantom]

One thing that would help would be to reintroduce zone of control. As it is, my SOD can go around any forts you build, any units you put on hills or in forests, etc. on the way to your city or crucial resource, without penalty. If bypassing units in fortified positions meant you got free hits on me, I'd have to deal with those units, without the benefit of my City Raider bonuses, to get there, or else I'd arrive with a weakened stack at no cost to you.

 

[Iustus]

SDK Mod'ers: For those of you who have made your own changes to the SDK, I have written an article on how to automate the merging of your sources with the Better AI sources, using SVN.

I strongly suggest you read this. There is also instructions on setting up a local repository for your own changes, which is a good idea.

-Iustus

 

[Powerslave]

One thing that would help would be to reintroduce zone of control. As it is, my SOD can go around any forts you build, any units you put on hills or in forests, etc. on the way to your city or crucial resource, without penalty. If bypassing units in fortified positions meant you got free hits on me, I'd have to deal with those units, without the benefit of my City Raider bonuses, to get there, or else I'd arrive with a weakened stack at no cost to you.

I really agree with this. I miss so many features from SMAC, and this is big one.

What are we asking Blake to do here, though? Make a fort mod for us? I sure understand if Blake isn't really interested in making extended gameplay mods, like enhanced forts, paratroopers, and scripted events. These things have nothing to do with improved AI, despite how fun they'd be to see in the core game.

Maybe one of us could create a "balance mod", based around the latest Blake AI improvements, with enhanced forts and such. I'd do it, if I weren't so lazy.