A Better AI.

[Roland Johansen]

I read that some savegames were appreciated by the BetterAI-team. So here are some of an AI attack, probably a dagger attempt but I can't know for sure as I didn't want to spoil my game by adding the chipotle code in my civilization.ini file. It's not a lot of fun to play a game where you know the AI plans. These savegames are from an emperor level game at a huge, continents map at epic game speed. I usually play at immortal level (sometimes deity), so I went down 1 level to try the mod.

It's a custom game with the following settings:
Aggressive AI, No city razing, city flipping after conquest, require complete kills and the victory conditions conquest and time.

I have some personal modifications in the game that shouldn't interfere with the AI modifications. In order to run the game as I have played it, I've added the mod-folder that I'm using:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/BetterAI.zip

Here's a text-file with the short list of my xml-changes:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Changed_Files.zip

Modified assets are not locked so you don't have to use the xml-changes that I use. I also combined this mod with the python mods Civ4lerts (which provides alerts when cities grow and such) and the Exotic Foreign Advisor (which adds a more informative foreign advisor).

I picked a random civilization and got Montezuma. I never played this maniac before.

Alexander of Greece attacked Frederik of Germany in 835BC. At that point, I was happy that I wasn't the target as I didn't have many units at that time. It's very hard to defend against an early attack from the AI at emperor level because of the bonus units that he gets. Also production and happiness bonuses that the AI has compared to you are hard to overcome in the early game. Hamburg is now owned by Alexander, so he had some success. However, the war has not had any other consequences so far. It seems a stalemate at this point. You can see some drops in the power rating of both, but both seem to be building many units that more than compensate the drops.

I got my own enemy in 550 BC when Huayna Capac of the Incans declared war on me while moving a stack of 5 units in my territory. However, I had some suspicions about this stack in 565BC when I first saw the stack. Here's a savegame:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Roland_BC-0565_attack.CivWarlordsSave

Luckily I had some units in the area that were scouting for a new city position. I had just discoved a juicy gold-resource when I found the suspicious stack of units. I can use the happiness bonus from the resource, but the war has to have priority.

In 490 BC, I saw a second wave of units coming in my direction. The first wave had just lost some units while attacking my city. The second wave had something like 5 or 6 units.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Roland_BC-0490_second_wave.CivWarlordsSave

In 460 BC some more units were added to the stack.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Roland_BC-0460_some_units_added.CivWarlordsSave

They attacked and lost badly to my dug-in combination of troops:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Roland_BC-0445_attacked_and_lost_badly.CivWarlordsSave

Then I finished off the few remaining troops that tried to retreat to fight another day:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Roland_BC-0430_die_AI_die.CivWarlordsSave

The war is not over yet, however I killed 12 units without losing 1 and thus I think I might have survived the dagger attempt. This is not due to really stupid AI moves but more due to some luck on my part and the AI attacking a fortified position with troops that were not really suited for the job (archers, quechua). He attacked with 12 units in a short time span, 2 fairly large stacks for the time. If he would have combined them, I would have surely lost the city and maybe the war. I was lucky to have better resources (copper got connected during the war, horse was connected at the start). I was impressed by the attack. Good job.

One point of concern. The AI (Alexander and Huayna Capac in my case) is performing these attacks very early in the game. They only have a very low number of cities (3 or so). On a huge map, each player can have something like 10-15 or even 18 cities before every corner of the world is filled. I don't know if it is the best move to attack so early on huge maps. Alexander and Frederik will both suffer because of their war and I and Huayna Capac will suffer from our war. I couldn't continue my expansion at the rate that I wanted and I guess that the other warring parties have the same problems. It is probably also related to the aggressive AI setting. I always use that setting, but it seems to be a far more aggressive world now.

Another thing: I see that Frederik has created a city near the gold resource that I mentioned. I think that that city has been there for a long time as Frederik hasn't expanded since his war with Alexander (you can see the city borders in the last savegame). It is very far from its capital and will probably be vulnerable to attack. Maybe something can be done to make the AI expand in a more conservative manner so that it is more capable to defend its empire. Maybe a distance factor can be added to the settling code.

Thank you for this thrilling game that I'm experiencing.

If you would like savegames from earlier time points in the game, then I can provide those. I will play on and provide some savegames from later in the game if you're interested and if I survive...

 

[HardCoder]

Even attacing due to declarewar request by a friend dropped your 'trust rating'.
Even worse was that after taking the lead every AI started to hate you instantly, neutral was the best you can get.

But if you had the lead in Civ II you were going to win, period. I do think that as you rise in power, smaller civs should trust you less. And why not! You're probably going to turn them into playthings soon.

 

[HardCoder]

The war is not over yet, however I killed 12 units without losing 1 and thus I think I might have survived the dagger attempt. This is not due to really stupid AI moves but more due to some luck on my part and the AI attacking a fortified position with troops that were not really suited for the job (archers, quechua).

That "bad AI stack tactics" is what I've seen in my current game. The AI is attacking with stacks that are so weak that are unlikely to prevail and are going to be completely wiped out by a counterattack.

They are also still taking bait ... if a stack is headed for a city, and I have a large stack on a hill next to the city, they'll often attack it rather than the city. The reason I post the troops there instead of inside the city is so that I can cover possible points of attack before the the city is actually attacked - but the right move is probably to go ahead with the attack as if I weren't there.

 

[kettyo]

AI stacks still tend to sit around beside their attack target if they are uncertain about the attack success as Blake said a few pages earlier.
Surely it would be better to go pillaging or retreat in such a situation.
This addition to combat logic will be very good.

 

[kettyo]

Hardcoder,
That's an impressive roundup of GG usability.
I personally evaluate to use GG as Warlord if i'm fighting an even or losing war to get those experience boost instantly.
In a favorable war i usually add instructors. After the 10th unit you start to get extra experiences over Warlord option.
Of course if you're losing your empire that won't help you much.

 

[kettyo]

But if you had the lead in Civ II you were going to win, period. I do think that as you rise in power, smaller civs should trust you less. And why not! You're probably going to turn them into playthings soon.

But they didn't make that with the other AI's on the lead just with me.
And suddenly from 1 turn to another they all were good friends and hated me altogether. That was so surreal.
The same was in Civ1 (not in CivNet). They didn't even respect peace treaties after you took the lead.

Personally i'm happy if any of my friends win the game almost as much as i've won.
It still not happened that my vassal won by culture for instance but i won't be angered at all.

I would hate if some arrogant jerk won though

 

[Harrier]

Is it possible (or rather, reasonable) to have at least two levels of intelligence in the AI in cIV? That could allow for "low-IQ" AI for lower difficulty levels, "high-IQ" AI for higher.

That way casual players (who are the majority - anyone on these forums is in minority anyway) can have their fun as can those who have played strong games at high difficulty levels.

I think you have answered your own question.

People on these forums are a minority - therefore the casual majority of Civ4 players will not even know about this Mod. So why bother having two versions.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

As for Priorities of the non Warlord GGs, I'd Say

West Point Military Academy
Heroic Epic Instructors, Then Military Academy
West Point Instructors
Red Cross Military Academy, then Instructors
Secondary Military Complex Military Academy, then Instructors
IronWorks Instructors

Remainder would get dumped as Warlords rather than in Capital

 

[HardCoder]

As for Priorities of the non Warlord GGs, I'd Say

West Point Military Academy
Heroic Epic Instructors, Then Military Academy
West Point Instructors
Red Cross Military Academy, then Instructors
Secondary Military Complex Military Academy, then Instructors
IronWorks Instructors

Remainder would get dumped as Warlords rather than in Capital

Oh ... duh ... forgot the Red Cross. But I'd give it instructors first.

 

[Elandal]

I think you have answered your own question.

People on these forums are a minority - therefore the casual majority of Civ4 players will not even know about this Mod. So why bother having two versions.

If there would be multiple levels in AI intelligence instead of one, the various bonuses to computer could be dumped and different AI used for different difficulty levels. Having just two AI levels would be a start and might allow for adjusting the computer player bonuses by matching different AI on the difficulty level.

 

[Roland Johansen]

That "bad AI stack tactics" is what I've seen in my current game. The AI is attacking with stacks that are so weak that are unlikely to prevail and are going to be completely wiped out by a counterattack.

I didn't talk about bad AI stack tactics. The fact that I won with big numbers was in part due to luck and in part due to access to better resources. Another big factor was the fact that I was defending cities in an era that catapults were not available yet.

I think, I should have lost about 2 units if the AI had had average luck against my city defenders. And if the AI had had the resources that I had, then my cities would probably have fallen against axemen and such units.

Load the first savegame and try to defend successfully. I assure you, it's not that easy.

The AI tried to surprise me with a few big stacks of units and failed, but that doesn't make the attempt itself bad. The AI is now attacking better than before. A good human player would have done better but it's hard to get the AI that good.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I think you have answered your own question.

People on these forums are a minority - therefore the casual majority of Civ4 players will not even know about this Mod. So why bother having two versions.

I don't really see the need for two levels - why not using the best available AI for every level and giving them penalties on the very low levels - I think it is more fun to play against an intelligent AI , which is hampered by penalties than to play against a dumb AI which is blessed with boni.

 

[glokkonn]

To a respond to a post quite a few posts back about razing:

Russians "razed" Moscow before Napolean tried to get there. But Moscow still existed as a city even after this "razing" - its not like they completely wiped Moscow off the map.

As far as fires burning down a city (like Chicago in the 1800s I think it was) - generally these resulted in the cities being modernized as the city structures that were burnt down were replaced with brand new modern buildings.

For the 2 cases here, what happened was not like the Civ version of razing where the city and its inhabitants just disappear. Being able to just disappear a city makes building an empire completely different in Civ as compared to rl - it makes conquering other civilizations MUCH easier than it would be otherwise.

As long as cities can be freely razed it seems to me that military strength will always be >> anything else. Because as soon as you get even a slight military advantage over another civ you can just attack and raze all but a few cities. If you can't raze the cities you conquer then you are stuck with the maintainance costs of the conquered cities, as well as the possibility of the city being reconquered.

Builders that neglect military get punished by getting conquered. So builders cannot just neglect military. Making razing expensive in some way (maybe low cost initially and increasing over time) will prevent military experts from just neglecting the building and city maintainance part of the game.

 

[V. Soma]

Another thing: I see that Frederik has created a city near the gold resource that I mentioned. I think that that city has been there for a long time as Frederik hasn't expanded since his war with Alexander (you can see the city borders in the last savegame). It is very far from its capital and will probably be vulnerable to attack. Maybe something can be done to make the AI expand in a more conservative manner so that it is more capable to defend its empire. Maybe a distance factor can be added to the settling code.

I second this.

Remember Spain's Toledo in my test game? That was far and close to Japan.
Spain then got it - erased by Tokugawa... that Toledo was no use anyway...

 

[Doomed_UK]

4 human 4 AI multiplayer

Roman AI that I have open borders with walks a large stack (around 10) archers through my territory after a juicy barbarian city on a peninsular just outside my borders (nothing else on that side of my borders besides the sea and that one barbarian city).
I dont want the AI having that city so I launch a quick raid and get the barbarian city.
The AI stack stops and just sits there.
Another human declares war on this AI. His large stack of archers continues to simply sit there inside my borders, and has been doing so for a good 20 turns, even as the human player takes the AI cities.

 

[HardCoder]

Building with Eclipse?

I've built the trunk with MVSC++ Express, but the lack of a subversion plugin in the "Express" product makes that a nonstarter for me, and I don't have a job where there are free copies of the whole Visual Studio shebang lying around (and hopefully never will have that job).

Has anyone built the DLL with Eclipse? It's not like I'm an Eclipse bigot, but I know how to use it well, and it plays nice with svn.

 

[kettyo]

Russians "razed" Moscow before Napolean tried to get there. But Moscow still existed as a city even after this "razing" - its not like they completely wiped Moscow off the map.

It was burned to the ground and rebuilt later.

Many European major cities were destroyed completely in WWII (probably Berlin and Stalingrad being the top IMO).
Not by land troops but mostly airstrikes.

 

[Blake]

Against my own judgment I have decided to rebalance the Starting point code so it no longer matches the 2.08 code but should give more reasonable starts, with the "seafood madness" starts being much rarer.

I did this by making land valued more for start points (less likely to get a capital on a silly little spit of land) and a bunch of other changes... to help keep the starts out of the tundra and stuff.

I also adjusted the start point normalizing code to make it fairer and saner.

I think I've nailed the "civs start really close together" thing too.

This stuff is outside the scope of the project... but hey, it's mine so I can do what I want with it? Right? Right? And people have been complaining about start point generation for ages. Since my changes did mess with the start points and since it wasn't great before anyway I decided I could make things right.

 

[Mutineer]

Why change seafood madness and tundra starts?
They never were a problem and just add interesting variation to the game.

I think you should concentrate on improving AI, not on making game boring.

 

[darrelljs]

SP is not = MP in Civ, and should never be. Call me dumb or inferior.

This is why I have Blake's AI installed for Warlords and not for vanilla. To elaborate a bit, the vanilla AI does not really compete in a meaningful sense. They meander about growing their cities, declaring the occasional war if their personality warrants it, but mosly they tech away in a basically incompetent manner. Sometimes I feel I feel like playing a game where the AI is just an illusionary obstacle to victory.

It seems to me we can chategorize Blakes's improvements into two buckets. In one bucket are the improvements that make the AI stumble about less boobishly. For example, the city placement, worker automation, or govenor code. I think these kind of improvements are good no matter what type of game you like to play, because they make the AI competitive with fewer bonuses, which opens up more gameplay options at the "higher" difficulty levels (higher being relative of course). In the other bucket are changes that fundamentally make the AI try to compete. For example, pursuing cultural victory, or the dagger strategy, or not accepting a peace offer with a stack of 20 units outside your capital. These changes are great for players who want a single player gaming experience that more closely matches mulitplayer.

Darrell