A "real" AI cheat

[Wilhelmus]

I didn't read all of the previous posts, so I don't know if this has already been said...

I think the proper solution to this problem would be to allow a non-blitz unit only one attempt pet turn of pillaging patrolled sea-resources. If it has moves remaining, it can still pillage unguarded resources, but won't be allowed another shot at guarded ones. This rule does not apply to blitz promoted units.

 

[Woody1]

Sigh... is this thread still alive?

Do you know that the AI does not use the patrol function... ever? Therefore, any changes that strengthen the patrol function are nerfing the AI in favour of the human player.

If you think that the AI cheats if you use patrol... then don't use patrol. It's a real simple fix, that requires no changes at all.

Why do you want to weaken the AI? Isn't it brain-dead enough already?

 

[r_rolo1]

Do you know that the AI does not use the patrol function... ever? Therefore, any changes that strengthen the patrol function are nerfing the AI in favour of the human player.

Do you know that there is a "Multiplayer" option , with oponents that are not computer programs ... and that there is ppl that actually use it ?

Well my opinion that the problem is that the patrol function as it is breaks the normal combat system is already stated a lot of times in this thread, so I'll not elongate in here.

 

[Woody1]

Do you know that there is a "Multiplayer" option , with oponents that are not computer programs ... and that there is ppl that actually use it ?

Guess what? You can not use the patrol feature just as easily in a multiplayer game as you can not use it in a single player game. If you don't like giving your enemies a "free blitz" against your patrol ship, then don't use it. Single player or multiplayer makes no difference!

Is there some reason you simply can not resist using patrol? Is it a genetic trait or something that makes you press the patrol button? You really need a patch to stop you from pressing patrol?

I know what you want: you want a patrol feature with absolutely no downside. You want all the upside of the patrol function (protecting all adjacent tiles + the coastal defense bonus), and you don't want to have even one extremely minor exploit used against you that is only applicable in very rare and contrived circumstances.

It's a very powerful feature. It should have just a little downside. IMO, this exploit is so unimportant, it's not nearly downside enough.

 

[Willem]

Why is someone ressurecting a thread that was dead and buried for almost six months?

 

[r_rolo1]

Guess what? You can not use the patrol feature just as easily in a multiplayer game as you can not use it in a single player game. If you don't like giving your enemies a "free blitz" against your patrol ship, then don't use it. Single player or multiplayer makes no difference!

Is there some reason you simply can not resist using patrol? Is it a genetic trait or something that makes you press the patrol button? You really need a patch to stop you from pressing patrol?

I know what you want: you want a patrol feature with absolutely no downside. You want all the upside of the patrol function (protecting all adjacent tiles + the coastal defense bonus), and you don't want to have even one extremely minor exploit used against you that is only applicable in very rare and contrived circumstances.

It's a very powerful feature. It should have just a little downside. IMO, this exploit is so unimportant, it's not nearly downside enough.

As I'm lazy today, i'll quote myself:

What are you saying is "Well , you have a function in game that allows 1 units to shadow cover multiple tiles. But that has to come with a slight price, that is to be vulnerable to lose 10 ships in 1 turn to a non-blitz unit and/or to be able to be milked from XP with high withdraw subs" . Sorry but that is not my idea of a fair trade or of a interesting choice" ( like JujuLautre said )... it is more my idea of "WTF, I'll never touch that button again in my life"

And if you want a decent payoff, why not limit the number of possible interceptions to a function of the movement points, like , let's say, half of them? It would make more sense even in RL terms ( they would have to move to intercept and to come back to the initial position, so assuming that all the movement points are used in combat is a stupid proposition )

And about multiplayer: the fact that I use patrol or not will not make my foes to use or not patrol. So , or we make a earlier combination about all of us not using a game delivered function ( that is sometimes dificult, regardless of any morality issues about this being a bug/exploit or not ) or some of the people, because of their choice of using patrol ( or by stuborness or because of the simple fact that they don't know about this particular quirk ) will be handicapped compared with the others. So, please, do not assume that it is the same thing in multiplayer or in SP ( where you are the only moral/imoral being in game) , because it is not

P.S. I've been rereading the thread and I noticed that it is the second time that you imply that, just because I don't agree with you, I just want to milk the AI. I responded you in lenght in the first time, so I'll only remember that my position was always that the AI should also use patrol function. If the AI used patrol you would probaly be the first to call for a fix ( it is what I can assume from this thread ), so why the double standart( it is double standart in both ways: or you are defending that the AI should not use a function that humans can use, or you are defending that a feature that can be used for heavy exploting of the AI ( assuming that it uses patrol ) should be kept in game) ?

 

[Woody1]

Ideally, the AI would be programmed to use patrol. But, that won't happen. And even if it did happen, I still don't see the need for a fix. Again, if you think it's a cheat, then don't use it! That goes whether you are doing the cheating, or you think the AI is cheating (because you choose to use patrol).

And you WAY overstate the benefit of the exploit. It's only beneficial in contrived scenarios. They don't happen in real games, and if they do, you're so far behind in tech it doesn't matter.

 

[r_rolo1]

The fact that a exploit will only benefit in contrived scenario does not make it less of a exploit..... it only makes it both less profitable to use and to solve. It does not make it right just because the oponent is dumb enough to use/not use it.

And please do not bring your "opinion" to this, unless you can base it. if you said , as you did in other places "I don't think it is worth to fix this, because it would probably break the game in other ways" i would probably agree with you ( but that has nothing to do with being a bug.... it is more a economic measure ). But you're saying " The poor AI is so dumb that I'm willing to forgive this little misfeature since it only benefits them and not the human". That is a argument about buffing/handicapping the AI/human , not a argument about being a bug, that is defined by the logic consequences of the rules we write in the program vs the thing we wanted it to do ( or about being a exploit, that is a bug that can be used to unpredicted profit of one player ). And are you defending that the program is giving the results that firaxis intended for this function?

 

[The Snug]

Woody,

It's a defensive feature that needs to exist to balance the fast moving power of naval ships. The makers of the game understood the overpowered feature of naval ships destroying multiple resources and attempted to compensate and mitigate that power with this feature. It's really not difficult to understand...no matter how incorrigible you wish to be by playing the devil's advocate ad nauseum.

 

[Woody1]

Hey snuggy, you're the guy that started this thread by claiming it was a "real AI cheat". So are you still asserting that this is a "cheat" for the AI, if the human chooses to use the patrol function?

Maybe it's a "real human cheat" to use patrol at all, since the AI can't use it itself. I guess doing anything that takes advantage of a dumb AI is a "real human cheat"?

Well, okay, we're all a bunch of worthless cheaters. Let's give the AI a break and let it cheat by free blitzing our patrol ships. It's the least we can do.

 

[Shackel]

You know what I think is another cheat as well?

The AI can actually change it's stack if you select a unit that can beat one of them. It changes the unit to the one strong against the unit you selected, causing a VERY large annoyance. I usually end up losing a unit to 90% odds right after that.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The AI can actually change it's stack if you select a unit that can beat one of them. It changes the unit to the one strong against the unit you selected, causing a VERY large annoyance. I usually end up losing a unit to 90% odds right after that.

Was that irony?

 

[Shackel]

Hard to tell, but I'm sure it has some type of irony in there somewhere.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well, lulz them.

 

[Shackel]

How come I can't change my stack according to exactly which type of unit attacks me? 3:

 

[Dresden]

When either the AI or the player attacks the game chooses the best defender (i.e. the one with the best chance to win) in the target plot to step up and fight it. It would be nice if you could select the defender in case you wanted to "sacrifice" a lesser unit but the mechanics are the same regardless of whether an AI or human is playing.

 

[Shackel]

Wait, no it doesn't, I've noticed that it preselects your stacks and arranges them according to power and bonuses.... But that's it. No changes UPON attack.

 

[Solomwi]

Wait, no it doesn't, I've noticed that it preselects your stacks and arranges them according to power and bonuses.... But that's it. No changes UPON attack.

How have you noticed this? If it's by observing how your troops are listed during your turn, that has little to do with which unit will defend. As Dresden said, your best defender for that attacker is selected when you're attacked, just as the best AI defender is selected when you attack.

 

[CCRunner]

er, yes it does. Not when you attack but when you are attacked.

Test it. Put a pikemen and a macemen together and see which would defend against:
A: a knight
B: a crossbow
C: a mace
D: a longbow

A and B will be the pikeman while C and D should be the maceman

 

[Psyringe]

Wait, no it doesn't, I've noticed that it preselects your stacks and arranges them according to power and bonuses.... But that's it. No changes UPON attack.

Although I really think you're just pretending that you're not understanding us, I'll repeat what has been said already:

The game *always* choses the unit with the best odds to defend any given tile. The effect is the same for the AI as for the player.

Example: Let's say you have a horse archer and an axeman, and you're attacking a stack consisting of a swordsman and a pikeman. When you attack with your axeman, then the swordsman will defend, because he has the best odds against the attacker. When you attack with your horse archer, then the pikeman will defend because he has the best odds against this attacker.

The AI does not actually shuffle any units around during your turn. The game just conveniently displays the unit that will defend against any given attacker as soon as you activate the attacker.

Likewise, if *you* had a pikeman and a swordsman, and the *AIÜ would attack with an axeman and a horse archer, the game engine would again choose *your* best unit to defend against the attacker that the AI chooses.

There really isn't any cheat whatsoever, instead you're either misunderstanding the combat system or you're making fun of us.