A "real" AI cheat

[r_rolo1]

Woody, the problem is that the AI unit never plllages the resource...... and smacks a handful of enemy units without blitz ( run my first save ) . I highy doubt that this is intended behaviour....

@Dan

Nice catch on the cheaters switch. Must add more trirremes

 

[Jaybe]

How is Patrol supposed to work? Does the patrolling unit need to be ADJACENT to the resources, within movement range of them, or what?

 

[DanF5771]

It seems you're complaining that using sea patrol gives an enemy player (such as the AI or another human in MP) a way to get a "free temporary" blitz if attempting to pillage resources. That's really the only "exploit" you're complaining about, isn't it?

I'm not entirely convinced that isn't intended behavior. By stopping them from attempting a second pillage, you're breaking the way pillage works. Even if they won the battle with almost full health, you're saying, "No, you can only pillage once per turn per unit." That's not the way pillage is supposed to work.

A sea patrol represents a unit that is virtually sitting on the resource improvement. A non-Blitz pillager can not enter a tile occupied by a defender (no matter how weak this defender is) if it has engaged combat before, so I think disallowing further pillaging which would equal moving onto an occupied tile is in line with the intented way.

 

[Woody1]

When does the actual attack take place? When the enemy moves into the resource tile, or when the enemy presses the "pillage" key?

If the later, I suppose you could ban an attempted second pillage of the same resource, if the enemy does not have blitz. Probably not a big change to gameplay in that case.

If the former, banning movement would be a huge hit to gameplay. You could essentially set up a "do not cross" line with only one-third the number of ships normally needed.

If the computer never uses sea-patrol, then I don't see the big deal. Just don't use it yourself, and instead just park your defenders on the actual resource. Sure, it may take a few more ships, but if the AI doesn't do it then you're even.

Otherwise, by using sea patrol, you're exploiting a weakness in the AI. Sounds like you want to use an exploit against the AI, but not have it use one against you.

I'd rather that the AI was improved to use sea-patrol itself. Then, you could think about banning second pillages. Then, neither the human or AI would have an advantage.

 

[r_rolo1]

Woody, Dan proposed code does not impeach out of second pillage ( if I'm reading it right )... it simply forbids a unit that had already engaged in combat once to try to pillage a square defended by a unit if it had already fought and if it doesn't have blitz.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I think the ideal 'solution' depends a bit on how you view the patrol mission. I view the patrol function as a bunch of ships that have been given the order to attack anything that threathens to pillage nearby water tiles. So the pillager is actually defending itself when the patrol ships try to prevent the pillaging of the resource tile.

In that sense I would allow a battleship to kill 3 triremes on patrol duty while it tries to pillage a sea food resource. The 3 triremes try to stop the battleship, but they are simply not powerful enough. I think that a human player controlling the battleship won't assume that after the first trireme has tried to stop the pillage action, he can't pillage anymore. That would not be expected behaviour as pillaging is never disallowed when you have movement point left and you can't actually see that the nearby triremes are on patrol duty.

I would disallow a submarine with 90% retreat chance which is trying to pillage a resource the option to retreat when it is attacked by ships on patrol duty. Units in civilisation 4 can never retreat when they are being attacked and I think that the active reaction to the pillaging of terrain tiles resembles attacking more than defending. This would stop the observed annoying behaviour of the attack sub seemingly attacking multiple times during one turn.


One last thing: I would like to dispel the notion that using an attack submarine with high retreat odds at minimal hitpoints to attack or defend against units on patrol duty is a smart action by the AI. The AI would be better off retreating the unit, healing it and using it at full strength later in the game. A unit at minimal hitpoints has a very low chance of actually hurting units when attacking again. It has a very high chance to lose any combat rounds because the chance of victory in combat rounds is based on the actual wounded strength score of the unit. So therefore it can never be an exploit to use an attack submarine to retreat many times during the same turn. It's simply stupid to risk losing the unit another time as the chances of actually inflicting more damage are very small.

But I still want to stop this behaviour because I don't think a unit should be able to retreat from units on patrol duty as their active reaction resembles attacking more than defending. Defending units in civilization 4 cannot retreat and thus units should not be able to retreat from the active reaction of units on patrol duty.

 

[SJN]

To the OP,

While I think it was perfectly fair for people to challenge your assertion of cheating, I think it was completely inappropriate for people to imply that you were being "stupid" or "naive" to think the AI was having funky behavior.

So, as said persons did not offer an apology when you were able to reproduce your behavior, I apologize on their behalf.

I, for one, appreciate your contribution.

-- SJN

 

[r_rolo1]

It could be the intended idea, but it is not what happens, Roland.... the submarine is attacking, not the other way around ( check Dan's logs picture or try it yourself ).... So the sub is not on the defensive; He's attacking, and likewise it should not be able to attack more than once unless it has blitz.

This means that you can use a ( very hypotetical ) Flanking 1 + 2 , Tactics ( just not to add Guerrilla III ) sub fleet to milk XP out of the retreats ( In fact in my destroyers test, the AI got a GG only off "attacking" Human destroyers in patrol in 2 turns ). if that is not a exploit/Bug.....

 

[DanF5771]

I think the Sea Patrol command should allow good protection from losing tile improvements via pillaging. The current mechanics pretty much work this way because it is the pillager that starts the triggered "interception" combat which takes place on the patrol's tile so that the patrol can take advantage of the 10% coastal defense boost. (Something to keep in mind with the sea-barbs spawning 4 times as often in 3.17 as in 3.13!)
Btw, the current mouse over help says: "This order will tell the unit to attack enemy ships attempting to pillage adjacent tiles." so this is technically wrong.

IMHO one unit on sea patrol simulates 8 units sitting on the adjacent tiles. Seeing it like this means that the non-Blitz pillage Battleship would not be able to pillage more than 1 improvement because it would need to kill all the protecting Triremes first. But without Blitz it can only kill one and thus only pillage once.

The exploit comes with the free 1XP for every withdraw. In my scenario I gave the Attack Sub Navigation 1 + 2 and Morale too, so it could pillage-attack-withdraw 10 times per turn. On turn 3 a GG was born...

Edit: ok - r_rolo1, you obviously gave yourself a First Strike

 

[r_rolo1]

My 2 big cheaters only have Guerrilla III ( +50% withdraw , just for testing proposes ( and some extra cheese )) in top of your promos . 2 subs in 2 turns would "only" need 7.5 withtraws per turn to give a GG in 2 AI turns ( only seeable in turn 3 of humans, OFC )....

 

[DanF5771]

By First Strike I actually ment you posting your GG story 8 minutes earlier than me
So with Guerrilla III your Attack Subs have a Withdrawal Chance of 160%. I think they are immortal enough with just 110%, mine never died, did yours?

 

[Woody1]

I think it's important, so I'll ask again:

Does the attack happen if the enemy simply moves onto a resource square, or does the attack happen only if he moves onto a resource and THEN tries to pillage it.

It's important, because any change being proposed is very nasty if it restricts movement.

 

[The Snug]

I think the ideal 'solution' depends a bit on how you view the patrol mission. I view the patrol function as a bunch of ships that have been given the order to attack anything that threathens to pillage nearby water tiles. So the pillager is actually defending itself when the patrol ships try to prevent the pillaging of the resource tile.

In that sense I would allow a battleship to kill 3 triremes on patrol duty while it tries to pillage a sea food resource. The 3 triremes try to stop the battleship, but they are simply not powerful enough. I think that a human player controlling the battleship won't assume that after the first trireme has tried to stop the pillage action, he can't pillage anymore. That would not be expected behaviour as pillaging is never disallowed when you have movement point left and you can't actually see that the nearby triremes are on patrol duty.

I would disallow a submarine with 90% retreat chance which is trying to pillage a resource the option to retreat when it is attacked by ships on patrol duty. Units in civilisation 4 can never retreat when they are being attacked and I think that the active reaction to the pillaging of terrain tiles resembles attacking more than defending. This would stop the observed annoying behaviour of the attack sub seemingly attacking multiple times during one turn.


One last thing: I would like to dispel the notion that using an attack submarine with high retreat odds at minimal hitpoints to attack or defend against units on patrol duty is a smart action by the AI. The AI would be better off retreating the unit, healing it and using it at full strength later in the game. A unit at minimal hitpoints has a very low chance of actually hurting units when attacking again. It has a very high chance to lose any combat rounds because the chance of victory in combat rounds is based on the actual wounded strength score of the unit. So therefore it can never be an exploit to use an attack submarine to retreat many times during the same turn. It's simply stupid to risk losing the unit another time as the chances of actually inflicting more damage are very small.

But I still want to stop this behaviour because I don't think a unit should be able to retreat from units on patrol duty as their active reaction resembles attacking more than defending. Defending units in civilization 4 cannot retreat and thus units should not be able to retreat from the active reaction of units on patrol duty.

Some good points, yet at the same time, under normal circumstances (as worthy as it should seem) a battleship would not be permitted to sink 3 triremes in a single turn. This anomaly removes this normal restriction, thereby granting the amassing of xp's--not to mention the wholesale slaughter of the human fleet. Imagine my horror, if say a friendly Joao dow's me, and sends 1 battleship that proceeds to slaughter 5 of my frigates that I've delayed upgrading. I might appreciate the opporunity to upgrade 4 unmolested survivors rather than seeing the entire fleet sunk by one lucky surprise battleship.

As to your point regarding the advisability of a withdrawing unit attacking multiple times, experience has shown that that is situational. You're assuming that a withdrawing unit is attacking a full strength (or very healthy) unit. In most instances, the attack sub will be attacking another attack sub (even with a stack of mixed units, experience shows that attack subs possess the ability to bypass the best defender to actually attack a counterpoint sub; I think it has something to do with the patrolling sub having primary visibility, whereas a MC does not. Still, the MC should have visibility via being paired with a sub) and since they are equal strength, most times they should both be heavily damaged when the attack sub withdraws. At this point, the AI sub has all of the advantages of further attack. Experience shows that the AI will now possess the option of attacking or retreating or attacking with a different unit first before initiating a second attack with this damaged sub. And if they do attack another similarly damaged unit, they will have a remarkable (and unfair) advantage. If the sub attacks again, it will often still target the damaged attack sub rather than the other MC's protecting the same resource. This same premise stands with Stealth Destroyers too. When a SD pillages, it targets a defending SD above all other defenders, and (if memory serves correctly) even if that defending SD is at 1 health.

In addition, my experience shows the following. If I possess a stack of units defending a resource, instead of simply attacking 5 times with a single unit and then when that unit either dies or runs out of movement points then moving on to the next unit, the AI will simply cycle through its units, thus optimizing its victory conditions. If a stack of 6 attack subs attacks my stack of 6 attack subs, the AI will cycle through its pillaging units until all of my attack subs are badly damaged. At this point, after cycling through, the AI's wounded attack subs will attack my wounded attack subs, which, as I have already detailed can heavily favor the AI. It's rarely a case of an attack sub withdrawing, and then attacking a second time against a full strength defender (which would, indeed, be madness).

And again, this ability is not restricted to withdrawing units, but can be initiated simply by victorious units ad nauseum. In fact, the AI usually cleverly mixes its attacking and withdrawing units in its attack against a patrol. This exploit is often the difference between losing an entire fleet, and being able to withdraw into port and heal (or reinforce).

It really seems as if the entire concept of "patrol" is busted since the AI can exploit it several ways. Firstly, that instead of attacking the best defender (who should have visiblity based on being stacked with other sight enabling ships) it targets its counterpoint defender. Secondly, that the AI can amass xp's and thirdly that a handful of powerful units can blitz your defenders to death (which is a significant problem if it's MC's who can weaken your entire defensive fleet before attacking with its two ships). Like I said before, because of this exploit, I've seen two MC's (because of guided missiles) weaken and take out 8 defensive MC's, when in reality, they should only be able to destroy one ship each. If that's not bugged...? Two ships killing eight? Powerful exploit. Plus the xp's. And on immortal level, I can't afford that kind of damage.


Still, no one has even answered the question of whether the patrol function actually works in multiplayer, and if the mechanics work the same. That'd be an important question to answer.

I apologize for the breadth of my responses, but I would like to give an accurate potrayal of the realities of this exploit and to its tactical power.

 

[DanF5771]

Hey Woody1, I'd like to recommend looking at one of r_rolo1's or my saved scenario to follow directly what is going on.

In my save:
2 Attack Subs are already sitting on the resources (placed there via WB). Several patroling MCs are sitting in adjacent tiles. <End Turn>
1. First Attack Sub engages a regular combat with an MC--and wins. It advances automatically to the NW tile (5 XP gained, 6 left).
2. It moves back to the Fishing Boat (5 left).
3. a) It attempts to pillage.
3. b) Pillage attempt is intercepted by patrolling MC in eastern adjacent tile.--> Combat is triggered!
3. c) Attack Sub attacks MC in eastern tile, is not able to do any damage and retreats (1XP gained, 4 left).
4. the exact same sequence as in 3 happens (pillage attempt, interception, triggered combat, attack, retreat, 1XP gained)
5. - 7. all this happens until Attack Sub has no left.

Result: Improvement not pillaged, 5 free XP gained.

My proposed changes prevent the Attack Sub to attempt to pillage after it engaged the first (regular) combat--so it just moves away.
Pillaging land improvements and multiple pillaging of unprotected sea improvements are not affected at all as well as the mere movement onto or through the tile with the improvement. Also units with Blitz are allowed to attempt to pillage protected sea improvements and engage the following combats.

Avoiding the Sea Patrol just like the AI means giving up the 10% coastal defense bonus for ocean resources combined with the need for a lot more naval units.

 

[The Snug]

To the OP,

While I think it was perfectly fair for people to challenge your assertion of cheating, I think it was completely inappropriate for people to imply that you were being "stupid" or "naive" to think the AI was having funky behavior.

So, as said persons did not offer an apology when you were able to reproduce your behavior, I apologize on their behalf.

I, for one, appreciate your contribution.

-- SJN

Thanks SJN. I appreciate that. All forgiven. Indeed, it is always fair to be incredulous, yet it seems that within interent forums, the manner and character of our incredulity is often quite...how shall I say it...uncivilized

 

[The Snug]

I think it's important, so I'll ask again:

Does the attack happen if the enemy simply moves onto a resource square, or does the attack happen only if he moves onto a resource and THEN tries to pillage it.

It's important, because any change being proposed is very nasty if it restricts movement.

He must both move into the resource square, and then subsequently attempt to pillage it. The AI is not obligated to pillage if it chooses not too. In the latest patch, I've noticed the AI passing on attempts to pillage if it recognizes a patrolling defensive unit that is too overwhelming for it to tackle.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Dan

Given that it looks that only the two of us had tested it until we started talking about generated GG, one of us had to be first and none of the big cheaters ever dies even if severy redlined ( as a withdrawing unit should be ) Guerrilla III in ships FTW

@sirsnuggles

Forgive us for the harshness of the treatment that we gave you, because in the end you have a point. But in our ( not exactly mine ) defense:

-Your initial description was not accurate enough to pinpoint the problem to a decent testbed.

-Every week/two weeks ( top ) someone comes here bragging about the AI cheating because it lost a 95% battle or something of that kind. Most of the times it is a dud .... and people learn that "complaint about combat" = whinning , a thing that most of the times is true, and treat it that way

 

[Roland Johansen]

For some reason this bug-like behaviour of the patrol function is repeatedly being presented as an advantage for the AI. I don't get that. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the patrol function or not use it. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the weaknesses of the patrol function to their advantage. The human player is usually better at exploiting loopholes of the rules of the game. So while there exists some bug-like behaviour in the functionality of the patrol function, I don't think there exists an advantage for the AI.

My proposed changes prevent the Attack Sub to attempt to pillage after it engaged the first (regular) combat--so it just moves away.
Pillaging land improvements and multiple pillaging of unprotected sea improvements are not affected at all as well as the mere movement onto or through the tile with the improvement. Also units with Blitz are allowed to attempt to pillage protected sea improvements and engage the following combats.

The bug-like behaviour of the patrol function can be solved in many ways. While the game engine lets the pillaging ship attack, it graphically looks as if the patrolling ships are attacking and the civilopedia description of the patrol function also says the patrolling ships are attacking pillaging ships. In my opinion, the only reason that the game engine lets the pillaging ship attack is that this mechanic allows the patrolling ships to get the defence bonus of coastal terrain. This was probably the easiest way to give the advantage of terrain to the patrol ships. But that does not mean that we should view the reaction of the patrol ships on the pillaging ship as an attack of the pillaging ship on the patrol ships. The graphic of the action and the description of the patrol function suggest that the game designers view it as an attack of the patrolling ships. Also the order given by the pillaging ship isn't 'attack the patrol ships', it's pillage this tile. So the patrol ships initiate combat.

Because the designers have graphically and verbally implemented the patrol function as an attack of the patrolling ships on the pillaging ship, I don't think the pillaging ship should be allowed to retreat. Defenders are never allowed to retreat in civilization 4.


You have implemented a new rule where you can't pillage after you have been attacked by a single patrol ship or something like that, correct? I don't have a fundamental objection to that rule. It's a bit like the rule that a bomber that is intercepted and survives interception cannot continue its bombing run. That is reasonable although arguments can just as easily be given for the opposite rule. Your rule could work well for those who have followed the discussion in this thread. However, for every other player, it will be a mystery why they can't pillage after being attacked by the first patrol ship. There is no other situation in civilization 4 where a unit with movement points left cannot pillage. And that is a problem because a game rule should be transparent or if not transparent it should be well documented. It could work if the pillage button showed a pop-up message when you try a second time: 'cannot pillage after being intercepted by a patrol ship'. As it is now, it will cause confusion for those who try to pillage a tile for a second time while next to several units on patrol duty.

 

[Woody1]

For some reason this bug-like behaviour of the patrol function is repeatedly being presented as an advantage for the AI. I don't get that. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the patrol function or not use it. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the weaknesses of the patrol function to their advantage. The human player is usually better at exploiting loopholes of the rules of the game. So while there exists some bug-like behaviour in the functionality of the patrol function, I don't think there exists an advantage for the AI.

Agreed. You're at no disadvantage to the AI if you don't use patrol. The AI doesn't use it either. If you think it's an exploit, then park your defenders on the resource instead of next to it. Problem solved.

Because the designers have graphically and verbally implemented the patrol function as an attack of the patrolling ships on the pillaging ship, I don't think the pillaging ship should be allowed to retreat. Defenders are never allowed to retreat in civilization 4.

If a fix is really deemed necessary, then I think that is a much better solution than preventing the attack completely. Your solution still allows a battleship to massacure a trieme stack, which is what should happen.

The only problem with that solution is that it is the pillager that actually attacks, even though the description doesn't state it that way. Still, that's a minor point.

My main objection is really more about fixing "bugs" that don't really need fixing. (In the unofficial patch.) 3.17 is a very solid patch all by itself, with the exception of the barrage promotions for tanks that wasn't removed. The unofficial patch shouldn't change the nature of the game, just fix obvious bugs.

 

[DanF5771]

While the game engine lets the pillaging ship attack, it graphically looks as if the patrolling ships are attacking...
The graphic of the action and the description of the patrol function suggest that the game designers view it as an attack of the patrolling ships...
Because the designers have graphically and verbally implemented the patrol function as an attack of the patrolling ships on the pillaging ship

With all due respect Roland, but this only shows that you have never seen it happen with your own eyes.
1. If it was like that, this whole thread wouldn't exist.
2. It just can't work that way because everything happens during the AI's turn, so all actions including combat are initiated by the AI.

I wonder why people keep arguing vehemently without trying and testing and thinking about things first?

I see the Sea Patrol Command as an aid for the human player to help protecting his sea food in an effective way.
The advantages are:
1. You get the coastal defense bonus even for work boats in the ocean.
2. You need to invest fewer hammers in naval units, pay less money for unit support, micromanage fewer units, pay less money for upgrading outdated units.

Current game mechanics cause a big disadvantage of using the Sea Patrol Command compared to parking naval units directly on top of the improvements.

Scenario 1:
Hannibal has a Battleship with 9 (Navigation1+2 + Refrigeration) threatening my 3 Fishing Boats. I have 3 Triremes on Sea Patrol.



Possible moves of the Battleship:
Move 1: It moves onto the northwestern Fishing Boat.
Move 2: It attempts to pillage, combat is triggered, it destroys Trireme1.
Move 3: It attempts to pillage, combat is triggered, it destroys Trireme2.
Move 4: It attempts to pillage, combat is triggered, it destroys Trireme3.
Move 5: It pillages the northwestern Fishing Boat.
Move 6: It moves onto the northern Fishing Boat.
Move 7: It pillages the northern Fishing Boat.
Move 8: It moves onto the northeastern Fishing Boat.
Move 9: It pillages the northeastern Fishing Boat.

Result: The non-Blitz Battleship destroys my 3 Triremes and pillages my 3 Fishing Boats all in 1 turn.

Scenario 2:
I have the Triremes parked on top of the Fishing Boats.



Possible moves of the Battleship:
Move 1: It attacks my northwestern Trireme and destroys it.
Move 2: It pillages the northwestern Fishing Boat.
Move 3: It can not attack my other Triremes without Blitz and thus can not pillage, so it blockades/moves away/does nothing/whatever.

Result: The non-Blitz Battleship destroys only 1 of my 3 Triremes and pillages only 1 of my 3 Fishing Boats in 1 turn.

The AI never uses the Sea Patrol Command (AFAIK) so the proposed changes would never affect the human player on his pillaging crusades or lead to any situations that might lack transparency. But it would help to turn the Sea Patrol Command into a useful tool for the human player to help protecting his sea food from all the annoying pinprick attacks (late game / Sid's Sushi).

Edit: For more realism exchange the 3 Triremes in the scenario with 3 Frigates and the Battleship with a Destroyer.