A "real" AI cheat

[r_rolo1]

I can do the advertize for him ... clearly 8 -> 30 ( discouting the ironclad, that can easily be dodged out by a frigate ) is a HUGE jump... it is almost like if we passed from maces to Mechs with nothing in between ( He has a mech... ) . That only makes Wolkshanze mod a thing to put a eye in it ( and I bet that Wolfshanze will see this thread sooner or later )

On topic: in my opinion the whole patrol function was not well thought by design, because it makes presumptive defenders to be the attackers and and to use the fact that is defending ( hence technically not being limited to 1 combat/turn like the attackers ) to be able to fight far more times that would be expected....

The best solution would be create the one used in games like Silent Storm ( IIRC ) that is to call a special combat turn for patroling units ( allowing them to really be the attackers ) , but that would really mess with the current game mechanics. All besides that IMHO will give problems one way or another , just because patrol is non well bundled with the rest of the game combat mechanics.

 

[Wodan]

While it's not broken gameplay, it seems clear to me that this is not what the designers intended. ("this" = giving the attacker free Blitz).

On THAT basis, I think it should be fixed. Not because it's broken (I don't think it is), or unfair (though it might be), or abusable (though it might be), but because it goes against designer intent.

And yes, Wolfshanze's mod is great.

 

[Woody1]

I can do the advertize for him ... clearly 8 -> 30 ( discouting the ironclad, that can easily be dodged out by a frigate ) is a HUGE jump... it is almost like if we passed from maces to Mechs with nothing in between ( He has a mech... ) . That only makes Wolkshanze mod a thing to put a eye in it ( and I bet that Wolfshanze will see this thread sooner or later )

Wolf's mod introduces way too many new ships. Too much stuff, with no additional gameplay.

All that's needed is a single ship of strength 18 or 20. Most new tech units are about 50% stronger than the prior one. So, there's

Frigate 8 -> Ironclad 12 -> Missing Ship 18 -> Destroyer 30 -> Battleship 40

(You can use ironclad for coastal defense and resource protection.)

I think Firaxis must intentionally want to leave a gap between coal and oil, because they've had 3 game versions and many patches to address it and have chosen not to. They must want the age of oil to be an important leap for naval warfare. (As it is for air combat.)

 

[karadoc]

Because you repeatedly claimed it would be a fact that the patrolling ship is initiating the fight/attacking the pillager. That led me to believe you hadn't read the multiple explanations in the thread that the true game mechanics are exactly the other way around and forbid such unit acting outside of their own turn. It also indicated that you hadn't actually seen it happening, therefore my recommendation to download and test the scenario--the combat animations leave no doubt about which unit is attacking. If I misunderstood you and you stated your opinion/philosophy about how this function should work to reflect real situations better then I apologize for my rather impulsive reply.

I realise that the actual implementation of the sea patrol fights has the pillaging ship attacking the patrol ship; but from my point of view that is not really relevant. The sea patrol order tells your ships to attack any ship that tries to pillage the neighbouring tiles. The underlying game mechanics may be a bit sketchy, but the end results are fine. The ships fight because the patrol ship wants to; the fact that it shows a little animation of the pillaging ship attacking the patrol ship is just a quirk of the implementation.

I hope that helps make my position more clear.

 

[r_rolo1]

I realise that the actual implementation of the sea patrol fights has the pillaging ship attacking the patrol ship; but from my point of view that is not really relevant

That is the big issue, after all: the pillager, when facing patroling units, assumes at the same time attacker ( being able to retreat ) and defender ( being able to fight more than 1 battle/turn without blitz ) features. This is relevant because a unit should not be able to do that in any circumstance in a turn based game.

@ Woody1

I also agree that Firaxis want a big gap between sail and oil ships ( even the tips say that ) . But a 22 str and more that 300% gap.... a little bit too much.

I would make a sea going 15 to 18 ironclad with less moves than a frigate ( maybe the same that a ship of the line )

 

[ori]

That is the big issue, after all: the pillager, when facing patroling units, assumes at the same time attacker ( being able to retreat ) and defender ( being able to fight more than 1 battle/turn without blitz ) features. This is relevant because a unit should not be able to do that in any circumstance in a turn based game.

but the same is true for the patrol unit - it defends (hence the terrain bonus) but fights on a tile it is not sitting on (aka it attacks) - so this argument cuts both ways
The way the ingame documentation describes it it is designed so that the patrol boat attacks the pillager - the actual implementation is muddy - but I do not think that the design purpose was to prevent a unit after it survives a patrol attack from attempting the pillage again...

 

[Wodan]

Wolf's mod introduces way too many new ships. Too much stuff, with no additional gameplay.

He intentionally did not change the base gameplay. I think that's a plus, not a negative.

And, what in the world does "too much stuff" mean? How can you have too many toys?

All that's needed is a single ship of strength 18 or 20.

If the only goal was to "fix" the gap, then yes.

I think Firaxis must intentionally want to leave a gap between coal and oil, because they've had 3 game versions and many patches to address it and have chosen not to. They must want the age of oil to be an important leap for naval warfare. (As it is for air combat.)

Firaxis has other concerns, such as having to pay for design labor, and not wanting to overburden the game for people with low end systems. If you have a POS machine, then Wolf's mod is probably not for you.

 

[r_rolo1]

but the same is true for the patrol unit - it defends (hence the terrain bonus) but fights on a tile it is not sitting on (aka it attacks) - so this argument cuts both ways
The way the ingame documentation describes it it is designed so that the patrol boat attacks the pillager - the actual implementation is muddy - but I do not think that the design purpose was to prevent a unit after it survives a patrol attack from attempting the pillage again...

Fair enough, but 2 wrongs does not make a right dan's solution ( in this I have to agree with you ) would have the great inconveniet to allow low strength cluttering of patrol units allowing a uber ZOC like effect, a thing that is not desirable as well

Like I said in the last page, probably there are only 2 real solutions for this: erase/substitute the current patrol function or allow a special round for patrol units combat. None of them elegant, easy or good looking...

P.S I'm simply stating that IMHO there is a problem in here ( like I already said, working as intended != working well ) . Not defending per se any solution.....

 

[Fistleaf]

The benefit the AI gets from this is so minor that I am willing to let the AI have it. The AI doesn't know how to exploit it like a human anyway.

 

[Woody1]

Yeah, I think this one has been argued to death. Dan may genuinely feel that it's a major problem, but most people don't agree. Snuggles is just complaining about it because he looked stupid in his original post, so is trying to cover that up by pretending it's a big bug.

Overall, it looks like 2 or 3 people want it fixed, 1000 people want it left as it is or don't care.

 

[r_rolo1]

Majority does not make reason, woody

It is atleast a overlook, with not big effects unless you want to rely extensively on the patrol function and it is not easy to solve, I reckon. But saying that it is working as intended..... that, my friend, I'm pretty sure that it is not true.

Of course that there are bigger holes in the rules that need solving. But being a minor error does not make it OK in my book.

 

[Wodan]

I wouldn't even call this a "minor" error. It's an infrequent error. But, when it happens, it's a big deal.

 

[DanF5771]

I wouldn't even call this a "minor" error. It's an infrequent error. But, when it happens, it's a big deal.

The frequency significantly increases with difficulty level, so I assume that is why the opinions disperse that much.

 

[The Snug]

The frequency significantly increases with difficulty level, so I assume that is why the opinions disperse that much.

Indeed. Both difficulty level and map type.

 

[Woody1]

The frequency significantly increases with difficulty level, so I assume that is why the opinions disperse that much.

That's an interesting comment. I assume that people play on higher difficulty levels because they want a greater challenge.

It's very interesting that you don't seem to be complaining that the AI doesn't use the patrol function itself.

So it appears that you want to have a patrol function with lots of benefits but absolultely no drawback (even just a minor drawback in an extreme case).

It doesn't really seem you want a challenge, you only want to tick off an "expert win". In a single-player game, I hardly see that amounts to much bragging rights.

 

[Wodan]

It would be nice if the AI intelligently used all features within the game. But that doesn't constitute a bug... simply that the AI could be improved. While we're at it, yeah, it would be nice.

 

[thadian]

i can't "PROVE" he used worldbuilder to give it a bad start, when it turned out in his favor...

 

[r_rolo1]

Ok, I complain about AI lack of use of Patrol function I was always a defender of a AI in Civ IV that would pass a Turing test of gameplay, but the game was not design for that ( Soren said that in bold letters... AI in Civ IV was designed to lose in style, not to try to win. BtS AI, being from another AI designer, has a somewhat diferent touch, but it still lack some instinct to win ) and , as a consequence, I want a AI that uses Patrol as much as a human.

On other topic, I think you are confusing 2 things. If I want a chalenge, I have a oficial method for doing that: I change levels or modify my handicaps ( we have a handicaps file exactly for that, you know..... ). I do not think that fighting against a borked mechanic that by acident the AI is immune to can be called a challenge, at least in the same sense than a oficial handicap... it is more a uphill fight.It is the same thing that if by accident a AI in some circumstances could witn a 10+ in diplo with some other AI for no particular reason... it would not be a handicap, right?

 

[DanF5771]

That's an interesting comment.

Yes, and it worked . But yours worked too, so:

What I want is a greater challenge that does not consist of the need to invest large amounts of hammers and money (upgrade) in otherwise useless naval units parked on my water improvements for protection. That doesn't require much thought/strategy, is just annoying, distracting, sooo inefficient and very frustrating when the AI succeeds in spotting a loophole. Since the effort needed to protect improvements on water is unproportional higher than the effort needed to protect improvements on land, I am not interested in any drawbacks of the Sea Patrol function. Instead I feel the change would equalize the overall handicaps for the different map types.

The current implementation of this function strongly favors the player with the more advanced navy. So, with the AI not using it now, the function turns from something slightly useful for the human player to total crap with increasing difficulty level. I would never use it in MP.

I'd love to see the AI use a properly working Sea Patrol function, but due to the broken current mechanics I'm very glad that it refrains from doing so, as this would only offer exploit chances for the human to go milk XPs.

I wonder if anybody would have ever complained if the function had the proposed behaviour implemented in the first place.

i can't "PROVE" he used worldbuilder to give it a bad start, when it turned out in his favor...

Of course I used WB all the way to set up the scenario (btw feel free to download and test). The different outcomes/AI behaviours resulted from the different game mechanics due to the modified dll.

 

[Woody1]

On other topic, I think you are confusing 2 things. If I want a chalenge, I have a oficial method for doing that: I change levels or modify my handicaps ( we have a handicaps file exactly for that, you know..... ). I do not think that fighting against a borked mechanic that by acident the AI is immune to can be called a challenge,

Right there, I think you're ignoring something.

The fact that the AI does not use patrol is a FAR GREATER handicap (to the AI) than any "psuedo blitz" the AI may get in rare circumstances against a weak human that uses patrol.

If you want to keep things fair, then don't use patrol. But I guarantee that this will be much more of a disadvantage to you than it is an advantage for the AI. It will be fair, but I don't think you want fair. You want a cool patrol function to use (that the AI can not use) with no downside at all.

Snug keeps telling us he wants the "bug" fixed so he can move up a level in difficultly. Well, if they actually fix it properly, and allow the AI to use patrol itself, he'll have to move DOWN a level in difficulty.

That's what I'd really like to see fixed: I want the AI to use patrol.

And if you're worried about humans milking XP from a weak AI, well okay, they may do that. But if you are strong enough, and the AI weak enough, to milk some XPs, then you're going to win the game anyway. BBs against frigates tend to predict the outcome of the war.