About AI cheat, AI redlined, you cheese

[BadHorsie]

yes... maybe we could have the option to redline on our side too - a checkbox by opponent would make it.

Yeah and then perhaps the AI gets pissed off because you refuse them everything

 

[mjs0]

mjs0: :-D

If the AIs could be rewritten to learn from experience, and to simulate emotional states in a more refined way, then I could see some value to such an option. But such a mod is light-years beyond what I have time for, and I probably wouldn't be able to do it anyway.

As it is, I figure the AIs don't care how you feel about them, they assume that you intend to see your flag over all of their cities and it's just a matter of when.

I hear you, as someone who was professionally involved with expert systems and other rules-based engines the difficulties of AI programming are clear. Still for those of us who just want to role play through the ages, with the journey more important than the destination, it is sad that some of the extra interaction is denied us.
One thing I really hope to see come out of the release of the SDK is a huge set of configurable options for how the game behaves and interacts that can allow for different play styles. As it is today we end up with a lowest common denominator of sorts since one person's fun feature is another person's exploit for easy wins.

 

[Beamup]

Yeah and then perhaps the AI gets pissed off because you refuse them everything

The way I'd implement it would be that requests for an item you've placed off-limits would simply be auto-declined, exactly as if you turned the offer down manually. The diplomacy screen just wouldn't come up - everything else would be the same.

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

Wasn't it Civ II and III where your foreign advisor came up to you and said "So and so would like an audiance, will you listen?" And then you had the option of Yes, No, or No and don't come back for ten turns?

I don't mind the redlines so much, what I do mind is that they never EVER offer to give you something in return for doing them a favor (declaring war, stop trading) Unless I had intended to do so in the first place, I just ignore them and take the -1 You refused to help us in war time, or -1 you refused to stop trading with our worst enemies.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

Wasn't it Civ II and III where your foreign advisor came up to you and said "So and so would like an audiance, will you listen?" And then you had the option of Yes, No, or No and don't come back for ten turns?

That sounds like a cool idea.

I don't mind the redlines so much, what I do mind is that they never EVER offer to give you something in return for doing them a favor (declaring war, stop trading) Unless I had intended to do so in the first place, I just ignore them and take the -1 You refused to help us in war time, or -1 you refused to stop trading with our worst enemies.

Yeah, I can't understand why we cannot negotiate for war, that just doesn't make sense. It was specifically left out by the devs, so there must be some balance issue or possible exploit that I'm not thinking of. I feel disgruntled by accepting such requests just to avoid a "-1" diplomatic modifier. Feels cheap.

 

[Armorydave]

It goes for wars to, if you're the conquerer, you should be allowed to ask for anything you want..they can refuse fine, but being told by the computer what you can and can't ask for is too much a metaphorical slap in the face for many people..

I have never seen a situation where something was red-lined during peace negotiations. I have no problem with red-lining for reasons stated above but would prefer the power to do so myself.

 

[naterator]

how about part 2 of the issue though? the AI simply says yes to each and every request each other makes? how come no negative AI-AI modifiers? if we are to think of a redded out item as an "automatic no", then this must mean that the AI doesn't red out anything to other AI? and i for one think it's perfectly reasonable to have a way to put "peace (10 turns)" on the trade block even during peace, with the AI knowing that saying no will mean war, then having the AI reassess if it wants to give up that redded out tech or not.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

No, I complain about the thing that AI can ask you the same TECH/MAP/PACT/RESSOURCES which are redlined when you try to ask him. I remember one of the CIV series had the option to not talk to AI if you wanted. Do not remember which. I would like to have same option here.

In Civ I (and probably II, can't remember) there was a popup like "An emissary from Julius Caesar of the Romans ask for an audience" and you could either accept or refuse.

 

[Meffy]

how come no negative AI-AI modifiers? if we are to think of a redded out item as an "automatic no", then this must mean that the AI doesn't red out anything to other AI?

I don't know. Reading the source code would tell but I'm a long way from being ready to do that. I would prefer if inter-AI diplomacy were more like AI-live player diplo... long as it could be done without screwing up balance.

 

[Mr. Do]

I think the real reason people get annoyed by the red-lining even though it's just the AI essentially auto-declining, is that the AI will have everything red-lined, then it will demand something off of you: you say no, he hates you more for it. It'd be much better if you could say, "Hey, instead of you getting annoyed at me because I won't gift you a 10,000 beaker tech and I get annoyed at you because you won't trade a 4000 beaker tech, why don't we actually do a trade instead?"

But no, the game just goes like that. The AI's behaviour on demands is utterly irrational: if the AI won't give me one of his crucial techs, then I don't mind- only a tyrant would ask for it in the first place. But if he won't even consider a fair trade for it, that's just wrong. We humans never get more than the asking price for our techs or whatever, but the AI expects us to give them everything on the cheap all the time. And we get these stupid demands every few turns as well, the AI wants to have its cake and then eat ours as well. It's a ridiculous system.

 

[Salamandre]

I think the real reason people get annoyed by the red-lining even though it's just the AI essentially auto-declining, is that the AI will have everything red-lined, then it will demand something off of you: you say no, he hates you more for it. It'd be much better if you could say, "Hey, instead of you getting annoyed at me because I won't gift you a 10,000 beaker tech and I get annoyed at you because you won't trade a 4000 beaker tech, why don't we actually do a trade instead?"

But no, the game just goes like that. The AI's behaviour on demands is utterly irrational: if the AI won't give me one of his crucial techs, then I don't mind- only a tyrant would ask for it in the first place. But if he won't even consider a fair trade for it, that's just wrong. We humans never get more than the asking price for our techs or whatever, but the AI expects us to give them everything on the cheap all the time. And we get these stupid demands every few turns as well, the AI wants to have its cake and then eat ours as well. It's a ridiculous system.

Finally, someone who understand my complaint


Should be redlined on both sides, human or not.While some advantages are fair for AI (well, its only artificial inteligence) THIS one is really annoying and has no counterside. Specially also because AI was programmed to NEVER make those demands between AI's. I will build a statue to the player who post a screen with a "you refused to help" negative -1 between two AI's!!

 

[King Flevance]

I think the real reason people get annoyed by the red-lining even though it's just the AI essentially auto-declining, is that the AI will have everything red-lined, then it will demand something off of you: you say no, he hates you more for it. It'd be much better if you could say, "Hey, instead of you getting annoyed at me because I won't gift you a 10,000 beaker tech and I get annoyed at you because you won't trade a 4000 beaker tech, why don't we actually do a trade instead?"

But no, the game just goes like that. The AI's behaviour on demands is utterly irrational: if the AI won't give me one of his crucial techs, then I don't mind- only a tyrant would ask for it in the first place. But if he won't even consider a fair trade for it, that's just wrong. We humans never get more than the asking price for our techs or whatever, but the AI expects us to give them everything on the cheap all the time. And we get these stupid demands every few turns as well, the AI wants to have its cake and then eat ours as well. It's a ridiculous system.

You worded this issue I have with the system very well. It isnt neccessarily about asking or trying to cheat the computer. As itr stands the computer is cheating itself. I would give it what it wants if it would give me something reasonable in return. But instead it would rather give nothing up and just drop our relations due to demands.

 

[Meffy]

The AI's behaviour on demands is utterly irrational: if the AI won't give me one of his crucial techs, then I don't mind- only a tyrant would ask for it in the first place. But if he won't even consider a fair trade for it, that's just wrong. We humans never get more than the asking price for our techs or whatever, but the AI expects us to give them everything on the cheap all the time. And we get these stupid demands every few turns as well, the AI wants to have its cake and then eat ours as well. It's a ridiculous system.

And it reflects the real world pretty accurately. Far too accurately to be pleasant. But it's how things are.

The AIs want to beat you. You're far smarter than the AIs. So they have to use other methods to keep you from getting too strong, to defeat you if they can. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to do so?

Yes, it can be frustrating. Okay, all kinds of things can be frustrating. There are two useful choices for how to react -- deal with it or mod it -- and one futile choice -- complain here and hope the devs change the way it works.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with complaining just to vent. Doesn't achieve anything but blowing off steam isn't just for civs that have railroads. ;-)

 

[Salamandre]

And it reflects the real world pretty accurately. Far too accurately to be pleasant. But it's how things are.

The AIs want to beat you. You're far smarter than the AIs. So they have to use other methods to keep you from getting too strong, to defeat you if they can. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to do so?

Yes, it can be frustrating. Okay, all kinds of things can be frustrating. There are two useful choices for how to react -- deal with it or mod it -- and one futile choice -- complain here and hope the devs change the way it works.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with complaining just to vent. Doesn't achieve anything but blowing off steam isn't just for civs that have railroads. ;-)

I dont agree. We were aware of powerfull cheats AI use when at high levels. Thats OK.

But they said AI was improved, specially in diplomacy. They worked a lot on it, they said. I am sorry to say, but the diplomacy trick is a purely cheat as it is. Not only frustrating, but annoying and repetitive. AI picks on you everytime you were enjoying your game just to remember you it is cheating, and badly.Once he is cautious (very fast), everything you could demand is REDLINED. Thats ok, WE KNEW IT.

But WHY ON HELL arent you redlined as well, so stop this constant blabla "give me this, give me that" as its clear that you will not??!!

One more thing: CIV series were a solo game, always. Defeating AI on high levels was always our goal. The quality of a good game cant work with the human player constantly seeing that he is cheated.
And in my games, I am constantly cheated by the AI. I can accept some of cheats, which was were announced by the developpers, but I cant accept others which are triggered by poor design/concept, as the diplomacy in CIV4. Try 18 civs on a map and see what happens.

 

[Meffy]

To me it's a "cheat" if you don't know it's going to happen. I'd call the adjustments an AI or live player gets "handicaps." We know about them; the information is public.

You can red-line your own items. All you have to do is say "no" and be done with it. As I said, it's an annoyance. And if that's not enough, like just about everything in Civ IV, if it annoys you too much you can change it.

 

[Beamup]

Finally, someone who understand my complaint

The thing is that, as described, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with redlining...

 

[ShadowDagger]

You should be able to redline certain techs to each civ. The AI can redline certain techs that under no circumstances they will trade with you. So you should be able to do the same. Redline techs that you will not trade to the AI under any circumstances.

 

[SLM]

offtopic: What annoys me most is people casually telling me to "mod this" or "mod that", as if it's that simple. Perhaps changing one or two xml files is easy, but I'm not a C++ programmer and I never will be. I didnt buy this friggin game because I could mod the h*ll out of it, I bought it so I would enjoy it. Please stop telling me to mod it if I don't like an aspect of the game, especially if it can't be done by changing xml alone.

ontopic: I like the suggestion to bring back the "... wants an audience, ok/not ok". This could be _programmed_ by _FireAxis/Take2_ very easily according to me. No negative modifier if done once in say, 20 years. -1 negative modifier if it happens more than once in 20 years and -1 for each consecutive turn it happens again in the same time span. The same thing could be applied to redlining some things as a human player, although I suspect that bringing that in the game requires a few more lines of code.

Next, some say a "give me this or I'll declare war" option is useless because the AI doesn't remember why you declared war. That may be true, but the AI SHOULD know why someone declares war. It helps the AI in its relation management with other AI and non-AI players. It would help the AI play a better game. It shouldn't be that difficult. There are a few reasons why someone would declare war:

1. religion & civics
a. has (had) different religion for x years
b. doesn't want to convert
c. as above but with civics
2. trades
a. never trades
b. always demands stuff
c. trades only relatively useless stuff
d. trades with enemies and
e. won't stop with that when I ask
f. has refused my demand-or-I'll-declare-war
3. war
a. is attacking or has attacked friends
b. attacks an ally
c. doesn't want to go to war when I ask
d. is a reputed warmonger
4. strength
a. someone is getting too strong
b. someone is technologically too advanced
c. I'm strong and can probably get away with it
d. Do or die, I need extra cities to survive
5. personality
a. I'm a warmonger myself so I don't need no reason

There are probably a lot of other possibilities unmentioned, but the main thing is, that if the AI would keep such a list for every opponent, it would know why someone declared war on him. If it happens more than once during a game, the concerning opponent will be likely to repeat the same process. The AI should thus act accordingly.

 

[Meffy]

SLM: I mentioned three alternatives, one of which was modding. That's the one most likely to result in satisfaction. If you can't, okay. Maybe I could, maybe not; I haven't the time to find out.

But if I simply couldn't live with a game feature as it is, and didn't believe the devs were likely to stumble upon my posts telling how I thought things ought to be done (then implement it that way and release the update), I'd sooner or later realize that I'd have to do it myself... or pull a Tom Sawyer on someone else who could.

 

[Beamup]

That may be true, but the AI SHOULD know why someone declares war. It helps the AI in its relation management with other AI and non-AI players. It would help the AI play a better game. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Maybe to a non-programmer it seems like it shouldn't be difficult. It would, in fact, be extremely difficult.