ai cheating i do't get it

[vikesrule1111]

in the manual it says in higher games that the computer cheats and that in the lower games the game cheats for you
how does it cheat for you?

 

[Tomoyo]

It costs more for the AI to build and takes longer to research stuff.
And the AI trades you things for less than on higher levels.

 

[Catt]

Does it really say "cheat" or does it talk about advantages and handicaps?

In any event, the primary "cheat" across levels is what's called the "cost factor." Most everything in the game "costs" something -- population growth in a town costs 10 excess food; a warrior costs 10 shields; a technolgocial advance costs XX commerce devoted to science. Depending on the difficulty level, the AI suffers / enjoys a different cost factor than you do. At Regent level, the cost factors are identical. At Chieftan, the Ai has a 200% cost factor; at Deity, a 60% cost factor. How does that translate to "cheating?"

At Chieftan, laboring under a 200% cost factor, the AI will have to accumulate 20 excess food to grown the size of its small towns; it will need to accumulate 20 shields to build a warrior, and it will need to produce 2x the number of science commerce ("beakers") as you do to discover a new technology. At Deity, the AI will need only 6 excess food to grow its population in a town; warriors will cost 6 shields, and science advances will cost 60% of what they cost you.

There are a multitude of other difficulty-level-related advantages or handicaps, but I'd venture a guess that the cost factor is the most glaring and important one with respect to how the AI is handicapped at lower levels (or how the game "cheats for you") -- whereas other advantages can be more prominent at the higher levels where the AI gets the benfit of the difficulty choice.

EDIT: cross-posted with Tomoyo saying virtually the same thing END EDIT

 

[Jawz II]

i knew about diffrent cost for AI on diffrent levels,but heres my question

is it harder to win battles at higher levels,im not sure if it is,besides the fact the the AI can pump oout twice as many units as u at the same time,it also feels like it is a little harder to win 1 on 1 fights

true or false?
the other day my stack o 9 warriors failed to kill 2 fortified egyptian spearmen in the egypt capital,no walls,small sized city

i was so pissed i scrapped the game altogether

 

[SesnOfWthr]

A) you haven't mentioned what level you play on
B) a fort. spearman has more than twice the defense of an attacking warrior -- expect to lose a lot of units in this situation
C) I believe (could be wrong) that the only thing that changes is battle w/ barbs at higher levels (they're stronger)

Maybe you should look in the customization forum for a combat calc, it would help you predict the results of battles better

 

[Jawz II]

yeah i did expect to lose many of the 9,i know when fortified u get a bonus,and that spearman def=2
warrior attack = 1
thats y i had a bigass stack of them,this was like turn 30 or something,dunno really early i had 3 or 4 citys only

i play on emperor

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jawz II
i knew about diffrent cost for AI on diffrent levels,but heres my question

is it harder to win battles at higher levels,im not sure if it is,besides the fact the the AI can pump oout twice as many units as u at the same time,it also feels like it is a little harder to win 1 on 1 fights

true or false?
the other day my stack o 9 warriors failed to kill 2 fortified egyptian spearmen in the egypt capital,no walls,small sized city

i was so pissed i scrapped the game altogether

No, there are no combat bonuses at higher levels. There are a variety of other benefits that AIs enjoy at Monarch and higher. Off the top of my head these include: (1) AIs get bonus starting units such as military units and workers (and settlers at Demi-God and above); (2) AIs will trade among other AIs at discounted rates if the trading partner cannot afford full price; (3) AIs enjoy regent-level number of content citizens, regent-level barbarian combat bonuses, and regent level goody hut luck; (4) AIs enjoy less corruption; (5) AIs enjoy greater free unit support; and (6) AIs enjoy shorter anarchy periods during government switches.

But no combat bonus against any other than barbarians.

 

[Tomoyo]

You cannot tell if a capital of an AI has walls, because all capitals look like a size 7-12 city before size 13. Size 7-12 cities don't show walls, so it very much could happen. If the city was on a hill, across a river, your chances of victory in one warrior vs. spearman battle is, ummm... I think 14.285714%.

 

[rychan]

Originally posted by Catt
At Chieftan, the Ai has a 200% cost factor; at Deity, a 60% cost factor. How does that translate to "cheating?"

*Boggle* are you serious? How does that translate to cheating? It's blatantly obvious that is cheating.

definition of Cheat
v. intr.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

They AI violates the game rules. Specifically, the rules of cost. Also other rules concerning visibility of the map and items on the map. Also the rules

GameSpin: What about the AI? One of the
complaints that players have always had about the AI
is that it cheats. Does it still cheat?

Johnson: The AI has been totally reworked. We started from
scratch. We stretched out the difficulty levels. Chieftain is easier
than it was in Civ II and Deity is now harder. Does the AI cheat?

Yes, but sometimes in favor of the player! Below Prince level it
cheats for the player, and above Prince level it cheats against
the player. At Prince level there is no cheating.
...

I don't see why you're trying to spin it as a "handicap" when the manual and interviews with the game makers pretty much admit it's cheating. The computer is given an unfair advantage with the game rules because it is not smart enough to compete with you otherwise. Some of the violations are straightforward, like the multiplier you discuss, some are stealthier. Cheating.

 

[Lord Jimbob]

the establishment of 'prices' for manufacturing and science are completely arbitrary. i think it's a little silly to get all worked up about the AI 'cheating' on higher levels- i think handicapping is a much better word- because the computer player making build/battle decsions is overwhelmingly inferior to a human player. i'm fine with the computer getting discounts at higher levels- it's just new rules for more challenging games. otherwise i would've been bored to death at prince level ages ago...

 

[rychan]

well, that's fine. I mean yeah it's better than not having difficulty levels. But, I would rather the AI adapt or degrade strategy instead of cheating/handicapping/advantaging itself in a way not available to human players. I don't think it's a ridiculous request either.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by rychan


*Boggle* are you serious? How does that translate to cheating? It's blatantly obvious that is cheating.

Whenever someone exclaims that something is "blatantly obvious" I immediately know that his argument is suspect.

Is it cheating if you play Monopoly (the board game) with your younger sibling and agree to let them start with an extra $1000? Is it cheating if you play backgammon and always let you opponent go first? Is it cheating if you play Risk (the board game) and allow your opponent to start with more armies than you? Put another way, is it "cheating" if you play your favorite game and voluntarily let different rules apply to your opponent?

The point is that "cheating" as I use the term means operating outside of the game rules as they are understood and agreed at the game start. In Civ III virtually all of the game rules *at the start* are visible and available to the player at the start. Just launching the editor and looking at the settings for various difficulty levels will tell you most everythig I already posted.

They AI violates the game rules. Specifically, the rules of cost. Also other rules concerning visibility of the map and items on the map.

The "rules of cost?" The "rules" differ from level to level, by definition and explicitly so. Is your view that "the rules" of the game are immutable from level to level and that the only legitimate game is one played at Regent? After all, under your definition, any game played outside of Regent is cheating -- either in favor of the AI or in favor of the player. I presume playing below regent means the human is cheating because he/she enjoys a cost advantage?

I don't see why you're trying to spin it as a "handicap" when the manual and interviews with the game makers pretty much admit it's cheating. The computer is given an unfair advantage with the game rules because it is not smart enough to compete with you otherwise. Some of the violations are straightforward, like the multiplier you discuss, some are stealthier. Cheating.

With all due repect, I think the use of "cheating" as used by Soren Johnson in your quote does not imply that the AI deviates from game rules during the course of the game (i.e., different from ground rules established at the game start) -- it is a shorthand reference for differences from level to level. I could just as easily quote numerous instances of Soren emphasizing that the game doesn't "cheat" -- in fact you can do the same by reviewing the numerous chat logs with various developers that are available here on CivFanatics.

At bottom, my point is that the AI doesn't "cheat" if "cheat" means departing from the ground rules understood at the beginning of the game (with a couple of notable, and widely publicized, exceptions). I interpret your point to be that any difference in cost factor or otherwise between AI and human player qualifies as a "cheat" which in turn means that "cheat" encompasses anhy instance of different rules applied to different players.

To repeat your earlier quote:

The computer is given an unfair advantage with the game rules because it is not smart enough to compete with you otherwise.

Does that mean that a human player who plays below regent is not smart enough to compete with the computer? I'd be a little cautious about extrapolating starting game conditions to a view on the inate intelligence of either the player or the artificial algoritm's written by programmers. But then, my mind will occasionally *boggle* to things that are blatantly obvious to others.

If "cheat" means different rules apply from level to level, then yes, both the player and the AI cheat depending on the level chosen. If on the other hand "cheat" means departing from ground rules established at the beginning of the game, then no, neither the AI nor the player cheats in any game (with the same caveat of a few notable exceptions that are applicable at every level).

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by rychan
well, that's fine. I mean yeah it's better than not having difficulty levels. But, I would rather the AI adapt or degrade strategy instead of cheating/handicapping/advantaging itself in a way not available to human players. I don't think it's a ridiculous request either.

In a perfect world it's not a ridiculous request. But in the real world why would a game developer intentionally make the artifical intelligence -- something notoriously difficult to program in any realistic way -- "dumber" at lower levels? Would it really be better to have a "dumb" AI opponent at lower levels and have the AI become "smarter" as difficlty increased, or would it be better to create the best, most realistically human AI operate on all levels but impose certain handicaps or advantages on the AI to suit human play preferences?

If I were a developer and if it were possible, would I program for the realistic best response possible and then instruct the computer player to ignore such response? Seems like a silly approach to offering player-preferenced difficulty levels to me.

 

[bonscott]

Originally posted by rychan
well, that's fine. I mean yeah it's better than not having difficulty levels. But, I would rather the AI adapt or degrade strategy instead of cheating/handicapping/advantaging itself in a way not available to human players. I don't think it's a ridiculous request either.

You obviously don't understand how difficult it is to program a good AI. If the perfect adaptive AI was possible it would be front page news. Galactic Civilizations has about the most advanced AI I've seen yet but it's still predictable and the good player will recognize it's moves and so on. You are asking too much of AI programming at this time. Check back in 10 years or so with Civ 6 and maybe we'll be there.

 

[rychan]

Catt, I read your arguments above, and they are all good, but all of your examples are of unfair games- games in which the rulesets differ from person to person. So you're right it's a subtle point. I would say cheating is still a fair term to use because I never agreed with the computer on the different ways I would allow it to use different rules. And under your definition, it would be impossible for a computer game to cheat, because naturally computers are always following some ruleset - whatever they are programmed to do. If they can smite your units with wrath of god randomly, they're not cheating, because they're just following a different ruleset. I think following a different ruleset = cheating. Having 6 cards in a poker hand = cheating. If you agreed to it before hand, fine, you're letting someone cheat in a specific way to make the game more competitive. Technically, it is cheating, because you are not playing by the same ruleset.

Originally posted by Catt


In a perfect world it's not a ridiculous request. But in the real world why would a game developer intentionally make the artifical intelligence -- something notoriously difficult to program in any realistic way -- "dumber" at lower levels?

Chess programs do it. They do not change the rulesets for different difficulty levels. It would be ridiculous to do so. They instead use the same ruleset, and change their evaluation methods. They change the depth at which they explore the minimax tree or they change the amount of time they are allowed to explore the tree. Or don't let them use their opening or closing books as much. It's actually very easy to dumb down AI without changing the ruleset. The problem is making the AI good enough to perform at the high difficulty level without cheating.

This is much more desirable than changing a rule because you have an easier time evaluating your gameplay - you don't have to keep up with two different rulesets.

 

[rychan]

Originally posted by bonscott


You obviously don't understand how difficult it is to program a good AI. If the perfect adaptive AI was possible it would be front page news. Galactic Civilizations has about the most advanced AI I've seen yet but it's still predictable and the good player will recognize it's moves and so on. You are asking too much of AI programming at this time. Check back in 10 years or so with Civ 6 and maybe we'll be there.

I would contest your statement that I don't know about AI programming (though I would call it machine learning, not AI. We don't need to solve the AI problem to build a better civ computer, just like we don't have to solve AI to build a chess bot that can beat the best grandmaster). You're probably right about civ 6, no doubt. But I'm not afraid to be more demanding in the meantime. I don't think what I'm talking about is impractical. I just don't think that the current implementation is optimal. I don't like the idea of having a slanted playing field.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by rychan
Technically, it is cheating, because you are not playing by the same ruleset.

You missed my point. "Cheating" as I used the term and as I believe it is appropriate to use the term in the context of a game, means deviating from understood rules, IMHO. If I choose to play a game with rules that, on their face, apply different "rulesets" to differing players, I cannot them proclaim that the application of different rulesets means there is a "cheat" involved. If all you want to argue is that different rules between players = cheating, then it's not a very worthwhile discussion -- it's just the arbitrary application of your view on the definition of cheating.

I play golf. If I have a 10 handicap and I play against a 4 handicap who agrees to give me 3 strokes a side, are he and I cheating? We're playing with different rulesets after all. My view is that my opponent's giving me 3 strokes a side doesn't mean that either of us cheated -- we simply played under differing rulesets to make the game more interesting. You're free to view our match as one infected with rampant cheating -- but such a view has no impact other than insofar as it expresses your arbitrary view of the handicap system. Our view also is arbitrary, but it does more than express our view of the system; it allows us to enjoy a competitive game.

 

[rychan]

Giving a handicap in golf doesn't affect the gameplay. You haven't changed the gameplay rules at all, just the manner in which you compare scores at the end. That's a good system to handicap a player. To be analogous to Civ3, your friend would need to let you take your shots from 40% closer than where you ball lands. Well that's really annoying. Now you have to play different depending on how your handicap relates to your opponent. If your opponent is equal, you get to hit your ball where it falls, etc etc. It's not the best analogy because golf is not an interactively competitive game.

Chess is a better example. It is also one with a great deal of study behind it concerning computers. How do chess players handicap eachother? Do they let pawns promote without reaching the end of the board? Do they let bishops move horizontally? No. They change the amount of times on their clocks. Thus, the same gameplay rules can be used. Each players possible moves are in no way affected by the handicap in both your golf example and this chess example.

However, in civ, suddenly different moves become feasible and infeasble because the gameplay rules have changed. My opponent can rush a unit with less money than I could. His city can grow faster than mine so he can build more settlers. He doesn't have to worry about early game defense because he has free units. He knows where to settle because he already sees the oil and uranium. He gets bonuses when he trades with his AI friends.

It is a real stretch to call that a handicap, because it has changed the core ruleset of the game.

interesting quote from a Steve Woodcock article on Gamasutra-

Interestingly enough, a vocal minority of developers felt the move towards developing better strategic AIs was primarily a waste of time, particularly in games in which players can't easily see the other side's forces. The theory they put forth was that if the player can't see what the computer is doing, why waste time on elaborate strategic AIs in the first place? A few well-placed but thoroughly plausible unit placements (via judicious cheating on the part of the AI) would go a long way towards providing the player with an enjoyable gaming experience. Many of this group felt that the mere appearance of a tank deep behind enemy lines would be ascribed a meaning by the player if the attack came at a particularly vulnerable time. They based this opinion on the reams of e-mail they had received from players that raved about the intelligence of the AIs in their games, when the AI was, in fact, cheating outrageously just to keep up.

That's an article written to an audience of game developers.

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by rychan
To be analogous to Civ3, your friend would need to let you take your shots from 40% closer than where you ball lands... <snip> ...If your opponent is equal... It's not the best analogy because golf is not an interactively competitive game.

Things might have changed since I was last on a golf course, but don't they normally have at least 3 tee boxes for players of different skill levels?

I think that's what was meant by the "handicapping" analogy. And it's precisely because Civ players have different abilities that the 'handicapping' analogy works.

Furthermore, humans ought to be 'smarter' than machines.

While the machine can perform calculations faster, the "AI player" cannot anticipate, do contingency planning, start planning for a space race victory in the ancient age, etc.

You're not "handicapping" the AI player, you're "handicapping" the human, positively or negatively. A new player will need the production bonuses to learn the game without spending all his time getting pummelled, a more experienced player would not be challenged by playing on a "level playing field".

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by rychan
Giving a handicap in golf doesn't affect the gameplay. You haven't changed the gameplay rules at all, just the manner in which you compare scores at the end. That's a good system to handicap a player. To be analogous to Civ3, your friend would need to let you take your shots from 40% closer than where you ball lands. Well that's really annoying. Now you have to play different depending on how your handicap relates to your opponent. If your opponent is equal, you get to hit your ball where it falls, etc etc. It's not the best analogy because golf is not an interactively competitive game.

[. . .]

However, in civ, suddenly different moves become feasible and infeasble because the gameplay rules have changed. My opponent can rush a unit with less money than I could. His city can grow faster than mine so he can build more settlers. He doesn't have to worry about early game defense because he has free units. He knows where to settle because he already sees the oil and uranium. He gets bonuses when he trades with his AI friends.

It is a real stretch to call that a handicap, because it has changed the core ruleset of the game.

And if instead of giving me 3 strokes a side my friend played from the blue tees but let me play from the ladies' red tees (substantially shortening each hole to my benefit)? EDIT: corss-posted with scoutsout who also raised the tee box analogy -- good timing END EDIT

Again, my disagreement with your argument is that it rests on the premise that there are certain inviolable "rulesets," the departure from which must be deemed cheating. Determining what "rulesets" are inviolable is a subjective and arbitrary process. You're quite confident that any departure from the convention that warriors cost 10 shields is a violation of the inviolable ruleset -- my opinion is that any given convention under which the game begins (warriors costing more or less than 10 shields for certain players) effectively replaces the otherwise "default" ruleset (we could open another can of worms and debate what is the "deafault ruleset"). "Cheating" under such a view would occur only if the rules at the beginning of the game (AI gets to build 7 shield warriors) is switched midstream without the player's consent (AI gets in a tight spot and gets to build warriors for only 5 shields). That "cheating" does not happen; that AIs get to build things for less shields (or must pay more shields at other levels) is in no way a departure from the ruleset established at the beginning of the game.

Chess is a better example.

There are two simulataneous discussions happening here: (1) what is "cheating," and (2) is a better, more human-like AI feasible? I'm not much interested in question 2 -- in my view it is so wide open a discussion that there is little chance of reaching any satisfactory outcome. Is a better AI feasible? Yes. Is it commercially feasible? Don't know. If feasible, would it make commercial sense versus using a less-than-possiblly-perfect AI in terms of impact on sales? Don't know. There are a whole huge string of questions that impact the discussion, not least because we're not talking about a situation where available resources are presumably not infinite.

Neither chess nor any of the other examples often given seem to me to be particularly applicable -- it is quite easy to code a computer to play blackjack perfectly (less so chess, but the premise is the same); I'd dispute that it is currently easy (or feasible) to program a game such as civ to identify and execute perfect moves. Your view may differ (and again it's not a matter I'm particularly interested in arguing), but I just don't see the logical connection that you imply that a less-than-optimal AI used across all levels, with difficulty modifiers in the form of changes to "rulesets" at the beginning of the game, is by default a "cheat" whereas a variably-intelligent AI according to difficulty level would not be a "cheat."