AI cheating

[Gengis Khan]

You'll be kicking yourself for it down the road though, leave preserve seed on, take your lumps & strings of bad luck, and then get your revenge. A war is so much sweeter when every single thing has gone wrong & you still manage to beat the AI back.

Originally posted by Greyhawk1
One thing I think is an outstanding issue (somebody correct me here) is if the AI already knows where all the strategic resources that appear later in the game are going to spawn. Has this been cleared up yet?

This is probably the only "cheat" the AI does. Yes, it knows where future resources will show up just like it know's your troop position. I don't really consider it a cheat cause the AI is so poor in implementing both of them. Anyone else would settle a "future oil" town in the tundra near somones borders then reinfoce it till there was no tomorrow. The AI takes the escort with him.

 

[alsoDavo]

Gengis, if I get really bored I might. Right now I have all I can handle with the stuff I can't reload. For example, the Chinese beating my settler to a city spot with a fur luxury by one move.

 

[anarres]

alsoDavo, try the Combat Calc that Thunderfall made here at CFC.

I made one that allows you to enter the attack and defense values yourself (for new units not in the original Civ3, and for mods) Modified Combat Calc.

This will allow you to check the odds of winning a particular battle.

 

[alsoDavo]

Appreciate it Anarres, this thread has shed a lot of light on what is going on with the game. I don't reload everytime something doesn't go my way, not even everytime I mutter a four letter word, just when I start stringing them together.

 

[rychan]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

..or rather, the fact that the AI don't cheat much has been documented well...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27273&

You obviously know it since you wrote it. But you're misinterpreting it.

The AI cheats a ton. the production bonus especially.

Would you say that a chess program that gets 5 extra pieces doesn't cheat much? No of course not, a monkey could beat a grandmaster with 5 extra pieces.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Terrible analogy: more like if a chess program got 5 extra pieces, but it didn't undertand how to move or strategically use it's pieces & just moved them around the board randomly.

If you consider the AI's production bonuses "cheating", then is playing on Warlord cheating?

 

[rychan]

no, your analogy is terrible. Why would a chess program have to move the pieces randomly around the board?! So what if the evaluation functions for Civ3 are more difficult to calculate than chess. They exist- we use them. The fact that it's hard to write the AI doesn't mean that it isn't cheating.

and I certainly consider production bonuses cheating, just like I'd consider steroids cheating in sports, or having extra pieces cheating in chess, or any other violation of the rules.

and I wouldn't consider warlord cheating, because the player is, once again, still playing by the valid civ3 rules. The AI in this case has not taken steroids but heroine It's the AI cheating for you, really.

to quote the people who made the game -

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'll admit it's a subtle difference. You could say it's like asking an opponent to throw a game, which might be considered cheating, Though you didn't violate the rules of the game.

Ideally there would be no cheating, but rather changes in strategy corresponding to the different difficulty levels.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by rychan
The AI cheats a ton. the production bonus especially.

Cheat, n. - 1 - To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2 - To violate rules deliberately, as in a game
The production bonuses are well known and verifiable by anyone who cares to look in the editor. They're bonuses above Regent, handicaps below Regent. That's certainly not dishonest or fraudulent and it doesn't violate the rules since the bonuses ARE the rules.
The Civ game engine doesn't seem to allow for a smarter or dumber AI for the various levels of play, so the bonuses and handicaps are built in to give the human player a boost at lower levels and a challenge at higher levels.

 

[rychan]

it's breaking the rules to produce a unit by using less shields than it actually takes, just like it would be breaking the rules to let your pawns advance after moving only 4 ranks instead of 6 in chess.

The bonuses are NOT the rules. They are intentional violations of the rules. Rules are the things we play by. Me and you, in a multiplayer game. Production bonuses don't enter in to those rules.

They are also not well known, I would argue. The manual doesn't give the specifics of them, nor does TheNiceOne's thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27273&

 

[Gengis Khan]

Originally posted by rychan
no, your analogy is terrible. Why would a chess program have to move the pieces randomly around the board?!

Cause that's basically what the AI does. Why would a chess program have extra peices to begin with? You're compareing apples & oranges, their both fruit......... but that's about it.

Am I cheating because I'm infinitely smarter then the AI, and I use it?? Is short rushing or MMing cheating cause the AI doesn't do it? Is researching a different tech instead of following the same basic patern cheating? Is controling your workers & not irragating grasslands in despot cheating?

The AI NEEDS those bonuses to even be on par, call it a cheat if you want. It's not.

The bonuses are NOT the rules. They are intentional violations of the rules. Rules are the things we play by. Me and you, in a multiplayer game. Production bonuses don't enter in to those rules.

You lost me there, check the read me if you want. I'm pretty sure that they're in there. And something that's an "intentional violation of the rules" which is done by the people who make the rules, then isn't a violation. It's a rule.

 

[rychan]

Originally posted by Gengis Khan


Cause that's basically what the AI does. Why would a chess program have extra peices to begin with?

Why would the Civ AI have extra pieces to start with? And then get more as you play? It was an analogy to show that it's ridiculous and certainly cheating.

Am I cheating because I'm infinitely smarter then the AI, and I use it?? Is short rushing or MMing cheating cause the AI doesn't do it? Is researching a different tech instead of following the same basic patern cheating? Is controling your workers & not irragating grasslands in despot cheating?

No on all counts. None of those things violate the rules of gameplay. It's a very easy metric to determine if something is cheating or not- can a human player do it? If the answer is yes, it is not cheating, because it is within the rules of the game and there is equality.

The AI NEEDS those bonuses to even be on par, call it a cheat if you want. It's not.

I disagree. The AI does not NEED those bonuses. The AI has disadvantes over a human player just like a chess computer has disadvantages. But it also has advantages. And guess what, chess computers don't lower their difficulty level by changing the game rules. They do it by altering how "smart" their evaluation function is. (the depth it searches or the time allowed to perform a search, typically). That's the way you control difficulty level without cheating.

It IS a cheat to produce units faster than a human player can. The game designers call it such, your definition of cheating calls it such.

And something that's an "intentional violation of the rules" which is done by the people who make the rules, then isn't a violation. It's a rule.

An intentional violation of a rule is not a rule. That's the definition of a cheat- Intentionally violating a rule. Like using a hex editor to change my saved game.

The fact that it was put there by the game designers is irrelevant. Since the AI can do it and I can't, it's a cheat.

Like in street fighter on higher difficulty levels, Guile would throw sonic booms every second even though it has a 2 second charge up. That's not a cheat by your definition, because the game designers put it in.

 

[Gengis Khan]

The AIs ONLY advantage over a human are those bonuses. Name 1 other advantage the computer has over a human player other then these "cheats."

You're entitled to your own opinion, however misconstrued it might be.

 

[rychan]

Did you read the link to that other thread? there are several other cheats

Map - The AI knows the map even before exploring. This includes the position of your cities.

Unit position - The AI knows the position of all units, including barbarians. By knowing this, it also knows the number of units and where there are undefended cities.

Resources - The AI is knows where resources will pop up in the future and tries to settle in those areas.

Suspected cheats
Reputation The AI is suspected of taking less reputation hits from breaking treaties than the human player.

Trade After patch 1.21 the AI-AI trade was exposed in the editor as part of the difficulty settings. On regent and above the AI gives other AI cives better deals, but this is part of the difficulty level you choose.

so that's 5 more cheats in addition to the production cheat.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Hence the quotation marks around "cheats", I know each & every bonus the AI gets at each level.

I want some advantage that the AI has over a player thats not a "cheat."

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by rychan


[. . .]

The argument, here and in the other thread in the strategy forum, comes down to how one defines the "rules." If the "rules are that a warrior costs 10 shields, then the game "cheats" in favor of the AI or the player depending on the difficulty level. If on the other hand, the "rules" depend on the established rules at the beginning of the game, then the game doesn't "cheat" except in a couple of well-known examples applicable to all levels (principally around map knowledge).

Put another way, if I want to play a poker card game with someone who is not very good at poker, and we decide to play 5-card draw with the best 5-card hand the winner but I allow my opponent to choose his best hand from among a 6-card hand, is it cheating if he gets to look at and draw to a 6-card hand?

If I play you in a multiplayer Civ III game but promise to skip my first five turns to give you a headstart, is it cheating for me to actually skip my first five turns? Or would it be cheating if I instead immediately built my first city and played the game as I would a single-player game?

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by rychan
it's breaking the rules to produce a unit by using less shields than it actually takes...

If that's what happened it would be cheating. But it's designed into the game that at levels above Regent the AI builds the unit with that lower number of shields. The rule is that at that level the human and the AI don't play equally.

The bonuses are NOT the rules

In an SP game they clearly are the rules.

 

[rychan]

Give me an example of a game AI cheating, then? Any game, any context. By your arguments it is impossible for a game to cheat, because it is only following the rules it was programmed to do. If you argue that game AI can not cheat, then this is a pointless discussion. It is a commonly used term to denote allowing AI to use unequal game mechanics to gain an advantage. I will not back down from saying this is the wrong way to make an AI. It is less fun than playing an intelligent opponent.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by rychan
The AI cheats a ton. the production bonus especially.

Would you say that a chess program that gets 5 extra pieces doesn't cheat much? No of course not, a monkey could beat a grandmaster with 5 extra pieces.

You can of course call this a cheat, but almost all other players call this a bonus. The difference is that the bonus is selected by you when you select difficulty level, and that they are documented and changeable in the editor (although they could be documented better).

If this is cheating, then all players playing below regent are cheating as well. That doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by rychan
Give me an example of a game AI cheating, then? Any game, any context. By your arguments it is impossible for a game to cheat, because it is only following the rules it was programmed to do.

In my book, cheating is undocumented advantages that are not editeable in teh editor actively selected by the user as part of difficulty level.
In this game, the AI cheats by knowing everything.
Otherthings that the AI has been accused of and would have been cheats (but the AI has been found not to do) is: Move galleys in ocean without risk of sinking. Win more battles than the combat model predicts, building units without necessary resources etc.

Originally posted by rychan
If you argue that game AI can not cheat, then this is a pointless discussion. It is a commonly used term to denote allowing AI to use unequal game mechanics to gain an advantage. I will not back down from saying this is the wrong way to make an AI. It is less fun than playing an intelligent opponent.

First, I agree that its meaningless to say that the AI cannot cheat. Knowing everything on the map is a cheat. Secondly, I think it it is equally meaningless to call the difficulty bonuses for cheating. If you're playing golf with a newbie and agree to let him start 100 feet closer, you cannot call that a cheat, but if he later moves the ball to a better position when you don't look, that's a cheat.
Last, I agree that in a prefect world, we would get an AI that plays better on the higher difficulty levels, but there have been numerous threads discussing why this is simply not realistic for several years yet.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by rychan
Did you read the link to that other thread? there are several other cheats

Map - The AI knows the map even before exploring. This includes the position of your cities.

Unit position - The AI knows the position of all units, including barbarians. By knowing this, it also knows the number of units and where there are undefended cities.

Resources - The AI is knows where resources will pop up in the future and tries to settle in those areas.

Suspected cheats
Reputation The AI is suspected of taking less reputation hits from breaking treaties than the human player.

Trade After patch 1.21 the AI-AI trade was exposed in the editor as part of the difficulty settings. On regent and above the AI gives other AI cives better deals, but this is part of the difficulty level you choose.

so that's 5 more cheats in addition to the production cheat.

The three first are the same cheat IMHO, that the AI simply knows everything, but you can of course break it up into as many cheats as you want.
The reputation cheat is still only suspected. Noone has tested and proved any cheat here.
The AI-AI trade is not a cheat (IMHO). All it does is to allow one AI to sell a tech to a poor AI for slighlty less than the calculated price if the poor AI don't have enough money. The human player can do exactly the same, even with a higher discount than the AI can give, so if this is a cheat, then this is a cheat where the human is free to cheat more than the AI
The production is a bonus that you can control along with the bonus starting units, lower corruption, number of people born content, growth and research bonus etc., in the editor and by selecting desired difficulty level, and should not be called a cheat as explained in my previous post.

So it leaves one sure cheat (full knowledge) and one suspected cheat (less reputation hit), and that's it.

 

[zamaikun]

thats weird, does anyone know if there's a patch for it?