AI cheats at this game.

[Kid R]

stick gandhi + shaka next to each other in world builder with different religions, meet gandhi, trade him a big tech, then meet shaka. -4 worst enemy trade. WE can't detect AI-AI trades before we meet the AI.

99% of the time it's obvious. Change places with Shaka - in his position who would you think traded Gandhi the big tech he just got out of nowhere?

 

[Seraiel]

Thats imo bad code, not cheating. Just funked up my whole diplomacy because the other continent was a different religion and WEs with all of my friends on my continent. I will still get those Sushi Ressources (by espionage religion flipping ^^) .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

99% of the time it's obvious. Change places with Shaka - in his position who would you think traded Gandhi the big tech he just got out of nowhere?

Wrong. It's obvious in this dumbed down example. In the case of an isolated human with techs being traded between an AI and human as well as same AI and other known civs, the owner of the techs traded isn't obvious at all...especially if said tech has multiple people knowing it already or if there are MULTIPLE yet-unmet players that could have made the trade.

99% is a rather flagrantly asinine assertion to try to handwave the fact that the AI is, in fact, cheating in this regard...because it will *always* know the trade happened complete regardless of whether it was possible for a human to detect it. Do a real test or drop that nonsense 99% assertion.

It's arguable to some extent that trade with known civs granting a demerit is cheating too. There are some situations that, due to IBT trading of the tech further, a human couldn't figure out who traded a tech to which civ consistently...

You can't squirm out of the fact that the AI cheats here, sorry. Not unless you can tell me which unmet civs traded with the AI next to you and when...and exactly what techs (because AI demerit is based on valuation of the tech trade). You can't, and therefore you are wrong .

Thats imo bad code, not cheating.

It's cheating. Cheating might also be due to idiot programmer code, but it's still cheating. We've been through this before. I don't know how to help you if you insist on continually ignoring the English dictionary in favor of using your own definitions for words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat

verb (used without object)
4.
to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5.
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

I'm sure you can find dictionaries that require intent to violate rules too (however, we have no way to prove or disprove intent in this case). However, the fact remains that what the AI is doing in this game fits multiple dictionaries' definition of cheating, and therefore your bogus assertion that it's not cheating because the developers didn't intend for it to happen (a very very weak assertion anyway in 3.19 when they've known about it for years before making the patch!) has been effectively defeated .

 

[Um the Muse]

Arguably, the AI doesn't cheat under either of those definitions--it doesn't violate the rules, it plays by a different set of rules

This is more like the game cheats in favor of the AI, rather than the AI actually cheating.

OK, that's hair-splitting semantics. But consider: the AI doesn't actively pursue a VC, right? When I think of cheating, I think of somebody breaking rules in order to get ahead.

It's like playing a game against somebody who has never played before. If you're inexperienced, then fine, let's have an even playing field. If you're experienced, though, you might want to handicap yourself to give the other guy a fighting chance (or at least, look like that's what you're doing so that they feel worse when you crush them )

 

[Kid R]

TMIT is frisky this week

I agree it cheats all over the place, I'm on your side - I even posted a new one!

But I've always disagreed with the unknown worst enemy complaint - I think it's a reasonable shortcut to give the AIs. Perhaps the devs did it to save our CPUs time for better things. They could have coded all sorts of costly routines which in the end would discover that a moderately intelligent person could nearly always work out who did the trade.

Yeah, not always but nearly always. And the other times probably suspect enough to hate you anyway just to be on the safe side

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Arguably, the AI doesn't cheat under either of those definitions--it doesn't violate the rules, it plays by a different set of rules

There's nothing in the game or manual to indicate to the player that the AI uses a different set of rules, or that it plays a different game entirely. It's semantics at that point...for those of us who know these things already and agree to them it's more grey area...but to people who don't know about these things it's definitely cheating.

This is more like the game cheats in favor of the AI, rather than the AI actually cheating.

They're the same thing. Literally, the AI is a part of the game.

But consider: the AI doesn't actively pursue a VC, right? When I think of cheating, I think of somebody breaking rules in order to get ahead.

Technically, the AI was coded in BTS to follow a strategy for winning culture; this is the only VC it is actively designed to pursue, and only some of them will do it. However, you can still cheat at a game without actively trying to win it. If you need a human example of this look no further than hackers boosting in call of duty; boosting is certainly not something that one does to try to WIN the game...but hacks to make it easier are definitely cheating even if the cheats are not directly applied to victory...and they share the AI PAssal tendency to screw a player (human or not) at random.

It's like playing a game against somebody who has never played before. If you're inexperienced, then fine, let's have an even playing field. If you're experienced, though, you might want to handicap yourself to give the other guy a fighting chance (or at least, look like that's what you're doing so that they feel worse when you crush them )

That's what difficulty bonuses are for. We don't need hidden, difficulty-independent and esoteric things that the AI can do that the human can't due to game rules. I don't want to hear "but the AI neeeeeeeeds the cheats!". Warlords II (mentioned yet again because of just how mechanically superior it is to every civ game ever made, despite having less depth) could certainly still be challenging, or even close to impossible at times.

TMIT is frisky this week

Oh no, let's not get into a discussion of the frequency at which I wear pants again .

But I've always disagreed with the unknown worst enemy complaint - I think it's a reasonable shortcut to give the AIs. Perhaps the devs did it to save our CPUs time for better things. They could have coded all sorts of costly routines which in the end would discover that a moderately intelligent person could nearly always work out who did the trade.

Or, they could make a nice, simple system where they can detect trades between known civs only. I can't imagine that routine would be too difficult.

Yeah, not always but nearly always. And the other times probably suspect enough to hate you anyway just to be on the safe side

I'm not convinced people can consistently do this. I'm betting it wouldn't be so easy to always tell who made what trade without seeing IBT.

 

[ecuwins]

Or, they could make a nice, simple system where they can detect trades between known civs only. I can't imagine that routine would be too difficult.

Joao is a snitch, whenever he's the first to roll a boat by my shore, he be tellin' all the other AI about me. Even if they aren't currently talking to each other The AI set must have a network of rumor mills rivaled only by the likes of sewing circles.

 

[coanda]

If you really wanted to nit-pick, even when it's a trade between two known associates, the AI is cheating to know you were involved in the trade and give you the "traded with our worst enemy" malus. If two civs have Gunpowder, and one of them trades it to a civ at war with the human in exchange for map knowledge, the human has no way of knowing which one made that trade.

If you really wanted the AI to not cheat at all about that, you'd need to have it build up belief states representing how likely it thinks it is that any other given player was the guilty party in a trade with worst enemy... which pretty quickly becomes (a) complicated, hard to write, and hard to debug, (b) opaque to the human player and thus a cause of frustration with seemingly inexplicable AI behavior, and (c) prone to really pissing people off when it makes a mistake (as it will, more often than a human would given the same information... see (a)).

The point other people are making is that the simple, transparent, consistent solution the devs chose is only very rarely an advantage (and not much of one at that) compared to what you could deduce from information that is available. A cheat, yes... but not a particularly significant one.

You want to talk about cheats, how about the "safety" cheat that tells a human that half the AIs in the game cannot plan to attack them no matter what the human does as long as the human keeps them at Pleased or higher. That's a way bigger rule imbalance than any trade-knowledge the AI benefits from, but that one benefits the human player.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You want to talk about cheats, how about the "safety" cheat that tells a human that half the AIs in the game cannot plan to attack them no matter what the human does as long as the human keeps them at Pleased or higher. That's a way bigger rule imbalance than any trade-knowledge the AI benefits from, but that one benefits the human player.

That's the AI not trying to win, and I've long been an opponent of it because it ALSO causes AI to effectively try to lose so another one can win...or so the human can win. It makes game erratic and implausible. Kmod patches this up and it's a very welcome change.

The point other people are making is that the simple, transparent, consistent solution the devs chose is only very rarely an advantage (and not much of one at that) compared to what you could deduce from information that is available. A cheat, yes... but not a particularly significant one.

It's a cheat to penalize the player in a way the AI virtually never takes a penalty, and for what? For playing intelligently, which many of the AI are coded specifically not to do, and instead are coded to cheat and throw the game instead of legitimately attempting victory within the game's defined rules.

 

[Tristan_C]

I lost a few games really badly and it helped to play the Barbarian scenario afterwards and blow everything to smithereens

 

[Mylene]

Quick question, can open borders, res. trades and stuffs like that also cause neg. diplo with unknown AIs? When i met a new AI, without doing any tech trades i already had neg. diplo in a recent game.
Made me raise an eyebrow, but moved on without thinking further...this thread would be good for learning thou ~~

 

[Manco Capac]

^
Giving resources right away (trade or gifting doesn't matterefsdds) is giving stuff to wordst foes.
Theres a rule wher e worst enemy demerit points count downward faster the shorter the time you have met the said AI. For instance, if you give 10 gold to one AI, you get +4, but de3cays fast.
I think it provokes -4 as well if WE of someone. So it should decaying in no time.

 

[vranasm]

Quick question, can open borders, res. trades and stuffs like that also cause neg. diplo with unknown AIs? When i met a new AI, without doing any tech trades i already had neg. diplo in a recent game.
Made me raise an eyebrow, but moved on without thinking further...this thread would be good for learning thou ~~

I think it can... really not so sure about this, but I think even accepting demands/begs can be source of worse enemy trade

___________

@topic
as for AI not declaring at pleased/friendly...I actually like it. I saw how bad diplomacy can get when design goes the "AI wants to win no matter what" in Civ V, basically meaning that game has NO diplomacy whatsoever.

From gaming perspective it is bad solution, but for me it makes the illusion of forming civs cooperating to common target.
I think the devs should deepen the mechanics though... promoting more the "if you are good off with AI it will be always better not to capture them and the AI can win along you" would look a bit better, but definitely I don't see the solution going reverse and nullifying the diplomacy with "AI declares whenever it wants and makes nonsense"

 

[Mylene]

thanks
Yip decayed fast, can still be annoying thou cos they might just decide plotting on you during those few turns

I dun like that mechanic, but would also not call it cheating..AI can miss out too, if i make that tech trade with somebody else cos they are grumbling.

 

[Kesshi]

That's the AI not trying to win ... causes AI to effectively try to lose so another one can win...or so the human can win.

...

For playing intelligently, which many of the AI are coded specifically not to do, ... and throw the game instead of legitimately attempting victory within the game's defined rules.

TMIT,

Have you seen the video Playing to Lose: AI and "Civilization"? It's been a while since I've seen this video, but I remember it outlining specifics that you're talking about here. Everything from the AI actually playing to lose and even "It Cheats? OMGZBBQ!!!"

Also, to any nay-sayers, the linked video is proof positive that the AI cheats. Please stop the nonsense that is "The AI doesn't cheat." The AI cheats according to AI designers of the game.

 

[GKey]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11394854&postcount=48

 

[Pangaea]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11394854&postcount=48

Bloody 'ell. That goes well with a rant I recently had about stupid stuff by automated workers. In the video linked above (interesting btw), Soren says that the AI more or less use the same automated workers as is used for the human. I have trouble believing that. For one, AI workers don't actively try to get captured by running into harms way, and they don't seem to build so much ******** crap either.

As suspected, the thing about knowledge as far as movement goes, it's not really intended as a cheat, but because doing it 'properly' takes time and they had better things to do with coding time. Still a 'cheat', mind, as the AI doesn't play by the same rules as the human.

 

[Mylene]

Something disturbing just happened in my game, i had loads of bad luck with barbs but this beats all bad rolls ~~

Before...my axe out of moves

Spoiler :

..and after, notice his HPs left too!!!

Spoiler :

Why post here?
Well..is winning this battle with >33% hps left, chances lower than 1%, anything else but cheating?

 

[vranasm]

in this case it's the old rand making BS thing... just for lulz load the save 1T before and switch some mine worked into not working mine and do the turn

 

[Manco Capac]

Woah woah woah. Don't you realize the spear is overpowerful? More than quechuas and preats!
The sempiternal and powerful anti-tank killer #1 !!!!11