AI Players' way of playing is very suspicious!!!

[Lord of Civ]

These people are probably not stupid.

Maybe, maybe not..... but....... if the player like me is unlucky at the beginning of the game and the chance to win is very low, I assume that it would be too stupid for me to continue playing like a stupid loser. Right? I was stupid one time that i insisted on playing one of the most ugliest match that i could not possibly gain any victory..... It is 50 and 50, they could either be stupid or not. Anyway, i would not do that mistake and i'll try not to be stupid anymore. If the game started bad, then i recommend you not to waist time challenging and it is good for you...

I see some merit to your "magic eyes" argument. Every turn the AI has to evaluate the map and send its forces somewhere. It probably can't distinguish between a path that is temperarily or permanantly blocked. This might have something to do with it changing course if you move troops. I don't know if this is true, I haven't studied the source code. I am just making my own guess at the situation.

Nope, like i previously posted, we were on the same continent with no choke point. They mysteriously, and apparently turned back when my capital city was well defended. They did not show up for 3 turns and I was wondering what they were doing... Then i figured out that it was changing the target continuosly, depending on which target is weaker. The argument "AI's Magic Eyes" is still challenging and very controversial.

Back to your problem of getting attacked. It just sounds like your defense strategy needs some work. Like your not strong enough to crush the first attack. If you do good enough, there won't be a second. You should be able to go on the offensive if attacked. Don't just sit back and try to defend. Be ready to attack. Once the AI's cities are threatened you won't have to worry about backdoor attacks. They'll try it but once they start losing cities they'll have other things to worry about.

errrmm.... There was no problem with my defense. Interestingly, i tried to scare them so they would turn some of their troops back, but sometimes they won't. Counter-attacking a strong stacked Panzers with Cavalries was not enough to prevent them from invading your cities. I figured out how to fool the AI by making them changing the target by leaving one city weak so that would give them attention, then redefend that city. This would make them spend many useful turns. This is why i haven't lose my capital city and my northwestern city. I was weaker than him but i did not lose a city. Its a Magic Eye???!!!!

Your smart. Just keep playing and you will figure all this stuff out. You will get good enough at it that you won't be worried about "magic eyes".

You know, it has nothing to do about being smart or being worried, I just don't like this thing and i see it as a bug. It is still cheap programming. You can create a scenario to test to see whether they really have magic eyes or not.

Well??

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, to be fair TA Jones, I have always felt you had a bit of a blind spot for Civ3 myself-perhaps because you primarily played things like Rhys of Civ and DyP. I should also point out that I liked Conquests the best of the 3 Civ3 games. Anyway, I ought to point out that the AI is much better at waging war in Warlords, and doesn't turtle up like it used to. It is also more likely to declare war on you than in Vanilla. As for other improvements to AI? Well I have actually seen them MISS a later resource, like Oil, because of the way they have placed their cities-meaning that they are no longer omniscient when it comes to the map. This alone would go a long way to disproving the Magic Eyes hypothesis that is doing the rounds.
Trust me, having been at the wrong end of an AI attack, and having suffered a bad run of luck, I know how easy it is to simply accuse the AI of cheating-I have done it myself more times than I would like to admit.
However on later, cool-headed analysis, I can usually see my misfortune for what it was-bad luck or poor planning on my part.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[T.A JONES]

Cool. Appreciate your forward response. Its not a blind spot Ive got for Civ4 is just a lack of desire to play. Ive giving 4 its fair shake! and now its in pieces!. Really though, no one can convince the other but I still appreciate your honesty and politeness and by the way The Balancer Reloaded is the best on my list and its Rise n Rule not dYP, that one was for PtW, Say, you wern't pulling my leg when you said you gave Conquests a try, were you? (joking) Really though cause ripping on Civ3 without playing the 2nd exp is like ripping Conquests without playing a la mod. Its a whole new ball game, by that I mean Conquests topped a la mod (Rise n Rule)

exuse me OP back to the main Magic eye discussion!!

 

[Lord of Civ]

I'm about 60 times as familiar with the forum rules as you are.

If it's cheating for the AI to do things that the human player can't (like knowing the locations of human units), then it's also cheating for the human to do things that the AI can't (like reloading until you get a favorable map).

That seems perfectly clear. There's no "trolling" here.

Oh please.... DaviddesJ, you had challenged me to the full extend, and i am not repeating this anymore.

1. Following the game rules and reloading the game is not an act of cheating.

2 Using Magic Eyes is cheating (AIs), regardless to spy.

3. Using the World builder and adding extra units is cheating..

4. Making a false accusation is essentially trolling. You know what you will get if somebody who used this reload option is offended and report your statement to the administrator... I did not report it because i know that you are a nice guy and you don't mean to be offensive....

Why re-starting a new game match is a cheating act??? WHY?!! DaviddesJ. WHY?!! Why is it a problem for you?
You called that cheating?? I called it Common Sense and Luck. How can you blame everyone for being a cheater for using this option? Its just an option.. Relax... Its not a trainer and the map is not edit. Please understand. I have no time for this...

Let us sit down and get back to the topic people.... Take it easy jeeez...

 

[3 EMS]

Lord of Civ

Just trying to be encouraging. Part of your posts read like your frustrated.
I wonder if I'll be tempted to try this tactic if I get caught unready. I usually try to meet an oncomming enemy stack and destroy them. Hasn't always worked though.

Did you have your enemy's state religion in the city you were moving troops in and out of?

If I had panzers and you counter attacked with calvery I wouldn't stop either. Now if I saw mechanical infantry and/or modern armor I might stop and think about it a little. Fighters and bombers would make good deterrants too.Thats if I understand the battle situation correctly.

 

[T.A JONES]

You've got to excuse these kind of guys Mr OP. they got a bad 'case' of Jim "the hammer' Shipiro posting. That means being the number one fans they truly are, they freely devote their time and services in defending there client from the its rash of recent 'cases' (threads with real problems custumers have) Problem is you can tell they do more badgering online then actual Civ4 game time. Assures me the AI is about as improved as OJ is innocent. Case closed.

 

[Lord of Civ]

Lord of Civ
Did you have your enemy's state religion in the city you were moving troops in and out of?

Well, Frederick did not really have a holy city and he was using a different state religion... Also, Roman Empire divided my border from his border but he got Rights of Passage with Julius Caesar...

Lord of Civ
If I had panzers and you counter attacked with calvery I wouldn't stop either. Now if I saw mechanical infantry and/or modern armor I might stop and think about it a little. Fighters and bombers would make good deterrants too.Thats if I understand the battle situation correctly.

The truth is he razed an unimportant city with 1 citizen only. My military was weak but i was depended on infantries and later marines so once i had many marines and drafted infantries in my capital city, The stacked Mech Infantries and stacked Panzers would turn back!!! Back to the Roman Empire!! I was laughing!! I thought that he was too scared of my infantries but it appears that he is trying to attack a weak northwest city. I quickly moved my infantries to defend that city but he turned back again and moved towards my capital city (his previous target). This repeated for 4 times until peace treaty was signed. Believe it or not??? He just got Magic Eyes!!! Incredible!!!

 

[Lord of Civ]

You've got to excuse these kind of guys Mr OP. they got a bad 'case' of Jim "the hammer' Shipiro posting. That means being the number one fans they truly are, they freely devote their time and services in defending there client from the its rash of recent 'cases' (threads with real problems custumers have) Problem is you can tell they do more badgering online then actual Civ4 game time. Assures me the AI is about as improved as OJ is innocent. Case closed.

hmmmmm... Infact, everytime when im online, in internet forums, i used to ask myself about who are these guys? Ive personally encountered many strange people who was trolling for years on internet forum. One case, a guy acting as a girl was caught on Asian Finest Forum! Everyone were shocked and he was banned. Its been for years that nobody ever know that he is a guy... He also had thousands of posts and his fake photos. Anyway, sometimes i was being too nice not to report because maybe that person does not intently want to troll but sometimes i do get these guys banned on other forums if im so offend.

I was actually wondering about the past things you were talking about to that guy.. hmmmm.....

Lets stick to the topic people....

 

[DaviddesJ]

1. Following the game rules and reloading the game is not an act of cheating.

The game rules are the same for all players, both human and AI. They don't permit you to change the map in your favor because you don't like it. Whether you do it by regenerating or you do it by giving yourself 10 wheat tiles in the Wolrd Builder. Do you want the AI to do that, also?

You know what you will get if somebody who used this reload option is offended and report your statement to the administrator...

Nothing. There's nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion. You're getting a little bit shrill, though.

 

[Lord of Civ]

The game rules are the same for all players, both human and AI. They don't permit you to change the map in your favor because you don't like it. Whether you do it by regenerating or you do it by giving yourself 10 wheat tiles in the Wolrd Builder. Do you want the AI to do that, also?

Game rules are in Civilopedia. Game options are OUT OF THE GAME... i recommend you to open Civilopedia and read it.
Restarting the game or regenerating the map is not a cheating act... Calm down...

Nothing. There's nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion. You're getting a little bit shrill, though.

You were not expressing your opinion on your first post but making a false statement that jump to conclusion with no good reason. Opinions also have to be correct otherwise it could be offensive to certain people. You don't have rights of speech because you are on internet forum but you do have priviledge in posting or publishing only correct statements.

This is what i found to be typical troll's statement and you know it is not correct.:

Yes, I think this sort of human cheating is more pervasive than AI "cheating".

Or do I really have to report this and let someone ban you.. So u would believe me... huh?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, the incident you just reported is no evidence of 'Magic Eyes', Lord of Civ. It sounds like in that game you are well and truly in the age of spies, so-if he has planted a spy within your empire-the Roman Empire WILL have that kind of information at his disposal.
Also, in more evidence of the 'no-magic-eyes' scenario, in a recent MP game, I had barbs popping up and attacking my empire left, right and centre. Yet, to my amazement, the barbs on more than one occasion attacked a more heavily fortified city-even after I once accidently moved one of my LBM out from his garrisoned position within the weaker city. Heck, in one instance he even went around pillaging my improvements even THOUGH he could probably have beaten my garrison inside the city-I fell for his little trap and he was able to destroy my Skirmisher with ease when I went on the offensive. Fortunately for me, I was able to move an axeman into place before he could take the city in question. Still, my point is that-in Warlords at least-I have seen the AI act contrary to what it ought to have done if it had so-called 'magic eyes'.

 

[Lord of Civ]

Hmmm, the incident you just reported is no evidence of 'Magic Eyes', Lord of Civ. It sounds like in that game you are well and truly in the age of spies, so-if he has planted a spy within your empire-the Roman Empire WILL have that kind of information at his disposal.
Also, in more evidence of the 'no-magic-eyes' scenario, in a recent MP game, I had barbs popping up and attacking my empire left, right and centre. Yet, to my amazement, the barbs on more than one occasion attacked a more heavily fortified city-even after I once accidently moved one of my LBM out from his garrisoned position within the weaker city. Heck, in one instance he even went around pillaging my improvements even THOUGH he could probably have beaten my garrison inside the city-I fell for his little trap and he was able to destroy my Skirmisher with ease when I went on the offensive. Fortunately for me, I was able to move an axeman into place before he could take the city in question. Still, my point is that-in Warlords at least-I have seen the AI act contrary to what it ought to have done if it had so-called 'magic eyes'.

It is because you never seen it but it does not mean that it is not happening to others... Many people reported this incident. It is very easy to test it yourself. "Magic eyes" is just how i personally called but it is nothing than just a programming code. For example, AIs can make a fair price for your map, they know how much you explored. Another evidence, they did not destroy my capital city because it is well defended so they changed the target and it repeated like 4 times... Like robots, doing things repeatedely if they could not have other alternatives. Alternatives are conditions of the situation. You can fool them by changing the situation like leaving a fish undefend and the AIs would come and pillage it. Maybe im wrong.... But i found it suspicious.... And.. it happened soo many times.

By the way, thanks for sharing your "NO-Magic Eyes" experience. I would also learn more about the codes in XML files, although i am not a game programmer but a program-programmer. Once i find a better evidence, i shall it post here.....

 

[DaviddesJ]

Game rules are in Civilopedia. Game options are OUT OF THE GAME... i recommend you to open Civilopedia and read it.
Restarting the game or regenerating the map is not a cheating act... Calm down...

I still think that if the AI were to use the World Builder to edit the map and give itself several bonus resources around all of its cities, you would change your mind about whether this is completely acceptable and fully within the rules.

Or do I really have to report this and let someone ban you.. So u would believe me... huh?

If people were banned just for disagreeing with you, I'm not sure there would be too many left.

 

[Hakim]

In my last game I had 2 civs giving me 3 techs for free, without me asking for it . I had expanded too quickly with only one other civ to trade with and was far behind the others in tech. Eventually someone couldn't resist my feeble archers and landed cavalry on my continent...

 

[The Great Apple]

For example, AIs can make a fair price for your map, they know how much you explored.

That's fair. You can find out how much an AIs map is worth, and hence know how much they've explored. It's the same with techs. TBH it's the only way to make it so that one side doesn't get ripped off.

IMO regenerating the game map is cheating. While it may be more fun to do so, and it may be easier to do thanks to a button which allows you to, I still believe it's cheating. There have been endless discussions on this, and I see no reason to start another.

If people were banned just for disagreeing with you, I'm not sure there would be too many left.

What this guy said.

As for the whole magic eyes thing - I'm pretty sure the AI cheats. The pathfinding algorithm is a bit hidden away, and it's possible it could be checking visibility, but it doesn't look like it is to me. The pillage check, for example, will only do a pillage mission if there isn't an enemy unit on the plot. Even worse, there are some instances where the AI doesn't have to be even remotely near the plot to see that it can pillage (naval units coming from most of the way across a map to pillage some fishing boats). I would assume that there are other instances such as this.

Later today I'll conduct a few tests to confirm this.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In which case what we are dealing with here is not a CHEAT, but a genuine, Bona Fide BUG. Therefore, Lord of Civ, I would highly recommend you-and all other people who have experienced this-to log your instances in the Bug Notification thread. Second recommendation is to save ALL instances of this happening, to back up your claim of a bug. I strongly feel that were the Firaxians to be made aware of the problem, that it WILL be fixed in a patch (after all, they removed resource omniscience from the AI based on forum complaints).

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[The Great Apple]

Okies. Vanilla Civ, patch 1.61.

Fishing boats with enemy gally within 2 turns pillage range in all 4. If you want to replicate this test I suggest you put the galley's UNIT_AI to UNITAI_EXPLORE - some UNIT_AIs will attempt to pillage more then others, some not at all.

1) No protection. Default SDK.
2) Battleships on fishing boats. Default SDK.
3) No protection. Altered SDK to prevent cheat.
4) Battleships on fishing boats. Altered SDK to prevent cheat.

Results:

1) Gally goes straight for fish.
2) Gally runs. Doesn't go for fish at all.
3) Gally goes straight for fish (the change I made made it assume there was no defender if it couldn't see one)
4) Gally goes straight for fish.

I ran each situation 3 times to make sure. Same results each time. Unfortuently if we want a fix it isn't as easy as it sounds. At the moment the AI relies on this knowledge of the map. After the first move in test 3, for example, the gally would move out of range, before seeing that there were resources potentially ungaurded, and moving back to check them again. Not good.

This is only for pillaging - a brief glance at the city attack algorithm shows that instead of simply checking for enemy units, it does quite a few more calcualtions taking into account number of units, the best unit's strength, and the number of potential counter-attackers.

 

[The Great Apple]

Second recommendation is to save ALL instances of this happening, to back up your claim of a bug. I strongly feel that were the Firaxians to be made aware of the problem, that it WILL be fixed in a patch (after all, they removed resource omniscience from the AI based on forum complaints).

Without wanting to throw accusations around, I don't believe that Firaxis are ignorant of this cheat. It's pretty ingrained into most of the unit actions and some of the algorithms as they stand wouldn't work without the cheating (pillaging, for example - the AI would only try and pillage plots that it could directly see).

I may be wrong - it may be just that different people are writing different parts of the code, and while the AI coder may think a function does one thing, the function coder doesn't think it should. Taking CvPlot::isVisibleEnemyUnit(...) as an example - you'd think it would check to see if the plot was visible to the player. It doesn't.

 

[Slax]

Lord of Civ - this thread would be a more constructive if you'd be a little less sensitive to those who disagree with you. DaviddesJ has written nothing that constitutes trolling. And you keep responding to 'calm down' for no reason. Its annoying.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You see, I believe 1 of 2 things might be possible. (1) That the Right hand truly doesn't know what the Left is doing-and so a bug has arisen due to different programmers tackling related sections of code. If this is the case, then we SHOULD inform them of it, so they can correct it. (2) That they have deliberately included it in a MISTAKEN belief that the AI needs the help. In this case we really should complain quite loudly, as they DID believe that total omniscience of the map was neccessary in Civ3-yet they have since proven that they don't need it at all.

Aussie_Lurker.