At what level is AI not lobotomized?

[Padmewan]

I know that Noble is the level where you are level with the AI as far as playing by the same rules. But when is the AI "smartest" -- at Noble, or does it get smarter as well as beging to "cheat" at higher levels?

My ideal is to play the smartest AI possible on a level playing field. Given that the AI will never be as smart as a human player, what's the closest I can get to this ideal?

 

[KingAl]

Unfortunately I think there's no easy answer to this. As you mentioned, Noble is the level where bonuses etc are equal for both humans and AI. Due to the fact that the AI will never be as smart as a human player, after this point the level at which it could be considered a level playing field is purely reflective of your own skill- the point at which your skills balance with the AI's bonuses.

 

[parachute4u]

Hmm, multiplayer?

Seriously... the AI is dumb and will stay dumb until the end of time. Because you can manufacture 95 top-hit games in the same time it takes to develop a functional strategy game AI. Sorry to say that. But shooters are the only games I can think of, that have an appropriate AI. (If they're camping, that is )

 

[Dairuka]

I play Monarch mostly because it's the level in which I am not guaranteed a win every time I play. However it's not hard enough to drive me into fits of anger because I can not keep up with the huge starting advantage the AI is given like with Immortal...

 

[redscare]

I think Monarch is the way to go. The AI has a some tech/production advantage (and the start with a worker) but it can be countered with a good plan even if you make a mistake or two. In emperor you can't just lose a turn due to a mistake like forgeting to move a unit or researching the worong tech for 1 turn and then changing. You do that on emperor and you're toast. I think monarch is the level that give you a challenge without giving the AI an absurd advantage (like 2 workers, 2 archers, huge research and construction bonuses and some extra free tech like happends on above levels).

On Monarch I sometimes win (if I go the warmonger way) and sometimes lose (when I try other approach). But that is also because I always go warmonger and have little experience with the other approach.

 

[lauer]

Maybe it's just me, but while liking an intelligent AI as an opponent, I absolutely hate having an opponent enjoying an easier life than me.

Therefore I am reluctant to move past Noble right now. A pity, really.

 

[Kazz]

That's why multiplayer was so heavily developed this time around, I think... the AI will NEVER be as excellent a challenge as another human unless it gets unfair advantages.

The biggest problem with multiplayer, though, is that you can't usually stop playing anytime you want (at least, with the guarantee that you can pick up where you left off later), and there's no real getting around that.

We'll have to content ourselves with handicapping. It's unfair, yea, but winning as the underdog is really thrilling.

 

[MrCynical]

I don't think the AI is ever deliberately stupid, the difficulty levels operate purely by giving it bonuses or penalties. Even on noble it gets one or two minor bonuses over the human player, e.g. support costs and against barbs.

The fact is that no AI is going to be much of a match for a human in a game as complex as Civ 4. Chess is just about the only game where computers can consistently beat humans (and even there they don't have a perfect record) and it is orders of magnitude simpler than Civ. I personally enjoy the challenge of trying to win when the AI can build 50% faster than me. Noble simply doesn't present enough of a challenge.

 

[Padmewan]

I ask because I know that the AI in Medieval: Total War supposedly uses more advanced tactics at the higher levels when it ALSO gets "cheat" bonuses, which bothers me. So the AI in Civ4 at Settler level isn't stupid-passive, it's just production/happiness crippled?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I ask because I know that the AI in Medieval: Total War supposedly uses more advanced tactics at the higher levels when it ALSO gets "cheat" bonuses, which bothers me. So the AI in Civ4 at Settler level isn't stupid-passive, it's just production/happiness crippled?

Not sure (Setter is a level where it might be stupid-passive). But by Noble its as smart as they made it.

 

[Snackwell]

I'm playing my second game of Civ ever (yeah, a latecomer to the series) and Noble is a cakewalk. I played the first game on Settler just to get used to it, now I'm in the 1920s in the Noble game and simply rolling over weak AI opponents. I guess I'll try monarch next.

 

[Dragonlor]

The AI has the game basics down but the real advantage the human has over the AI is in war. The AI is quite stupid at fighting wars.

One time I secured a continent to myself. An AI declared war on me and for several decades he kept sending over Galleons and dropping off troops in almost the exact same square every time. The time came when the only troops (besides one in each city) on my entire continent was in that one spot and the AI never waivered in landing troops there.

I was more advanced so I enjoyed them piling up a stack and me knocking it down in one turn. The most pathetic thing occured later in the game when someone else in the game declared war on me and started landing troops very close to the first AIs landing location. Is this supposed to be a joke?

 

[Shillen]

I haven't played Medieval: Total War, but I think that's a worse way to handle the AI. So not only will the AI still be stupid at times at high difficulties, but it will be an absolute moron at the lower difficulties. That would just be annoying I think. I want the AI to be as smart as possible always, knowing full well that it will never be as smart as a human will.

 

[cfacosta]

For the record, I would like to mention that the AI is more capable than some of the human players I have seen.......

Just thought I would stick up for the AI a bit

 

[Pentium]

The AI has the game basics down but the real advantage the human has over the AI is in war.

Not really, there is also trading. A human can turn a monopoly tech into 5 or more techs, while the AI can't.

Aother, more general AI drawback is specialization. It never seems to concentrate on a single VC, nor can it specialize cities efficiently. A human can easily beat it by simply aiming for one goal.

 

[lauer]

The AI has the game basics down but the real advantage the human has over the AI is in war. The AI is quite stupid at fighting wars.

One time I secured a continent to myself. An AI declared war on me and for several decades he kept sending over Galleons and dropping off troops in almost the exact same square every time. The time came when the only troops (besides one in each city) on my entire continent was in that one spot and the AI never waivered in landing troops there.

I was more advanced so I enjoyed them piling up a stack and me knocking it down in one turn. The most pathetic thing occured later in the game when someone else in the game declared war on me and started landing troops very close to the first AIs landing location. Is this supposed to be a joke?

No joke, I think. I believe the AI is coded quite deterministically. This means that some strategy module of the AI has decided that in this war it has to land troops on your continent and some other module computes the "ideal" (according to some hardcoded (?) parameters) landing location. Since this location remains "ideal" no matter how many stacks you obliterate there, the AI seems to be quite bloody minded in this respect.

This is a rather classical example of the problems you face when coding an AI: remembering past events - or in other words "learning". It can be solved (if only to some extent), but it seems that the CIV4 AI is a bit limited in this regard. And let's face it, we don't want to wait for severals minutes for the AI to finish its moves either.

 

[Kaggan 1]

They also had to balance between making the ai smart as smart as possible and making its turn as short as possible.

I know I'd hate to have to wait for 5min in between each turn even if the ai was a little better.