Better Ai? If you're 14...

[DrewBledsoe]

You know...I've had enough, of "better ai"..

I had enough of "better ai" about 2 yrs ago..It's better, if you're 14 and all of your opponents are about 14. That's it's level. It has absolutely no sense, no level of realsim, absolutely nothing. It basically spoils the game. Great achievment guys, uve made an ai, that does nothing but piss grown up people off.

It relys on the fact that it really doesn't matter WHAT defences you have, it doesn't matter WHAT lvl of tech you have...if strange little boy "better ai" (very very sic, better in absolutely no ways) wants to fight you, they will. And 150 units of rubbish, beat 15 units of decent quality every time.

It's become imo pointless playing, because of totally idiot ai...yeah, lets call it that, its quite accurate.

 

[Jaroth]

Build more units. Include siege.

 

[Yakk]

Was his account hacked?

 

[BobTheTerrible]

Assuming he's not trolling, is he complaining that the AI is too good or too bad?

 

[DrewBledsoe]

No I'm serious about this. I don't know why people blindly fawn over "better ai", cos it just isn't in any way. Let's call it annoying, irrational, spoiler ai, and that's probably just about right.

Blake started things on the rocky road, he had some skill in ai programming, but was immature irl (or seemed to be that way), and decided that ai nations should basically play as if it was an MP game, and they had an hour spare time before their homework......

What on earth is the point playing a game, where I get a relatively early optics, sail around the world, and of course some ais are going to be stronger than me at that time. They then start planning to invade me there and then...often 400-500 yrs away! It makes absolutely no sense. Especially as stated in the post above, that 150 units of medievel crap, will still beat 15 Rifles, even 15 Infantry.

It happens every single game.

It's basically broke Civ Iv, and I have no idea why anyone defends this . .. .. .. ., apart from its got "better" in the title.

No, noone's hacked my account, I've just had enough of it, and it finally needs saying.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Assuming he's not trolling, is he complaining that the AI is too good or too bad?

It's terrible, the concept of it. It's not better, it's just programmed to be as annoying as possible, with no rationale behind it. I don't troll, I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Seriously, if the maker of the mod I use hadn't got dragged in with the whole "better" tag, then you'd never see me in this forum.

 

[Yakk]

So your problem is that the AI builds more military units than you do, and can challenge/defeat you even if you have a technological edge?

Ie, the AI at a given difficulty level cannot keep pace with you technologically, but can still beat you using raw numbers. You'd rather have an AI that you can beat? Or, you'd rather have an AI that was closer to you technologically that you could still beat? Or, you'd rather that the AI play more like you do, aiming for technology, and having a small military force of high-tech units, so the game is more symmetric?

"It is annoying" is a pretty useless bit of information. I cannot read your mind, and neither can most other people. Except Bob, he's a psychic.

Naively I'd say "play at a lower difficulty level if the AI is beating you", but that would increase the technological gap, which (in my mind reading attempts) probably isn't what you want.

Note it isn't programmed to be as annoying as possible -- no attempt was made to "up the annoyance" -- it is programmed to try to defeat the other players while still roleplaying. And it does appear to beat you, which you find annoying. Is there anything in particular about the way it defeats you you find annoying, or do you just find losing annoying?

I believe the AIs size of military force is a function of how much support military force costs. One approach might be to boost the AI difficulty level while ramping up the cost of maintaining a large force for the AI -- that might result in an AI that techs faster (more in line with you), and has a smaller military force.

 

[cephalo]

I would say that one weakness in the single player game of Civ4, is that there is no information presented that will teach you how many units you need to build. The power graph can help somewhat, but it's not emphasized, and in BtS you don't even get to see it for a good long while. The adaquacy of your military numbers is probably more important than any other factor determining winning and losing. Putting that info on the main screen would help alot of players I think.

The only way to learn is to play the game and build x number of defenders per city, and when that turns out to not be enough to prevent annoyance from the AI, you start over and build x + 1 defenders per city. You have to rediscover this balance every time you change difficulty or map size. I think it can lead to annoyance.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

So your problem is that the AI builds more military units than you do, and can challenge/defeat you even if you have a technological edge?

Ie, the AI at a given difficulty level cannot keep pace with you technologically, but can still beat you using raw numbers. You'd rather have an AI that you can beat? Or, you'd rather have an AI that was closer to you technologically that you could still beat? Or, you'd rather that the AI play more like you do, aiming for technology, and having a small military force of high-tech units, so the game is more symmetric?

"It is annoying" is a pretty useless bit of information. I cannot read your mind, and neither can most other people. Except Bob, he's a psychic.

Naively I'd say "play at a lower difficulty level if the AI is beating you", but that would increase the technological gap, which (in my mind reading attempts) probably isn't what you want.

Note it isn't programmed to be as annoying as possible -- no attempt was made to "up the annoyance" -- it is programmed to try to defeat the other players while still roleplaying. And it does appear to beat you, which you find annoying. Is there anything in particular about the way it defeats you you find annoying, or do you just find losing annoying?

I believe the AIs size of military force is a function of how much support military force costs. One approach might be to boost the AI difficulty level while ramping up the cost of maintaining a large force for the AI -- that might result in an AI that techs faster (more in line with you), and has a smaller military force.

No it loses just about every time, except it's now just a pain in the ass (and has been for a long while)...Building 50-60 galleons, then filling them with Medievel stuff, vs let's say Infantry....well of course it will work as a one off basis.

If you can land 150 units of virtually anything, it will probably work against one city, maybe two. But why doesn't anyone else think this kind of behaviour terminally moronic?

Would you as the player EVER in your wildest dreams, contemplate doing the same to an ai? Hmm let's see if I throw 150 knights and maces into some ships, and go and attack the tech leader who's 2 eras ahead of me, I might temporarily steal a city or two, until he comes and utterly annihilates me a little while later.

Roleplaying? BS. What's that supposed to be RPlaying? Apart from someone who's about to quit cos he's got homework to do.

If the above scenario was rare, I wouldn't be even contemplating typing this. But it isn't rare, It's standard practice.

It's beyond my comprehension why people can defend this, and countless similar situations.

 

[Afforess]

First off, when posting, try to make us at least think that you're not a bot. Your first post is pretty much unintelligible, vague criticisms... of something.

I'm not really sure what your problem. I find the AI to be quite challenging. I suppose it depends what difficulty level you play on. If you always play on settler or chieftain difficulty, it's really easy to win, but try monarch, or emperor.

The AI used to build meaningless stacks of units, but not since I started playing with Better AI. I don't think the Better AI mod ever existed two years ago, so I really don't understand your complaints.

In fact, I basically can't understand anything you wrote, and I'm a native English speaker. Could you try and right more cohesive sentences, with somewhat proper grammar?

 

[Voltage]

Flaming on civilization forum I thought everyone was nice here

Would you as the player EVER in your wildest dreams, contemplate doing the same to an ai? Hmm let's see if I throw 150 knights and maces into some ships, and go and attack the tech leader who's 2 eras ahead of me, I might temporarily steal a city or two, until he comes and utterly annihilates me a little while later.

Maybe civilization 5 will have better AI though process. The whole thing of building an army ready to attack 40 turns later is a bit silly. Instead :

They should be building a new army everytime theres a new era and using that army for wars.
They should delete obselete units and plan to replace them with more up to date troops.
They should not be planning wars against civilizations who are X technologies in front, but focus on catching up a bit then going to war.
They shouldn't accept a deal for war with another civilization who they are cautious,pleased or friendly with.

They need calcuations for modernizing their army and using quality over quantity. But I bet thats a lot of work for people who dont get paid.

 

[Yakk]

No it loses just about every time, except it's now just a pain in the ass (and has been for a long while)...Building 50-60 galleons, then filling them with Medievel stuff, vs let's say Infantry....well of course it will work as a one off basis.

If you can land 150 units of virtually anything, it will probably work against one city, maybe two. But why doesn't anyone else think this kind of behaviour terminally moronic?

Really, it should coordinate this attack with multiple other empires at a similar level of power, and do a coordinated dog-pile.

There is also the problem that the AI under-values high strength units when it generates a power graph. So someone with a small high-tech army ends up looking like it has 'less power' than someone with a large, low-tech army.

What BetterAI did was make it better at building that huge army and deploying it. It also biased its attacks towards targets with lower power scores. Your small army/high tech setup means that it doesn't detect your strength well enough, probably. And the new ability to actually deliver an invasion force means that when it attacks, it actually manages to do some harm.

If the above scenario was rare, I wouldn't be even contemplating typing this. But it isn't rare, It's standard practice.

It's beyond my comprehension why people can defend this, and countless similar situations.

Save games are appreciated, as are concrete examples.

Are they all this kind of problem? Or are there other problems?

 

[JujuLautre]

Would you as the player EVER in your wildest dreams, contemplate doing the same to an ai? Hmm let's see if I throw 150 knights and maces into some ships, and go and attack the tech leader who's 2 eras ahead of me, I might temporarily steal a city or two, until he comes and utterly annihilates me a little while later.

There is something wrong in your reasoning. On one hand you complain that the AI acts like a human and is just plain annoying sending you troops, and on the other hand you say that the AI should act like a human and call it a quit whenever it is overwhelmed.

Anyway, would you really prefer an AI which, like some MP players, just call it a quit as soon as someone has an advantage ? Wouldn't the game be awfully boring then, as soon as one player reaches a certain threshold ? Perhaps you just need a different game, which ends quickly as soon as one player has a dominant position.

 

[Jaybe]

I think DrewB could modify his play-style: Reduce (NOT remove) his tech lead to pay for more troop quantity.

Or perhaps increase map size or game length (i.e., epic or marathon) so there is more "cushion".
Personally, I play huge/marathon/Hephmod Beyond mod (which includes Better AI, of course, though not version .80 yet). Since I enjoy an occasional air-to-air conflict, I will sometimes play sub-optimally (or even GIFT flight) to keep my tech lead only moderate, not excessive.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I really don't get the reference to someone about to quit to go do homework that keeps coming up.

 

[phungus420]

DrewBledsoe's confrontational style asside, it caused Yakk to bring up a good point. The AI could probably use a better way to analyze the power of rivals. It's "troop count" power system doesn't make much sense, it doesn't properly weigh production and high strength units. Of course I'm not sure if adjusting the Power Graph and resultant AI logic falls within the scope of Better AI.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I have a three-word answer to the OP, but I would be put on a temporary enforced vacation by the forum moderators.

So I'm going to say this instead: Where's your improved AI modcomp? I mean, you seem to know how it's done... Personally, I just see this thread as a huge F you to jdog and his YEARS of work for this community... Did you pay him? Have you been sending him checks for his work? Because if you have, then I'd say you're a fool. And if you haven't, I'd say this tantrum is entirely out of order.

If you consider Better AI to be so worthless, don't use it. And if the regular game's AI is also too intolerable for you to use, then I suggest you send your complaints here:

Firaxis Games
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza III; Suite 1100
Hunt Valley, MD 21031

Those are the people that took your damn money. Those are the people that created the convoluted AI system that modders have been forced to jury rig to squeeze the most out of it. Not jdog. Not anybody else who has been involved in this project.

I don't care if you have a point. I don't care if you just went about voicing your issues in the wrong way. This isn't about finding solutions. It's about you getting attention, which you've obviously done. Congratulations.

Shove off.

 

[Mattygerst]

This is truly the most BIZARRE sequence of posts I've yet seen on this forum. With the risk of seeming to carry this on - which I most certainly do not want - this just is ridiculous. I just got done saying in the version 0.80 thread just days ago that I HOPE that Firaxis decides that JDog should be brought aboard decision making/helping/coding (whatever) for any new versions of Civilization that come out in the future.

I don't know, honestly, that anyone has improved the STANDARD AI game better - including everyone at Firaxis that came out with each expansion pack. As I've said...play a game of standard BTS now that you've been spoiled with BetterAI for so long. I dare you. After you've played BetterAI (ESPECIALLY 0.80+) there is NO COMPARISON. The standard game comes off as unplayable.

Not to mention, the work JDog & team have committed to working on the mod Revolution. RevDCM & RFC are two of the most phenomenal mods working on BTS (I'm sure there are others) but its hard to imagine anything besides FFH (never played) reaches near the scope of Revolution & RFC in terms of game play additions/changes/improvements.

I must say, again - this post is a bit of a ramble - but I just started ATTEMPTING to create my own mod and have put a LOT of time into it & I know how LIMITED my abilities are even with advanced learning and can truly appreciate the work JDog (& company) have accomplished here. It it truly remarkable and commendable.

If you do happen to read this thread (and therefore this post) JDog & co., please don't bother taking his comments above as an insult. Its more of a remark based on negligence of logic and weak emotion. I'm sure I probably speak for a lot of people - but I know for sure that I speak for myself - when I say that the only reason I continue to play Civ is honestly the enjoyment of knowing that the game continues to improve thanks to your nearly thankless work.

 

[r_rolo1]

If you can land 150 units of virtually anything, it will probably work against one city, maybe two. But why doesn't anyone else think this kind of behaviour terminally moronic?

Would you as the player EVER in your wildest dreams, contemplate doing the same to an ai? Hmm let's see if I throw 150 knights and maces into some ships, and go and attack the tech leader who's 2 eras ahead of me, I might temporarily steal a city or two, until he comes and utterly annihilates me a little while later.

Just for the record, this work. I see humans do that in a regular basis to non-Better AI Immortal and Deity AI and I've done it myself a couple of times as well. There was even a player that posted a game this week on Strategy and tips that built 80 axes in a standart continents map and drove 2 AI out of the game with it. It might not be realistical, but it definitely works in game.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I was in a terrible mood yesterday, and seemed to take it out on the forums. Apologies for any offence caused by bad language to all. The original points still stand.

Again apologies for the way things were phrased.