Alphons Rodulfo
weakling
I would not mind having a slider or some other setting allowing me to sacrifice turn times for better AI. At least for some parts of the AI there must be coded numerical limits.
I disagree with many of the comments here on the nature of AI. I think people are confusing the concepts of an "equal" with an "obstacle."
This is further complicated by the fact that in order to be fun, 4X AI has to play irrationally. There is nothing rational about agendas; they inherently make AI unequal. Agendas are actually weaknesses for exploiting. Played rationally, the AIs would ditch their agendas and be aware they were in a game.
Civ 5 already did that to an extend with Flavors, everything more than that would be questionable at best, because stuff that cannot be done (properly) with flavors inevitably requires custom code for every situation. That's a lot of work for little effect - and more importantly makes the AI very dependent on the standard set of rules, which would be HORRIBLE news for modding.the real question from the AI perspective should be:
That's partly a result of Civ 5s frontloaded AI bonuses and partly an inevitably. The AI will never be able to adapt at the same rate that a human player can, so it must be able to do things that you cannot do in return, otherwise it has no chance to even give the illusion of being a tough opponent. However, if the AI didn't start with multiple technologies and huge %-boosts, instead gained more and more boosts over time players would not feel as if they have no chance at getting anything during the early game (on high difficulties).What bothers me with Bonus aided AI among other things, as I am sure others can relate is that sometimes they can achieve something, for instance build the Temple of Artemis, and not only could you not have been able to build it in your situation, you couldn't possibly have built it being given their situation in same turn time (minus the bonuses).
However, if the AI didn't start with multiple technologies and huge %-boosts, instead gained more and more boosts over time players would not feel as if they have no chance at getting anything during the early game (on high difficulties).
I think the AI for Civ VI will be better than Civilization 5. Mind you, it is pretty hard to get any worse.
Now, I never said that the AI in Civ VI will actually be good but poor is still better than abysmal. Lol.
As I said, nothing to be proud of as a creator or artist. This is not an achievement to be proud of. That said.
People at Firaxis should make the AI to be proud of themselves.
But it seems they do not care or they are not capable of this achievement.
Hmmm that article reeks of sensationalism
If you read into it it mostly makes word association. Kicking ass is click baiting.
Machine learning is a cool possibility--ultimately kind of similar to how something like Google functions. But also vulnerable to problems of its own. For one thing, once the AI discovers something undesirable it can actually be difficult to make it unlearn that thing since all of its strategies are connected. For example, if the AI learns that one particular Research path always produces the most favorable results. That may be effective, but its also boring to players. It may also reveal game imbalances, but let's be real here--game balance is never going to be perfect.
To say nothing of what happens when players learn that "AI always chases Wonder X." Well, Wonder X might be ideal in a bee line sense, but is it still best if opponents anticipate you will chase it every time? Is it still best when there are 8 of you all following the same strategy, because it is "the best," but only one of you can grab the wonder? This is not straightforward question. The AI navigating a maze, and the walls of the maze are changing.
Then the next part: what happens when the game is modded? Unless the AI can learn on the fly, it's strategies will no longer work.
I think it's much better to think of AI as the "level" you are up against. Montezuma is "the Aztec-themed level" for example. Difficulty settings change some things about how it plays. The level has some exploits coded in for the fun factor (getting mad about Luxuries for irrational reasons, unconnected to the outcome of the tantrum). You just aren't ever going to get an equal player out of an AI in this sort of game, not with today's technology anyway.
Now if we just mean AI at the tactical/minor strategy/ unit level, you can see some of that in the Better AI mod, which is pretty reasonable, and about as good as it's going to get.
Most players case little about the AI, so it usually has low budget. Civ 6 AI will, undoubtedly, be underwhelming to those who hope for a good AI.
Also, is that a joke-poll? Allowing multiple answers and not having an answer for a better AI?
It's not appropriate case for machine learning. You can't make "play to win" AI with condition and map size like this. So the AI has completely different approach with completely different goals like "don't make moves which look stupid". You just can't make this work with machine learning. Not to mention constantly changing rules during development.
Yes, that would be some of the 'other issues' I mentioned.
Frankly, the biggest--even insurmountable--issue is the question of an appropriate training set. Who do you tune your AI for? And, unlike some views, this isn't simplistic in the least.
As I said, nothing to be proud of as a creator or artist. This is not an achievement to be proud of. That said.
People at Firaxis should make the AI to be proud of themselves.
But it seems they do not care or they are not capable of this achievement.
That's why you don't need machine learning here. Simpler algorithms will fit better, especially those where you could adjust most of the behavior with data, not touching actual code.
Building order, city location and city specialization could be done with simple prioritized list algorithm. It's not very complex and allows throwing in a lot of modifiers without making unmanageable mess.
Strategic planning could be done with decision tree or similar algorithms.
Tactical AI is the most tricky one. I thought about the right approach and it looks like you can't avoid some bruteforce algorithms here. To make it calculatable, it needs to check only limited area of a single "front"; calculate 1 turn only, but add strategic positions not only pure unit state (similarly to how chess programs work). In this case, however, moving and syncing fronts becomes quite complex task.
P.S. After I thought about this, I realized one quite simple thing. If Civ5 tactical AI was done in the same way, its inability to move and shoot was quite simple error - it just wasn't included in the list of possible actions. The only reason why it wasn't fixed later I could think of is - the vanilla AI was fully written by Jon Shafer. So it's totally possible developers who came after him just didn't want to dive into those areas of his code.
The challenge is created through bonuses. If you dont want a live or die game play on a lower difficulty. If you want a hard game with the possibility of losibg play at a higher one.
But the base AI has to be good enough for the bonuses to provide a challenge in an interesting way.
If the AI is total crap that it needs more than double your yields and triple your units this is challenging but stupid.
Sure, until someone learns the algorithm. This leads to 'AI always rushes Wonder X, so avoid Wonder X'. The issue with prioritized lists is that it's a static element that can be 'gamed against'.
Now, something that may help with Civ VI is the decompression of cities and Eurekas.
Enh... ironically, tactical AI is probably far easier to write than strategic AI, given that there is a wealth of material where tactical AI exists but not strategic.
Could vanilla AI be modded? If so, that means that it can't be that hardcoded. In fact, the most valid criticism of CiV AI is that modders were able to make it challenging using the AI modding API.
Im aware of a lot of stuff tyvm.Are you aware that the optimal AI to efficiently use one set of resources may not be the optimal AI to efficiently use a different set of resources, even if one set is a subset of the other?
I would ask that people answer the question at the bottom of my post, though. What do you believe your win percentage should be in an n-player game of Civ that has a challenging AI?