Bug Reports and Technical Issues

[SultanRedSnake]

It looks like Persia has been removed as an Expansion Area for both Arabs and Turks (600AD) . Was it intended to make this a Turkic area? If so I think that's the right move.

 

[Leoreth]

I've been wondering how exactly you do this kind of stuff?

The AI in this game is not a black box in the way that an LLM is. It's a set of explicitly programmed instructions that uses the current state of the game as its input to appear "intelligent". This is also called an expert system. Some people consider this a form of AI and others consider it the exact opposite of AI. (This is probably because AI really has no clear meaning.)

In practice that means a lof of "if this then that" logic or code that computes a score according to some arbitrary formula to determine the best choice (e.g. compute a score for each unit and then pick the unit with the best score). Often this is just a sequence of things to do and then doing the first thing that's applicable e.g. does this city need a defender? Then build a defender. Otherwise, does this city need culture? Then build culture. Otherwise does this city need workers? Then build workers etc.

If all of this sounds very arbitrary to you and kind of like it shouldn't produce intelligent outcomes, you are right. But still arbitrary logic is often still good enough as long as it's consistently followed and doing nothing too stupid. If you ever wonder why video game AIs are so terrible it is because they are all implemented more or less like this. The worst aspect of this approach is that all the arbitrary rules need to be tuned correctly along with everything else so the rule that makes the AI build ships (to pick a random example) isn't valued much higher than something else in the system, even though these rules are entirely independent of each other.

With that explanation out of the way I can actually answer your question.

I know where the code for all of this is. Somewhere in the logic there is one (or likely, multiple) steps that say "If we need ships, and if this is a city that should build ships, build ships". If those conditions are satisfied the city will build a ship and not consider any of the subsequent steps. So either anything the city could be doing that is considered before ships is for some reason not considered necessary, or building ships is considered necessary despite there already being lots of ships.

That's why I am asking for saves - the "do we need ships" check looks at the game state to determine if ships are needed. Looking at it without the context of a particular save would just be guess work. Ideally I have a save where the AI decides to build a ship, I figure out the reason for this misjudgement and address it, and then I load the save again and the AI decides to do something else.

In practice often this means to go into the code and print lots of debug messages like "considered x, rejected for reason y" or "decision x score is y" and then try to sort through the output. You can also use the IDE to suspend the game when a particular line of code is triggered to inspect the current state of the game including variables and inputs and so on. Even with these tools it is a lot of information to go through and try to make sense of, which is why it's impractical to just run autoplay and look at it. Having a save where the situation already exists really is the only way to make the effort worthwhile and I still kind of loathe spending my time on it.

My guess here by the way is that the cause are the new AI rules I introduced to make the AI build settlers and ships for these settlers. It's a classic example where there was already a path for the AI to do this, but it was so far down in the priority list that it was unlikely to happen. For example, when America was stuck never building settlers it was because the AI considers improving city production a higher priority than building settlers. So America started with the ability to build Levees and all cities immediately started building Levees. Long term not a bad decision, but that bogged down all cities trying to build this expensive building with their low initial production.

So I added a new condition to build settlers that precedes a lot of other things alongside a check (or so I thought) to make sure this isn't taking over the priorities of every city in the game. I think for settlers I did a good job at that but perhaps there is an issue with the condition for ships needed. But that's just a first guess.

 

[Efim]

Turkey not spawning

 

[Leoreth]

Do you have the Rise.log file from this game?

 

[Efim]

Do you have the Rise.log file from this game?

Didn't understand

 

[banzay13]

The AI in this game is not a black box in the way that an LLM is. It's a set of explicitly programmed instructions that uses the current state of the game as its input to appear "intelligent". This is also called an expert system. Some people consider this a form of AI and others consider it the exact opposite of AI. (This is probably because AI really has no clear meaning.)

In practice that means a lof of "if this then that" logic or code that computes a score according to some arbitrary formula to determine the best choice (e.g. compute a score for each unit and then pick the unit with the best score). Often this is just a sequence of things to do and then doing the first thing that's applicable e.g. does this city need a defender? Then build a defender. Otherwise, does this city need culture? Then build culture. Otherwise does this city need workers? Then build workers etc.

If all of this sounds very arbitrary to you and kind of like it shouldn't produce intelligent outcomes, you are right. But still arbitrary logic is often still good enough as long as it's consistently followed and doing nothing too stupid. If you ever wonder why video game AIs are so terrible it is because they are all implemented more or less like this. The worst aspect of this approach is that all the arbitrary rules need to be tuned correctly along with everything else so the rule that makes the AI build ships (to pick a random example) isn't valued much higher than something else in the system, even though these rules are entirely independent of each other.

With that explanation out of the way I can actually answer your question.

I know where the code for all of this is. Somewhere in the logic there is one (or likely, multiple) steps that say "If we need ships, and if this is a city that should build ships, build ships". If those conditions are satisfied the city will build a ship and not consider any of the subsequent steps. So either anything the city could be doing that is considered before ships is for some reason not considered necessary, or building ships is considered necessary despite there already being lots of ships.

That's why I am asking for saves - the "do we need ships" check looks at the game state to determine if ships are needed. Looking at it without the context of a particular save would just be guess work. Ideally I have a save where the AI decides to build a ship, I figure out the reason for this misjudgement and address it, and then I load the save again and the AI decides to do something else.

In practice often this means to go into the code and print lots of debug messages like "considered x, rejected for reason y" or "decision x score is y" and then try to sort through the output. You can also use the IDE to suspend the game when a particular line of code is triggered to inspect the current state of the game including variables and inputs and so on. Even with these tools it is a lot of information to go through and try to make sense of, which is why it's impractical to just run autoplay and look at it. Having a save where the situation already exists really is the only way to make the effort worthwhile and I still kind of loathe spending my time on it.

My guess here by the way is that the cause are the new AI rules I introduced to make the AI build settlers and ships for these settlers. It's a classic example where there was already a path for the AI to do this, but it was so far down in the priority list that it was unlikely to happen. For example, when America was stuck never building settlers it was because the AI considers improving city production a higher priority than building settlers. So America started with the ability to build Levees and all cities immediately started building Levees. Long term not a bad decision, but that bogged down all cities trying to build this expensive building with their low initial production.

So I added a new condition to build settlers that precedes a lot of other things alongside a check (or so I thought) to make sure this isn't taking over the priorities of every city in the game. I think for settlers I did a good job at that but perhaps there is an issue with the condition for ships needed. But that's just a first guess.

Well, i think even now you can settle hotseat game and gpt-agent with proper prompt, so you can play actual AI. Another way - ask LLM write (analyze) code for better AI, or (and) waiting for plug-in (for many many games) witch will grand LLM access to play for AI player in realtime (not like hotseat)

 

[Leoreth]

That sounds like it would be hot garbage

 

[Lzz]

Hey everyone. I downloaded the 1.18 development version of the mod from Github and I set it up in the mods folder. I launched the game and picked a time and nation and when I start loading into the game I get this error. After that the game loads but it doesn't work well and I get more errors. I downloaded the 1.17 version of the game from sourceforge and installed it and that one works perfectly. Any ideas? I'd really love to try the new map

 

[Leoreth]

Is there a file on your Assets/Maps/Settler/Egypt.csv path?

 

[Lzz]

Is there a file on your Assets/Maps/Settler/Egypt.csv path?

Yes

 

[Leoreth]

Is your OS Windows? Is your mod directory named "RFC Dawn of Civilization"?

 

[Dracosolon]

If you've downloaded it as a .zip file:

For all files in the Private Maps folder, open them with Notepad++ and use Edit > EOL Conversion > Windows.

 

[Lzz]

Is your OS Windows? Is your mod directory named "RFC Dawn of Civilization"?

The OS is Windows, yes. The mod directory is named Dawn-of-Civilization-develop. I can't rename it to RFC Dawn of Civilization without deleting the 1.17 version since that one is using that exact name.

 

[Lzz]

Well, renaming the folder worked. Thanks!

 

[Leoreth]

Great to hear that it worked! I think the instructions mention that somewhere. The mod name must match the directory for everything to work. It looks like you found a solution, but if you want to keep 1.17 you can simply give it a different name temporarily.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

The AI in this game is not a black box in the way that an LLM is. It's a set of explicitly programmed instructions that uses the current state of the game as its input to appear "intelligent". This is also called an expert system. Some people consider this a form of AI and others consider it the exact opposite of AI. (This is probably because AI really has no clear meaning.)

In practice that means a lof of "if this then that" logic or code that computes a score according to some arbitrary formula to determine the best choice (e.g. compute a score for each unit and then pick the unit with the best score). Often this is just a sequence of things to do and then doing the first thing that's applicable e.g. does this city need a defender? Then build a defender. Otherwise, does this city need culture? Then build culture. Otherwise does this city need workers? Then build workers etc.

If all of this sounds very arbitrary to you and kind of like it shouldn't produce intelligent outcomes, you are right. But still arbitrary logic is often still good enough as long as it's consistently followed and doing nothing too stupid. If you ever wonder why video game AIs are so terrible it is because they are all implemented more or less like this. The worst aspect of this approach is that all the arbitrary rules need to be tuned correctly along with everything else so the rule that makes the AI build ships (to pick a random example) isn't valued much higher than something else in the system, even though these rules are entirely independent of each other.

With that explanation out of the way I can actually answer your question.

I know where the code for all of this is. Somewhere in the logic there is one (or likely, multiple) steps that say "If we need ships, and if this is a city that should build ships, build ships". If those conditions are satisfied the city will build a ship and not consider any of the subsequent steps. So either anything the city could be doing that is considered before ships is for some reason not considered necessary, or building ships is considered necessary despite there already being lots of ships.

That's why I am asking for saves - the "do we need ships" check looks at the game state to determine if ships are needed. Looking at it without the context of a particular save would just be guess work. Ideally I have a save where the AI decides to build a ship, I figure out the reason for this misjudgement and address it, and then I load the save again and the AI decides to do something else.

In practice often this means to go into the code and print lots of debug messages like "considered x, rejected for reason y" or "decision x score is y" and then try to sort through the output. You can also use the IDE to suspend the game when a particular line of code is triggered to inspect the current state of the game including variables and inputs and so on. Even with these tools it is a lot of information to go through and try to make sense of, which is why it's impractical to just run autoplay and look at it. Having a save where the situation already exists really is the only way to make the effort worthwhile and I still kind of loathe spending my time on it.

My guess here by the way is that the cause are the new AI rules I introduced to make the AI build settlers and ships for these settlers. It's a classic example where there was already a path for the AI to do this, but it was so far down in the priority list that it was unlikely to happen. For example, when America was stuck never building settlers it was because the AI considers improving city production a higher priority than building settlers. So America started with the ability to build Levees and all cities immediately started building Levees. Long term not a bad decision, but that bogged down all cities trying to build this expensive building with their low initial production.

So I added a new condition to build settlers that precedes a lot of other things alongside a check (or so I thought) to make sure this isn't taking over the priorities of every city in the game. I think for settlers I did a good job at that but perhaps there is an issue with the condition for ships needed. But that's just a first guess.

Forgive the delay. I read this almost immediately but kept hesitating to reply until I had compiled a thorough response, or something like that. This is still in progress so for now just allow me to share my gratitude for the time and effort you put into it.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

I only just noticed a few cases of civs running a non-Favorite civic. First, I would ask how this mechanic is supposed to work; for example, is it supposed to be selected under any circumstance or is it assigned a weight like many other AI decisions? That aside, two cases I cite are also objectively worse decisions regardless of Favorites: Joao will stick with Merchant Trade even with either just the capital or maybe one or two cities near the home area, missing out on an ungodly amount of badly needed Commerce at this point in the game. Suleiman sticks with Fanaticism despite multiple non-state religions existing in most cities as has become expected (and should be the case IMO).

 

[Leoreth]

It just adds (significant) extra weight to that civic which can be overcome by other values.

 

[Lzz]

Great to hear that it worked! I think the instructions mention that somewhere. The mod name must match the directory for everything to work. It looks like you found a solution, but if you want to keep 1.17 you can simply give it a different name temporarily.

Yeah, I renamed the 1.17 folder so that I can use both. But I've been itching to play the new map since it was announced like three years ago so I doubt I'll use the 1.17 much
And so far it looks really cool, so thanks for making it happen!

 

[Leoreth]

Glad to hear you like it!