Can't deal with F@&*! cheating AI

[michmbk]

Post a 4000 BC save and you'll be bound to get some shadow games which will show you how to dominate at monarch. It was a moderately tough jump from prince, because warrior rushing is no longer an option (unless you're HC), but all in all, the AI bonuses aren't significant enough at that level.

The usual keys, plenty of workers, city specialization, prioritizing the right wonders for the map/civ, and then adding in better diplo should be plenty to succeed easily at monarch.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

where's the cheating part? If anything, players cheat much more than the AI since they can perform certain actions which the AI can't (axe rush, warrior/archer rushes, blocking, etc).

It does technically cheat.

It does things and has access to information that the player does not have, and without that being a specifically-stated handicap assigned. Bonuses from difficulty are strict handicaps assessed to the AI (essentially agreed-upon settings) before the game begins.

Detecting trades with civs they've never met, seeing anywhere their units can possibly move regardless of fog, determining your exact power regardless of espionage investment, etc are all technically cheating:

Dictionary.com

5. to violate rules or regulations

The AI is doing things that are not within agreed-upon rules at game start; there is literally no way for a player to know, short of previous experience with it, that it is using said different rules (they are not available to be looked at in-game or anywhere but straight into the code).

The AI cheats, plain and simple, although players can deal with it.

 

[obsolete]

Detecting trades with civs they've never met

This is where the ROLLING DEATH DICE comes into play during trade transactions...

Very poorly implemented by Firaxis.

 

[Gwynnja]

It does technically cheat.

It does things and has access to information that the player does not have, and without that being a specifically-stated handicap assigned. Bonuses from difficulty are strict handicaps assessed to the AI (essentially agreed-upon settings) before the game begins.

Detecting trades with civs they've never met, seeing anywhere their units can possibly move regardless of fog, determining your exact power regardless of espionage investment, etc are all technically cheating:

Dictionary.com

5. to violate rules or regulations

The AI is doing things that are not within agreed-upon rules at game start; there is literally no way for a player to know, short of previous experience with it, that it is using said different rules (they are not available to be looked at in-game or anywhere but straight into the code).

The AI cheats, plain and simple, although players can deal with it.

While technically true, none of this is difficulty level dependent, nor has it anything to do with the "cheating" that the OP is complaining about.

 

[babar]

After reading the OP I actually wondered if the thread title was supposed to be ironic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While technically true, none of this is difficulty level dependent, nor has it anything to do with the "cheating" that the OP is complaining about.

Well, Vicawoo (who I quoted) was saying that the human cheats more than the ai; this is not so. The AI merely plays worse, but humans do not have beneficial rules that it can physically do things the AI can't.

As for OP complaints, AI playing in a way that hurts its win chances (and helps other AI or even the human) has been one of my longest-hated tendencies in all of civ IV (it continues to be an issues, although less severe, in V, but V has plenty of other problems to "compensate"). The AI should not be picking its nose while 2 guys go culture and 1 space, hitting irrelevant civs or the human (unless the human is one of the guys going culture/space). Rather than making the VC's balanced, firaxis chose to simply make the AI only *sometimes* do something kinda OK strategically, by luck.

 

[lymond]

Has TMIT seen the light?! Has he returned to the fold?!

Good to see you around here

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Has TMIT seen the light?! Has he returned to the fold?!

Good to see you around here

I'm still primarily civ V. And a bunch of other games. V has had some balance changes and players have adapted to it; SOMEONE has to stay up there and try to make it a better game experience .

I just wish I could setup forum games on the V strategy and tips; it seems making WB saves isn't a cakelwalk.

 

[insaneweasel]

As for OP complaints, AI playing in a way that hurts its win chances (and helps other AI or even the human) has been one of my longest-hated tendencies in all of civ IV (it continues to be an issues, although less severe, in V, but V has plenty of other problems to "compensate").

Three things here.

Firstly, the cheating doesn't seem consistent. If they all have the same bonuses, then if Freddy is at my level in tech with cruddy land and a vassal of Cathy, then Ramses should have been in space at 1700 with his huge empire.
I just don't get it.

Secondly, to everybody who was wondering why I didn't post a 4000 BC game for shadow...it turns out that I sort of wrote over it by accident. I think I can post a later save in the medieval era though, if I can find it.

Third thing: keep up those awesome lets plays, TMIT. I'm watching Bismark now!

 

[Lone Wolf]

and a vassal of Cathy

AI masters gift their techs one by one to their vassals, no matter the game situation.

 

[obsolete]

Well, Vicawoo (who I quoted) was saying that the human cheats more than the ai;

Actually, he is right, the Human does CHEAT and here is the reason why.

The AI is NOT permitted to make INTELLIGENT moves or decisions. So.... if the AI is binded to this VILLAGE-IDIOT ruleset, then the human player should also be binded to the exact same of rules.

But noooo! A few cheaters (especialy those deity bastards), decide that they want to take advantage of gamey-tactics, so they instead start to do their decisions with a thought-out-process, and even going as far to extremes as to not even make any decision unless it is followed with a sound theory and logical decision process.

God damn cheaters!

I've even heard that some players micro-manage every city every turn! Now how friggen lame can one get!? Remember... cheaters never win! You're just cheating yourself when you think while you play.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The AI is NOT permitted to make INTELLIGENT moves or decisions. So.... if the AI is binded to this VILLAGE-IDIOT ruleset, then the human player should also be binded to the exact same of rules.

Well, to be fair the humans CAN use worldbuilder and save-scumming, as long as they don't mind injuries to pride. THOSE are worse cheats than anything the AI can do at least.

I'm surprised firaxis hasn't simply stolen BBAI and applied the original vanilla bonuses to make for some truly impossible games .

 

[peppe1]

As for OP complaints, AI playing in a way that hurts its win chances (and helps other AI or even the human) has been one of my longest-hated tendencies in all of civ IV (it continues to be an issues, although less severe, in V, but V has plenty of other problems to "compensate"). The AI should not be picking its nose while 2 guys go culture and 1 space, hitting irrelevant civs or the human (unless the human is one of the guys going culture/space). Rather than making the VC's balanced, firaxis chose to simply make the AI only *sometimes* do something kinda OK strategically, by luck.

Civ IV AI i believe was designed to give a challenging game, but not 'play to win.' This type of AI allows for some consistency in diplomatic relations and role play in the leaders. If they all play to win you probably get the complaints you hear in Civ 5, how the AI can go from friendly to war in a turn or two.

I know better AI now has win plans or something like that to help it focus on a path to victory.

I don't recall if its in Better AI or another mod like Legends of Revolution, but I recall seeing an option to allow the AI to play to win. I didn't look into it, but it probably removes some of those diplomatic conditions that prevent war, so the AI can select the weakest/most logical target and back-stab like a human would.

You can certainly make the game harder by changing how much the AI respects the diplomatic relationship between other civilizations, but it may not be more fun than the current implementation.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Of course the human cheats - the AI automates it's workers! If the human automated workers the game would be much more fair. Also, to be fair, we should only settle on the blue circle and take all advisor recommendations for a fair game. That would REALLY make Noble challenging.

Also, the AI's don't play equally well. How many games does Toku do better than Shaka or Cathy (assuming the human doesn't rush these two early as obvious threats to his/her later happiness).

Another cheat I just thought up - humans attack at Pleased or even Friendly relations. We backstab even better than Cathy, very dishonorable of us.

 

[theskibum]

On one hand, I understand the furor some of you feel when someone posts an "AI cheats" thread ( I don't much care for it), but come on guys. This forum has a reputation as one of the friendliest, most helpful of all internet forums. Lets not let it degrade into the junior high-esque forum that belong to the likes of WoW.

 

[peppe1]

Another human cheat is prior knowledge of the leader personalities. As Ataxerxes mentioned if you start near shaka or another crazy AI you change how you play.

Wouldn't the fairest setting be to use the custom game random leader personalities option, so you have to use in game indicators to determine who will be a threat? You lose some of the role play flair of the game, but probably have a more challenging experience.

On one hand, I understand the furor some of you feel when someone posts an "AI cheats" thread ( I don't much care for it), but come on guys. This forum has a reputation as one of the friendliest, most helpful of all internet forums. Lets not let it degrade into the junior high-esque forum that belong to the likes of WoW.

If his thread title was 'Where did I go wrong', and he kept the body of his post describing his strategy and game situation he would have got constructive feedback. He is pointing at the AI when he has 4 fingers (workers/improvements, city placements, tech path, diplomacy, etc) pointing back at himself...

 

[Gwynnja]

On one hand, I understand the furor some of you feel when someone posts an "AI cheats" thread ( I don't much care for it), but come on guys. This forum has a reputation as one of the friendliest, most helpful of all internet forums. Lets not let it degrade into the junior high-esque forum that belong to the likes of WoW.

Save your patronizing condescension. If someone posts a ******** thread no one's under any obligation to indulge that thread out of some sense of friendly reputation. That reputation has been earned, not granted, and if someone wants help it's easily attainable but if someone just wants to whine and rant then they shouldn't expect coddling.

 

[theskibum]

Save your patronizing condescension. If someone posts a ******** thread no one's under any obligation to indulge that thread out of some sense of friendly reputation. That reputation has been earned, not granted, and if someone wants help it's easily attainable but if someone just wants to whine and rant then they shouldn't expect coddling.

Yes, but I also think from reading the initial post that he isn't just ranting. He is also looking for advice and venting a little frustration. I don't really see a need to attack someone for any of those things. It would be a different matter altogether if his post was only a rant.

I didn't say anyone had an obligation to respond constructively to the thread if they found it whiny or adolescent. I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to do that. It struck me after reading the first post, however, that this was not simply a whiny tirade on why Civ AI sucks (although the title had me thinking otherwise).

Later posts by InsaneWeasel indicate he has been sufficiently admonished for even thinking to whine regarding perceived cheating by the AI.

It was not my intent to be condescending toward you or anyone else. For the most part I respect your opinion in this matter, even if I do not agree with your externalization of that opinion.

 

[obsolete]

We backstab even better than Cathy, very dishonorable of us.

The AI is allowed to do that too, at least in the last patching. Take a look at what happens with FRIENDLY vassals to get the idea... That reminds me...how many times do you see an AI which is the world leader, decide to just FRIENDLY VASSAL to you for no reason at all? It does this to the other AI's ALL THE TIME.

Also, how come I can't demand an AI into a war vs someone else every few turns when it already has its hands full, yet I'm suppose to take the diplo hits when I'm already in a war and it keeps begging the same idiotic thing non-stop...

 

[theskibum]

Also, how come I can't demand an AI into a war vs someone else every few turns when it already has its hands full, yet I'm suppose to take the diplo hits when I'm already in a war and it keeps begging the same idiotic thing non-stop...

Because if the playing field were level to the human this way, the human would be cheating....duh