Civ AI sucks

[hiddie]

Is there anything like a mod or something out there that makes the AI better?
The reason why I ask this, is that i want a challenging AI, without having him cheat or him having bonuses. The computer's ability to calculate stuff better then humans should be the only bonus for the AI.

For example, I've got Galactic Civ's II a couple of days ago. And it's freakin' hard to beat the not cheating AI there on the highest level.

Sid, what is this for crap?

 

[GuitarHero]

I think Antilogic's got the Mod you want. I'm not sure.

 

[JujuLautre]

if you don't have BTS, then BetterAI should do the trick; if you have BTS, it inclues BetterAI. And it's already quite good as it is, which is really nice if we consider civ's complexity.

 

[slaze]

play multiplayer

 

[DigitalBoy]

if you don't have BTS, then BetterAI should do the trick; if you have BTS, it inclues BetterAI. And it's already quite good as it is, which is really nice if we consider civ's complexity.

I always knew the BtS AI was better; I just never knew exactly why. Thanks for the tidbit.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

BtS includes a "nicer" version of the Better AI. Back in the days of Warlords, when Blake was running his own show, he was being as cruel as he felt like. When Firaxis hired him to do the BtS AI, they made him cool it a bit.

So I'd call WL's Better AI harder than the BtS version.

 

[Swayde]

LOL I must stink pretty bad. I have a terrible time winning Noble and get my butt kicked every time I've tried higher. I don't use any mods, just plain old Civ 4...got the expansions on order since I hadn't gotten around to getting them due to being addicted to WoW for the past 2 years, but got the Civ bug again. I love Civ and I've always picked it up for a whirl every now and then since original Civilization (I own all of them, including SMAC). I just never have been able to get good at them =(

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I bet if they wanted to do a bunch of situation if-then programming type stuff with an expert player looking on, they could make a computer that almost always makes the optimal choices. However, at some point if the AI can play exactly like a pro (or very close), then playing against 7 in a ffa would have drastically low odds of victory.

Of course, I'd prefer that to just a tech/prod boost. The AI isn't THAT bad in civ4 though. Civ3 AI was much easier to abuse, and civ2's was laughable.

 

[MrCynical]

For example, I've got Galactic Civ's II a couple of days ago. And it's freakin' hard to beat the not cheating AI there on the highest level.

I have to point out that the AI in Gal Civ II also gets huge bonuses, like in Civ, at the highest few difficulty levels (i.e. the ones which are actually challenging).

 

[hiddie]

I have to point out that the AI in Gal Civ II also gets huge bonuses, like in Civ, at the highest few difficulty levels (i.e. the ones which are actually challenging).

I've think i've read somewhere that the galciv AI doesn't get bonuses.

I'm am playing BTS. But I still think the AI sucks. I don't care if i would get a low victory chance. I just want a challenging game without bonuses for my opponent.

I play a lot of multiplayer, but i like to play singleplayer or multiplayer/ai's mixed.

@guitarhero
what mod?

 

[troytheface]

still- the non-addressing of an improved AI without bonuses remains.

Strange. considering chess programs, which have been around since computers started, had levels of difficulty 20 years ago that did not involve giving the computer an extra Pawn, or even the first move.

I suspect that there may be an issue of not making the AI to good.
In such a case the AI advantages via bonus may be the only way they could make it stronger yet still beatable.

 

[Refar]

I've think i've read somewhere that the galciv AI doesn't get bonuses.

It does get bonuses. But it also has additional 'advanced algorithms' enabled at higher difficulties (At least the dev's claim that). It still sucks - thats the fate of any game-AI.

Making a good AI is certainly not a question of "a bunch of situation if-then programming type stuff with an expert player looking on" - this would cause combinatorial issues and still aloow exploits, as soon as you know the mechanics (i.e. the structure of the decision tree).

I think CivIV AI actually does a good job making the game "feel" challenging, if you just try to forget about the bonuses and play the game.

 

[r_rolo1]

still- the non-addressing of an improved AI without bonuses remains.

Strange. considering chess programs, which have been around since computers started, had levels of difficulty 20 years ago that did not involve giving the computer an extra Pawn, or even the first move.

I suspect that there may be an issue of not making the AI to good.
In such a case the AI advantages via bonus may be the only way they could make it stronger yet still beatable.

You can't compare programming a AI for chess with making one to Civ IV... mainly because:

- Chess has only 2 players... every player you add in a game adds a dimension to the algorithim problem and the 2 -> 3+ players is a huge leap ( 2 players : !mine = enemy & !enemy = mine .... with 3+ players you can't think like that )

-Chess has 6 diferent types of units, Civ IV has a lot more.... more complexity

-Chess has only 2 types of terrain, black and white ( ok we can add the promo lines... 4 it is ).....Civ IV has a lot more(terrain features ,improvements, bonuses, national borders..... ).... more complexity

-Chess starts always with the same map, Civ IV don't ( it is far easier to cook strategies if the map is always the same... that is why a lot of ppl thinks that reloading in Civ is a form of cheating )

-You see all the other players units in chess, not in Civ IV... and that makes the algorithim need to have enough complexity to work in the void...

- The avaliable actions to a Civ IV unit are normally more than for a chess unit... that makes the decision tree to explode in complexity

- You don't have a tech tree in chess..... and no GP and no corps.....

- Finally and most important of all, Civ IV has not centuries of study over it and professional players playing it at high levels since 3/4 years old... that makes more easy to anchor a AI over well known moves database.

Resuming Civ IV is a far more complex game than chess and it is far less studied than it.... no wonder that making 9 AI ( one for each level ) would be a daunting task, more suited for a MIT study than for a software selling company ( they would be bankrupted and dead before they could present the Deity AI ... )

 

[troytheface]

points taken, however, i suggest, optimizing each AI to follow a path that = best results, wouldn't be the daunting task you suggest
Game play points to such commands as "if someone doesn't have enough units ...attack.
I am not so sure either, that in this day, one would need a MIT study, as oppossed to a solitary, kick ass programmer that works for like GE.

 

[r_rolo1]

Upgrading the AI after a +1 million community looks at it and discover the flaws is much easier than making it from scratch and selling it in time... let alone 9..... And that was what I was talking about. Firaxis didn't had enough manpower to make 9 good AI in time to sell the game( I think that not even Microsoft would have it ... just look at the Vista problems )

And incidentally you touched other point: the fact that there is a better strat for this game, regardless of all else ... I think it doesn't exist such a thing, given my experience in open games, where the same start gives dramatically diferent outputs, and sometimes for small stuff ( like a mine caving in 3200 BC..... )

 

[hiddie]

Dude, chess is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complex then civ could ever be, believe me. However, I agree that it's far easier making a chess computer then the an AI for Civ.

What I was interested in was the question why the AI has to get bonuses instead of an additional 'advanced algorithms' database.

Why is this possible in galciv, and not in a game like Civ4.

And has anybody ever made a mod or something with an improved AI.

I want an AI that kills of 4 other civs, that axe rushes me, that kills my unescorted settlers, etc.

 

[aelf]

Dude, chess is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complex then civ could ever be, believe me.

Are you just a troll or what?

Spend some time on these forums and you'll see that there's much more to Civ 4 than a cheating AI and zerging the stupid AI on Monarch.

 

[hiddie]

Are you just a troll or what?

Spend some time on these forums and you'll see that there's much more to Civ 4 than a cheating AI and zerging the stupid AI on Monarch.

I know there's more to Civ then just that.
But if you think that chess ain't complicated, then you're basically an idiot.

 

[Refar]

Dude, chess is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complex then civ could ever be, believe me. However, I agree that it's far easier making a chess computer then the an AI for Civ.

This is a question of how to "measure" complexy. In terms of the branching factor of the decision tree - which is ultimately what defines the computational complexity of a chess game - CIV would be heavier.
Btw. CIV and Chess are not really comparable in this way: Playing Chess both players have the full information about what is happening on the filed (Which is crucial for the situation evaluation and hence the success of any Chess algorithm). In CIV a part of the information is hidden, making guessing necessary and evaluation of decisions/situations hard.

What I was interested in was the question why the AI has to get bonuses instead of an additional 'advanced algorithms' database.
Why is this possible in galciv, and not in a game like Civ4.

Perhaps you should try GC2 before calling for the same AI approach in CIV.
I for my part did not felt the GC2 AI is that impressive. It is very one sided - even more than CIV - when it comes to diplo - and diplo is where the "Cheating" is most apparent.
Just for example: the "Advanced Algorithm" for dealing with tech-whoring: The AI will refuse any Tech trade, unless you pay a lot more (like x10 times) for a tech than it's worth. Between AI the tech-trading occures on normal rates of course.

Also all the 'advanced algorithms' kick in on Medium Difficultie (=Noble in CIV terms). On higher difficulties, the AI will be bonused as well.

I want an AI that kills of 4 other civs, that axe rushes me, that kills my unescorted settlers, etc.

I am sure the majority of players - including myself - would put the game back the shelf (and not buy a Expansion/Sequel) if the AI would constantly kick our butts. With bonus or not.

To feel cool and prove my superioriority over the machine we can go beat a chess software. CIV is played for fun.

I want the AI to make the game 'feel' good. Meaning they should make it look like they play competetive and make the game-world feel real, with me winning in the end - at least most of the time. My feeling is that the CIV AI makes better job here, than the GC2 AI. My only complaints are about Diplo - which is even worse in GC2.

 

[MrCynical]

What I was interested in was the question why the AI has to get bonuses instead of an additional 'advanced algorithms' database.

Why is this possible in galciv, and not in a game like Civ4.

As I've already pointed out, the Gal Civ AI does get bonuses as well. The second from top level has 25% boost to the AI economy (comparable bonus over the human to Civ 4 Immortal level). The top level runs the AI economy at 200% (even on deity level the Civ 4 AI doesn't get anywhere near this). Frankly even the penultimate difficulty level isn't much of a challenge. Essentially it isn't possible in Gal Civ either - the AI still is heavily reliant on bonuses to be challenging, and I'd be very dubious the AI is more effective than Civ 4's.

Dude, chess is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complex then civ could ever be, believe me. However, I agree that it's far easier making a chess computer then the an AI for Civ.

I know there's more to Civ then just that.
But if you think that chess ain't complicated, then you're basically an idiot.

The issue is that the rules of chess are trivial compared to Civ 4. It takes a matter of minutes to cover even the obscurest rules in chess, but I doubt there's a single person on this forum who knows every element of Civ 4's mechanics by heart. Chess computers still have a very large element of brute force to their play. That's OK for chess, since on average there's only 30-40 legal moves in any position (and often far less). In Civ there are hundreds if not thousands of possible ways to play even the first turn of a given map. A human will immediately dismiss the vast majority as stupid, but a brute force AI, even on a modern computer, will be far too slow. It can't simply examine every possible permutation for several moves, and pick the most favourable, as it can in chess. A completely different approach is needed - pattern recognition, which humans excel at and computers perform appallingly.

I haven't even touched on the issue that the map varies in civ, unlike chess - no centuries of opening theory here. There's no endgame with relatively few permutations in Civ 4, for an AI to play perfectly. Finally, computer chess has had a lot of effort devoted to it - far more than the whole civ series combined.

I want an AI that kills of 4 other civs, that axe rushes me, that kills my unescorted settlers, etc.

Well if you apply the same boosted AI to all civs, then one killing off four others is not very unlikely unless the game is vulnerable to snowballing - which attempts have been made to eliminate from civ. There's also rather more to playing Civ 4 well than the axe rush and similar ultra early warfare.

Now there are areas the AI could be beefed up relatively easily. Its tech trading is still very weak, (you could get a significant boost just be copying the tech trading parameters for Mansa Musa's personality onto the other civs). Tokuwaga's personality means that AI is invariably crippled. Similarly the AI needs a better understanding of when it is losing - it ought to at least try and sue for peace.

Something to tune out a lot of the irrelevant junk the AI builds in all its cities would be another good idea - I really shouldn't see aqueducts and hospitals in cities which can never reach the health cap on available food. I shouldn't see a full set of science buildings and no power plant in a city generating 50 hammers and 5 commerce per turn. Some kind of system where an AI could actually designate a specialisation for a city would be a big improvement.