Civ AI sucks

[Breunor]

Abegweit,

First, I want to apologize if my tine was inapprorpriate.

I agree with your last post. I probably consider the opening books cheating also. But it clearly helps them play better!

For Civ, I guess there is also a question of whether they should use 'opening books'? (Start on grasslands, build worker, etc. Maybe they already use them?)

I agree with you point about Emperor. I guess the goal should be at the AI is built to compete on Noble, and then given bonuses -- I think if you build the AI to KNOW it has the advantages of emperor, it is a different process, and that is also kind of cheating. As you said, it would win easily then.

I also totally agree that all of the chess improvements are really kind of cheating or improved decision trees, that is all computers really do well.

I've always found that advertising about the strength of the chess PC's was kind of funny. I remember whent he Chessmaster's bragged about going from 2400 -2500 -2600 and so on -- it is kind of silly, isn't it? How many people can tell the difference? (However, I do admit it may matter in trying to go through GM games and helping people figure out the best moves or understanding them).

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[vicawoo]

One other thing that hasn't come up much, in a lot of strategic games, there are a lot of countermoves directly against the opponent, civ is more about making the maximal decisions in a complex environment, which has little to do with small changes by the opponents.

Civ AI would be more like pattern recognition than strategy. A civ AI with good pattern recognition and a resource of tactics is the same as the best human player. They should program in some decision trees. It would take a long time, since I play different civs differently, and it would be some guess about the capital, better city specialization, more streamlined tech trees, and in the end it would probably be fairly exploitable.

 

[absimiliard]

For Civ, I guess there is also a question of whether they should use 'opening books'? (Start on grasslands, build worker, etc. Maybe they already use them?)

Well, I strongly believe the AI should use some intelligent designed algorithms at game start rather than immediately jumping into some deep analysis of branching paths.

However I'm not certain I would say that employing really basic stuff like, "If you have seafod build a work-boat, or research fishing THEN build a workboat" is the equivalent of using an "opening book".

I'm no chess expert, never even rated, but chess opening go into much more than two instructions. Aren't typical opening in the 5-10 instrucion level? ("move this pawn here" equaling one instruction, "then after your opponent does this move this knight here" being a second instruction.)

I'm also unconvinced we're basically talkig about typing the ECO into the AI here for another reason. Starting with a seafood is so far from not defining your opening position it's meaningless. Do you have one, two, three seafood? Do you have hills for production? What other resources do you have that need teching, or just exploitation?

Basically I would agree that we can give the AI guidelines and rules, but that's not the equivalent of telling it how the standard 1000 opening should be played until turn N. It's really just designing an expert system that is situationally aware. No learning algorithms needed, no encylopedic "Book of Civ Openings" possible, just straightforward algorithms to guide initial development.

Someone had earlier mentioned using different AIs to think at different levels and interaction among them determining what happens in the game. Similar to how MOO3 had planetary AIs that took direction from a strategic AI but were independant enough to recognize the use of local variables.

For Civ I suspect a similar model would be incredibly useful. A top-level AI to formulate high-level strategy, with various objects below it that get passed arguments that help them evaluate their positions. So the top-level AI might pass the AI that controls units on the board the input argument "We are at war with Catherine (that back-stabbing whats-a-hoozie)", which the unit movement AI then uses to help guide it's units towards Catherine's borders. At the same time the high-level AI passes "We are at war with Catherine (that back-stabbing floozy-from-Imperial-Russia)" to a city AI, which then interprets it to raise the priority on building military units, although it might choose to finish the buddhist temple it was two turns from finishing first.

I don't know if it would work well, but it's probably how I'd approach the topic. Since we already have a lot of excellet guidance available, here in the form of advice to human players, it seems to me that using such a model would be the easiest way to exploit the knowledge-base that we, the players, have been working on for ourselves to improve an AI. Of course Firaxis were sort of damned in that until the AI and game were done the knowledge-bases of advice couldn't even have existed. (which I guess might make it an iterative process, which could be why Blake was able to improve it as much as he did)

-abs (with his $.02)

 

[Abegweit]

There is a huge difference between the Chess opening book and the kinds of Civ notions you are talking about. In Chess, the first 20 moves or so of the game have been completely analyzed. More or less at any rate. Some lines have been analyzed more completely than others and some have been analyzed more deeply than others. But as a rough rule of thumb, the first twenty moves are a matter of book knowledge. In the same vein, most of the endgame is too. In some cases, it is known for 50+ moves.

Top-level chess players, whether human or computer, have to memorize the book. To a large extent, this is simply to save time. Chess is a timed game. The player does not want to spend two minutes on move eight, which has already been analyzed to death. He want to save those seconds for move thirty-two, which has not.

This is part of game. It is unavoidable but it is also a shame. The game would be more interesting and exciting if it was played the way it was 70-80 years ago. This simply won't happen. You can't stop people from reading what others have said about the game. And high-level anything is a full-time occupation today.

It is important to understand that memorization is not intelligence. If a Grandmaster, whether human or machine, succeeds by using an opening book, that it is reflection on the intelligence of the person who wrote the book, not the entity who played it.

The Chess opening book really has no equivalent in civ. Every chess game starts out identically. Every civ game starts out different. 'Nuff said. What you are talking about is more tactics than absolute facts. Let's imagine that you come up with a general set of tactics for opening moves. Let's also assume that some programmer can translate your thoughts into a programme (the second rarely follows from the first).

Whether you succeed or not, the outcome of the programme has nothing to with intelligence. It is just an automaton. The intelligence in the equation comes from the person who came up with the ideas and the person who figured out how to make an automaton execute them.

 

[INoKnow]

The AI still needs work. I own both expansions and the changes to the AI from them are lack-luster. The bare bones facts are that the AIs no matter what difficulty level, or any other factor, are essentially the same, they rarely build (generally never) city improvements, if they do its never beyond fundamental (most logical). Nearly everything the AI builds is cosmetic other than city walls and military units. At all times they employ a military that would be impossible to sustain considering their economic state, yet they do. There is never any justification for the speedier researchers, if you investigate their cities a little, I have seen more than once an AI civ with 30% science out tech me set at 90%. I have watched their tech timers lower in increments of 5 or 10 or even more consistently over a few turns without anything at all changing with their science %, and then just as abruptly lower back down to 1 and 2 point increments. They rarely if ever suffer penalties for running out of funds. There are seriously so many more things I could point out that cannot be disputed because its fact, but I don't want to write a novel. I play the game and enjoy it, I have come to terms with the AIs way of play. I see people saying they cheat a lot on here when I come and the fact is the AIs entire game is a constant cheat, it doesn't play by any boundaries set for Humans thats just the way it is. It could however be tweaked to appear to be playing the same game at least, an appearance of following some set of rules would make me happy. Thanks.

 

[MrCynical]

<sigh> How many times have I typed this..?

The AI does not cheat in the manner you describe. It does receive bonuses to research and production rate (and a number of other things) at higher difficulty levels, but it never gets to plain breaking the game rules as you suggest.

AIs no matter what difficulty level, or any other factor, are essentially the same, they rarely build (generally never) city improvements, if they do its never beyond fundamental (most logical)

This is simply not true. One of the weak points of the AI is actually its tendency to build all improvements everywhere, regardless of whether they are any use. Let me guess - you're basing this on the buildings you see in cities you capture from the AI? Many buildings are always destroyed when a city is captured, and most of the rest have a high chance of being destroyed as well.

I have seen more than once an AI civ with 30% science out tech me set at 90%.

And? That's merely a percentage of your total commerce output going to science. 30% of 100 is more than 90% of 20. Higher science rate does not necessarily equal higher research rate if the empires are different sizes. I haven't even touched on the aspect of specialists.

I have watched their tech timers lower in increments of 5 or 10 or even more consistently over a few turns without anything at all changing with their science %, and then just as abruptly lower back down to 1 and 2 point increments.

Not very consistent with what I've seen. Save game or screenshot rather than anecdote?

They rarely if ever suffer penalties for running out of funds

Well the AI is setup not to do things that actually make it go broke, which is trivially easy to avoid anyway.

I see people saying they cheat a lot on here when I come and the fact is the AIs entire game is a constant cheat, it doesn't play by any boundaries set for Humans thats just the way it is. It could however be tweaked to appear to be playing the same game at least, an appearance of following some set of rules would make me happy. Thanks.

Many people have said this, but it doesn't make it true. All they ever offer are anecdotes. Whenever real data, saves, screenshots or whatever, is produced, the AI is shown to have no "cheats" beyond the bonuses specified at the higher difficulty levels. They already do play within the same boundaries as the human player. Feel free to post your saves, and we'll explain what you're not understanding.

Oh, and welcome to CFC!

 

[INoKnow]

Anecdote is your favorite word today try the synonym finder on Webster dictionary site its useful when attempting to avoid redundancy. Everything I stated is a fact. I'm simply not going to dispute facts with you, people today have a tendency to live in a fantasy world where they believe what they say so everyone else should. Well not this fellow. I know what I've seen and I've seen it over and over and time and time again. On a side note, you can delete this account completely, I just came specifically to dispute the claims you make in this forum because your simply incorrect, and your responses and explanation are inaccurate, I think even you know that. Wouldn't place a bet on it. Other people who come in this forum will see the truth in what I have relayed because they deep down already know its true. I could however submit some screen shots and da-da-da continue to try and convince you the world is round, but you would dispute legitimacy because thats what some people live to do, a job in politics would suit you well. Anyhow, I do enjoy the game, my information comes from more than 2 decades of playing Sid Meier creations, I'm steadfast in my believe of the games mechanics I'm sorry you find zero truth in what I've said. I suggest looking harder. Forwarding that I get my information from conquered towns is a clever guess but your wrong. I wonder what brought you to that conclusion however, perhaps you've personally made an error of that sort in your perception of the truth. There are people out there my friend who think beyond the simplest of logistics, though perhaps hard for one to conceive. In closing however, I am a lifelong fan of Sid Meier games. I've defeated every creation he's ever made on every difficulty level and every scenario he's ever released in a game, not a huge supporter of 2K productions on the other hand, in an opinion they are generally buggy, feel free to dispute... Be well fellow strategists and gimmickers. Don't let the strain make you bitter ha. later.

 

[qwertz]

If you just want an AI that has only one goal, namely - beat you up, you allready have this option. It's called "allways war".

 

[AluminumKnight]

Anecdote is your favorite word today try the synonym finder on Webster dictionary site its useful when attempting to avoid redundancy. Everything I stated is a fact. I'm simply not going to dispute facts with you, people today have a tendency to live in a fantasy world where they believe what they say so everyone else should. Well not this fellow. I know what I've seen and I've seen it over and over and time and time again. On a side note, you can delete this account completely, I just came specifically to dispute the claims you make in this forum because your simply incorrect, and your responses and explanation are inaccurate, I think even you know that. Wouldn't place a bet on it. Other people who come in this forum will see the truth in what I have relayed because they deep down already know its true. I could however submit some screen shots and da-da-da continue to try and convince you the world is round, but you would dispute legitimacy because thats what some people live to do, a job in politics would suit you well. Anyhow, I do enjoy the game, my information comes from more than 2 decades of playing Sid Meier creations, I'm steadfast in my believe of the games mechanics I'm sorry you find zero truth in what I've said. I suggest looking harder. Forwarding that I get my information from conquered towns is a clever guess but your wrong. I wonder what brought you to that conclusion however, perhaps you've personally made an error of that sort in your perception of the truth. There are people out there my friend who think beyond the simplest of logistics, though perhaps hard for one to conceive. In closing however, I am a lifelong fan of Sid Meier games. I've defeated every creation he's ever made on every difficulty level and every scenario he's ever released in a game, not a huge supporter of 2K productions on the other hand, in an opinion they are generally buggy, feel free to dispute... Be well fellow strategists and gimmickers. Don't let the strain make you bitter ha. later.

There's a lot of wall of text and not many screenshots in this post... I wonder where you get off claiming this stuff without proof?

Or is this just a troll post flying over my head?

 

[Florian]

INoKnow,

You could have saved a lot of typing if you had just written, "Me right. You wrong." That's what the whole post boils down to.

 

[tempuraki]

Anecdote is your favorite word today try the synonym finder on Webster dictionary site its useful when attempting to avoid redundancy. Everything I stated is a fact. I'm simply not going to dispute facts with you, people today have a tendency to live in a fantasy world where they believe what they say so everyone else should. Well not this fellow. I know what I've seen and I've seen it over and over and time and time again. On a side note, you can delete this account completely, I just came specifically to dispute the claims you make in this forum because your simply incorrect, and your responses and explanation are inaccurate, I think even you know that. Wouldn't place a bet on it. Other people who come in this forum will see the truth in what I have relayed because they deep down already know its true. I could however submit some screen shots and da-da-da continue to try and convince you the world is round, but you would dispute legitimacy because thats what some people live to do, a job in politics would suit you well. Anyhow, I do enjoy the game, my information comes from more than 2 decades of playing Sid Meier creations, I'm steadfast in my believe of the games mechanics I'm sorry you find zero truth in what I've said. I suggest looking harder. Forwarding that I get my information from conquered towns is a clever guess but your wrong. I wonder what brought you to that conclusion however, perhaps you've personally made an error of that sort in your perception of the truth. There are people out there my friend who think beyond the simplest of logistics, though perhaps hard for one to conceive. In closing however, I am a lifelong fan of Sid Meier games. I've defeated every creation he's ever made on every difficulty level and every scenario he's ever released in a game, not a huge supporter of 2K productions on the other hand, in an opinion they are generally buggy, feel free to dispute... Be well fellow strategists and gimmickers. Don't let the strain make you bitter ha. later.

And "creation" is your word of the day. Which is fitting since you sure sound like a creationist.

As for your FACTS, I am curious, what are the "cosmetic" and "fundamental" buildings that you referred to? You said that the AI "rarely build (generally never) city improvements, if they do its never beyond fundamental (most logical). Nearly everything the AI builds is cosmetic other than city walls and military units." Ok, so:

- AI does build stuff.
- AI only build fundamental/logical stuff.
- AI mostly build cosmetic stuff.
- City wall is not cosmetic stuff.

so I get it, cosmetic stuff = fundamental stuff, but fundamental stuff doesn't have to be cosmetic. Wall is fundamental.

Now if that's a fact, tell me... What's not?

 

[tycoonist]

@INoKnow:

your two posts are long, rambling and have no meaning, justification or substance. what the hell are fundamental and cosmetic btw? i have never heard these terms used to refer to building in civ.

you talk the talk but can you walk the walk? we want evidence not just inconsequential idiocy

 

[r_rolo1]

The AI still needs work. I own both expansions and the changes to the AI from them are lack-luster. The bare bones facts are that the AIs no matter what difficulty level, or any other factor, are essentially the same, they rarely build (generally never) city improvements, if they do its never beyond fundamental (most logical). Nearly everything the AI builds is cosmetic other than city walls and military units. At all times they employ a military that would be impossible to sustain considering their economic state, yet they do. There is never any justification for the speedier researchers, if you investigate their cities a little, I have seen more than once an AI civ with 30% science out tech me set at 90%. I have watched their tech timers lower in increments of 5 or 10 or even more consistently over a few turns without anything at all changing with their science %, and then just as abruptly lower back down to 1 and 2 point increments. They rarely if ever suffer penalties for running out of funds. There are seriously so many more things I could point out that cannot be disputed because its fact, but I don't want to write a novel. I play the game and enjoy it, I have come to terms with the AIs way of play. I see people saying they cheat a lot on here when I come and the fact is the AIs entire game is a constant cheat, it doesn't play by any boundaries set for Humans thats just the way it is. It could however be tweaked to appear to be playing the same game at least, an appearance of following some set of rules would make me happy. Thanks.

Anecdote is your favorite word today try the synonym finder on Webster dictionary site its useful when attempting to avoid redundancy. Everything I stated is a fact. I'm simply not going to dispute facts with you, people today have a tendency to live in a fantasy world where they believe what they say so everyone else should. Well not this fellow. I know what I've seen and I've seen it over and over and time and time again. On a side note, you can delete this account completely, I just came specifically to dispute the claims you make in this forum because your simply incorrect, and your responses and explanation are inaccurate, I think even you know that. Wouldn't place a bet on it. Other people who come in this forum will see the truth in what I have relayed because they deep down already know its true. I could however submit some screen shots and da-da-da continue to try and convince you the world is round, but you would dispute legitimacy because thats what some people live to do, a job in politics would suit you well. Anyhow, I do enjoy the game, my information comes from more than 2 decades of playing Sid Meier creations, I'm steadfast in my believe of the games mechanics I'm sorry you find zero truth in what I've said. I suggest looking harder. Forwarding that I get my information from conquered towns is a clever guess but your wrong. I wonder what brought you to that conclusion however, perhaps you've personally made an error of that sort in your perception of the truth. There are people out there my friend who think beyond the simplest of logistics, though perhaps hard for one to conceive. In closing however, I am a lifelong fan of Sid Meier games. I've defeated every creation he's ever made on every difficulty level and every scenario he's ever released in a game, not a huge supporter of 2K productions on the other hand, in an opinion they are generally buggy, feel free to dispute... Be well fellow strategists and gimmickers. Don't let the strain make you bitter ha. later.

In spite of knowing that you'll not respond ( You asked to close the account ) some of the thinks that you said aren't true ( some are , but I'll get there... ). And as nobody should drop a lie ( unintentonal or not ) and get out without response:

- Your speech about city improvements is confusing... I agree that AI is somewhat tactless with his choice of build order, but saying that it doesn't build almost none "fundamental" ( undefined term... for me there is no such thing in Civ IV, mainly because there is not a known fool-proof "optimal strategy" ( maybe there is, but no one had tipped it yet ) ) building is simply wrong ( Just give yourself a zillion spy points in WB and check the enemy cities...... ) Unless the only fundamental buiding for you is the wall.... and there most of the Humans are dumb as a donkey, because they don't build walls....

- Your speech about research vs slider is simply wrong from one point to the other.... if you play Sid Meier's games for 2 decades as you stated ,you should know that since SMAC ( atleast... not played the prvious versions of Civ ) the slider is not the only way of getting research.... There are specialists ( in fact you can pass a lot of the sid meiers games with the slider at 0% and still maitaining a decent tech pace due to that ).....
And there are another factors you disregarded: the already stated above empire size, pop ( more pop = more worked tiles ( or specialists ) + better trade routes = more $ = more research ( if slider is above 0% ) ), the trade routes ( why does most of the players disregard them as they didn't existed? You can easily play a game without specialists and cottages and still tech fast due to them.... ), University of Sankore and even worked tile reassignement ( if I was working a forest and started working a town, my research will go up if I have the slider above 0% )... In resume: you're rambling about the % of money poured in research vs output without considering anything else.... That is to say the least

- And now the somewhat right thing you said: AI ( at least in Warlords... didn't checked it in BtS ) has a second pocket in terms of money... it will bankrupt if that stocked money will burn out as any player... But as said above it is quite simple to avoid going that AI ( BtS AI seems smart enough to not go that bad... ) : raze and pillage

Don't take this personally ( you will not... and even if you do you'll not respond ) , but if you're certain of what you're saying, I would really like to see in what are you basing to say that ( atleast of Civ IV... older versions of civ are another and entirely diferent issue )... hey , maybe you know something that splipped unnoticed to most of us . But a person that backs up from a arguement when confronted with a oposing well structured answer saying a ramble about how basic your oponent is compared to you and calling his response political speech is not exactly what I would call a savant... In fact I would be more inclined to call it a stupid bullie that flees at the first sign of resistence....

Well, you ( and anyone ) are free to prove me wrong... In fact I love a good arguement

 

[MrCynical]

people today have a tendency to live in a fantasy world where they believe what they say so everyone else should.

Frankly this is a somewhat ironic statement given this is exactly your attitude in your last post.

Simply stating that you're right does not make what you're saying any more true. That is the reason I prefer evidence to anecdotes or unfounded accusations. If what you are saying is a fact, then you should have no trouble putting up a screenshot or a save showing it. What you are claiming as fact does not correspond with the way the game is supposed to work, how I find the game to work, or indeed how many of the other posters who have responded to you find it to work.

Rambling on about how long you've played various games, or what level you've beaten them is also not evidence of the accuracy of your statement.

Forwarding that I get my information from conquered towns is a clever guess but your wrong. I wonder what brought you to that conclusion however, perhaps you've personally made an error of that sort in your perception of the truth. There are people out there my friend who think beyond the simplest of logistics, though perhaps hard for one to conceive

I suggest it because a) I've seen plenty of players draw the same incorrect conclusion as you from that, and b) It is the most obvious way to draw said incorrect conclusion. Incidentally, throwing insults around is not conducive to discussion. In the apparently unlikely event you return, bring some screenshots to support your claims.