Coding an AI player

[warpus]

I have a hard time believing that most people want a dumb opponent just so they can win and high-five themselves.

If people wanted a predictable single player experience, there would be only one map for people to play on. But every new game you play is on a random map, implying that people like unpredictability.

 

[Synobun]

I have a hard time believing that most people want a dumb opponent just so they can win and high-five themselves.

If people wanted a predictable single player experience, there would be only one map for people to play on. But every new game you play is on a random map, implying that people like unpredictability.

Perhaps they want predictable unpredictability. A different map only marginally changes the experience if the AI itself is fairly static in how it expresses itself.

For myself, I want a dumb opponent so I can win easily. I reserve "challenge" for multiplayer with other humans or if I get a knackering for a challenge on a rare day. Even with rogue-likes I try to find the easiest way to win and then replicate that method in each subsequent playthrough.

 

[warpus]

But you would still have that option if the AI was unpredictable. Just play on an easy setting.

 

[Synobun]

But you would still have that option if the AI was unpredictable. Just play on an easy setting.

A truly unpredictable AI would never allow for predictable paths to success. Complexity of behaviour wouldn't change that you'd need to formulate a new path each time you play regardless of how easy it may be once you figure out the 'weakness' of your opponent.

 

[warpus]

Think about it this way. You could probably beat a toddler in a game of checkers each and every time even though his/her moves might be unpredictable, right? You would probably have certain predictable paths to victory that would usually work against such an oppoment.

So on the easiest setting on Civ in this hypothetical "Civ AI plays more like a human" scenario, you would still be able to employ your usual strategies and probably win every time on the easiest setting. So you could still do exactly what you want if such an AI system were in place.

 

[Synobun]

Think about it this way. You could probably beat a toddler in a game of checkers each and every time even though his/her moves might be unpredictable, right? You would probably have certain predictable paths to victory that would usually work against such an oppoment.

A toddler doesn't have the capacity for actual strategy. If we're assuming that an unpredictable AI set on easy mode is the equivalent of a literal toddler, then sure, you're right, you're going to win regardless. A 2 year old would probably send their settler into the direction of the prettiest colours.

 

[warpus]

That's how difficulty would work if the Civ AI was more hunan-like, though. The easiest setting would be an AI that can be creative and not predictable, with virtual mental limitations in place. The toddler example was just an extreme example to illustrate the concept - imagine a 10 year old if that makes it easier to see what I'm trying to say. A 10 year old will be able to grasp basic checkers strategies, and maybe have 1 or 2 tricks up his/her sleeve, but someone in their 20s who has a decent understanding of checkers should be able to usually destroy a 10 year old. Sure, not always, and there are probably some prodigy checkers players in that age range (or maybe not? I have no idea), but most 10 year olds would be easy to beat. And maybe I haven't hung around with enough 10 year olds, but it seems if you put decent checker playing 10 year olds in a room, most of them wouldn't make blatantly stupid moves either, since at that age it seems they should be able to understand the basic rules of the game. Mind you I don't hang around many kids so maybe a 12 year old is a better example.

So it seems if we had this type of AI in the game you would get your wishes - you could play a game where you could use your exploits and strategies and usually win. And I would get my unpredictable (to a degree) opponent and not get bored with the same gameplay over and over and over.

 

[Akka]

I don't want my AI to be dumb, I want my AI to be immersive - acting like the character it emulates would act. That's one of the many reasons Civ4 AI is the best of the serie BTW, it does exactly that.

 

[Kyriakos]

EUIII battle AI was pretty decent re trying to have two-front war and ally with what it was logical for it to ally with so as to defend against you, yet it was really very poor in other respects, particularly in refusing to give you anything even if you had maimed its invading armies and controlled colonies (ie it could never take back the land), and then if it came under blockade it would beg you for peace giving away twice as many lands as you would ask for

 

[civvver]

I don't want my AI to be dumb, I want my AI to be immersive - acting like the character it emulates would act. That's one of the many reasons Civ4 AI is the best of the serie BTW, it does exactly that.

Which I don't think is player like. Player is not immersive. A player tries to choose the most optimal path to victory and is a reactive player in the good sense of the word. For example, coastal start, lots of islands, goes for great lighthouse. An AI just willy nilly decides oh I have acess to that tech and one city on coast that could build it. A player chooses war time civics. AI has a favorite one and just kind of "upgrades" them as they become available, like free market asap or communism asap without actually checking if they have more access to corporate resources vs rivers and grasslands for watermills and workshops. A player tries to build just enough units because more are expensive in terms of opportunity cost to build and maintenance every turn in gold. So if they see a weak border they put more units there, but if no enemies have standing armies they hold off. AI has flavors, shaka builds tons of units, ghandi doesn't. It makes things more interesting. If all AI played logically instead of with flavors it would be less interesting. Especially since a lot of player decisions are reactions to the AI leaders. Like if mansa is nearby you know he willingly trades tech and will have a lot of good tech. If montezuma is nearby you know he will attack you unless you adopt his religion and kiss his butt.

I suppose you could make AI that is more player like and still has a specific personality, but doesn't Civ4 basically have that now anyway? Because the AI doesn't know your personality they can't know if you are warlike or not and thus there's no logical way for them to build their armies except to observe yours. Personality like warmongers is just more interesting.

 

[Akka]

Err... Yeah ?
I mean, I don't really see your point. I'm not arguing to have the AI "player-like" at all.