Combat Cheats by the AI

relax guys... its only a game... there really are lots of posts on this "AI cheats" subject and lots of tests conducted on it... if pple believe, then fine, if dun, then let them do their own tests... :crazyeye:

for me... i juz curse n swear when i lost a unit... whether AI cheats or not :p

btw, this has been the most interesting thread i have read for months :love: no offense, happy civing...;)
 
Game I just played....

I used a fully healed veteran Beserk against a veteran musketman (in a town on tundra) 6 attack vs. 4 defend. The odds were in my favor (66.4%), but I lost it doing no damage to the musketman.:(

Out of frustration, I threw a fully healed veteran musketman against the musketman. 2 attack vs. 4 defend. I only had a 14.3% chance of winning.....

But I won!:D

I guess because I was losing the war, the computer gave me a 'boost' so I was guaranteed to win my next battle, huh?

The game simply does not give advantages to the AI in difficulty levels for combat battles. The game does give them many more units at the start of the game, and a discount on how many shields it takes the AI to build them, and a boost in growth speed, and be able to see things on the map, that they shouldn't (future resources, where your units are, etc.), but they do not break the founding rules of the game (combat odds, 'unsinkable' galleys, etc.).
 
As for evidence, I'm compiling it. I do believe a stasticial base should suffice at say 600 battles? Have you all taken statistics? If you have, I believe you'd agree that it would put the likelihood of error at around 3%.
Click to expand...

I know some would say 600 battles isn't enough of a sample, but if you can provide a save(s) that shows 600 consecutive battles, where the results are more than 7% off what the combat calculator says should be the result then I will eat my hat, and for one month I will put this in my signature:
"arretium is king :worship: :worship:"

For this, you would need a save where there are dozens, of dozens of battles in each round (preferably 50+), not just 1-5 battles in each save.
 
arretium> Do your test. Bamspeedy has posted a sav file that you can use so you can test right away. No point arguing who's word should we trust here. We all trust Bamspeedy here because he has been around for like since civ3 was out. And all of us who has been here has seen numerous test he has made and post. So, do your test, see the result for yourself.
 
My last game I just threw 12 vetern marine's at an AI Infantry while only doing one hit point of damage.... Sucked badly... Awful game, but anyway.

I saw during the middle age war I had that the mongolian units fell to me without losing a single unit. I wiped the mongols out without losing anyone, wether it be worker, spearmen, or siphiri.
 
He is just rambling on and on, using no real proof to justify AI cheating. It reminds me of Hitler with Mein Kampf, words which you have to reread at least twice and even then it doesn't make sense.
 
this discussion is degenerating into a waste of space. Some of the most respected members on these boards, such as bamspeedy and speaker, have confirmed and provided statistical examples and combat calculators, that the AI does not cheat in combat. This arretium guy, the one with the attitude does not want to listen...why argue with an idiot? It has been consistently proven there is no case for the AI cheating in combat....that should be the end of the discussion, right?
 
This discussion (like the always-present Spearman vs. Tank threads) had nowhere to go but down. I've been ignoring them for quite a while and only responded to this one because arretium made a literate (if flawed) statement of his views. I hope he'll let us know the results of his combat trial.
 
Originally posted by Nad

... It has been consistently proven there is no case for the AI cheating in combat...
Click to expand...

...indirectly.

These are the reasons:

1st. As the AI knows where your units are. It can know where you're weaker and therefore attack there, increasing its chances of victory.

2nd. As the AI, on higher level, has production bonuses and extra free supported units. Also, the maximum number of turns in anarchy allows it to waste less resources. It can have a greater army than you with the same amount of resources (it even starts with a greater army). Outnumbering you increases its chances of victory.

3rd. As the AI knows where the future resources are, it's almost guaranteed that it'll be able to upgrade its units to the most powerful available. When you have to pray for getting a resource and stay stuck in longbowmen and spearmen, the AI increases its chances of victory.

Of course an experimented player can live with this and win anyway. But the point is: if the computer uses a different set of rules and gets advantages because of them, then it's cheating.

Keep civilized

David
 
Since these are not cheats, but infact rules programmed into the game, one must look at these as bonus', rather than cheats. Unfair? Sure. But then again, I can outthink the AI. I hope everyone else here can, too.
 
Originally posted by Nad
This arretium guy, the one with the attitude does not want to listen...why argue with an idiot?
Click to expand...
:nono:
He is not right but that doesn't make him an idiot!
 
it was a rhetorical question rather than a direct one
 
I have always said and will repeat it here again:

the combat system favours the AI by two means:

1) the strings of good and bad results the RNG gives are often too long o be practical for Civ3, especially on smaller maps where on tends to have fewer units

2) the enourmous numbers of troops AIs usually use - the human tries to optimize shield use and thus is far harder hit by an unlucky roll of the dice as he has less backup.




aside from that the game is fair - though I HAVE had my uncanny results, like a 4 elite Cav army killed by a 1 HP Spearman in a size 3 city....... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by carlosMM
the combat system favours the AI by two means:
Click to expand...
The combat system does not favor the AI. Those streaks are just luck. Would you complain if the results were reversed? Your tank beat that spearman?
 
Originally posted by RegentMan

The combat system does not favor the AI. Those streaks are just luck. Would you complain if the results were reversed? Your tank beat that spearman?
Click to expand...


read my entire post!


then think




then post


edit: added the BOLD type, to make it easier for you to quickly grasp the meaning of my text
 
RegentMan is right-The combat system does not favor the AI. If you were the one with many more units, then I guess the combat system would favor you then, huh? On deity, it takes away to overcome their 12 free units at the start, so don't declare war so early. Build a larger stack to prepare for those bad streaks. In my MA vs. MA test, the worst I had was 4 losses in a row, but then I won 7 in a row. If you know the odds of winning, then you know the proper size stack you should bring, and how many additional units you should bring in case you run into a little bad streak. Exactly how many units you will need depends on difficulty level and enemy. Most towns are guarded by 2 spearman(sometimes 3 on higher levels), regardless if it is a large map, or small map.

Yes, number of units helps because of counterattacks they can do. You can do the same strategy! Purely having many units, does not mean the combat system is being unfairly biased towards you or them. Using mass quantities of units are part of a strategy for war, not just taking 1 super tank and expect to wipe out a whole civ with just that one unit.
 
Originally posted by Catt
Others have already said the same thing, but I'll chime in . . .

Taking isolated incidents, even a series of 30 or 40 battles, is insufficient to come to a conclusion that the AI cheats in combat, particularly in light of developers' statements to the contrary. Others have tested combat involing literally thousands of trials. I have tested many hundreds of trials (in the course of testing radar towers) in a variety of circumstances (bigger empires, technological advancement, etc.) and never seen any anomolies in my testing. Fact is that probability is predictive, and wild sort-term results are to be expected. I've had streaks of incredible bad luck and incredible good luck -- the bad luck is much easier to remember (;)) and is most noticeable when it comes at the wrong time (i.e., "I just need the odds to play out as expected over this short run of trials and I'm golden, otherwise I'm in trouble . . . aarrgh, why am I losing unit after unit" ;)).
Click to expand...

I would LOVE to see the results!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SuedecivIII
I tested the effect of Radar Towers on air combat
Replies
1
Views
806
HardCode
H
K
Alternative campaign-the Mongols
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
kaskavel
K
AspiringScholar
"Hidden" combat odds in Civ III - Thoughts?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Lanzelot
Lanzelot
K
Why are combat and waging war so tedious?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Theov
Theov
ThesaurusRex
Why do we still like Civ 3?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Back
Top Bottom