expose mulitple AI cost advantages in the next CIV3 patch

[cracker]

Firaxis has in the past revealed and exposed variables that impact the behavior and performance of the AI players so that the variables can be adjusted in the editor to effect the enjoyment levels of game play.

I have identified a key variable (actually a set of variables) that needs to be made available in the editor in order for us to approach some level of functionality at higher levels of difficulty.

Currently there is only one variable called “AI Cost Factor” that is adjusted to set the advantage that all the AI players have relative to the human player. This one factor impacts every AI player the same and impacts all aspects of each AI player.

As an example, at Deity difficulty level the AI Cost Factor is set to 6 while the cost factor for the human player remains fixed at 10 and this yields the following cost advantages for the AI.

Nothing in this post will complain or whine about the advantages given to the AI players at standard difficulty levels.

The code should be revised to include a simple change that lets the editor set different cost multipliers for five different activity areas instead of just one cost advantage factor that distorts all teh game play areas equally. These factors should be:

Population Growth Rate
Unit Production Rate
Technology Research Cost
Improvement and Small Wonder Production Rate
Great Wonder Production Rate

All of these cost factors should be set to the current default difficulty levels in the CIV3 product so that the standard product will represent no change to game player or the end user.

I would implement each of these cost factors by including a cost factor for each type of activity and a percentage factor that would be applied to determine the probability that each AI player (after the first AI player) would have the advantage. As a default this percentage factor would be set to 100% so that all the AI players would be certain to have the advantage. If the percentage factor were adjusted to 50% then the first AI player generated in the game would have the full AI cost advantage and all subsequent AI players would have a 50% chance of having the AI cost advantage and a 50% chance of being the same as the human player in this particular cost factor.

A third enhancement that could and should be included would be the civ specific advantage multiplier and selection dialog box. Each civ could have an individual cost advantage multiplier that would be multiplied times the standard cost advantages to help differentiate the different civs from one another. The selection dialog box would be located at the general difficulty level setting page and would determine if the civ specific multiplier would apply to any one of the five cost factors or the additional choices of “none” and “all”.

I have only been able to test the play impact of one of differentiating one of these cost variables because the current system has hard coded all the AI civs to be the same and at the same time hard coded all these civs to have the same advantage relative to the human player. The only variable that can currently be play tested on a limited basis is the civ specific unit cost.

The results of this first test were so significantly positive as to warrant immediate sharing of the results.

To test the results of providing more thoughtful application of the cost factors, I created copies of all the key early units and then made them available on a civ specific basis only. As an example, on Deity level I created a unit called the “eqSettler” or equalized settler using all the standard graphics. I then set the cost factor for the eqSettler to be 20 shields and 1 population point (that would cost 20 grain bundles) while the AI civs still used the standard settler cost which only cost then 18 shields and 2 population points (at total equivalent of 24 grain bundles.) I interpreted the eqSettler to be about as close as possible to being equal to the AI version of the regular settler. To test the impact of equalizing the settler production capabilities, I made the eqSettler available only to the human player.

I also tested the impact of equalizing the costs of other units by using a similar eqUnit approach to other units like spearmen, archers, swordsmen, horsemen, and pikemen. This approach basically made the human player equal to the AI players in the area of unit cost and unit production but left the AI players with a supreme advantage in all other cost areas including population growth, research, and infrastructure.


The equalization approach could also be tested in reverse, by restricting the eqUnits to only be available to the AI civs while reducing the AI cost Factor for the difficulty level back to being equal to the human player (10) this would make all cost and growth factors equal but would still allow the AI players to exploit a significant advantage in unit production rate.

Just by differentiating the AI unit cost advantages from all the other advantages, the enjoyment factor of playing at pseudo deity level was vastly increased. When the unit costs were equalized, the growth and expansion rates of the civs were more balanced even though the AI’s continued to exploit a significant set of advantages due to their one settler head start and enhanced growth rate combined with 40% reduction in the costs of technology, wonders, and improvements. When the AI civs were only given a unit cost advantage, they could expand quickly and support that expansion with increased military units at an accelerated rate but at least the human player had some chance of building more than perhaps one great wonder in the entire game.

A key point in this proposal is to provide some differentiation between the AI civs at the higher game play levels. The current implementation has the AI civs set to a higher level of game progress in every way and results in substantially less difference between the different AIs on the Emperor and Deity levels. All of the AIs almost approach a psychotic level of builder frenzy and settler diarrhea leading to the singular appearance of ganging up on the human player. Depending on the “luck of the draw” from the random number generator, the AI players either get into early conflicts and create opportunities for the human player to win or the AI players end up balanced while the human player is terminally squeezed without opportunity.

 

[Zouave]

Reading this long discourse - though extremely well thought out and developed - I have to wonder why you think Firaxis would ever bother with all the code changes needed to implement it; Firaxis still can't even get some basic things right. And I also wonder where all the FUN went that we had with Civ 2.

AI advantages against the human are skewed and done in such a way as to be not just an advantage - but some extraordinarily annoying ones.

I am also glad my term, Settler Diarrhea, has now entered the Civilization lexicion. It is as braindead in concept as Culture Flipping cities and borders; Firaxis even sends settlers (clearly freebies the AI got) to the open tiles of razed cities. . . to be destroyed again and again. It is so stupid. The entire field of exploration after we get galleons is done in Civ 3 as there is nothing to explore after galleys. Most of those crappy little AI towns on tundra and deserts are also all but indefensible in war and are a waste of that civ's resources as they will never really be productiove and are prone to massive corruption. All they are is A PAIN IN THE ASS.

Oh yes, when you mention such as shield cost, remember that the AI almost certainly gets freebies, as I alluded to above. I once razed Paris, and in no time at all TWO settlers appeared from Lyons - the only French city/town in the area.

As long as Settler Diarrhea and Culture Flipping (at least as implemented in the game so far) exist, as long as we have no scenarios, and such a pathetic use of naval warfare, etc, then your suggestions, albeit good ideas, are hardly going to make a big difference.

 

[TheDS]

The AI often has a "Combat Settler" or 2 ready to go at a moment's notice. If you play long enough to get a CIA then you can see how many and of what type of units an enemy has. Because the AI razes your cities about half the time, and it expects you to do the same, what can it do but throw another settler at the same spot? It was good enough to settle on once...

The land-rush you often decry is an important strategy. In Civ2, I was always out run to the best places and I was always far behind until I managed to buy or conquer myself into equality. I then found out that it was better to bum-rush settlers, and all my Civ2 and AC games improved dramatically to the point that I frequently took and held the lead early on.

Some of the points you make are certainly valid, but not all of them. We could probably argue the point all day and night, but let me ask you to agree that we have a difference of opinion and that neither of us wants or needs to rehash stuff we've said a million times already.

 

[cracker]

The issue here is not whether DS or Zouave are right, wrong, drunk, stupid, and/or insane

the issue is that the cost variable settings for AI difficulty levels should be able to be set independently for the 5 key areas of game activity:

Population Growth Rate
Unit Production Rate
Technology Research Cost
Improvement and Small Wonder Production Rate
Great Wonder Production Rate

This will require a very minimal amount of programming and virtually no game play testing because all the standard released product efforts will initially contain the variables set to match the one variable that exists in the current game.

I hacked into the code an revised the great wonder production rate for AIs on diety level and it only took about 30 minutes to find the address site.

If these different variables were available to test and verify, I feel confident that Firaxis would patch the standard game to adjust the cost factors particularly in the areas of population and Great Wonders.

I can tell that many readers do not grasp what a significant and positive impact that these simple changes would have even if the standard game is initially unaffected. I urge you to give this proposal more thoughtful consideration.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, I think it would be cool to adjust some of the cost factors, without it being all or none. You could give the AI a production bonus, but not a scientific one. Or a faster growth and research capabilities, but not a production bonus.

Right now, the AI on higher difficulties can research faster (less money required to research a tech), build up those libraries faster (production bonus) AND grow faster (more cities = even faster research!!) That is why people find themselves behind the AI so quickly on Deity. For most players, they can only hope to catch up by:
1. Exploits
2. Very careful trades, diplomacy.
3. Early War
4. Wait for Industrial Ages, since the AI puts a low priority on building factories, gets in wars and self destructs under communism.

Now as far as the settler diarrhea thing, I often see AI cities with settlers in their garrison! And that is why they seem to be able to pop out settlers at a moments notice. Also, whenever their capital is under attack, the first thing they build is a settler, to send him off, so they hopefully continue to survive. I once met the Japanese that were stuck on a rather small island, so they didn't have very many cities. They had 4 sets of spearman/settler combos in their capital!! Obviously, the AI was programmed that it needed to build so many settlers, but those settlers had no where to go yet.

 

[etj4Eagle]

I agree in terms of allowing us to customize the game that decoupling the cost advantages would be a good idea. Just like allowing us to give hit point bonuses to units.

The thread title would be better if you referred to decoupling the cost advantages then exposing them, since they are already exposed. You just want the separate factors instead of just one.

 

[chiefpaco]

Good proposal. I've thought of it before that it was unfair to give the tech advantage AND the production advantage.

But I never thought of having different opponents at the same time too. That is a good idea and something I've seen in other games.

At least they let us adjust the trading. The more they let us change, the better their product gets for more people, the more fun we get and the more gameplay possibilities there are to try.

 

[cracker]

I know that we are now only two or three weeks away from the next patch that will probably be released by Firaxis and the content of that patch may already be set,

but I still think that including these mutiple cost factors instead of just one cost factor that effects everything should be very high priority.

If there is one thing that is wrong with the current game on DIety level it is the fact that the 60% cost advantage for the AIs is also applied to Great Wonders.

Because the effects of starting with an extra settler plus growing population for 40% faster, plus building production improving iprovements is 40% cheaper and building more units and settlers is 40% cheaper - all these factors multiply to make diety level an almost un enjoyable event even when you play on a level that will win regularly.

I find diety level to be unfair and 50/50 just a skinner box torture when the cost 60% cost advantage is applied to everything the AI does. I would give the AI all the current advantages but play them head to head on wonder costs and see if it still results in games where the only wonders I have in may cities have been gained by waaaaaaaaaaaaaarmongering for 1000 years or more.

 

[TheDS]

Oh, well,... if you want to be ON topic.......

I think that's a pretty decent idea. At the very least, uncouple the Wonders from the cost advantage.