How to make an AI with varying intelligence

[rhialto]

@lockesdonkey
What you've described is a strong defensive military. I7ve played builder games where I had about a quarter of the defensive units you list and token offensive forces. But the AI doesn't think "no defences, rip for plunder", it thinks "high tech - too dangerous to attack". As long as I pay my blackmail bribes on time he never touches me unless I accidentally leave a city with literally zero defence.

 

[dh_epic]

The most important post I've read:

As I said above the secret, IMHO, is to make the AI play in a more 'Human' way. ... sometimes they will be ruthless and cut-throat, but at other times they will recognise the need for diplomacy and co-operation-for whatever reason that might be.

But DON'T make the mistake of thinking that's the most important part.

The most important part is part 2:

Then, to make sure that the AI isn't 'hamstrung', the same thinking should apply to the population of a civ that is played by a human player.

If you do part 1, you still run the risk of a wussy, weak, trusting, gullable AI. (Only if it is cut-throat 100% of the time, even when it finds itself in temporary alliances to exploit another power somewhere, can it be successful.)

But if you add part 2, that the human is guided by his peoples' impulses -- we like those neighbors, but hate those foreigners, and fear this tyrant -- then the player is forced to do the non-cut-throat thing... he's compelled to cooperate for more than his own benefit, or declare war on someone who isn't weak, because his people demand it. Then the AI doesn't need to be 100% cut throat.

 

[Darwin420]

A small addition I would like to this: Allow there to be randomization of the AI's algorithms. That way, once I get used to how the 19 civs play, I can click on the randomize button, and never again play the same opponents twice! (well, very rarely, at least).

 

[Sirian]

...because his people demand it.

Then it wouldn't be Civ any more, though. Civ is a "god" game. Civ is player gives the orders. Civ is player gets to shape his own civ, rather than being at the mercy of forces beyond his control.

There might be a way to make a fun and compelling "history simulator" but Civ has never been that. It has always been a god game.

Civ has never been about nations. It has always been about factions.


What would it actually DO for the player to have to answer the needs of his people? It would probably play a lot like Tropico. That might not be all bad, but I wonder if it's right for Civ.

Keep in mind, Tropico is DOMESTIC POLITICS ONLY. No rivals, no wars, only an isolated, fictional little island where player has to try to govern a few hundred people at most, who are split into factions with different needs and priorities.


Most games of Tropico see the player struggling hard just to make ends meet and stay in power. Imagine being in that situation when the Mongols come knocking at your door with twenty Keshiks units. You'd be toasty.

Then there's the AI. The Civ AI has never handled balancing anything very well. If a huge part of the game was managing to balance competing factions internally, the player would be way advantaged over the AI, and then the AI would need Civ3-style Beyond Deity levels of bonus to compete.


I think it would become too complicated to make Civ into two games: the Civ of old, on the foreign affairs front, but a Tropico-style game on the domestic front.

I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on the likelihood that Civ4 will go that route.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

If the player didn't have to be at the mercy of forces (within his own empire) beyond his control, they wouldn't have the following features:

- war weariness
- culture flips
- happiness and unhappiness
- luxuries
- religion (even in its primitive temples-and-cathedrals form)
- corruption (which they're getting rid of)
- civil disorder (which I've heard they're also getting rid of?)

Without any of these, the player simply tries to grow the population as much as possible. He is limited by the amount of food, which he increases by building irrigations / farms. He produces city improvements to help him research new techs, and builds military buildings to help pump out the best units. Those units go to war. In other words, Civ is a turn-based version of Warcraft.

Here are some of your possible objections to the examples I use.

1. The player still can control these things. War weariness occurs because of a player's decision to go to war combined with a certain form of government, as opposed to an automatic knee jerk reaction to violence. Happiness and unhappiness are features the player manipulates through luxuries and improvements. I agree.

But the "God Game" versus "History Simulator" is not the debate I'm getting into. Civ is neither. It's a strategy game about growing your empire through history. Dealing with people comes with the territory -- the key is giving the player the tools to deal with it. A player whose foreign affairs are guided by who his people loves and hates is NOT an artificial barrier like the senate, but an organic open-ended unhappiness challenge, as the player has always dealt with in the series.


2. They're getting rid of corruption and civil disorder, and so they're trying to fit Civ from the broad "strategy game" genre into the narrow "god game slash strategy game" genre. You may even argue that this is a sign they might get rid of culture flipping, or get rid of the idea that your people can be anything but 100% loyal to you altogether.

But to me, their getting rid of corruption and civil disorder NOT because they're trying to cut out any "will of the people" features, but because they're trying to find better "will of the people" features. Corruption is an inevitability and a pain in the *** that even some star players accept for the sake of domination. Civil Disorder is easily remedied with a governor, and yet twice as annoying when your governor lets the city slip into disorder without warning. These features will not be removed but replaced -- with something more organic that adds to the overall sense of happiness/unhappiness in your empire, and the gradual losses of productivity that come with it. If anything, the rumored addition of "morale" would only further cement this point.


3. None of these "domestic issues" I've cited are complex to the degree of, say, Tropico. In which case, you're right. I agree. But there's a lot of room for Civilization to maneuver as a franchise before it gets to the level of dealing with individual citizens, managing the intricasies of the education system from before high school to after college, and trying to balance a budget. Civilization can give more strength to the will of the people, which is something Tropico has, but that does not mean that Civilization will become Tropico, let alone two games in one.


To me, there's nothing wrong with the idea of your people increasing in happiness and unhappiness depending on your foreign relations. They already get upset when you go to some wars. Why wouldn't they get upset if you act like a coward and forgave a backstabber too soon? Or ignored the approaching armies of a tyrant, plowing through your neighbors, which will inevitably come for you?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, if one more person says 'It won't be Civ anymore'-as a justification for NOT adding great new features-then I think I am going to SCREAM !!
The fact is Civ2 'wasn't Civ anymore', and Civ3 DEFINITELY 'wasn't Civ anymore'-at least in so much as they weren't the same as their predecessor. Yet, lets face it, the growth, change and increasing challenge of the Civ franchise at each iteration has helped, not hindered, the games' sales. If Firaxis had focused on keeping the game like every other game, then civ3 would have just been Civ1 with great graphics!!!
Like DH_Epic, I am NOT talking about the player losing ALL control over how he runs his own civ, just that the attitudes and opinions of the various FACTIONS within your civ should have to be taken into consideration when you make your decisions (though you can, to a degree, manipulate which faction is most dominant at any time).
No, it won't 'be Civ anymore'-it will be CIV+++!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

You know, if one more person says 'It won't be Civ anymore'-as a justification for NOT adding great new features-then I think I am going to SCREAM

Does every idea on this board represent a "great" new feature in the making?

Does saying "it won't be Civ any more" automatically mean somebody (in this case, me) is covering up for poor logic with cliche?


"It won't be Civ any more" is a legitimate concern. Innovation goes without saying, but so does remaining true to what has made the series great.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

The reality is that managing the happiness of people in your empire has always been a part of civilization. Nobody is talking about eliminating the importance of the military, either directly by penalizing militarism, or indirectly by making domestic policy as complex as Tropico.

Be that as it may, crying "it won't be civ" is legitimate in many cases (such as accounting-sim suggestions for economic models), but often it's a "sky is falling" kind of attacks on feasible suggestions. There's everything perfectly feasible about having your people experience a kind of "peace weariness" or "xenophobia" the same way they experience "war weariness".

(Speaking of war weariness, a lot of people respect it as an essential part of Civilization. What people have a problem with is when it doesn't make sense. Outrage at aggression might make sense, but who's ever heard of outrage at self defence? People are cool with war weariness, but if anything, they want it to be MORE dynamic. Simplifying something isn't a question of making it as cartoon like as possible, but making it consistent with what a new player expects.)

As for factions, I didn't play SMAC, but I heard it had them?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You see, it bothers me when, in Civ2, the Senate made stupid and random decisions. By the same token, it bothered me when war weariness seemed to go up EVEN when you were doing really well in a war. The point is that both ideas were sound-in principle-but ultimately fail by being too RANDOM. Implementing a system of both factions AND an improved War Weariness system might actually allow you to have the BEST elements of Senates and War Weariness, whilst discarding the dross. For instance, your farmer/labourer factions are unhappy with your current war, because you are drafting them to fight it (and the casualties have been high) but, under your current government, this faction isn't very influential, so you can safely afford to ignore their concerns (for now)-the Military and Religious factions, OTOH, are happy with the war: the military because, in spite of casualties you ARE winning, and the religious faction because you are fighting a 'Holy War' against the heathens. As the most powerful factions in your current government, their opinion means a great deal. If their happiness drops, then you might either have to end the war, boost their influence even more, or cut them 'out of the loop' completely.
Now, YES its not entirely civ as it has been before, but it is in most respects still the game we have come to know and love-the only difference is that now its even BETTER!!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie, that factional stuff is really ambitious, but it certainly would be the holy grail of Civ.

I think the intermediate step (the "good enough for now" step) is to have more weariness type features, but keep them sensible. War weariness against aggression, but no war weariness for self defence. And blood lust against players that your civilization grows to hate -- so you can't just ignore a tyrant because you'd rather pick on a weakling.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, DH_Epic, I don't think my system is quite the 'Holy Grail' that you think it is.
I have explained my preferred model for Factions/Influence elsewhere, but will summarize it here VERY quickly:

1) You have factions-such as military, labourer and religious. The number and influence of these factions give your civ its UNIQUE quality.

2) How much influence each faction has, at any time, is effected mostly by other normal, in-game actions taken by the player.

3) Influence and Sufferage level (as well as factional happiness) are key factors which effect the likelihood that a particular faction may either (a) make a specific demand of you or (b) try and block a decision you have made (though you CAN override such a block).

4) Sufferage also effects how many times, in a given turn, that any of the factions may 'interfere' in your decision making processes.

Anyway, thats it in pretty broad terms. Essentially what it might amount to is: At the beginning of a turn, you might get messages telling you which faction is asking/demanding something from you-and WHAT they are asking for/demanding. Then, during the turn, if you make an especially significant decision (like diplomacy or government/civics changes), then there is a chance that one or more factions might try to block you.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.