I'm Going to State the AI Problem as Eloquently as Possible.

[Stuka]

What has the vast number of gamers bemoaning strategy games is that AI acts predictably, stupidly, and illogically. It is nigh on impossible to give a computer a "will to live", and consequently, in most cases, you will be left with an enemy who will pursue your tanks with archers using the same passion as Captain Ahab hunting his whale.

The bottom line is that the AI does not behave at all like ANY human being. The way these programmers make the game more difficult is by limiting what the PLAYER is able to do, and making it easier for the computer to do what it "wants" to.

Example: On higher difficulty levels, your people will be very prone to civil disorder, forcing you to entertain them morning, afternoon, and night 24/7. The costs of having a military become prohibitive. Your enemy gets enourmous production bonuses, army bonuses, attack bonuses, and resource bonuses. This allows them to make it much harder for you to wage war.

What leaves us so ill at ease, and quite frankly... MAD

Is that we're never being OUTFOUGHT, we're simply being OVERWHELMED by some sort of "human wave" method. These armies attack with no strategic interest, often starting at our most heavily defended capital city. Where's the fun in this? I enjoy playing, but...

The AI is terrible.

TERRIBLE!

 

[FrosTi]

What I don't understand is why the AI is so nasty! Is it to make it harder for the player too?

 

[Stuka]

Originally posted by FrosTi
What I don't understand is why the AI is so nasty! Is it to make it harder for the player too?

It DOES make it harder, and it also makes it hard to have GOOD life-long friends too!

It's too bad.

I still love to play though!

 

[Zouave]

Anyone notice the Civ 2 AI seemed better?

Anyone wonder why the Civ 3 AI does NOT seem five years more advanced than the Civ 2 AI?

Everyone has.

I suppose it depends on how fast the programmers slap it together.

 

[Craterus22]

How about that trading AI?

Why is it that I can trade 30 Gold for an old tech that I missed but I can't trade a city for it?

Here is the AI's thought process (as near as I can tell it)...

Hmmm... 30g for that tech? Sure!

Wait he is trying something else...

Whoa!!! he swapped out the 30 gold for that city near my empire... it must be a TRICK! absolutely NO TRADE!

In a game I played recently - the russians were beat down to one city... they had a ton of tech though... so I beat back the enemy for the russians and tried to get a little something you know... for the effort...by offering cities but Cathrine said, "nope, but on your deathbed you will recieve total consciousness"

so I got THAT going for me

She sure didn't mind me giving the cities to her for NOTHING though....

 

[Sullla]

Originally posted by Stuka
The AI is terrible.

TERRIBLE!

No offense meant, but do you have any idea how hard it is to create an artificial intelligence program for a strategy game? Games like chess are easy to do: the movements can be reduced to simple statistical formulas from which the AI selects the best choice. That's why even chess programs written 15 years ago could beat anyone but a grandmaster.

More complicated is the AI for an FPS; compare a more recent game like Half-Life to the original Doom to see the advances made in this area. But the result is still pretty simple: the enemies you face are ultimately trying to kill your character one way or another. The decisions the AI has to make are more complex, but for the most part pretty simple.

Now look at a game like Civ3, or any other turn-based strategy game on the market today. The AI has to make multiple complex, non-intuitive decisions on EVERY SINGLE TURN. Just writing the program that decides what to produce in cities, in response to current game conditions, would be a nightmare. Sure we see some really wacky stuff sometimes, but on the whole you have to admit the AI does an excellent job of both expanding and defending its cities. And that's just city production, never mind selecting city sites, worker management, research decisions, wonder production, conducting trade, preventing its cities from rioting, upgrading obsolete units...

Civ3 is a massively complicated game; it's a marvel what the AI can do in it. Since it is not physically possible to create an artifical intelligence that can challenge the best players, the AI is given advantages on the highest difficulties. If you don't like this you can 1) play on regent, where the conditions are even or 2) wait 10-20 years until programmers develop better AIs. Personally though I can't stand the constant whining from some of you, so I will cordially ask you to stop until you can come up with a different way for the AI to challenge the best players in SP.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Originally posted by Zouave
Anyone notice the Civ 2 AI seemed better?

Anyone wonder why the Civ 3 AI does NOT seem five years more advanced than the Civ 2 AI?

Everyone has.

I suppose it depends on how fast the programmers slap it together.

Zouave, apparently we bought different versions of Civ2.

Yours got programmed with some sort of super-human AI that didn't wander aimlessly around your cities until they clumped together in a nice fat stack and got decimated, an AI that had no conception whatsoever of nuclear deterence, because mine sure didn't.

I keep hearing you go on about how impressive Civ2 AI is.

 

[damunzy]

Thank you Sulla and dannyevilcat, you answered for me. Although I don't like cheating I can appreciate the difficulty in creating a good A.I.
Is there some kind of effort to standardize an A.I. so it would be possible to evolve it and modify it instead of havign to create it from scratch for every new game?

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Zouave
Anyone notice the Civ 2 AI seemed better?

Anyone wonder why the Civ 3 AI does NOT seem five years more advanced than the Civ 2 AI?

Everyone has.

I suppose it depends on how fast the programmers slap it together.

Zouave, I see your opinions are so weird that you don't dare to stand by them yourself, you have to hide behind "everyone".

Since even most players who perefer CIVII or SMAC gives CIV3 credit for better AI, then your statement is obviously wrong.

It is damn hard to make a decent AI. I really wished the CIV3 AI had been better, but TBS games are probably the hardest games to make AI for. I can't think of any AI that is better than CIV3's. It's far from prefect, but probably as near as the science of making AI has come today.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
Is there some kind of effort to standardize an A.I. so it would be possible to evolve it and modify it instead of havign to create it from scratch for every new game?

Unfortunately not - every new rules that is introduced is very-possible to nulify the old "premisas" for a AI alghoritms ...

Regards

 

[Captain Pugwash]

What would be good is if the higher difficulty levels required more skill somehow. Something about having to use techniques and strategies which are learned with experience. Maybe this is not possible to achieve.

At the moment, they seem to implement difficulty levels just by giving the AI extra materials to start and putting more obstacles in the way of the human player. But the game itself is no different.
The result for me at least is that instead of finding the higher levels more sophisticated, they are just more irritating.

The AI certainly performs better than in Civ2 where it used to constantly sacrifice units for no reason. I just wonder if the focus of what the designers are trying to achieve is ambitious enough.
Then again, it may be the limit of what is currently possible.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Captain Pugwash
What would be good is if the higher difficulty levels required more skill somehow. Something about having to use techniques and strategies which are learned with experience. Maybe this is not possible to achieve.

I have a ideea - what if on higher level the rules will changes to became more complex and also more difficult to manage ?

Regards

 

[Stuka]

Guys, I have no illusions on the difficulties involved in making a good AI, but there are certain things that I think SHOULD exist for better AI.

Gratitude is something utterly nonexistent.

An Obligation to defend you as a close friend is nonexistent.

I've had more fun with CivII with regard to scenarios, etc. But I think eventually CivIII will have a lot of scenarios, and customized units, etc... Which will make it even better. Remember guys, Civ2 was a milestone ahead of Civ I, but it wasn't SUPER GREAT until they made the Gold Edition. (Hell, I bought TWO copies of THAT one to show my support, and to give one as a gift later! How's THAT for a testimony!)

I bought the collector's edition of CivIII, and was terribly disappointed ONLY because I was hoping it would have pre-set maps of earth WITH historic starting locations. CIV3 WILL be utterly awesome so long as they do what they did with CivII.

(I am surprised that more... MUCH more... wasn't done, however.)

The AI, in my honest opinion is very similar to CivII. I don't mean to step on any toes there, but... That's how it seems to me, anyway. I know that it's a lot more fun and interesting to play with HUMAN players, but... Gee whiz, nobody has the patience for an eternal game like that...

Even in RTS games, the AI is ABYSMAL. I wonder if the quest for a good AI is something akin to making a computer with emotions?

Hmmmmm....

Nah. That's for a sci-fi movie.

Anyway, I know it's hard to make a good AI, but... Shakes head. Gee whiz.

One can't help but think there's SOMETHING that could be better.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat



Zouave, apparently we bought different versions of Civ2.

Yours got programmed with some sort of super-human AI that didn't wander aimlessly around your cities until they clumped together in a nice fat stack and got decimated, an AI that had no conception whatsoever of nuclear deterence, because mine sure didn't.

I keep hearing you go on about how impressive Civ2 AI is.

This is the same Civ2 where the Ai would send in units one or two per turn against your walls to get pounded too, correct? Civ3's AI might have problems, but if you think Civ2's was better, you havent played it in a LONG time or are looking at it through rose colored glasses.

 

[ETO_Peregrine]

Originally posted by Sullla

Civ3 is a massively complicated game; it's a marvel what the AI can do in it. Since it is not physically possible to create an artifical intelligence that can challenge the best players, the AI is given advantages on the highest difficulties. If you don't like this you can 1) play on regent, where the conditions are even or 2) wait 10-20 years until programmers develop better AIs. Personally though I can't stand the constant whining from some of you, so I will cordially ask you to stop until you can come up with a different way for the AI to challenge the best players in SP.

As a programmer, I know how hard it is to develop a solid rationale for the computer to follow. But without trying to sound confrontational, I don't think your argument holds water.

There are a number of well developed logical patterns an AI can use to negotiate a strategy game, though the AI in Civ III doesn't seem to use any of them. The Civ III AI appears to work on a strict rules based system that only weakly corresponds to the game reality. Most of the AI's capabilities are part of the game logic rather than the AI proper.

For example, the give-them-some-imodium expansion of the AI is caused by a simple coded axiom. The settlers reach their destination thanks to pathing algorithms that apply equally to human and AI alike. The controlling AI simply scans the map for any loose squares, gives a couple build orders, and the underlying game logic takes it from there. The game state in total doesn't affect the simple rule: "if land then expand." You have probably seen the consequences of this when, during wartime, enemy settler/defender pairs cross into your borders, oblivious to the fact that they don't complete their mission. Next turn, if the same unclaimed squares remain, more settlers will mindlessly come your way.

All aspects of the game are handled in much the same way, so the AI is not so much defective as it is noexistant.

The reason a chess program from 1980 can beat all but a few human beings is that the computer, based on the rules of chess, calculates as many possible moves and their subsequent effects on the board's state as it can given its speed. It chooses the path that has the most favorable outcome based on the value it gives the different pieces and the proximity of the final goal, checkmate. The computer can overwhelm the human player because it can "see" far more possibilities than the human mind can realize during the same period of time. Chances are, one chain of events will lead to victory for the machine.

Civilization is far more complicated than chess, but computers today are far faster than they were when chess was one of the only computer games. Yet the Civ III AI doesn't seem to use the principals of the basic chess AI. It doesn't attempt to predict the future game state based on its actions, nor does it follow clear goals. Compared to the complexity of the game, the ruleset that the AI uses is very rudimentary, and so produces the inexplicable results we've come to loath.

Civ is a game about values and tradeoffs. An AI using a fuzzy logic system in the same manner as the chess AI uses piece values would be most appropriate to approximate human-like responses to the game reality. Right now the AI is trying to checkmate his opponent as if all pieces were pawns. One drawback of fuzzy logic is that it compels AIs to sometimes act with unpredictable stupidity (like most of us). However, I'd much prefer that to the very predictable idiocy that the AI has now.

 

[God]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


I have a ideea - what if on higher level the rules will changes to became more complex and also more difficult to manage ?

Regards

Unhappines hits alot earlier on larger maps. On emperor you can barely grow to size 4 without a temple and some luxuries.

And I don't see how there is any other way to make the higher levels tougher without giving the Ai the advantage.

As far as I see it, it is fair for the AI to get bonuses on higher levels. The way humans can beat them is because of strategy and planning ahead which AI can't do.

 

[Stuka]

Originally posted by God

Unhappines hits alot earlier on larger maps. On emperor you can barely grow to size 4 without a temple and some luxuries.

And I don't see how there is any other way to make the higher levels tougher without giving the Ai the advantage.

As far as I see it, it is fair for the AI to get bonuses on higher levels. The way humans can beat them is because of strategy and planning ahead which AI can't do.

Cute little blasphemous name ya have there kiddo...

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne


It is damn hard to make a decent AI. I really wished the CIV3 AI had been better, but TBS games are probably the hardest games to make AI for. I can't think of any AI that is better than CIV3's. It's far from prefect, but probably as near as the science of making AI has come today.

I agree. If Zoave or I had started with a budget, a schedule, an organization of managers, developers, designers, testers, artists (!) etc. the AI might have turned out worse. And Infogames/Firaxis/Sid M deserve credit for some brilliant innovations that we take for granted. Cultural influence was a great idea. New ideas take time to implement.

And patch 1.21f gave us a lot of the changes we asked for. Infogames/Firaxis, in my opinion, has a good attitude and seems to be acting in good faith. Then, predicably, you see 75% of this forum dedicated to what looks to me like b****ing. I do criticize civ3, but I try not to say things like "Stupid" etc. because I know it's hard.

I wish that the AI had the ability to see that it is going to get its *** kicked when it starts a war with a vastly stronger human player, but I also think that *some* nations in the real world start wars they should know they are going to lose. So what I really want is for some AI civs to act rationally and others to act irrationally!

We also ask for enhancements and better performance at the same time. Let's say that Infogames/Firaxis had the time and money, and implemented many more of the things we ask for. That might make the game bigger and slower.

I remember the days before I was a programmer. People used to show me programs that, for example, printed out guitar chord positions. I said, "so what?" It looked so easy. Then I became a programmer and learned what it looks like from the inside. It's more difficult than it looks.

In defense of Zoave, though, I think some of his posts are so outrageous that they must be tongue-in-cheek. But I also think he should think about the possibility that:

IF we, the civ3 players, seem overwhelmingly ungrateful for the good faith efforts to improve civ3, Infogames/Firaxis may gradually get the idea that it does not matter what they do. I was pleased to see that some of the posts in this thread were not of the knee-jerk "this is a s****y game!" type.

 

[Craterus22]

I have fond memories of the AI for OGRE by steve jackson games (C64os)- this was from the late 80's(ithink)

It was a fairly good game and there was no cheating that I could discern...

I will have to dig out the old manual, but I seem to recall it basing its next move on point values for each hex. A hovercraft got a 2(or something along those lines) and a tank got a 5. It would then pick out a hex that would allow it to do the most damage(since it had multiple attacks-ie:if i go here I can take out 2 hovercraft but if I go this way I can take out a tank). Developing an AI is a tedious process, but not the impossible dream that some here would make it seem.

I think we have an overall point system in this game where it is attempting to find out which civ to fight(but almost never who to help or to make real friends with at least not in a non-trivial way).

Also, what the game appears to lack is a good decision making process on what a good target is ONCE it decides to fight.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Stuka


Cute little blasphemous name ya have there kiddo...

Leave God's name alone, Stuka. Until Thunderfall says their is a problem with it, it is his.