Insead of making levels harder by adding advantages to AI...

Because it's hard to do this.
 
MSTK said:
Why can't we just make AI get smarter? The learning curve would be easier, IMO.
Click to expand...
If they were able to do this, do you not think they would already have done so? ;) :)
 
I know of one game that the AI has a learning curve... It would slowly but surely learn your tactics and use them against you. I beleive that principle could be applied to this game. The game itself would slowly get harder, instead of you changing the difficulty level.
 
I think that the idea of having the AI tactics moddable would be the best way to improve the AI. People in this forum and Apolyton would be having AI competitions to see who came up with the best stuff. It might take a year or two before a really good combination was created, but it would be worth the wait.

This was suggested in another thread, btw.
 
Apparently, the AI for 'Superpower' has some kind of advanced 'fuzzy logic' system similar to what luckykitkat is talking about.
In addition, the game has claimed that the AI doesn't actually KNOW what country you're playing-though I don't know how this is possible. Any programmers here know if this is really possible (Warpstorm, I'm lookin at you here ;))?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Sure, you could make it so that the AI didn't factor in which team was the human player.
 
how long until we can make our games fun with smarter than the average bear computer opponents? isnt there some sorta NASA chip we could steal or have i been watching too much small soilders? :D
 
well...the problem with making the AI smarter is one of greedy vs dynamic algorithms. greedy algorithms simply choose the best NEXT move rather than considering the consequences of a range of NEXT moves.
it takes more computing power to do this because it has to iterate over a number of turns. the number of iterations can quickly become astronomical without really excellent code. There are ways to reduce the number of computations, for example saving results of computations so it doesnt have to go over the same thing everytime.

It's been a long time since i took an algorithm course but i don't think it would be that hard. i mean, they do wargames at the pentagon, don't they?
and how long have they been doing them? ........
...just takes quality programmers i guess....
 
(this idea is crazy and will not be implemented in at lesast 10 or 20 years)

Maybe...instead of having difficulty levels, you will have a single, solid AI that learns from the human? Like...if the human uses bad tactics, the AI will "observe" the human, and then will learn from it. If the human uses good tactics, the AI will "obvserve" it and will learn from it.

For example, if the human does an ROP rape, the AI then knows that it is possible. If the human has a tech that is way ahead of them, the AI will strive towards that certain tech that they see being used against them (or a tech that can counter it) and increase tech race. If a human player is using Suicide Galleys...or any other tactics.

IIRC, this is impossible as if this time.
 
wohmongarinf00l, or anyone really, does Civ3 use a combination of greedy and dynamic algorithims? Like greedy for where to send workers, but perhaps dynamic for when a war is being declared?
 
sark - i doubt that the AI uses dynamic algorithms even for war decisions....how many times have you been able to get them to sign a military alliance with u against some third nation that has a RoP with them....for 500 gold and a worldmap....
obviously it doesnt account for the fact that the other nation's troops are in its borders and it is probably a bad idea to go to war with them nomatter how weak the military advisor thinks they are...i had to outlaw military alliances and trade embargoes in my scenario just for this reason....
talking abt diplomacy, i'm writing a suggestion on war diplomacy next....
 
wohmongarinf00l said:
i mean, they do wargames at the pentagon, don't they?
and how long have they been doing them? ........
...just takes quality programmers i guess....
Click to expand...

Warpstorm snickers knowingly.

Most of the wargames do not have a lot of AI at the upper strategic levels. They play them multiplayer with red and blue teams (and white teams).

For the ones that do, they hire from the games industry... :crazyeye:
 
In Starcraft (which was made 6 years ago mind you), the computer AI adjusted to your skill level and your ways of playing. If this was done 6 years ago (and probably in a number of other games after that too), then it shouldn't be too hard to put a more advanced system in Civilization IV.
 
i played starcraft and the computer was really obvious everytime, they would just build colonies everywhere and rarely attacked.are you sure about the computer adjusting? it sounds a bit farfetched
 
Chauliodus said:
I'd really like the AI to play to win instead of just trying to make if hard for you to win.
Click to expand...

Excellent point :clap:
 
Chauliodus said:
I'd really like the AI to play to win instead of just trying to make if hard for you to win.
Click to expand...

Here here.

I think a perfect analogy is the AI in racing games.

There are two kinds of AI that I hate:

- the AI has to cheat to stay competitive (in racing games, they do this by letting the AI go faster than usual if they're lagging behind, to make sure someone's always on your tail) ... I liken this to playing at the deity level, or the AI ganging up on you if you're winning in Civ 2

- the AI keeps moving at the same pace no matter what, even if you smoke them ... I liken this to Civ 3

I think if there's one thing to learn from racing games, it's that they don't try to make all the AI cars equally competitive... there's usually one or two cars that will be hard to beat in that race, while the other cars are there for "flavor". I wouldn't mind if Civ were this way, explicitly or secretly, with two or three Civs really gunning for the domination victory, and a bunch of other civs there for flavor (peaceful victories). The top civs don't aggressively target you -- there just needs to be one growing nearly as fast as you until 1800 or so, when you finally have your big showdown.

Just a thought.
 
Stid said:
i played starcraft and the computer was really obvious everytime, they would just build colonies everywhere and rarely attacked.are you sure about the computer adjusting? it sounds a bit farfetched
Click to expand...

The problem with Civ is, each Civ-game lasts hours or days and the rules are complex.
Starcraft is designed to last maybe an hour or so and the rules are not that complicated.
Most RTS games are the following way: Build up a lot of infrastructure to get ressources then build up your military and then attack.
Civ is not that easy and I have to admit that it took me a long time to figure out how to beat the AI on regent, so I say, Civ 3 has a good AI compared to most of the games, but I'm sure they can make it better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Better way to implement AI difficulty bonuses
Replies
1
Views
549
Krikkit1
K
R
Ideologies should remove settlement limit cap
Replies
0
Views
106
Renouf
R
I
Allow me to change length of ages
Replies
1
Views
174
CliffCo
CliffCo
planetfall
Best diety game config options?
Replies
9
Views
672
DeckerdJames
D
sTAPler27
A Return to a Civ 6 Style Culture Victory
Replies
7
Views
994
Krikkit1
K
Back
Top Bottom