Irrational AI Bites The Big One Again

[Old&Slow]

I`m sure all the Fans here will love this.

Having gone back to this Game which I played for 100`s of hours when it came out I now know again why I hated it so much.

Just destroyed the French, had a great position on my Continent, about 15+ Cities in 1011 AD, lots of units, well on my way to winning the Game.

Then the Chinese landed Troops by Boat & attacked my Costal Cites for no reason, while fighting them off and striving to keep research and gold flowing, the Strong Egyptians, who I had been giving Bribes, agreeing to all their requests, doing lots of good trades with, not crowding their Border Cities attacked me.

Game Over.

As usual with this F****** AI and it`s totaly "Random" political
responses to the Human player 8 hours of Game Play down the drain.

Does the AI ever fight with the other AI Civs, I never saw it.

Does the AI join Alliances with the Human player, maybe less then 20% of the time. Does it make Alliances with other AI Civs, only about 80% of the time.

Did Sid " Make Love Not War " Meier make a Wargame wherein your penalized for making War ? For Sure.

Does the AI cheat in the combat results, all the time.

Does it cheat in Research, all the time.

Can you win with all kind of gamey, cheesy ploys, of course.

Is that Good Game Design... No.

There, I feel much better now !

 

[Hygro]

Well I'm glad you feel better but you have two rather specific facts wrong (your other bits of info are too vague for me to disagree with)

The AI doesn't cheat in combat. I don't care what kind of "proof" you think you have, it's been tested and it's fair and working fine.
It does not cheat in research. It needs a specific amount of beakers to research something and that's exactly what it does. The AI then trades it too each other if the other civs can afford it. If they can't afford it they don't buy it.

 

[Grille]

There, I feel much better now !

Yeah, it's sometimes good to vent one's anger, but...

Does the AI join Alliances with the Human player, maybe less then 20% of the time. Does it make Alliances with other AI Civs, only about 80% of the time.

The ai joins military alliances with the human all the time. You could even let them join a MA when they curently trade with your enemy.
Well, if you do not act on the diplo stage, they will do. If I was the China, I would SURELY bribe Egypt into a MA against you. And if I was Egypt, I might decide to get my piece of the cake while you're trying to push back the Chinese invasion on the other side, even w/o joining a MA w/ China...
Thing is, you should take over the initiative . The beforehand needed bribe for an ally can often be regained by extorting techs, gpt... during peace negotiations with the enemy when the war comes to an end.

Does the AI cheat in the combat results, all the time.

No, ai does not cheat.

 

[Old&Slow]

Originally posted by Hygro
Well I'm glad you feel better but you have two rather specific facts wrong (your other bits of info are too vague for me to disagree with)

The AI doesn't cheat in combat. I don't care what kind of "proof" you think you have, it's been tested and it's fair and working fine.
It does not cheat in research. It needs a specific amount of beakers to research something and that's exactly what it does. The AI then trades it too each other if the other civs can afford it. If they can't afford it they don't buy it.

I`m glad your glad I feel better.

That the AI never seems ( in % terms per Game played ) to fight among itself is hardly " Vague"

That it seems, in #`s of Games played, somewhat ( a lot ) more prone to make alliances with itself is also not " Vague".

Please direct me to those tests on the fairness of the AI combat routines, or provide documentation.

It would seem you have to have access to the Game Code or AI CRT to do those tests.

How can the other AI`s expand as fast as they do, have 12 Cities early Game, as well as 5-8 more techs then me and research, and build Armies and still have gold to "buy" techs ?

Ditto on pure research ?

I`ll be even happier if you can provide some facts on that

Thanks ! ( Sincerely, not being a wise ass ).

 

[Hygro]

I would love to show you documentation for combat tests but the search feature is off right now.

I see the AI declare war on each other as often as on me. This wasn't true when I first played however as I sucked, didn't build enough military, and played chieftain so when the AI actually did go to war, it tended to be with me. Those days are long gone (had one of the AIs sucked as much as I did they woulda ganged up on him instead).

To simulate a combat test make a scenario featuring, say, 1000 units on either side, with 11 attack and 10 defence fighting on grasslands (10% defensive bonus). Try this on cheiftain and diety, and note the lack of difference.

What level do you play btw?

 

[Atotarho]

I`m glad your glad Im glad you feel better

The AI Civs declare war on each other all the time. The last game I played every AI Civ was at each others throat all game. They wiped the English out, they respawned and they knocked them down to one city again. This is all without me bribing anyone or starting anything.

I make alliances with the AI civs all the time. I like nothing better than to start a world war. Besides its easier to knock off a Civ if hes fighting on three or four fronts, you just have to pick your partners carefully and after you get one or two in they will all pile in.

Most of the time the an AI Civ attacks you because you are militarily weak. If that is the case then they have no trouble getting others to join in, just as you would if offered.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Old&Slow



Please direct me to those tests on the fairness of the AI combat routines, or provide documentation.

The tests go something like making an adequate sample of battles and then compare the observed win/loss ratio to the expected ratio, like Hygro said. I'm sure some poster might remember a respective thread and posts a link ('ai cheats' is usually a poster magnet; I trapped in, too...)

It would seem you have to have access to the Game Code or AI CRT to do those tests.

No, it's a statistical test; basically, the random number generator gets 'tested'. Based on unit's ADM values and alike, you can calculate the expected combat result and just compare.

How can the other AI`s expand as fast as they do, have 12 Cities early Game, as well as 5-8 more techs then me and research, and build Armies and still have gold to "buy" techs ?

Depends on level. On deity, the ai has 2 settlers at game start (and other bonus units, but 2 settlers is IMHO their biggest advantage to expand faster). On top of that, the additional units might help to hut-pop a settler/city/tech quite early.
Monarch and above lets the ai get production/growth advantages. The higher the level, the less shields (resp. food) they need to complete a building task (compared to you). You can check the exact stats for each difficulty level in the editor. If you investigate an ai city (e.g. open embassy), you see their "shrinked" production boxes when you play on a higher difficulty level.
Regent is out-evened, chieftain & warlord cripples ai production rates. If there's enough room and if you could establish at least one 'settler factory' (see Bamspeedy's article in the War Academy), it's possible to keep up with ai expansion up to emperor level until you have a decent-sized empire (other things play a role here, too; early ai wars, which do happen etc etc).

Then, a civ that has more cities can have more gold, research faster and build more units (unit support is better for ai on higher levels, too).

Ditto on pure research ?

They trade (for) techs. You should do the same. Trade is very important. And don't forget to build a road on every working tile ASAP to boost your commerce.

 

[DasScoot]

Must just be you. In fact, I'm closing in on beating a game in record time (for me) because I upped the number of civs, making it that much easier to turn them on each other.

 

[Kaiser_Berger]

Oh man, another "AI cheating thread"

 

[Fredric Drum]

What are you guys talking about? There's no such thing as an alliance in Civ3, it's not a game feature. Anybody can and will turn against you at any time, regardless of any 'diplomatic' efforts. There's no such thing as building a relationship between countries, everybody is your enemy. All the time.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Fredric Drum: Sure you're not playing Civ2 MGE?

I've had too many long-standing and fruitful alliances in CivIII to care to write a detail redbutal of your statement, however.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well in my first epic game, on Regent difficulty, three times the AI spontaneously offered me an alliance, and they were not even at war with somebody else. I declined, of course
Although experience is not proof on these matters, paranoïa isn't the way to go either. The thing is, if you're too weak (like a huge tech lead but no military), the AI will try to crush you, and if you're too strong, the AI will try to stop you and will ally to do this. BUT this works for AI players, too. How many times have I seen the Romans take out India ? How many times have I seen MPP between AI civs ?
Well anyway the porblem is, if you're convinced the AI cheats, it's not my personal experience that's going to make you change your mind, and I don't have the tools to scientifically prove it
So if you feel it cheats and don't like it, either change the difficulty level (below regent, the cheats are actually in your favor), or stop playing

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum
What are you guys talking about? There's no such thing as an alliance in Civ3, it's not a game feature. Anybody can and will turn against you at any time, regardless of any 'diplomatic' efforts. There's no such thing as building a relationship between countries, everybody is your enemy. All the time.

Sure. Pressing shift-d and signing any stuff doesn't matter in the smallest way... complete waste of time.
Oh wait... this isnt CTP diplo.

 

[Kyborgi]

The AI declarations of war don't really have any sense. Once in my game the english who were on the other side of the world (with huge map) and who i had only heard of by communication trading, decided to declare war against me around 2000BC I never had even opened negotiations with them. I had completely no contact with 'em and they decided to go in war with me. By 500 BC they got almost everyone on their continent to go war with me even though i had nothing to do with them. When i tried to negotiate peace, they demanded crazy amount of money, techs and such. I refused but none of them ever moved any troops to my direction. Then when i finally got a peace (after 3000 years of war where either did nothing), suddenly the persians decided to go war with me after i refuse their demand of tribute. Only a while ago i had helped them in a war against the babylonians. It really doesn't make any sense. In the war against the persians i crushed the egyptians who were between me and the persians. When my troops passed over the russian territory to finish the last egyptian city, the russians who were like 10 times smaller than me decided to declare war against me. The egyptians and russians had continous wars before i got in. Anyway I crushed 'em in a few turns and when i was finishing them off, i noticed that almost every civ in my continent declared a war against me. I somehow got another world war just after i had gotten rid of the first. Both started from completely irrational situations that i had nothing to do with. The results were that my civ had turned from peaceful scientific an cultural paradise to a mighty warmongering empire.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I can't disagree that the AI's motives for going to war frequently defy explanation, or at least sensible explanation.

The perhaps most blatant example I've run into: Late Industrial Era, I was the Ottomans, and had conquered the entirety of my continent. On the neighbouring, much smaller, continent, there were a number of European civs, plus a couple of cities I had taken from the Germans back in early medieval times. Now, however, the Germans were getting beaten by the Russians, and as I thought the Russians where getting a bit uppity, I decided to help poor Bismarck. First I gabe him Rubber, Oil, Coal and Iron for free, along with a couple of techs and luxuries, and when that wasn't enough to stop the Russian steamroller, I entered a military alliance with Germany and proceeded to annex Russia. A couple of turns after Russia's demise, Bismarck, still enjoying all that free aid, suddenly declares war on me! Needless to say, he didn't last long.

Of course, my initial reaction was disbelief at a such extravagant display of aggressive stupidity and suicidal lack of gratitude. But given how the game works, it's not too mysterious: with the cessation of the alliance vs Russia, Germany returned back to its previous unfriendly attitude, and I had ended up with alot of German nationals by taking Russian-occupied German cities. And the AI is simply unable to tell when a declaration of war is suicide.

 

[Fredric Drum]

Uhmm.... Grille, apparently you don't think I've played this game Sure, you can agree to go to war with someone or sign an agreement that says you have to enter a state of war with someone if a civ gets under attack. Is that an alliance? I think not. At best a very very very very very loose cooperation. Next turn they may march towards your cities...
Another thing, a civ's attitude towards you is totally irrelevant, I don't understand why they even put it in the game, it counts for nothing. One turn they love you, next turn they swarm your borders... it will happen. Trust noone.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Are we playing the same game? I can't recall the last time a Gratious civ declared war on me, while Furious ones do it with boring regularity.

 

[Fredric Drum]

Well, the turn they declare war, they're furious of course
Anyway... it's getting pretty annoying that peace and war are so random, there's not a lot you can do about things. And yes, I know what things upset the AI, so I know they have no reason to attack. Yet they do. I'm just disappointed that Civ3 is for the most part a pure war game.

 

[Aztek]

I rather enjoy it when the AI does a few things that are unpredictable.

I mean really if you micromanage this game enough and know the ins and outs the AI doesnt have much of a chance why make everything predictable?

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum
Well, the turn they declare war, they're furious of course

Not necessarily. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had a "Polite" AI at war with me. Maybe just for a couple of turns before their attitude gets worse, but Furious isn't automatic.

Anyway... it's getting pretty annoying that peace and war are so random, there's not a lot you can do about things. And yes, I know what things upset the AI, so I know they have no reason to attack. Yet they do. I'm just disappointed that Civ3 is for the most part a pure war game.

There are things you can do to cut down on warfare. Sure, there's always a random element involved -- and there should be -- but you can take a lot of randomness out of the game if you choose to play that way.
Sorry, but I have to question that you know what upsets the AI. If you truly did, I don't think you'd be complaining about "random" wars.