Latest AI Information

Go is a much better analogy for the handicap-example in my opinion. It's direct competition where weaker players get both, stones and points, to make up for the fact that they're basically playing on a lower level of strategical understanding than their opponent and allowing them to compete. The system used in that game VERY closely represents what happens with AI-bonuses in Civ and allows players of different levels of skill to play against each other in a setting that equalizes them enough that the outcome is generally not too one-sided.

And I very much agree that it should be seen as a handicap and whenever somebody says "The AI shouldn't need bonuses to keep up with a good player!" I facepalm significantly, but the real discussion centers around how much handicap is reasonable, and how much the AI can reasonably be taught to just play the game better.
 
Ryika said:
And I very much agree that it should be seen as a handicap and whenever somebody says "The AI shouldn't need bonuses to keep up with a good player!" I facepalm significantly, but the real discussion centers around how much handicap is reasonable, and how much the AI can reasonably be taught to just play the game better.
Click to expand...
Well, in an ideal world the AI shouldn't need bonuses. Fortunately we don't live in such an ideal world where AIs can outsmart us easily in non purely mathematical thinking.

The real issue for me is not whether AI should get bonuses but what kind of bonuses it should get. Seems like 6 goes in the right direction but we'll have to see the final game because with this phrasing
-Bonuses include extra tile yields and more productive cities
Click to expand...
They might still very well get all the useless free techs and huge wonder bonuses that don't really help them in the long run but cut options for the player in the early game (arguably, maybe sub-optimal options, but options still)
 
Will the AI be able to pose a threat, take a city? According to my latest info., the answer is NO. Because it can't play, plus it is full of bugs.

It's just like Civ V; it's very poor.

The question is:

When are they going to release the DLL source?
 
Magil said:
The bottom line is generally how it's always been in Civ, as far back as I can remember.
Click to expand...
No; the baseline would be Noble (or Prince?), with lower difficulties receiving maluses.

Considering how easy Prince was here, knowing that there are no maluses and only bonuses... This is rather worrying.
 
need my speed said:
No; the baseline would be Noble (or Prince?), with lower difficulties receiving maluses.
Click to expand...

You'll notice the "bottom line" doesn't actually say that Chieftain is the baseline, just that it gets "plays faster and hits harder" at every difficulty level above that. Which is true whether it's receiving bonuses (relative to Chieftain) or penalties (relative to Prince/Noble). Though technically up until Civ VI it hasn't "hit harder" so much as "hit with more units", but same idea.
 
need my speed said:
No; the baseline would be Noble (or Prince?), with lower difficulties receiving maluses.
Click to expand...

The baseline A.I. has always been the same, was the point. The A.I. has never played any differently whether it's playing on chieftain or deity. All that's ever changed between difficulties are the bonuses it receives.
 
thecrazyscot said:
True, but with every new release all the fans hope that changes :deadhorse:
Click to expand...
Unless there is a breakthrough in AI where they can put the AI on a slider as to how smart it can be, expect the AI to always be the same deployed across all the difficulty levels. It makes the most sense as it is difficult to balance a game with a hiden hard mode AI.

If a programmer came up with an algorithm that makes the AI do a neat tactic or maneuver there is no reason to hold that back for a higher difficulty as the vast majority of players often do not go above prince.

All that said , good design and mechanics CAN amplify AI bonuses in such a way that it feels like the AI is playing smarter.

For example an AI in emperor might field enough units for it to execute a believable pre programned diversionary attack and feint while the main force hits their opponents somewhere else. This may be much rarer on lower difficulties as AI on average will have less units.
 
King Jason said:
The baseline A.I. has always been the same, was the point. The A.I. has never played any differently whether it's playing on chieftain or deity. All that's ever changed between difficulties are the bonuses it receives.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. At lower difficulties, they AI was often also setup to be more docile and friendlier to the player. (So it did play differently.) However, it basic decision making routines have always been the same across all difficulty levels.
 
rastak said:
We don't know yet. If you think soon you'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I have watched Youtube gameplays. I can only refer to what I actually saw. Of course, some things will get improved, but I was never satisfied with Civ V AI, which was abandoned in a bad state untill CP has started.
 
I have no problem with them getting unit strength bonuses, what I don't want is them spamming a carpet of doom of those. Romes units in the livestream were enough in numbers IMO, considering they successfully countered the pathetic Greek attack. From that point on what I want them to do is upgrade those and supplement them with a few ranged and siege units, NOT build more warriors. Carpets of doom was the biggest turn off for me on above king difficulties in V. I am talking about units here, not other bonuses.
 
I think that is important...how the bonuses shape the AI play.

Bonuses should
1. specifically work on AI weaknesses (combat bonus is better than production bonus because AI tactics are worse than its economics
2. Try to maintain challenge and not shut things out (starting bonuses bad because they prevent early wonders/religion races...ongoing bonuses better...rubber band bonuses best*)

*ie AIs get a bigger discount to tech/civics if the player starts to catch up/get ahead...and a smaller discount if the player falls behind.
 
Trias said:
Not entirely true. At lower difficulties, they AI was often also setup to be more docile and friendlier to the player. (So it did play differently.) However, it basic decision making routines have always been the same across all difficulty levels.
Click to expand...

Still the same AI. On settler in some civ games AI will never dow the human player. But generally what you observe is the AI scaling due to bonuses in higher difficulties. They tend to have more units and be more advanced and the human player is smaller and less advanced in comparison as difficulty goes up. Thus the logic check will more often than not go for a war where they wouldn't on lower difficulties.
 
dexters said:
If a programmer came up with an algorithm that makes the AI do a neat tactic or maneuver there is no reason to hold that back for a higher difficulty as the vast majority of players often do not go above prince.
Click to expand...
Actually, Galciv AI did just that and it was quite good at the time. On certain levels, you'd get a message from the ai telling you that they were not reacting to your massing ships on their border and that you were lucky they were not playing a higher level AI.
I strongly doubt Civ will ever be that way as they don't have the same interest in ai as Brad Wardell had.
 
LDiCesare said:
Actually, Galciv AI did just that and it was quite good at the time. On certain levels, you'd get a message from the ai telling you that they were not reacting to your massing ships on their border and that you were lucky they were not playing a higher level AI.
I strongly doubt Civ will ever be that way as they don't have the same interest in ai as Brad Wardell had.
Click to expand...

I don't know if i like that. But it's more or less the game playing on the same AI and selectively disabling features based on difficulty.

It's just a different approach.
 
What an irony. The most important thing in a Civ game is the AI. And you know what? They say it is totally Moderator Action: <snip> .

They say it is totally BROKEN up.

Moderator Action: Please be mindful of this site's rules about inappropriate language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited:
People always complain that why isn't the AI smarter at higher difficulty levels forget the most important part of that statement: It means the AI is dumber at lower levels. If I'm building an AI, I'm going to make it as smart as possible always. I don't want an AI code that's like "if playing at less than prince, then randomly move my catapult instead of attacking with it".

Now, you can obviously tweak things so that at the lower levels they play sub-optimally - maybe they don't DOW on you when they should have, or they do DOW on you when they really shouldn't, but you can't have the AI make intentional mistakes.

As to what bonuses make sense to give them, we'll have to see how they play out. The bonuses they get should certainly be enough to feel like you're still playing the same, and obviously need to be enough to make a difference, but obviously should not be enough to completely kill some strategies. So if the AI was getting defense bonuses that made it impossible to do an early rush on them, or was getting bonus GP points so that it was basically impossible to found a religion, then those are bad. If they simply build things faster, or things are a bit cheaper for them, that's usually fine. When I first heard about tile yields I didn't like that, but really, that's just a different way to rephrase getting growth and production bonuses. So whether they get 2 hammers per tile and a granary costs 40 hammers, or they get 4 hammers per tile and a granary costs 80, that doesn't make a difference.
 
Go was cited earlier as an example of how to think of handicaps.

I offer chess as the gold standard for making the AI smarter/dumber -- one doesn't tell the AI to make random mistakes, one just makes it less effective at evaluating the situation and finding the best moves.
 
Copied my reply from another thread:

Okay I am off to sleep, couple of observation:
Played as Greece, on King difficulty, Pangea, standard speed

Rome declared surprise war against me on turn 20, attacked with a slinger and 4-5 warriors, I had 2 slingers and my warrior was quite far away scouting, Trajan got my capital down until the red before I fend off his army

then few turns later Gandhi (!!) and Pedro declared formal war together, and they did sent troops towards my cities

I feel like the harder difficulty you play, the easier you will trigger the AI's negative agenda towards you, therefore expect loads of hostility from the get go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Phaedron
Castaway - The Lonely Ocean Locked Alien Bio Dome Map
Replies
2
Views
861
King Phaedron
King Phaedron
T
Better way to implement AI difficulty bonuses
Replies
1
Views
611
Krikkit1
K
Taefin
Taefin's More AI Cheats
Replies
2
Views
753
Taefin
Taefin
T
Tier 2 social policies: Fealty a must-have in most situations?
Replies
6
Views
1K
randomnub
R
chazzycat
AI tougher since last update?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Disgustipated
Disgustipated
Back
Top Bottom