Pathetic AI cheating

[LittleDragon]

I'm new to the forums. As an initial post, I'd like to vent my spleen about the thing that frustrates me most about Civ III, after beating the game a few times on emperor. The AI cheating.

Now in a perfect world AI cheating would not be required. I understand this is not a perfect world and I accept the necessity of a certain extent of AI cheating to compensate for an inability of programming to compete with human inventiveness. My gripe is with the silly style and extent of AI cheating in the game.

It costs less for the computer to build things, research and trade. This I don't mind. The really frustrating part is the sheer number of units the computer players start the game with. In effect what this does is make the beginning of the game ridiculously hard, to the point of impossible without exploiting AI deficiencies 9 out of 10 times. The really stupid thing however is on the 1 out of 10 times you survive to medieval times, we are back to square one, the AI is pathetic and cannot keep up. Survive this far and a win is guaranteed.

To me this is stupid. A ridiculously hard start is balanced by a pitifully easy completion. This situation has frustrated me to the extent that I really cannot play the game anymore.

What do you think of the standard of the AI and AI cheating. Do you find these problems as I do? As I said, I avoid abusing AI defects, so I don't see these as a solution to overcoming lazy programming.

 

[Dearmad]

First post here?

 

[LittleDragon]

Yes, and the board posted on me half way through

 

[:)civ2]

hu thats weird cause they posted me at the end and im new

 

[Hurricane]

Simply reduce the number of free units in the editor. It is extremely easy, so perhaps your next post will be a more positive one.

 

[Zouave]

Welcome to the the AI-hating club. You are realistic unlike some.

Many of us have been posting about the outrageous, idiotic, and pathetic AI cheating for seven months since this thing came out.

Do a search for "AI cheating" and you will find numeorus threads. You have only scratched the surface of AI cheating.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by LittleDragon
. . . I don't see these as a solution to overcoming lazy programming.

BTW. . .

You are extraordinarily perceptive and perspicacious.

I have decried the lazy programming for months.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Simply reduce the number of free units in the editor. It is extremely easy

Good point. There are really a great variety of different possibilities in the editor if you explore them, and that means that you have more than the choices chieftan/warlord/reg/monarch/emp/deity. An almost limitless variety of "game types." I personally think that a deity level game gets a lot better if you adjust certain things in the editor, like AI to AI trading and war weariness. I wonder if LittleDragon just changed the AI to AI trade rate to 100 what he would think. And he can set those unit bonuses to zero.

On the other hand, I think LittleDragon has a point. What if you get past the beginning of a deity game? You might lose interest when it is clear that you are going to win.

I can suggest another solution also: Multiplayer! Then you may not be so confident when you are in the lead!

 

[TheNiceOne]

LittleDragon, I don't understand your complaint. Yes, the AI cheats - not as much as some think, but more than other thinks.

What you seem to dislike is the difficulty related "cheats". On higher difficulties the AI gets more starting units, cheaper production, faster growth, less corruption and trades more easily between each other. On lower difficulties though, the AI gets the same starting units, trades equally with you, equal corruption (or even higher) and have more expensive production and slower growth.

If you don't like that the AI starts with more units than you, then why are you playing on a high difficulty? Start on regent and you and the AI have identical starting units. If you want the AI to have cheaper production but not more starting units, you must go into the editor and change what you want.

So you seem to complain about something you have chosen yourself by chosing a high difficulty level.


Now there are other cheats as well. The most well-known is the fact that the AI knows where all your units are all the time. It also have some knowledge of terrain (but not full - it still needs to buy maps) and some knowledge of your production.

Except for this, there are no cheats that has been proved (although galley movement in seas are a suspected cheat). There are however a lot of threads where people tell about a blatant cheat, only to find out that it was no cheat at all, but that the player lacked understanding of the game mechanics.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I have heard it said before that the AI unfairness is a necessary evil in the absence of strategy. And that because for example we have had chess computer games a long time and they are only just now beating the masters, and Civ has alot more pieces than chess, the best they could do was give them an edge.

That is why I so look forward to human vs. human games, although I wonder who has as much time as me to play civ...

 

[LittleDragon]

Thanks for the replies.

Hurricane and Sumthinelse: Yes, but I see that as cheating. I did for one game, but it make the game hideously easy and I got sick of it very quickly. I don’t want the game to be easier, I want either better AI or better implemented AI cheating. Cutting the unit bonuses does not magically improve the AI.

TheNiceOne: I did work my way up to that difficulty level by being able to regularly win on the lower difficulties. My point is not that the game should not increase in difficulty, my point is the lazy fashion in which this increase has been implemented. I don’t mind a degree of cheating in cheaper production and trade, but the phenomenal number of starting units is ridiculous. Like I said, this does not make the following ages any harder, in fact it actually works to make them easier in a sense. I’m all for increasing the difficulty, but smart programming would have the entire game more difficult in a balanced sense, not having the start of the game hideously difficult and the rest play like Regent.

Again, I don’t want the game to be easier. I don’t want to decrease the number of units without the necessary improvement in computer AI to be able to cope.

Sultan: This is true. I believe that the AI could have been much better than it was though.

 

[rg3333]

I suppose that firaxis done this AI cheating to keep us on our toes. So you know the AI is cheating so on the harder levels we take that into consideration when plannig a strategy.
Anyway littleDragon keep up the good work!

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne


Except for this, there are no cheats that has been proved (although galley movement in seas are a suspected cheat). There are however a lot of threads where people tell about a blatant cheat, only to find out that it was no cheat at all, but that the player lacked understanding of the game mechanics.

This one is good, if you play against a human player and he know where all your units are, he know which of your city is undefended, what will you say? does he cheat or he play with different rule.

If you play agaist a human player and as soon as you discover a new land, he know about it and immediatly send settler and other crap, what will you say? does he cheat or he play with different rule.

For me, playing with different rule is same as cheating, it is very logic.

 

[MadScot]

LittleDragon-
I agree, the handicap system is not well tailored to the duration of the game; as the complexity of the game increases the AI is less able to compete with the human (thankfully, or we'd all be out of jobs) yet the handicaps are defined as fixed throughout the whole game.

My suggestion:
How about handicaps which are variable, say with the four ages. That way, a player wanting an easy start could edit that option down, and perhaps give the AI a huge advantage in the endgame, as a challenge. The settings could be fixed by default, but accessible through the editor.

That way as the effectiveness of the AI decreases, the human handicap also increases.

I would also like to see more flexibility in the things that can be handicapped - AFAIK the combat strengths stay fixed - why not give the AI a boost in the later game, it certainly needs it.

And marginally off topic - IMHO these are not cheats, they are handicaps. Cheats are undocumented advantages or blatant disregard for the rules. So if all the AI ships moved twice as fast as mine AND I knew about it, it's a handicap. If they just teleport around in an unannounced fashion, that's cheating.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Hey! How original. We've never seen this thread before.

As a suggestion to littledragon, try the forum search feature and checking back a few pages before posting a new thread. This topic has been discussed many times. Just ask Zouave

 

[murewa]

that it isn't about the game getting easier as it progressess...
that it isn't about the AI not putting up a challenge in the late game...
that it isn't about your feeling that the initial difficult-start did not hinder you at all as your game comes to a victorious end....

But that, finally, you are just too good for this game.

 

[Sylith]

Has anyone had something like this happen:

I was the Iriquios; I'd been attacked by an alliance of Russia, Aztecs & Egypt. England was on my side. Eventually, England made peace. I made peace with the Aztecs & Russians. This was good, because the Russians could have devastated me. This left me only at war with Egypt. They wanted to make peace, but I decided to stomp them. I was much stronger than they, and they had no mutual protection pact with anyone. So, next turn I'm fighting Egypt and I'm informed Russia declared war on me because they had a MPP with Egypt. Excepting they didn't. OK, I know the computer doesn't need a reason to declare war; but to claim an MPP when they didn't really have one? Either a bug, or a cheat.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Sylith
Has anyone had something like this happen:

I was the Iriquios; I'd been attacked by an alliance of Russia, Aztecs & Egypt. England was on my side. Eventually, England made peace. I made peace with the Aztecs & Russians. This was good, because the Russians could have devastated me. This left me only at war with Egypt. They wanted to make peace, but I decided to stomp them. I was much stronger than they, and they had no mutual protection pact with anyone. So, next turn I'm fighting Egypt and I'm informed Russia declared war on me because they had a MPP with Egypt. Excepting they didn't. OK, I know the computer doesn't need a reason to declare war; but to claim an MPP when they didn't really have one? Either a bug, or a cheat.

Yea, that's not surprising; remember, with Civ 3 it is programmed to Screw the Human. I have been ATTACKED for no reason by a smaller civ - thus helping my enemies as I have to build military not improvements. I stopped the invasion and the civ that attacked me asks for peace. A thousand years later I get blamed for the war by some new civ. So reputation is also a big crock.

Bottom line: Sloppy rushed programming required the AI to be loaded with cheap and lazy cheats against the human.

 

[rangers85]

Originally posted by Zouave


Yea, that's not surprising; remember, with Civ 3 it is programmed to Screw the Human. I have been ATTACKED for no reason by a smaller civ - thus helping my enemies as I have to build military not improvements. I stopped the invasion and the civ that attacked me asks for peace. A thousand years later I get blamed for the war by some new civ. So reputation is also a big crock.

Bottom line: Sloppy rushed programming required the AI to be loaded with cheap and lazy cheats against the human.

Hmmm, not seeing how that post had anything to do with the previous post.

Anyways Sylith, are you sure that the MPP didn't happen to end that turn as well and Russia backed out. Never seen it claim a MPP when there isn't one. Either that or it's one of those elusive bugs that happens for no clear reason (Believe me they happen due to my experience as mod on a board for another program).

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
Now there are other cheats as well. The most well-known is the fact that the AI knows where all your units are all the time. It also have some knowledge of terrain (but not full - it still needs to buy maps) and some knowledge of your production.

Except for this, there are no cheats that has been proved (although galley movement in seas are a suspected cheat). There are however a lot of threads where people tell about a blatant cheat, only to find out that it was no cheat at all, but that the player lacked understanding of the game mechanics.

(1) Galley movement in seas (and oceans) is rather more than a "suspected" cheat IMHO

(2) I'm fairly sure the AI knows where all the (hidden) resources are from the outset - and uses this knowledge

(3) How do you define a "cheat"? I would include Settler Diarrhea as one - if my settlers wander into AI territory, they are ordered out or I have to declare war. When the AI settlers wander into mine and decide to ignore my "invitation" to leave there is no penalty and I have to swallow it or declare war

(4)-(100)... [Fill in as required ]