Programmed Irritation

[Buttercup]

Civilisation III Complete, Standard games, no modifications or patches.

I had two of my 'odd suspicions' confirmed today regarding the Programmed Irritation of AI gameplay, both of which prove that neither luck nor Unit strength are factors when deciding who wins or loses a battle in certain situations.

1st Irritation:

I was at war with an AI civilisation. I was slowly and deliberately moving a stack of Catapults, Horsemen, Hoplites, Ancient Cavalry through the enemy territory which, due to previous battles, I had completely surrounded with territory. So imagine a small pocket of 3 cities, closely bunched. I had requested 3 other AI Civilisations to join the war for many and varied reasons.

No problem, the first two cities fall and my stack is at the gates of the last of the 3 cities inside my zone of control. By this point a grand total of 3 Horsemen had arrived from one of the Civilisations I had invited to war on my side. Ideal, I thought, maybe they can take out a Spearman or two for me and all I'll need to do is an mop up. Alas, the AI doesn't like that.

The three Horsemen each take out one Spearman as clean as a whistle and capture the city (which was the Capitol by that point). Well now, how Irritating is that?

As an isolated game incident it is quite funny, but, alas, in the next map the proof of the true nature of the 'irritation Programming' are laid bare like a paperback novel that falls open on the most recently read page.

2nd Irritation:

In a different game, played the same day, I advance a stack of Swordsman, Ancient Cavalry, Horsemen on a similarly defunct AI Civilisation's Capitol city. A total of 5 units of which Horsemen counted for just 1. If I don't get them all because the AI's just spammed Spearmen then, fine, I'll finish them off the next turn. Least that's what would make sense if it wasn't for Programmed Irritation.

My VASTLY superior Units to those exampled in the 1st Irritation not only failed to take the city but also suffered such a heavy battering that all I was left with for the next turn was one Ancient Cavalry with 4 Hit Points remaining. The AI's Elite Spearman, who had been the last defender standing with one Hit Point remaining was, of course, now fully rebooted to 5 Hit Points. Amazing.

That 4 Hit Point Ancient Cavalry did indeed take the city the next turn, but then I guess the Programmed Irritation had had its fun by then.

The Gameplay Problem:

This is where Civilisation fails as a rational game for people who like logic problems and number based certainties with added luck-based variations and instead becomes a game of simply managing a computer programme. It's still a game, but not necessarily the one you might have hoped you were playing.

The above Programmed Irritations are not isolated incidences and have occurred in enough games for me to notice these two examples are definite Programme devices designed to Irritate.

And this is the biggest rub of the Civilisation series. In a Macro (big picture) sense, the computer AI is programmed to be a complete idiot who's only tactic/strategy is to march a huge stack of Units around in circles until they bump into a city. In a Micro (little irritations) sense, however, it's programmed to be an utter genius, blocking off road routes, impossible Unit wins, calculating the exact number of squares required to beat you to a resource by one turn, trying to build cities at the early stage to block your civilisations growth, the list really is quite endless.

In my current game I am using a Horseman Unit to follow a stack of 20 Units which are crossing the globe, through 3 different AI civilisations, completely non-backed-up, towards my Civilisation. My Diplomacy with this Civilisation is good, we are currently not at war and I even invited them to attack another civilisation which was being dogpiled at the time. But, no, that's not nearly as Irritating as watching 20 Swordsmen march slowly and deliberately halfway across the globe with but one intention in mind... Programmed Irritation.


I think the people at Civilisation HQ have done some academic studies which have found that Irritation is a better game addictor than logic and that minor Programming on this level is more cost effective and gamer friendly than going to the effort of having a more solidly programmed game that wont stick in people's mind so much?


Do you like Programmed Irritation or, like me, do you find it the biggest turn off in Civilisation games?

?

 

[vmxa]

Nothing amazing about those occurences. First you got what you deserved for having the others join you. What can happen to your alliances in terms of combat:
1- the ai you are attacking may take some towns from the allies and get stronger
2- the allies may promote your enemies units
3- the allies may kill some units
4- the allies may take the enemy towns.

Of those 4 things, only one is good for you. So you got 1 of 3 bad things, go figure.

The second one you state that you have superior units, but really they are only better units not superior. I may not have the composition correct, but 5 on 5 can come out just about anyway possible.

The rng has too great of an impact on CivIII and we tried to get them to tone that down. They wanted obsolete unit to still be viable. I felt that was fine, with small limitations, not massive swings.

By that I mean att 4 kills def 2, repeat in test and get defender winning with no damage. It can go from A wins cleanly to B wins cleanly. That is too much rng.

The other thing is with a barracks and no use of movement, a unit will full heal. That fact is what allows me to take down massive Sid foes.

 

[Cyc]

vmxa, can I have a glass of whatever it is you're drinking.
You are talking about what the AI possiblities are strictly in a combat situation. You have taken what Buttercup has written and reduced it to 4 possibilities of combative action. What Buttercup is talking about goes far beyond that. And just because there is a Barracks (which is not always the case - the AI take the culture improvements, not military improvements), doesn't mean that units heal in one turn. The rule is the AI always heals in 1 turn. You do not.

Buttercup, I hear ya. The key statement in your post, to me, was the first in the third section:

This is where Civilisation fails as a rational game for people who like logic problems and number based certainties with added luck-based variations and instead becomes a game of simply managing a computer programme. It's still a game, but not necessarily the one you might have hoped you were playing.

You, of course, can play the game or not. Your choice. Just because the AI progrmming is based on saving effort and money, doesn't mean some of the aspects of the game are not enjoyable enough to want to play. Some of what one can see in the game does point to the sick minds of some of the programmers. That can happen in any commercial venture. I find the irritant structure of the game enough to drive me onto victory. True, I use the editor to even up the various aspects of the game I feel needs it. But there are a lot of things that are hard coded that people like me can't change. I can either deal with them or quit playing. I choose to play.

Do you like Programmed Irritation or, like me, do you find it the biggest turn off in Civilisation games?
I don't like what you call Programmed Irration, AND like you, find it the biggest turn off in the games.

 

[Buttercup]

You are as predictable as the AI my dear VMXA.

My post was not about the correct or incorrect way to play, nor what was deserving and what was not in the rather odd sense you attribute to 'deserving', but rather my post was about 'what actually happens during a game', not what 'might' happen, not what 'could' happen, but what actually happens.

Superior does mean better. That's bizarre for you to even write that the two words have different meanings.

In both cases the defence was 3 Spearmen Units. It's not an isolated incidence. Any regular player would recognise these issues without question. This is the reason you all harp on about artillery/armies, it's the only way to try and crack the irritation fix.

This isn't even about the random number generator, I'm actually suggesting, if you read again, that in many circumstances there isn't even a generator in action, the wins and losses are pre-determined based on the level of 'irritation' it generates in the player - a totally different algorithm.

I know Barracks regenerate health in one turn, christ, that's like n00000000b info, I'm picking up the point that it left the *Elite* Unit to reheal, not one that would leave my 4 Hit Point Ancient Cavalry inferior in the next turn, because it's going to force me to make an illogical and 'irritating' decision to attack with weaker forces next turn and let me win so I have to think 'Swings and Roundabouts' and 'Oh, didn't I get lucky there!' when in reality it's just screwed me over. Understand?

I have no doubt you have long since forgotten all these AI issues which infect the 'regular' player as you have, no doubt, adapted your game over time so much that the memory of 'regular' play no longer even exists in your memory.

But more to the point, you've come to the thread and picked a small piece and gone at it with a sledgehammer in an attempt to ignore the question of the post: Do you like programmed irritation or not?

Do you prefer a jumbled mess of AI workarounds or would you rather play a game which actually challenges you on a like-for-like basis?

Edit: yes, that's it spot on Cyc, you reply to people so much better than me, I can't help but get... irritated... by the weird belligerence of some of the posters

I like to continue to play it because it has some of the best music of any PC game ever!

 

[wuhjah]

I don't mean to irritate you further (and I may be as dumb as the AI,) but I too find nothing spectacular about either proof which has confirmed your suspicions.

I've been on the other side of the first irritation many times and swooped in and stole a city from another civ who was sure it was theirs. Nothing strange to me.

I don't even understand your second irritation, because the elite spearman was the last one standing, right? So, of course, it picked that unit to re-heal. And of course it healed to the full five points. Where is actual problem? That you lost 4 average units to 2.5 spearmen? That too sounds okay to me. I'm sure everyone has lost a swordsman to a barbarian warrior and it has an even weaker defense and isn't fortified in a city...

If it were a numbers based certainty, wouldn't that just mean the winner is the civ who sends out the most units the fastest? No fun.

Don't get me wrong, I suppose I have been irritated before like when they send a red-lined unit at a full strength unit to win, but it's usually because my plan didn't work out the way I had planned.

I'm sorry I can't specifically answer your main question, because I don't know if I agree with the premise.

 

[Cyc]

Edit: yes, that's it spot on Cyc, you reply to people so much better than me, I can't help but get... irritated... by the weird belligerence of some of the posters

I like to continue to play it because it has some of the best music of any PC game ever!

Thank you Buttercup. Don't get flustered. Just remember that some people can't see past their nose, while others can only repeat what others have written/said.

You rave on. And good luck in winning.

 

[wuhjah]

I've learned my lesson. I'll just stay out of it from now on.

 

[vmxa]

So when people say that X has a slightly better force, you take that to be the same as a superior force? Superior in this context is not meant to be marginal. 6 tanks is better than 5tanks, but I doubt anyone would say it is superior as they out comes could go either way.

20 tanks would be a superior force for sure. Anyway the game is what it is and is more than 10 years old.

 

[Buttercup]

Wuhjah:

You said "If it were a numbers based certainty, wouldn't that just mean the winner is the civ who sends out the most units the fastest? No fun."

Well done, you've just hit on the first and most important principle of battle. Inferior numbers, inferior equipment, inferior terrain = lose. Fun? I had no idea war games are designed to be 'fun' in the respect you're alluding to.

VMXA said: "So when people say that X has a slightly better force, you take that to be the same as a superior force?"

1st Irritation: a total attack strength of 6 easily and without barely a hit defeated a defence of 7.5 - that might be considered 'marginal' or 'slightly worse' but still sits unpleasantly.

2nd Irritation: a total attack strength of 14 loses heavily and without justification to a defence of 7.5 - that is considered 'vastly superior' due to it being DOUBLE.

And, please, from a 'game' perspective, what is the difference in hassle, planning and decision making between producing 3 Horsemen compared to 2 Swordsmen, 2 Ancient Cavalry, 1 Horseman? I would say a 'vast' difference. How exactly does one 'plan' a battle with any kind of 'logic' and 'certainty' if the 'game' is suggesting both routes are as meaningless as each other? It's 'crackpot' design.

Cyc said: "You rave on. And good luck in winning." Thanks Always seems to be Space or Domination for my gameplay style, and I tend to choose at a random point in the game, both seem to require very similar opening gambits

 

[Quintillus]

Your first irritation sounds exactly like what happened in one of the multiplayer games I was in. Human 1 and Human 2 are both at war with the AI, and are clearly winning the war. Human 1 thinks Human 2 is just helping out and being friendly. Human 2 blitzes the enemy's capital with just enough forces to take it, and the battles go well for human 2, and the capital is taken. Human 1 rage-quits. How irritating is that?

So, I don't think your Irritation 1 is in any way specific to the AI.

 

[MysteryX]

Whenever one of my tanks loses to a spearman, I just reflect upon how the Empire must have felt when the Ewoks were destroying their Imperial Walkers during the Battle of Endor.

 

[Theov]

Whenever one of my tanks loses to a spearman, I just reflect upon how the Empire must have felt when the Ewoks were destroying their Imperial Walkers during the Battle of Endor.

Oh come on. The things were slow moving, had the agility of an oak and could only shoot in an angle of 60 degrees (of the 360 needed in war to be effective). They fought 100 ft off the ground and were moving on legs! That must be the worst design in the history of warfare.
If the rebels would approach them from anywhere but the front they would have had 0 casualties.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Well, technically, the Battle of Endor involved AT-ST "Scout Walkers", not AT-AT "Imperial Walkers". So they're only about 12ft high, not 100ft. But all your other complaints with their design still seem pertinent.

 

[cain3456]

Wuhjah:

You said "If it were a numbers based certainty, wouldn't that just mean the winner is the civ who sends out the most units the fastest? No fun."

Well done, you've just hit on the first and most important principle of battle. Inferior numbers, inferior equipment, inferior terrain = lose. Fun? I had no idea war games are designed to be 'fun' in the respect you're alluding to.

Civilization IS NOT A WARGAME! Go play Panzer General if that's what you want.

 

[Raliuven]

I will agree with you on one point - those 20 swords marching across your land past numerous AI Civs that would certainly seem (to me anyway) to be vastly easier targets than me are very annoying. But does that mean there is secret code hidden in the machine? Doubt it. What is vastly more likely is that the game mechanics that help the AI determine what enemies are weak has assigned you a number that puts you at danger. Maybe you have many cities without defenders - something the AI would never do but which a human player does very often. Perhaps you have a massively productive empire that will spit out 50 tanks up DOW but has a peaceful defense garrison of 10 infantry on the borders.

The point being, whatever the matrix is that makes that determination is what the human player is most prone to doing, thus it seems that the AI DOWs on a human more than each other. There doesn't need to be a nefarious explanation or hidden program to irritate you. What vmxa was getting at and you totally missed was that you are playing into the problem rather than playing away from it. That simple.

If it were true that the combat calculator failed at every critical moment and supplanted an 'irritation program' you could chart this probability and see the steep incline in the graft as the AI's strength deteriorated. Sorry, but in my experience it works just the opposite. I may miscalculate (and often do) and leave a single defender holding a vital city, but that's not a miracle, it is bad planning. I took a risk (and knew it when I did it) and paid the price.

The irritation may be that the game was programmed, either by design or happy coincidence, to make decisions that will stump actions the human is most likely to take. While the AI is dumb in many regards, at least it is challenging in some respects.

Oh come on. The things were slow moving, had the agility of an oak and could only shoot in an angle of 60 degrees (of the 360 needed in war to be effective). They fought 100 ft off the ground and were moving on legs! That must be the worst design in the history of warfare.

Just image how Governor Tarkin felt with a crummy X-Wing destroyed an entire Death Star just because someone left the toliet seat up on the exhaust port. Talk about a spear winning against modern armor!

Epic fail!

When I am an evil overlord I will put a cover on all exhaust ports that can be closed and redirected during battle (assuming an exhaust port is absolutely needed in the first place).

 

[Theov]

Just image how Governor Tarkin felt with a crummy X-Wing destroyed an entire Death Star just because someone left the toliet seat up on the exhaust port. Talk about a spear winning against modern armor!

Epic fail!

When I am an evil overlord I will put a cover on all exhaust ports that can be closed and redirected during battle (assuming an exhaust port is absolutely needed in the first place).

Oh come on, in Tarkin's case it was totally pre-determined he'd lose that ship. As if it was... scripted?
After the shooting of the movie, I bet the guy ran into his production meeting screaming like his hair was on fire...
"You see?! You see?! It was a Death Star vs puny x-wings! It was scripted this way - the entire universe is out to get me. How was it ever fair? I'm not fighting this war anymore, it sucks. It sucks to be commander. Now go blow up a planet or something. Where is my puppet doll, I wanted my puppet doll! This sucks, they're out to get me. Totally want my puppet doll."
Then he'd go back to his corner and think up new ways to get some attention from those ignorant fools. "Why don't they see what I'm seeing? Has the universe gone crazy? I should tell them. Tell them how it is, puppet doll. You believe me, right, puppet doll?"

 

[Cyc]

Oh, jeez. Someone close the exhaust vent, please.....

 

[PaperBeetle]

If it were true that the combat calculator failed at every critical moment and supplanted an 'irritation program' you could chart this probability and see the steep incline in the graft as the AI's strength deteriorated.

Easier to check than that. Play a game with 'preserve random seed' turned off, and when you get an instance of the programmed irritation interjecting, back up to the last autosave; replay the turn, and that combat will produce the exact same results, because the RNG is not involved any more.

 

[Buttercup]

"What is vastly more likely is that the game mechanics that help the AI determine what enemies are weak has assigned you a number that puts you at danger. Maybe you have many cities without defenders - something the AI would never do but which a human player does very often. Perhaps you have a massively productive empire that will spit out 50 tanks up DOW but has a peaceful defense garrison of 10 infantry on the borders."

An interesting foray into the challenge of guessing how the AI makes decisions but unfortunately none of it is based on any knowledge or fact, it's all perhaps possibly and maybe. In this game I've been careful to top the tree in all areas possible, land area, resources, culture, military strength, gold, diplomacy, production, population. I must admit there are many cities without any units actually fortified in the city, but if that was a factor in the calculations then surely *every* AI civilisation would attack me, not just one from the opposite side of the globe. Aside from Irritation I can see no reason at all why the only prerequisite for a pointless big stack invasion is that the AI civilisation doing the attack must be as far away from my civ as practically possible, the most hardest AI civilisation for me to counter attack.


"Civilization IS NOT A WARGAME! Go play Panzer General if that's what you want."

Um... without the military aspect to the game there's virtually nothing left to do and no threat from anywhere. Every game would be a building game. I'm sorry, but do you think you could explain exactly how it's not a war game? I'm unaware of Nun, Hippy and Bohemian Artist Units...

 

[timerover51]

I have had enough headaches with the RNG to assume that it is biased in favor of the AI, however, since we cannot access the source code, that cannot be proven either way. Having worked on war game design development for various companies, a combat results table that can duplicate the results in Civ3 is essentially impossible to do. A war game based on real history has to be able to duplicate the historical results on a consistent basis in order to be marketed and accepted. In the real world, a privateer that saw a ship-of-the-line approach ran as fast as possible away from it, and if could not, struck its colors without firing a shot. In Civ3, I am presently playing a modified game, where I have had 3/3 Privateers knock half the hit points off of a 10/10 ship-of-the-line with a +8 hit point bonus, and do this consistently. Note, the ship-of-the-line was mine, and the privateer the AI. When I attack a ship-of-the-line with my privateer, if I am real lucky I knock off one hit point before disappearing from the surface Now, you can design a combat results table to give one set of results or the other, but you cannot design a combat results table to consistently give both sets of results. The only way to do it is have two combat results tables. Are there two combat results algorithms in the game? Without the source code, that cannot be determined.

The way I deal with the "irritation", as Buttercup puts it, is to modify the game to bring the combat results closer to what they should be, based on historical outcomes. That has taken some fairly drastic changes for the naval units, which I have been working on first, as naval combat is a bit easier to quantify than land combat. A case in point is the standard game Battleship, at 18A/12D, movement 5, Bombard 8/2/2. AA 2 verses my modified ship at 60A/48D, movement 9. Bombard 36/2/2, AA 4. with a +8 hit point bonus. The standard game Battleship has exactly the same speed as a Frigate, and is slower than a standard transport. That is a bit ridiculous, when the historic sustained speed of a sailing ship, well designed and manned, was about 5-6 knots, while a WW2 battleship would cruise at between 15-18 knots, and the US Iowa-class ships had a top speed of 33 knots. The USS Constitution, possibly the finest sailing frigate ever built, could reach 12-13 knots under ideal conditions. Its broadside, from fifteen 24 pound long guns and typically ten 32 pound carronades, was about 680 pounds. The Iowa, firing nine 2,700 pound heavy weight armor-piercing rounds, had a broadside of 24,300 pounds, just under 36 times the weight of the Constitution, to a range of roughly 80 times as great. Putting the Iowa and the Constitution on the same combat results table is not exactly easy, but that is what the game gives me to work with. My naval unit values are still a work in progress.

Against that, Civilization 3 is NOT intended as a war game in anywhere near the same as Rise of Nations, another game that I have played is. The military factor has to be in there, as war is as much a part of the development of today's civilizations as any other factor. You are building a civilization, not simply a military machine. Since I play on very large maps, larger that 160 X 160 normally, either continent or archipelago, with a limited number of opponents, and those normally positioned a ways away, I can easily spend the entire game building my own civilization without worrying about anything else, except my nasty boosted Barbarians. They are definitely a problem up through the Industrial Age. Essentially, I took the standard, very irritating at times, especially the corruption and pollution models, game and modified it into something that I enjoy playing.

For those who enjoy playing the standard game, more power to you. But Buttercup, if you are finding the game that irritating, pay a visit to the Creation and Customization forum and start modding away.