Programmed Irritation

[Cyc]

Well now, see, Ravi? In your last post you were mostly baffling. But you may have thrown a minor fact in here or there to confuse Buttercup, he thinking you were still BSing. But as important as this issue is to the survival of mankind, you might as well flip a coin if it helps you. Here. Work on this one....

The Omnipotence Paradox

The paradox states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand, if it cannot limit its own actions, then that is—straight off—something it cannot do. This seems to imply that an omnipotent being’s ability to limit itself necessarily means that it will, indeed, limit itself. This paradox is often formulated in terms of the God of the Abrahamic religions, though this is not a requirement. One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: “Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?” If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. An answer to the paradox is that having a weakness, such as a stone he cannot lift, does not fall under omnipotence, since the definition of omnipotence implies having no weaknesses. =8^)

 

[Raliuven]

Well now, see, Ravi? In your last post you were mostly baffling. But you may have thrown a minor fact in here or there to confuse Buttercup, he thinking you were still BSing. But as important as this issue is to the survival of mankind, you might as well flip a coin if it helps you. Here. Work on this one....

The Omnipotence Paradox

The paradox states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand, if it cannot limit its own actions, then that is—straight off—something it cannot do. This seems to imply that an omnipotent being’s ability to limit itself necessarily means that it will, indeed, limit itself. This paradox is often formulated in terms of the God of the Abrahamic religions, though this is not a requirement. One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: “Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?” If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. An answer to the paradox is that having a weakness, such as a stone he cannot lift, does not fall under omnipotence, since the definition of omnipotence implies having no weaknesses. =8^)

This is a trick question. In order to participate we need to agree that there is an omnipotent being. As I do not accept the premise of the argument, I don't need to resolve your question. This is like asking me to divide by the number zero. This is why it is called a paradox.

The correlation to this is: If you travel back in time to kill your grandfather, thus you were never born, how could you go back in time to kill your grandfather? Before we can even begin to argue about that, we need to agree that time travel is even possible. Otherwise the paradox is a moot point.

He is the one that challenged the results of the RNG. To do that you need at least a little understanding of how an RNG would function. Citing 4-5 'incidences' out of millions of calculations is hardly aberrant. That's the point.

 

[Cyc]

This is a trick question. In order to participate we need to agree that there is an omnipotent being. As I do not accept the premise of the argument, I don't need to resolve your question. This is like asking me to divide by the number zero. This is why it is called a paradox.

As you do not accept the premise... You're either putting way too much thought into this, or you're using deflection once again. Why would you over-complicate the problem by bringing in an abstract view which barely relates to the questions at hand. Because you want/need to. Just keep all the plates spinning and we'll be so thrilled, we'll forget about the original intent. As you say, "in order to participate" we need to compare this to a debate of comic book super hereos. They exist in print, in the imagination. Could you possibly bring yourself to debate super heroes? Or would that be too great a stretch for you?

The correlation to this is: If you travel back in time to kill your grandfather, thus you were never born, how could you go back in time to kill your grandfather? Before we can even begin to argue about that, we need to agree that time travel is even possible. Otherwise the paradox is a moot point.

No. You are again confusing the subject. You couldn't possibly go back in time to kill your grandfather (before he created your father - you forgot that part). If you did, you couldn't go back in time, as you were never born, and the situation wouldn't exist. Time travel would be irrelevant. You would have just removed your part from the equation. Brilliant. (And BTW, time travel is possible. All you have to do is click on a prior Civ save and off you go. )

He is the one that challenged the results of the RNG. To do that you need at least a little understanding of how an RNG would function. Citing 4-5 'incidences' out of millions of calculations is hardly aberrant. That's the point.

No. You perceived him challenging the RNG. This is the trap you've put yourself in. Because you base a lot of your Civ arguements on the wiley RNG, you believe you can base other's problems in the same manner. You need to let that go. Buttercup could continue his comment/discussion for quite a while and only touch on the RNG at the outer fringes of the content. And if you think Buttercup has only encountered 4-5 "incidences" of his irritation (not his proof for his thesis, not his doctrine for his philosophy, not the foundation of his religion, but his minor irritation when playing C3C), then you must think Buttercup has only played a couple of games of C3C. Basing your opinion on the fact that you'd need millions of calculations to prove yourself correct is pretty pointless. That's the point.

 

[Buttercup]

Is there definitive proof that a Random Number Generator even exists? I see no numbers appearing on my screen detailing how my battles are progressing... If there are no numbers, why call it a 'number' generator? XYZ person may have stated one exists, but I thought 'all' the programming code was a secret?

But I'm not going to debate this point, if someone states the Generator exists then I'm perfectly happy to believe them, it makes sense. And it even makes sense when combined with Programmed Irritation.

Battles are only one aspect of the Programmed Irritation. You're focusing on the Number Generator because that's the easiest aspect of the concept to challenge. Whatever the results of any battle you can, and will, just use the argument you are using.

In my last game, for example, some Barbarians attacked a town that had a Spearman and an Archer as defenders. Even 10 Barbarian Horsemen are crap but I thought it might have me. However, the Spearman died quite quickly and the Archer held out to keep the remaining Horsemen at bay with but one hit point left. The craziness of these results make 'planning' for them impossible, regardless of how much you munch on about theories of randomness. When you factor in Programmed Irritation it suddenly makes sense that the Barbarians weren't going to succeed, their mission was simply to irritate and for them to fully succeed wouldn't have met their objective.

But programmed irritation goes well beyond just battles.

I started a test game to try and get some examples for you and though I only got a couple of tiddlers, a couple I did get and I shall display them soon enough. Because they are at the start of the game none of them relate to battles and are simply drip-drip style Irritants. One is a wandering Barbarian, one is a wandering AI unit, one is my wandering unit, etc. I shall say no more about these specific examples I've dug up for you as there's very little point arguing about something unseen prior to it's arrival, but it would help you understand the concept of Programmed Irritation if you imagined it as a whole-game-objective, the base from which all other results are gleaned (even if there is a second layer of logical Programmes laid over it) which, for the most part, is invisible, but, on occasion, forces a totally illogical event to the surface, or overrides the logical programmes - such as a sudden change in direction/objective of AI units even when there is no battles taking place based purely on the level of Irritation it would generate.

 

[Buttercup]

Yep it happens if you let your wars take a long time then allies will from time to time steal a goal from under your nose thats one of the reasons I like my wars to be swift and devastating, also one of the reasons I tend to wait until the Industial age before embarking on big wars. (Rail crew behind your attack units driving you right through the enemy in less than 5 turns (by which time you have either won or sue for peace)).

Yes indeed, I couldn't agree more! That tends to be my standard method as well and, from what I can tell from the forums, is the method the majority of players use. I think it's what the game wants us to do and therefore what we do. Wonders dry up at the start of the industrial age, buildings become optional rather than dramatically advantageous and, of course, Cavalry are in huge numbers with their magic 3 moves and 6 attack, artillery obliterating city defenders and having a range of 2, no land left to grab, defenders with a defence of 10, railways removing any need to have defensive units anywhere other than extremely exposed cities, making invasion so easy you feel kind of dumb not butchering the world at this phase with vast, quick, devastating stacks.

However, the AI does know that you are preparing for this and will be equally stacking units from the moment you start to do so, even if yours are neatly hidden in the centre of your empire. Take this quote from another thread:

Is when you have shipped a lot of strong units to conquer an enemy on another continent, and they are fully prepared and already have hordes of Medieval infantry, Crusaders, Knights and Longbowmen just waiting for your arrival.

This is a classic example.

I've recently been experimenting with Continents. For one reason or another I've never liked continents and literally every Civ game I've ever played has been water or land, never the big separated chunks of land. It just doesn't suit my style of play. But anyway, what happened was:

While exploring the outline of the second continent (having totally won my continent before the advent of seafaring vessels), I mistakenly declared war on one of the tribes there by clicking the wrong button in a diplomacy screen. It didn't really matter so I didn't stress about it. When I was 'ready' to start invading that continent it worked out well as I was still at war with this tribe and took one of their cites as a foothold. No-one else seemed to mind and I immediately declared peace with the tribe so that I could peacefully start producing and transporting my main invasion force.

As I was not used to continents I was unsure how the AI would react to having a stack of 20 combined Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery units loading up on it's shore and I didn't really know when or how to expand with the greatest ease. My first attempt failed dramatically. I declared on the same tribe again (it had been well over 20 turns since the peace) and took one of their few cities on the same turn.

It turns out I had forgotten to check my diplomacy screen (check all the boxes which don't auto-check) and the tribe had a mutual defence pact with the Romans, who immediately declared on me. What was odd though was that the Germans had moved 15 units into my city radius completely of their own accord. They just didn't like me. Like they had 15 stacks sitting there just waiting for me to make a bad move.

I had clearly done it wrong. So I reloaded and just bided my time. After amassing about 30 units the Germans finally declared on the Maya and I decided to use Diplomacy to help me. I immediately made mutual defence pacts with the Maya and the Romans and the tribe. Now everyone was inter-linked via Mutual Defence Pacts and it was a matter of waiting to see which side everyone took.

The Romans sided with me and the Maya leaving the Germans and the tribe exposed and isolated. The stack of 15 Germans was taken out by the Romans and I was free to start munching. Yes, the Romans managed to take a town or two for themselves, but by the end of the Germans and the tribe I had 62% land and 76% population. Declaring on Rome finished the game 5 or 6 turns later.

So, yes, having AI's join in with you can have draw backs, but, more often than not (even on other map styles) having them on your side can actually make the job of winning 'easier' even if you have to put up with some Programmed Irritation along the way. But you are right, if you can do it unaided and quickly then it is certainly a less Irritating process in the short-term.

 

[Raliuven]

@ Cyc - I disagree. I am allowed to disagree with the premise. If I ask you how many carrots a pink unicorn can eat before getting sick, the first thing any reasonable person would say is "there is no such thing as a pink unicorn". If there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, we can either just agree on how many carrots would make our imaginary friend sick or there is no answer no matter how much we debate the issue. At the heart of every paradox it asks you to divide by zero. Once you figure out what 'zero' is, you have the answer to the paradox.

You are asking me to argue on your terms. This will cause a polarization in those that support the arguments. If you believe in pink unicorns, then there must be an answer. If you do not, then there is no answer. The argument isn't about the number of carrots, it is about pink unicorns. You are the one spinning the plates to make us think the argument is about the carrots.

This isn't about deflecting - it is about logic. The moment you see a math problem that will force you to divide by zero, why bother even attempting to do the problem? You can simplify the problem, perhaps, but never solve it.

Your analysis of time travel is faulty. Check your logic and start again. I didn't forget the father; the paradox works just as well my way. I'm not going to debate this because you can't divide by zero. I'll say that as often as is needed. Remove the zero, aka time travel, and the paradox ceases to exist. How brilliant is that? Until time travel is proven, there is no point wasting time arguing about what might happen if it did. If it is fictional, like superheroes, then you can argue that anything might be possible.

Perhaps I am perceiving, but I'm using all of his words. 4-5 incidence our a million calculations was his claim, not mine, so let’s get that straight. Keep his words in his mouth. I'll claim mine. Every time he tries to dodge, I come right back at his reasoning. That is what debating is about. So far I have said that the evidence is weighing against an Irritation Program and why. So far there is nothing other than bias observation to prove that it does. I'm not against it existing. But I won't believe in Pink Unicorns until you show me one. Likewise, arguing about an unproven Irritation Program is like arguing about superheroes. If the AI is omnipotent, then why isn’t it smarter? You can make up whatever you want. But it's all fiction until proven otherwise.

If it makes you feel better to believe in omnipotent beings, pink unicorns, superheroes, time travel, or an Irritation Program so you can play the game in peace, then you can have it.

 

[Raliuven]

In my last game, for example, some Barbarians attacked a town that had a Spearman and an Archer as defenders. Even 10 Barbarian Horsemen are crap but I thought it might have me. However, the Spearman died quite quickly and the Archer held out to keep the remaining Horsemen at bay with but one hit point left. The craziness of these results make 'planning' for them impossible, regardless of how much you munch on about theories of randomness. When you factor in Programmed Irritation it suddenly makes sense that the Barbarians weren't going to succeed, their mission was simply to irritate and for them to fully succeed wouldn't have met their objective.

Was that one diverge roll or ten divergent rolls? Health of the archer? Health of the spear? Fortified? Size of the city? Walls? Hill? River crossing? You know, little details to help judge the situation might be helpful. And you can plan those little details too, if you try. It takes a little effort, I'll give you that. Since barbarians have sacked my cities before, it does not make sense that they will not succeed. That is why I garrison my border cities and I am particulalry careful that they are guarded when I think the Middle Ages are coming. Or I leave them unprotected and just let them sack a city if there is nothing (or little) they can steal/destroy.

If you are just irritated by the barbarians there is a setting on the game creation screen to turn them off.

However, it would be nice to know how the barbarians prioritize their attacks. For example, a GH is popped and 3 barbs are generated. One attacks and dies on the warrior that popped the GH. One fortifies in place. One runs away into the fog (or towards an undefended city, worker, etc.). What I can't figure is why they all made a different decision. There must be something more/different to their calculations. This seems evident because a barbarian will attack a fully healed army while the Civ AIs will not (generally speaking). There is definitely programming there, but what? Are barbs popped from a hut run by different calculations than those that appear from a barb city? For example, one barb horse attacks the city defender and one wanders into my lands and does nothing and one runs away. Seems like the same decision tree. But at other times the entire stack attacks and your poor archer (who is now an elite archer, at least. ) has weathered the entire storm. More observation is necessary to reveal the living habits of these violent and reclusive creatures.

 

[wuhjah]

From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/15/video-game-design-psychology

Conversely, designers have discovered that failure can be an important factor in keeping us entertained. Four years ago, researchers at the Helsinki School of Economics' Mind lab studied the oscillatory brain responses of game players and found they often get pleasure from losing a life; if the resulting animation is entertaining, and if the failure is their own fault, it's just another indicator of the player's agency in the world. When urban driving game Burnout was released, the design team immediately realised that players loved crashing the cars because of the breathtakingly realistic destruction animations, so for the sequel, they added a mode that encouraged and rewarded dramatic collisions – it was a massive success.

Almost dying could be even more important. "I heard a talk at GDC that pointed out something interesting," says Brian Fleming, the producer of apocalyptic superhero adventure game inFamous. "When people tell stories about their greatest moments, they often revolve around nearly dying. In games, what's really special for people is not, 'I killed the bad guy and I was perfect', it's, 'I nearly died, but I just managed to kill the bad guy.' How do we set out specifically to give them those experiences? That's a great challenge for us as game makers."


Possible connections...

 

[MysteryX]

My casual observation is that it seems that when I am advancing on an opponents' last cities or capital, their defenders have some unusually heroic victories against my attacks.

It would not surprise me if there was some hidden bonus that kicks in when the capital is attacked, or the empire is reduced to a certain number of cities, or something like that- a little "desperation bonus."

That is a little bit irritating, if it does exist. But I suppose it has some dramatic flair to it, and it's something that would only penalize me when I'm already doing pretty well. And now I account for it when playing- when I am to the point of taking an opponent's capital or the last few cities standing, I expect unusually heroic defense, and bring everything I possibly can to the attack.

Whether it actually exists, I don't know, I realize that it's just based on casual observation and I am susceptible to selective memory. To actually be sure I would have to set up some way of testing it- and I don't care that much about it. I don't play with a high degree of mathematical precision anyway.

 

[vorlon_mi]

The key argument which Buttercup advances, in the first post and in later posts, is that there are programmatic features in the game which do not follow the posted rules, and exist to irritate the human player. If I am reading his posts correctly, these features do not serve to advance the interests of the AI civs, but are intended to produce irritation and, in turn, greater engagement of the human player's mind.

I would submit several items which have been established in the last several years, both through playtesting, actual admissions in these forums by Firaxis employees, and folks who have been able to access the actual programming code.
1. The AI do not have to deal with the fog of war; they can see all of the tiles on the map. It was acknowledged that programming the AI to deal with some tiles which are discovered, some not, was too complex.
2. The AI also know which tiles have hidden resources, even though they have not yet researched the technologies to see them.
3. Mathematical formulae have been published for the results of combat, for the chances of cities flipping due to culture, for the chances of ships being lost at sea. Playtesting has also revealed the algorithm by which the game rates military strength, and for whom the AI will vote in UN elections. Folks in the Creation and Customization forums have published extensive results using the APIs (application programming interfaces) supplied by the game.
4. The AI does try to win via spaceship; it has been demonstrated that, given enough time, the AI will research the necessary technologies and build spaceship parts.

Given the first two, it's not surprising to me when the AI beats me to a prime city location. I'm just guessing, or using ring-city-placement or some other heuristic, and the AI knows the map.

Next, there is a key difference between playing to win, and ending the game. The game ends when the last human player (one, or more in multiplayer) is eliminated. No one actually wins when a human player is eliminated; the game just ends.

Buttercup observes (correctly) that the AI do not all immediately gang up on the human player. Why not? Is this a subtly programmed effort to annoy the human? Or simply the result of a calculation: evaluate a potential military target, human or other AI, and attacks. The AI will propose MPPs with the human player, in an effort to protect its interests. The AI trade technologies among themselves to advance their interests, and the AI have won via UN victory.

Yes, the programming for the AI has some dramatic weaknesses which human players have exploited. Their build decisions are weak, they underdevelop their land, and they choose to research technologies in predictable patterns. But I have not been convinced that it takes steps -- or shortcuts -- that are intended for annoyances only in a single player game. That logic would be abundantly evident in hot-seat, PBEM, and multiplayer games.

 

[PaperBeetle]

It would not surprise me if there was some hidden bonus that kicks in when the capital is attacked

I don't know whether it has been tested, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is true, bearing in mind that a capital gets to use the graphics of a settlement one size higher than normal, i.e. it looks like a city when its a town, looks like a metro when its a city. It might also defend one size higher. I don't see anything underhand about that, as long as the player's capital would get the same bonus, and the only "irritating" thing about it would be the omission from the Civilopedia... but that is a pretty thin source of hard data about the game.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Interesting conversation. One of the developers (Soren) has talked how the game was programmed to challenge a player, but not beat the player. There is a talk by him floating around on youtube about this. From what he says it would make sense if some things that happened in the game were not the result of finely tuned strategic programming, but "challenges" for the player to keep them interested, instead. Having annoying things happen periodically would be one way of doing that. They could be triggered "if-then" events with a random percent chance of happening. This would be much easier that coding intelligence, and much less expensive. I've seen these kinds of things in other games based upon 90's game programs.

 

[Buttercup]

Here is a small selection of 3 Irritations from the early stages of a game, the type I tend to encounter every game and consider therefore to be Programmed Irritation.

In this game I am not maximising like a Sid player, but rather just going through the motions of a standard Regent level player in order to generate programmed elements that would be standard to standard players and therefore most attract standard programming.

1600BC - No Irritation so far.

I rarely get any Irritation prior to the settlement of my second city, as is the case here. However, the second set of Settlers are on the march and this is normally when the Irritation kicks in.

1575BC - First signs of Irritation.

An enemy unit has appeared directly where I am planning to send my Settler. I am greatly surprised the AI Warrior is not accompanied by a Settler.

1550BC - False Alarm?

The AI Warrior has wandered off. Too good to be true?

1500BC - Ah... a Barbarian...

Perhaps the AI Warrior popped a hut? Best cancel Settler production in my Capitol and build a Warrior. Extremely minor Irritation.

1425BC - Uh-oh... three Barbarians!

And one looks like a horse unit. So this was not a popped hut but is indeed a Barbarian settlement. The AI Warrior is also back in view.

1400BC - Wandering Horse.

The horse unit has now separated from the Warriors after the creation of the Warrior unit in my Capitol. I now realise there is no way to protect the second city and the worker and the new Settler without disrupting a nearly complete Temple.

1375BC - Choices choices.

Will the Horse take the worker or go straight to the empty city? Oh well, guess I'll have to disrupt the worker who has finally got round to nearly finishing a road to my Luxury. Fairly Irritating.

1350BC - Temple lost.

And there's the full Irritation. AI one, Human player nil. I'm kinda in the mood to go ravage a neighbouring Civ now

1125BC - That AI unit...

Shall I move my Settler next to the AI Warrior or skip a turn? That's a bit Irritating.

1025BC - Still there!

This is really bugging me now

975BC - Oh good heavens!

Oh, just g.o...a.w.a.y!

950BC - What the heck...

Turns out the Warrior wasn't in the mood to attack my Settler anyway.

825BC - Another Barbarian.

Here we go again?

800BC - False Alarm.

The AI Warrior took it out this time.

375BC - Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

The classic example of the AI going against all logic and using a Settler unit to block the progress of a human Warrior unit. It would appear the AI prioritises Irritating the human player over something a bit more sensible, like not putting a settler in immediate clear and present danger.

Iron:

As per usual, even my rather massive empire, which includes a rather massive Mountain/Hill complex, is bereft of Iron. The Carthaginians to the south have two! oh... Carthaginians... guess I'll have to wait a good long time before I try to conquer that Iron. Lucky they are a bit backward and I can at least trade for it quite easily. Still... pretty Irritating.

Still, this looks like being a relatively easy and fun start location with all win options open and relatively straight forward so for those who fancy the set-up I've coincidently created, here's the save game at 110AD, corner secure and in a 'game-on!' position:

View attachment Ghandi 110AD.SAV

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What exactly are you irritated about? Warriors running across the map, or what?

I am definitely sure that has got something, somewhere to do with the programming, yes.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah, I saw no irritating behaviour from the AI in anything you posted. The Barbarian horseman was fairly straightforward, and you seem to be the only one on the forums who is irritated by AI exploring warriors. You seem to create your own irritation, by sending out unescorted settlers and then worrying too much each time you see an AI warrior in the general vicinity of it.

The classic example of the AI going against all logic and using a Settler unit to block the progress of a human Warrior unit. It would appear the AI prioritises Irritating the human player over something a bit more sensible, like not putting a settler in immediate clear and present danger.

I don't see any Settler in the screenshot that accompanies the text Is it under the Numidian? If so, then it's not in much danger.

In my last game, for example, some Barbarians attacked a town that had a Spearman and an Archer as defenders. Even 10 Barbarian Horsemen are crap but I thought it might have me. However, the Spearman died quite quickly and the Archer held out to keep the remaining Horsemen at bay with but one hit point left. The craziness of these results make 'planning' for them impossible, regardless of how much you munch on about theories of randomness. When you factor in Programmed Irritation it suddenly makes sense that the Barbarians weren't going to succeed, their mission was simply to irritate and for them to fully succeed wouldn't have met their objective.

Sounds like you would find any result to be irritating.

"The barbarians attacked my units, but did very minor damage. Clearly, they had no chance at actual success and their mission was just to irritate."
"The barbarians attacked my units and almost succeeded. Clearly, their mission was just to irritate".
"The barbarians attacked my units and sacked the city. It's very irritating when barbarians sack my cities*. Clearly, their mission was to irritate".

*It surely is for me!

 

[MysteryX]

The classic example of the AI going against all logic and using a Settler unit to block the progress of a human Warrior unit. It would appear the AI prioritises Irritating the human player over something a bit more sensible, like not putting a settler in immediate clear and present danger.

Why is it more illogical for the AI to put a settler in danger like than for you to put your settlers in danger all the time?

Or to look at it another way, why is it irritating for the AI to offer up two slaves on a silver platter for you? The AI is offering tribute to you, and you are not taking it. Who's the illogical one in that scenario?

By the way, I have to admit that I do things to irritate the AI all the time. I will occasionally use workers to block that path of an advancing enemy settler/escort stack or to block landing points for AI sea vessels. Sometimes I can guess where the AI wants to settle next and send a spare warrior or even worker out in advance to squat. I will do those things for no other reason than to delay the AI from achieving its goals. My former AI opponents may be discussing right now how I do these things for no logical purpose, but just to irritate the AI.

 

[Lone Wolf]

What settler are you two talking about?

 

[Buttercup]

Ah, yes. Just the type of responses I was expecting.

I deliberately declined from providing *extremely* detailed text for my picture post in order to increase it's readability. From a common-sense perspective the pictures speak for themselves and do not really require much in the way of descriptive explanation.

However, it seems I am indeed going to have to spell it out. I feel this is unfortunate and it would be nice if people could use their own logic to understand what is glaringly blatantly obvious.

Firstly, all three responses have not at all mentioned the Iron issue and only one the Horse issue, but have gone on and on and on about the very minor Irritation of path-blocking. You all use very general poo-poo statements but then all only focus on one very small part of the post. This suggests that you are looking for ways to be argumentative rather than openly investigating and understanding the big picture method of AI behaviour - to Irritate.

So I guess I'm forced to *sigh* s.p.e.l.l...i.t...o.u.t...

What exactly are you irritated about? Warriors running across the map, or what?

Well... this bit is actually written in the post. I said quite clearly in the post where I was Irritated and why. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's *not* Irritating?

I am definitely sure that has got something, somewhere to do with the programming, yes.

Yes, that's the whole point of the thread...

Yeah, I saw no irritating behaviour from the AI in anything you posted.

I see...

The Barbarian horseman was fairly straightforward

It was? You mean it could, if it wanted, have chosen to perform actions which would have been less Irritating than disrupting Temple production when the said Temple was 1 turn from completion? Couldn't it have simply continued it's path to the Capitol? Couldn't it have Fortified like the two Barbarian Warriors?

Or do you think, you know, that it spotted a weakness, an opportunity to deliver maximum Irritation? The Warriors Fortified themselves, they must have realised they wouldn't make it in time so, instead of performing a Barbarian invasion, they thought they'd just rest on a Mountain indefinitely...?

Which bring into question the purpose of Barbarians...

Doesn't it...?

Oh, right, you'd never really thought about it before...

They're not really there for either 'reality' or 'Barbaric' reasons are they? Haven't you noticed how they just seem to... well... Irritate...?

Sure, they're good for raising Units to Elite and they're good for Gold accumulation, but are they any good at being 'Barbarians'?

Not really. It's just another method of Irritation really isn't it. When you think about it...

and you seem to be the only one on the forums who is irritated by AI exploring warriors.

I'm Irritated by everything the AI does. Because that's all the AI is programmed to do. That's what Civ III is *all* about... That's the point of the thread...

Am I the only one? Does it matter if I am? is 'isolating me' in your argument some form of 'proof' that the purpose of these wandering AI'S is not to be as Irritating as they can?

You seem to create your own irritation, by sending out unescorted settlers and then worrying too much each time you see an AI warrior in the general vicinity of it.

Yes. I said at the start of the post that I was trying, in this scenario, to encourage Programmed Irritation. I think you do not understand the concept of a *TEST*

*FACEPALMS*

I don't see any Settler in the screenshot that accompanies the text Is it under the Numidian? If so, then it's not in much danger.

I apologise if you're a new player, but if you see two AI Units stacked at the start of the game, it means one is a Settler. I can guarantee you that you are kind of alone here in being confused by this (well now, there's me throwing back some 'isolation' tactics. Let me know how it feels and we can both treat it as a learning experience )

Sounds like you would find any result to be irritating.

Again, that's kind of the point of the thread...

"The barbarians attacked my units, but did very minor damage. Clearly, they had no chance at actual success and their mission was just to irritate."

Yes.

"The barbarians attacked my units and almost succeeded. Clearly, their mission was just to irritate".

Yes.

"The barbarians attacked my units and sacked the city. It's very irritating when barbarians sack my cities*. Clearly, their mission was to irritate".

Yes.

This all relates to 'what is the *purpose* of Barbarians in the game. Do we get a sudden bum-rush on our borders focused on one town? Nooooo.

What do we get with Barbarian encounters? Oh, illogical mild Irritation. Ok.

As Raliuven points out, Barbarians have three or four different scripts. Attack, Fortify, wander towards, wander away. Why? What's all that about? If Barbarian always equals fight wouldn't that be a lot more 'logical' in almost every sense, and therefore less Irritating as it would make both planning and expectation more linear?

Having Barbarians with varied scripts is all the better for adding variety to the game, I prefer having more rather than less of something, but if the more doesn't have any logical sense then it's kind of wasted and pointless more, surely.

Why is it more illogical for the AI to put a settler in danger like than for you to put your settlers in danger all the time?

Or to look at it another way, why is it irritating for the AI to offer up two slaves on a silver platter for you? The AI is offering tribute to you, and you are not taking it. Who's the illogical one in that scenario?

This is discussing the issue of what the human player does and what's the best way to deal with the resulting AI programme, this does not examine the purpose and motivations of the AI.

Once you start saying 'you should have done this, you should have done that' then you just invite someone to lecture you to death until you win Sid, something I am attempting to avoid on this thread as this thread is about examining the AI, not debating tactics, strategies, and exploits.

Once the exact workings of the AI are noted and exposed, then surely, it makes sense that one can then integrate this information into improving one's game, but that would be a different thread, or at least a discussion that would not take place during the investigation phase.

By the way, I have to admit that I do things to irritate the AI all the time. I will occasionally use workers to block that path of an advancing enemy settler/escort stack or to block landing points for AI sea vessels. Sometimes I can guess where the AI wants to settle next and send a spare warrior or even worker out in advance to squat. I will do those things for no other reason than to delay the AI from achieving its goals. My former AI opponents may be discussing right now how I do these things for no logical purpose, but just to irritate the AI.

Exactly, it screams of Programmed Irritation doesn't it

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well... this bit is actually written in the post. I said quite clearly in the post where I was Irritated and why. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's *not* Irritating?

Me tell you what is *not* irritating? Frankly, none of what you have posted would irritate me at all, let alone Irritate. That is just the way the game happens to be. OK, I can understand if somebody is a little anxious about straying AI units attacking, but really there are several reasons why they are moving over the map, such as exploration and hunting barbarians. Your irritation is just a by-product and not the point. (As an aside, the AI does not launch surprise attacks against units in the open. So, actually there is no, absolutely no need to be scared if your lone settlers and workers etc happen to end up besides AI military units. )

And if you don't like the barbs -- this is if I am not mistaken the second time they show up in this thread -- you can turn that off. It's been a long time since I played a game with the barb setting not to either "Off" or "Sedentary".


As an aside, is there any point in constantly spelling "irritating" and "irritation" with a capital "i", i.e. treating it as if it were a proper noun or something like that? And make no mistake I am not complaining about spelling or grammar. You seem to be trying to make a point with it.

 

[MysteryX]

This is discussing the issue of what the human player does and what's the best way to deal with the resulting AI programme, this does not examine the purpose and motivations of the AI.

Once you start saying 'you should have done this, you should have done that' then you just invite someone to lecture you to death until you win Sid, something I am attempting to avoid on this thread as this thread is about examining the AI, not debating tactics, strategies, and exploits.

The main point is that I am not sure that a strategy that is successful for the AI can be characterized as illogical.

I am guessing that you would have a good reason not to just capture an unprotected enemy settler that blocks your warrior. It would start a war, you are not yet prepared to fight a war, and you do not want that war to distract you from your primary goal of expansion.

It is not illogical for the AI to use a settler to block a warrior, if the AI calculates that you may leave the settler alone rather than starting a war.

I do not know exactly what calculations are going into what moves. But I do know that the AI has at least some method of calculating relative power, and if it determines it is in a position of strength compared to another opponent, it will bully the weaker opponent.

Further, any strategy the computer takes that you would also take cannot be fairly characterized as illogical and designed to irritate. Taking a look at the screenshots, you were taking risks by leaving settlers, workers, and settlements unprotected to rapidly expand. And there is nothing wrong with that kind of strategy. But if the strategy is one that's good enough for you, it's good enough for the AI.

If the AI is slowing down your expansion and strategic position, that may be irritating to you, but it is not illogical. Part of winning the race is speeding fast to the finish line; but if you can find a way to slow down and trip up your opponents, that helps you win too.

I know I use slow-down tactics against the AI opponents all the time. I use units to block AI settler paths; any three units can be used as part of a moving wall to block an AI settler indefinitely. At war, I will destroy improvements with no strategic value, just to give AI workers more to clean up after the war is over. On a bigger scale, I use military alliances to make sure AI opponents are at war as much as possible, because while they are at war, their building and research slows down, giving me an opportunity to catch up or surpass them.

Whether certain things are irritating to you are a matter of personal taste. But it's hard to characterize any strategy that is effective as one that is illogical.

When AI opponents do something to irritate me, I make a mental note of it, and I will settle the score before the game is over.

(I do find barbarians irritating, and they really do just exist to be an annoyance to you (and all the AI opponents). They have no winning goals to pursue, they just fight indiscriminately. I find barbarians irritating enough that I turn them off for my games.)