That Cheating AI

[The End Is Nigh]

The thread on switching production, namely how it is exploited by all of us, just reminded me of that cheating BLEEPING AI.

1. I just hate it in the early parts of the game, seeing Russia or anyone else for that matter trying to get a settler through my territory to that unclaimed land, even though it should not even know that it is there. Why should the AI know the world map before exploring it and before reaching Navigation?

2. Or the Japenese trying to take a particular city in the medieval era, ignoring other cities (even less well-defended) for no obvious reason? Until, of course you research fission and you realise that that all-important uranium is located there!!!

3. Or attacking my weakest city? How the hell did it know that? Did it investigate all my cities prior to attacking? No. It has not spend a single penny to do that.

Playing at difficult levels, I accept that the AI should have obvious advantages to make it more difficult for me. But this is CHEATING!!!

It should either stop - or we should be allowed to exploit all available loopholes to counter-balance it.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The thread on switching production, namely how it is exploited by all of us, just reminded me of that cheating BLEEPING AI.

1. I just hate it in the early parts of the game, seeing Russia or anyone else for that matter trying to get a settler through my territory to that unclaimed land, even though it should not even know that it is there. Why should the AI know the world map before exploring it and before reaching Navigation?

2. Or the Japenese trying to take a particular city in the medieval era, ignoring other cities (even less well-defended) for no obvious reason? Until, of course you research fission and you realise that that all-important uranium is located there!!!

3. Or attacking my weakest city? How the hell did it know that? Did it investigate all my cities prior to attacking? No. It has not spend a single penny to do that.

Playing at difficult levels, I accept that the AI should have obvious advantages to make it more difficult for me. But this is CHEATING!!!

It should either stop - or we should be allowed to exploit all available loopholes to counter-balance it.

This has to do with the difficulties of writing a truly smart AI for such a complicated game as Civilization. A human player can guess and intuitively feel that there still exists some land on the other side of an AI's territory. A human player knows that it will need some tundra to have a chance to get some oil or uranium in the late game. A human player can use a global strategy or a diversion strategy or attack from an unexpected angle to capture cities from the AI. These kinds of things are really an impossibility for an AI. It can only 'think' on a very local scale, has some very basic tactics (like place your units on defensive terrain), large scale strategies are really impossible for the AI. So the creators try to compensate by giving the AI some extra knowledge. That way, the AI can still be chalanging. The only other option would be to give the AI even larger production, research and growth bonusses, an option I would like less and would still not give the same level of competitiveness.

It is really remarkable that the AI in Civ3 can beat some players who play the game the first time when it has no production, research or growth bonusses. The AI in Civ3 is pretty good (a lot better than in Civ2).

I also hope that the AI in Civ4 will be better, but we can't realistically hope for the things that you demand.

 

[Leprechaune]

As I apparently said in another thread of this nature... It's simple to make an AI like that... In fact... I have a bit of extra time on my lunch break today so maybe I'll go make it and sell it to Cid fer a couple bucks.

 

[Melendwyr]

The thread on switching production, namely how it is exploited by all of us, just reminded me of that cheating BLEEPING AI.

It's not an exploit. Taking advantage of an intended feature isn't loophole-exploiting.

 

[sweeneygov]

Yeah but it doesnt make it fair. Although we all know about the AI settlers going for your spare land i was unaware of them trying to take a city of yours or occupying land because they know resources will be located there later on!

Surely putting in some of the characteristics like only being able to see land it has explored and attacking from a few different directions are not that difficult to include? I mean fair enough it might not intuitively guess like we can where land is, so it should send scouts out to recce or ships out to check like the rest of us do before sending a settler and spearman straight to the exact location!

 

[Melendwyr]

Yeah but it doesnt make it fair.

Absolutely correct. On the other hand, I don't need "fair": I can crush the limited AI with my superior ability to think abstractly and plan despite its occasional advantages. Since giving the game AI that cognitive power isn't an option, the only way to even the playing field and make the game both challenging and "fair" is to handicap the human -- or to look at it another way, to give the computer some advantages.

 

[Volstag]

This is due to the complexities of writing strong AI. For a game like Civ, I firmly believe it's dang near impossible. There's simply too many variables for the computer to handle. Maybe in the distant future they'll come up with something, but I have no reason to believe the AI isn't going to be "cheating", to a lesser or greater extent, in Civ IV.

Ultimately there hasn't been a single grand strategy game, of similar complexity, that has exhibited what I would call "strong" AI.

-V

 

[Trade-peror]

There's simply too many variables for the computer to handle.

Well, I actually think there are two few variables involved, such that the AI's advantage in crunching numbers cannot make up for its inability to make broad, strategic decisions. Having more factors/variables would probably make it more difficult for human players.

 

[wit>trope]

The reason why computer game AI suck is because companies do not invest much resources and time into it. Usually the bulk of AI development takes place weeks or just a few months before the game ships. This is due to the economics of the computer game market. I have no knowledge of what is happening with Civ 4, but this is from what I hear the general practice of game companies.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, on a somewhat positive note, we know that in Civ4 they started with the multiplayer game, and have based their AI on the behaviour of playtesters within multiplayer games. This, hopefully, will lead to a much more intelligent and reactive AI. It would be good, though, if the AI was blind about some-if not all-elements of the game-map.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[bshirt]

The AI in Civ3 is pretty good (a lot better than in Civ2).

100% on the money, Roland.

CivIII's AI is a huge, huge improvement from CivII's. Like you, I'll hope that trend continues.

 

[Bluetooth]

I agree on every word you say. The cheating AI is very irritating.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

I agree that the AI should be given advantages (such as building units and improvements faster; or accummulating wealth more easily).

However, the AI should also play by the book. It should need Navigation to see areas of the world it has not explored. Wait to research Replaceable Parts to see where Rubber will appear. Spend money to investigate my cities to see which are the weakest. And research Astronomy to be able to safely tavel through the high seas (occasionally I manage to get a ship though, but very infrequently - the AI seems to be able to do so easily - we have all seen the Russians claiming a far away island, even though they had to cross an ocean).

 

[apatheist]

I don't understand why you think one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not.

 

[Volum]

I agree that the AI should be given advantages (such as building units and improvements faster; or accummulating wealth more easily).

However, the AI should also play by the book. It should need Navigation to see areas of the world it has not explored. Wait to research Replaceable Parts to see where Rubber will appear. Spend money to investigate my cities to see which are the weakest. And research Astronomy to be able to safely tavel through the high seas (occasionally I manage to get a ship though, but very infrequently - the AI seems to be able to do so easily - we have all seen the Russians claiming a far away island, even though they had to cross an ocean).

The AI never send out a boat if it has the chance of sinking. If it got there it either had the technolgy to do it, or it started and ended in a safe tile in the same turn.

 

[Zurai]

I don't understand why you think one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not.

Because getting bonus production isn't cheating, it's a handicap.

cheat v. intr.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

handicap

n 2: advantage given to a competitor to equalize chances of winning


There's a difference between an advantage given within the rules to one side (ie, giving an AI city extra hammers - they still have to USE those hammers, it just takes them a little less time to build something) versus completely ignoring rules (ie, AI civs knowing the entire map before the game even starts, down to where every single unit and resource is). It is acceptable to give the AI a handicap. It is unacceptable for the AI to be playing a different game than I am - which is exactly what letting it ignore the rules does.

 

[Pacifist]

I don't understand why you think one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not.

I think the point 'The End Is Nigh' is making by stating, "It should either stop - or we should be allowed to exploit all available loopholes to counter-balance it" is that ...
... a game where everyone cheats would be just as fair as a game where everyone don't cheat. I donot think he meant one form of cheating is acceptable over another
Then again, a computer-controlled opponent is incapable of cheating, just following what it's been programmed to do, so strictly speaking, AI's don't cheat -- we just label it as cheating

Until someone can come up with a better AI, I suppose we'll just have to live with handicapping the human player to make the game more challenging.

EDIT: d'oh! People responded before me

-Pacifist-
"Something is better than nothing"

 

[The Adjudicator]

the AI should also play by the book. It should need Navigation to see areas of the world it has not explored. Wait to research Replaceable Parts to see where Rubber will appear. Spend money to investigate my cities to see which are the weakest. And research Astronomy to be able to safely tavel through the high seas (we have all seen the Russians claiming a far away island, even though they had to cross an ocean).

Of course, these advantages for the AI can also be advantages for us. Buying a world map with more info than you could gather. Knowing that there must be a resource when the AI just walked past three cows to build a town in the middle of the desert.

And why Russians? Do they cheat more than other AI's?

 

[Corvex]

I personally would prefer giving the AI some small leg-up over having to play on a supercomputer just so it can come even close to approximating human intelligence. And even then, lacking intuition and unlikely to take the occasional chance for a large pay-off, they probably still wouldn't be as good.

 

[warpus]

In my humble opinion, as a person who has studied AI in university, most developers spend far too less time developing the AI when building a video game. Most of the time they rely on such workarounds as allowing the computer to 'cheat', which in some cases is REQUIRED (AI programming *is* hard after all), but it shouldn't be required on the scale we see it in Civ3, for example. I really wish developers spent more time developing AI routines, because it would make gameplay a lot more realistic and fun.

I don't even think that most games employ a decision-tree style AI, which in my opinion would do wonders for a game such as Civilization. The downfall is that it would take a lot of time to get it just right, but this is exactly my complaint - too much time is spent on graphics, and too little on gameplay.