The AI cheats! (Possible spoiler alert)

[Ankh]

Precisely. The computer acts as if it had state property right from the start. It never seems to go bankrupt from city spamming. It also starts with more cities, and never stops producing them.

The AI on diety dosn't start with extra cities as you claim. It gets 1 extra settler, 2 scouts and 4 archers. AI can produce an archer in 4-5/turns and grow to size 2 in about 4-5 turns as well on normal game speed. You as a player can REX fast as well the only thing limiting you is the iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance>8</iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance> line in the XML that makes additional cities just to expansive hindering your city spam and doing so makes the higher difficulties harder to beat. More cities on the highest levels just cost so much so you cant build them.

the science On higher difficulty levels, the AI should not be able to have 27 cities, turn a profit, and beat me in race. Something should give. It should be a trade off, either it gets to have a bunch on money, a bunch of science, or a bunch of cities. It can't have all 3 unless it is possible for the human player to do so, like with state property.

If you dont like that the AI can do all this at the highest difficulty levels don't play on them. It's all this that makes the highest levels hard not that the AI somehow outsmarts you. if the human could do all this you mention as well it whouldn't be a challenge and we're back to square one. If you want to be able to do all this play on prince.

Perhaps the AI isn't as good as a human in coming up with strategies, but it gets tiresome to take one city after another, after another, after another, just to eliminate the AI who has expanded over the entire map.

If you can do this it's a sign that your playing on to low diffculty and its time to step up a level. I cant steamroll on Emperor and that's because all the bonuses the AI gets and thats what makes emperor for me challenging and enjoyable.

The solution to that is simple: Toggle for "AI gets maintenence bonus", on or off.

We still cant find anywhere that the AI gets any maintenence bonus at all just that the players maintenence is increasing the higher level you go.

You know, if it spent less time spamming cities and more time defending and attacking, it might be more challenging. Once you start taking city after city from the enYou know, if it spent less time spamming cities and more time defending and attaemy, the war is usually over. So if their forces were more concentrated, and they spent more time preparing for war, it could be more difficult to put a dent in their armor.

Once the armor has been shattered, they just begin to lose city after city. And then the game becomes an endless parade of seiges.

again increase the level the AI obviously need more bonuses to be able to compete against you.

I understand that the new mods and expansions have vassal states or whatnot, but in vanilla it becomes tedious to finish off the enemy who spams all these useless cities.

If your problem is the AI fast expansion and city spam i recommend you play on smaller maps or with more AI's. And remember more cities are not nessessery a good thing you could be outproducing and outresearching an AI with 10 cities with your 3. On higher levels you just have to accept that the AI has x2 more cities then you have but rest assure only half of them are any usefull.

But i have to agree that the useless AI city spam can be annoying but i guess you just have to deal with all that useless polar cities just because there's a fish nerby.

 

[Molon Labe]

Call me crazy, but the AI getting bonuses on higher levels doesn't seem like cheating to me. This is all a bit obvious isn't it?

AI bonuses make it more difficult for the player. How else could levels progress?

 

[r_rolo1]

^^Better AI for higher levels.

This is becoming the classic "Beefed AI vs Better AI for Higher dificulty Levels" smackdown..... a debate.

 

[gnome]

There have been some modders that do a good job of enhancing the AI a bit, at least. If, on Deity level, the bonuses to the computer create too much tedium to enjoy the game... I suggest that the frustrated player install one of the AI mods (such as Solver's, currently) and level down a notch or two. If you find it too easy, then based on your disinterest in "Deity" you could consider the game mastered.

Playing on an easier level would still allow you to enjoy the game after mastering it, by letting you be looser with your methods instead of the drudgery of playing exactly right to beat the computer. You could enjoy the game more by making sub-optimal decisions that are more in character for the leader, or just more interesting.

When that gets tiresome, move on to another strategy game.

If you're primarily interested in a turn-based building/conquering/exploring/researching challenge... may I suggest Dominions 3.

As far as I know, the computer gets no bonuses at all, even on its highest levels, and can give you quite a run for your money.

 

[Handel]

. You as a player can REX fast as well the only thing limiting you is the iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance>8</iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance> line in the XML that makes additional cities just to expansive hindering your city spam and doing so makes the higher difficulties harder to beat. More cities on the highest levels just cost so much so you cant build them.

Are you sure this line means after 8 cities the maintenance costs go through the roof? Because in my Walords those cities at noble level are only 5.
And where is this line for the AI? Is then the low AI maintenance hardcoded? And this way Firaxis allowing the AI to spam the cities?

 

[Unconquered Sun]

If you're primarily interested in a turn-based building/conquering/exploring/researching challenge... may I suggest Dominions 3.

As far as I know, the computer gets no bonuses at all, even on its highest levels, and can give you quite a run for your money.

LOL. Dominions AI gets huge bonuses. The game is fun tho.

 

[MrCynical]

The idea Firaxis was promoting is new economic rules makes the city spamming inprofitable and thus impossible. But they didn't suceed to make a AI utilizing the new rules. So instead they gave the AI bonuses which in reality negates the new economic rules.

At Noble level, the AI pays exactly the same maintenance costs as the human player. This is taken from the XML files, and has also been tested in worldbuilder.

And the AI still plays CIV III, not Civ IV, spamming new cities as quickly as it is possible. No matter the cities are useless, in horsehockey places and undefendable.

The possibilities are a)the cities are useless, in which case the AI is harming itself (possible), but then the game is easier, not harder than it is supposed to be as you have been complaining. The other possibility is b) the cities are not useless, in which case you should have grabbed the sites yourself. At Noble, the AI has no maintenance bonuses to make this easier for itself.

 

[Ankh]

Are you sure this line means after 8 cities the maintenance costs go through the roof? Because in my Walords those cities at noble level are only 5.
And where is this line for the AI? Is then the low AI maintenance hardcoded? And this way Firaxis allowing the AI to spam the cities?

Nope iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance>8</iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance> means how many cities you need to build before you reach the max maintenance: that is the next city dosnt get a higher city maintenance. Thats why the number is lower on the easier levels and increases the higher you go.

To clarify cities just costs more the higher level you play.

About city spam the AI dosnt get a discount for maintenance, your cities just cost more, the higher difficulty level you play the more they will cost you. Both in nr of cities and distance from palace maintenance. But on the higher levels your cities will cost more then the ones the AI builds so inaway you can actually call it a discount.

I think the AI actually plays better then some ppl give it credit for. The AI can actually grow pretty well to bad he cant handle warfare or specific map locations for example when starting isolated the AI still builds tons of useless swordsmen.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Think of all the different unique situations in Civilization that can happen, and then consider that the AI has to factor in all of those.

The human mind is so ridiculously complex that it blows the living . .. .. .. . out of the most powerful, advanced supercomputer out there, if not by processing power, in adaptability and imagination. Sorry, the technology simply does not exist to make a brilliant, better-than-human AI.

 

[gnome]

LOL. Dominions AI gets huge bonuses. The game is fun tho.

It does? News to me! Now I gotta figure out what the fairest level is... or go back to Warlords.

I still stand by the rest of my post. If the highest level is annoying because of unfairness, rather than computer skill, then why make it a point of pride to beat it... or to make yourself play that level if you're not enjoying the directions you're forced into in order to win?

 

[Breunor]

^^Better AI for higher levels.

This is becoming the classic "Beefed AI vs Better AI for Higher dificulty Levels" smackdown..... a debate.

R_rolo,

I had a feeling this thread was going to go here, and I guess you did too!

AskthePizzaguy, I admit I was a little upset at the thread in the beginning, and a lot of other people probably had my sentiments.

We hear a lot of threads about how the AI 'cheats'. To me, there are two common ones:

First: ' had a combat at 99% odds and lost, and its happened to me many times. I sure the AI cheats.' I am tired of these threads, and I suspect many other people are also.

Second: The computer's advantages are unfair, they get so many? And the answer always is, 'Well, why don't you play on a lower level.'

Then, the argument always turns into, 'I want a game that doesn't need bonuses to play at higher levels. Why can't they just make the AI better at higher levels instead of giving more bonuses.' And then the discussion turns to chess.

From your post, it was all about how the computer has a lot of advantages on Deity. Pretty much everyone in the community knows that, and feels it is necessary to make the game HARD on deity.


I played chess for 20 years before ever touching a computer game. I remember when David Levy made the bet in 1968 that no computer could beat him in 10 years; he was a master, not an International Master and certainly no Grandmaster! Yet, after 10 years, no computer was even close.

I remember being at a conference for Artificial Intelligence in 1984 (not gaming AI, real AI), when they said the single biggest block to the development of AI techniques was that nobody could beat the super K's at chess.

What I am saying is that even a relatively simple game like chess has AI that is so good only because chess AI development has gone on for over 40 years, and that the resources poured into it, especially by IBM, goes way beyond the value of selling chess game computer software. It was a 'challenge' to the computer community, they NEEDED to defeat Gary Kasparov. So they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it. Think of how many people are int he computer industry -- I remember them always being surprised at how good the real GM's were, they just assumed that their computers could beat them and were shocked when they saw their real ability.

So, with 40 years of development, hundreds of millions of dollars of costs, and a game that is far, far simpler mechanically that a game like CIV, we finally have AI that can beat grandmasters (effectively deity players).


Asking a company like Firaxis to make AI that good for a game like this is very unfair. So, yes, on high levels, the computer gets a lot of advantages.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Good post Breunor.

Everything you said was quite valid, and offered with civility. I can understand why posters who came late to this thread don't understand where I was coming from, but that's because several posts have been deleted, and those were the ones I was responding to.

As always, constructive criticism is welcome, derision and insults are not. There were several posts which were borderline; condescending and somewhat sneering, but at least contained something on-topic, relevant, or constructive. I don't enjoy them, but I don't complain about those.

Anyhoo, I'm just repeating myself about that. I might be tolerable when I am posting about something new and interesting, but even I'm sick of hearing me talk about this.

More of the same would be just

 

[Florian]

I'm satisfied as long as game companies pay proper attention to AI, and keep improving it. The AI in Civ IV is better than the AI in previous Civs, and the BtS AI is better yet. That's a good sign, a good trend.

 

[Handel]

As for the computer winning against 70-80-90 percents odds it happens often to me. And almost never happesn the opposite. But I guess the reason is I almost never depend on luck. I always soften the target with catapults, cannos and bombers and always attack at better then 60% chances. In the rare cases I don't have a catapult or such but have to attack I use some cheap low-level units which can be easily replaced. Guess if I depend on luck and reload when don't like the result I will win lots of time with 25-30 percents chance.

 

[Handel]

As for the chess AI it has much more calculations to be made in comparison of a game like a Civilziation.
The problem with AI in the Civ IV (at least in Warlords) is it make some absolutely stupid mistake which is incredibly easy to be reprogrammed. Just for example staffing the interior cities with 10+ units including fighters and defending cities under attack with just 4-5 units.
Or refusing to exchange and to get some needed tech simply because "We don't like you enough"... meanwhile accumulating 1000-2000 golds and happily buying some obsolete old tech which can be researched in 3 turns and which no one really needs.
Actually the AI follows strictly the advises of the devs under the "hints" in the Civilopedia. And some of those advises are pretty stupid. I've been capturing cities many times untill adjacent to the city stays some unit on the top of a resource...

 

[Florian]

As for the chess AI it has much more calculations to be made in comparison of a game like a Civilziation.

Chess has simple rules and a tiny 8x8 grid. Civ IV has a vastly more complicated set of rules and a playing field that is immense by comparison. The computer only has to make one decision each turn, and there aren't that many different moves that could be made, so it can do brute-force computation and spend all its time looking 20-30 moves into the future. In Civ IV, the computer is usually running 6 or more other empires at the same time, often making dozens of decisions/moves per turn for each one. Chess is a very easy AI problem, compared to Civ IV.

Or refusing to exchange and to get some needed tech simply because "We don't like you enough"

You're missing something here. The purpose of the AI is not to win, but to make the game enjoyable for the human player. One thing that makes the game enjoyable is when the computer plays well, but it's not the only thing. A realistic and rational diplomatic model also adds to enjoyment.

As for your other complaints, there's no question that the AI could be better, but if you think fixing it would be "incredibly easy," what's stopping you from doing it? Get working.

 

[gnome]

I believe someone here tested the reported odds exhaustively and found them to be largely accurate, in spite of some frustrating results in individual skirmishes. Am I remembering correctly?

 

[Breunor]

I believe someone here tested the reported odds exhaustively and found them to be largely accurate, in spite of some frustrating results in individual skirmishes. Am I remembering correctly?

Many, many people have tested them in controlled experiments using the worldbuilder, and these show that the battle results are indeed random.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense -- why would Firaxis programmers 'cheat' in this way? They can always give bonuses. Do you really think that Soren and his successors are sitting there, laughing, with their deep cheats built into the AI? If you look at other game forums, each one has a series of these 'AI cheats' forums. Do people think its a conspiracy of all computer game programmers?

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

As for the chess AI it has much more calculations to be made in comparison of a game like a Civilziation.
The problem with AI in the Civ IV (at least in Warlords) is it make some absolutely stupid mistake which is incredibly easy to be reprogrammed. Just for example staffing the interior cities with 10+ units including fighters and defending cities under attack with just 4-5 units.
Or refusing to exchange and to get some needed tech simply because "We don't like you enough"... meanwhile accumulating 1000-2000 golds and happily buying some obsolete old tech which can be researched in 3 turns and which no one really needs.
Actually the AI follows strictly the advises of the devs under the "hints" in the Civilopedia. And some of those advises are pretty stupid. I've been capturing cities many times untill adjacent to the city stays some unit on the top of a resource...

I've been a game reviewer for a long time -- and every computer game has a legion of people saying, 'the AI stinks, its easy to fix. The company doesn't care.'

I interview these people, they do care. (To be clear, I have not talked to people at Firaxis, but other programmers and designers over the years.) They try. Look at what Solver has done and Blake has done. Making good AI is hard, very hard. It is the single most difficult part of game design for hard, top tier strategy games.

I think most people here think the AI is good in CivIV BtS, quite good. Its very hard to make a set of rules that are equation based to handle situations like a human does. The AI doesn't cheat. It has some bonuses that are well disclosed. The programming team is working hard to make a challenging game.

If you don't want to believe me, that is your right. If you think fixing the kind of factors you discuss above is easy and don't like the game, that is your right also. But you should understand that many people here don't agree with you and I hope you understand why.

You should all play the chess computers that were around in the early 1970's. Then I'll listen to people talking about chess AI!

Breunor

 

[Percy]

I agree with all of your posts in this thread, Breunor.
I would like to add something about the criticism on the AI.

The thing is, most of the people who criticize the AI, don't actually want it to be good at the game. I'm sure a lot of people reload when they realize they forgot to do something, or they made a very bad mistake. The AI doesn't reload. Most people come here, on this board, to gather info about such or such leader, or on how to abuse the system (beelines, lightbulbs, trading). Most of us complain that "XXXXXX attacked me at friendly, that's so stupid!!!!" but don't we all attack friendly civs when we know we're going to crush them, if it comes with a worthy prize?
And when we do a small mistake, and that the game promises to be long and tedious, don't we simply start a new game? Well, the AI cannot start a new game. It can't tell you "Well, you know, i really shouldn't have trusted you back then, and used my 3 archers to steal your workers and take your newly-founded, one-warrior-defended city. So now i'm just going to have this game restart, because i'm bored with it". You can.
In the end, if you dislike the AI and the way it works, most of you could play multiplayer, where you face other humans, who all want to win (which is not the case of the AI, as sometimes mentioned, which is only there to have you enjoy yourself).