The AI cheats (but please think like a programmer)

[tobyr]

The thread on relocating capitals is becoming an "AI" cheats thread. I'd like to get my favorite opinion in about the AI cheats:

Unless Microprose creates an open interface so that hundreds of developers can try to improve the AI in their spare time, the AI cannot get much smarter. (Even these efforts may not be worth much.)

Try to think like a programmer:

You've been given two months to do some work to make the AI act smarter. Most of the things you might want to do involve collecting a lot of info, doing very complex calculations over time, and then require intense complex testing to see if they really make the AI better or worse. Wouldn't it be simpler to do something that's easy to test, like this:

If the AI is x far behind, and the human being destroys the last defender of a city, then quick build another defender whether we can afford it or not.

And now imagine that after a round of product testing, the general opinion is that the AI needs to get just a bit stronger in warfare, playing at deity level. You've got one day to make a testable fix. Well, why not cange the software so that in certain situatios, all AI units get an extra 5% advantage in all combat rounds?

A lot of time and effort is needed to do good AI, and given the doubtfulness of any payoff, the vendors can't afford it. Only the kind of people who brought us Linux and GNU can afford to do it, if it is possible at all.

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[Mark_Everson]

Your Chevy Nova Explodes when Rear-Ended (but please think like an auto designer)

The guys who put those gas tanks there had deadlines too... A poorly designed product is a poorly designed product, regardless of deadlines.

Nope, sorry, I'm going to think like a consumer. A consumer who won't buy the game if, as is likely, the AI is so pathetic the game isn't Fun.

But you are right about the likely origin of a civ game with good AI, because the regular game companies are making enough money sticking to the same ol' formula. I'd much rather play a game than make a game, its a Lot of work. But the industry has driven me to this sorry state... (not Michigan, making a game )

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do ;-) )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Web Site & Forum right here at Apolyton...

[Oldman]

I'll be the first to admit that i'm not a programmer, but isn't there a way to get the AI to learn from the player it's playing against? I know it sounds far out, but let me try and explain...

Is it not possible for the AI to analyse how it loses? In such a way that it concludes "I lost, why? Outnumbered. Why? i built banks & uni's when he built knights. solution, build improvements later." It can then remember why it lost and write it's own education file, and consult it if it encounters a similar situation?? ok, so maybe that's a little too complex, i don't know!!

but, it makes me think. Surely the AI is set with parameters for what/when and how to build things right? Such as don't build banks until tax income is 6 or greater, city location analyis? that kind of stuff should be there all ready?!?! So why not get some good players to write a definitive set of parameters for the AI??

And also, if they can make chess games really hard to beat, why not civ? and in chess the AI doesn't cheat at all!!! I've got chess on my gameboy, and i can't even win on level 3, and there are about 16 settings!??! i know the AI isn't thinking, but it's got a lot of info to work with and civ isn't that complicated is it? there are more diverse areas in civ, but they're still just variables...

Ok, now i've waffled on a bit, but i've given by two pence's worth!!

quote: Originally posted by Oldman on 07-21-2000 07:02 AM Is it not possible for the AI to analyse how it loses? In such a way that it concludes "I lost, why? Outnumbered. Why? i built banks & uni's when he built knights. solution, build improvements later." It can then remember why it lost and write it's own education file, and consult it if it encounters a similar situation?? ...... And also, if they can make chess games really hard to beat, why not civ? and in chess the AI doesn't cheat at all!!! I've got chess on my gameboy, and i can't even win on level 3, and there are about 16 settings!??! i know the AI isn't thinking, but it's got a lot of info to work with and civ isn't that complicated is it? there are more diverse areas in civ, but they're still just variables...

It sounds so simple....

Although chess seems much more complex game than Civ, one smart guy developed a nice relatively simple algorithm which allows the computer to play a VERY good chess game.
Civ is MUCH more complex.
In chess the main problem is what unit to move and where to move it, together with some long range planning.
In Civ you can move more than one unit per turn, because of this the computer doesn't need to choose what unit move is better, but here the advantage of Civ ends.
In Civ you have bigger map, MUCH more complex long range planning (if it exists in the current version beyond the few turn limit), a LOT more possible moves and options which can be done by many different unique units.
Only the picking of the tech to research is complex no less than a chess games.
Yes, in civ the computer cheats, but as Tobyr said,"think like a programmer".

IMHO, there is an algorithm to play a perfect civ game, but it design is extremely difficult, and even if he will be designed, i don't believe that you PC will be able to deal with it.

BuilderR

[Platty]

The chess "problem" is a good one to bring up because it shows how it is still truly difficult to get computers to "think" like humans - which is what we want them to do for AI.

Modern chess programs are so strong because they can see many many moves into the future. They can still get beat, however, by the top top players under tournament conditions (I am under no illusions that this will remain the case) because they still cannot master elementary plans. Given a position they cannot understand they will shuffle aimlessly.

Now compare the number of squares on a chessboard and a number of pieces to Civ. Pretty small, huh?

Now of course the AI doesn't have to actually think - it just needs to look like it does. How should that be done? By programming in elementary tips like "don't attack a well defended site round after round" and so on. For a while this will make things much better but eventually people will find, "Hey - here's something it can't do" and suddenly we'll be waiting for Civ 4 to fix that "stupid AI".

Agree.

BuilderR

[tobyr]

Chess programs actully use relatively little AI. The program that matched Kasparov uses a neural netowrk to analyze openings and decide what lines to play (to some extent), and the program's "handlers" do not fully understand its opening "theory". But when analyzing positions, the progrsm uses brute force to consider a very large number of future positions and assign scores to these positions. (The scores are not very sophisticated as chess evaluation goes). To play well, the program must analyze forward three to fifteen moves.

As Builder said, the number of possible moves in one civ turn is much, much, much larger than in chess. In addition, probability has to be considered for a great many of the alternatives. There is no way for a civ2 game to analyze ahead 21 turns (a pitiful three turns by each of seven tribes) to decide what moves might work best, in a reasonable amount of time. One such turn analyzis might take a year on a very fast computer.

Because so many decisions are involved in each turn, there is also no reasoanable way for an AI to analyze its play and decide what it did wrong, IN GENERAL. So we are stuck with a pretty dumb AI.

There is, however, a way to try to train the AI to be a little smarter. Suppose that:
(1) The AI kept track, more or less, of the moves it had made recently.
(2) A player had the ability to select an AI unit and click the "what a dumb move" button.

The AI might be able to recognize the same mistake after several repetitions and avoid, say, making the same dumb attack over and over. (But in such a case, a human would be 100 times better than the AI at realizing when the situation ahd changed and the same move was no longer dumb.) And unfortunately, the desire to cheat by telling the AI that a GOOD move was dumb would tempt us, wouldn't it?

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[tobyr]

Mark_Everson, you reinforced one of my main points. One patch was released for ToT to correct severe bugs. Similarly, any car that might explode from a rear end collision ought to be "patched". But car manufacturers do not release "patches" to make cars more interesting, becuase the costs of testing, distribution and sales do not justify such upgrades.

My "think like a programmer" phrase was really unfair, by the way. Any decent programmer in the fix I described would GREATLY desire to add some real AI, but would probably be forced to do otherwise, and really hate not to be able to do better.

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[SandMonkey]

Tobyr -

what about a "recall" on a car? Isn't that basically a patch?

------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

"Ecky ecky ecky!"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Check out my 1602 A.D. site

[Novi Nomad]

I think sometimes people tend to be a little too hard on how bad the AI is in this game. The majority of the people who buy this game probably aren't romping all over the AI at deity level. Most of the people in these discussion groups who are able to easily defeat the AI on deity have probably put a large number of hours into the game. It's pretty difficult to imagine that the programmers could come up with something that could withstand a group of dedicated individuals spending hundreds of hours scrutinizing ways to beat it (just look at how much effort people put in to cheating on their taxes resulting in a more and more complicated tax code - people can be pretty darn resourceful). All things considered I think they did a reasonable job. Yes, the AI does a lot of things that are incredibly stupid. Yes, they should make an effort to improve it. But the fact remains that by the time you've gotten to the level where deity is no longer very interesting, and the scenarios are boring and even the challenges posted here seem simple, you've gotten a hell of a lot of fun out of playing a game that now retails for somewhere around 20 bucks....

AI cheats? I always thought he'd play with honor...

I'll go and ask him.

Richard!! May I have a word with you?

[Hasdrubal]

Novi Nomad is right. The AI isn't all that bad. Granted, it is no match for an experienced player. But if you compare it with AI's in other similair games, it is rather competent. I've played plenty of strategy games with dumber AI's.

One of the main reasons why it is so difficult to write a competitive AI for a strategy game like Civ, is that the AI must compete against the human player using the same set of rules as the human. In a simulation game like Caesar, the AI merely has to make the job of the human player difficult, by posing some witty obstacles to the human who must then find a way to overcome these. By contrast, in Civ, the AI is cast in the role of a human. It must emulate six humans who perform the same tasks as the human player. Given that it has taken 25 years to write an AI that can beat the best players in chess, a game of far less complexity and for which there has been written a huge literature of strategic theory, I wouldn't put my hopes up on seeing an AI that can compete with experienced human civvers anywhere in the foreseeable future.

So, when considering the difficulties of making a good AI that must compete with humans at the very same task that those humans are performing, I'm not against making the life of the AI easier by allowing it to cheat on the rules a bit. And that is from a consumer's point of view.

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

[jpk]

One thing that would help would be if there was more variation from game to game.

If I recall correctly a rifleman has 5 attack points and 4 defense points and it is the same every game. This means the human player immediately knows the capabilities of a rifleman and, more importantly, will know how to use one effectively.

Suppose at the beginning of the game the computer picked a random number for the attack strength of every rifleman and another random number for the attack strength of every rifleman. Suppose also the human player did not know these numbers. To make up an example suppose the attack number could vary between 4 and 6 while the defense number could vary between 3 and 5. Now the human player has to make a big decision is one rifleman enough to defend a walled city. (This is against the AI) If the defense number is 5, probably; if the defense number is 3, probably not. Until the human player has experience with THIS GAME'S riflemen that player has no way of being sure. On the other hand, the AI players could be given this kind of information.

AI attacks are incredibly piecemeal. Why can't you create something like a temporary general? If somehow the AI gets, say, six units out in the field in the same small area then this temporary general controls the units movements. The movements could be coordinated so that you don't end up with stupid things like a stack of units next to a cannon. If the AI wants to move three units next to a cannon put them on three different squares, risk losing one, but then wipe out the cannon on the next move.

[Theben]

"And unfortunately, the desire to cheat by telling the AI that a GOOD move was dumb would tempt us, wouldn't it?"

Don't we have that option already? We can change what the computer wants to research to "0" in the .txt files and watch it never progress beyong the stone age. People who want a challenge will seek them.

And I like jpk's solution (not a complete solution, but...). I don't know if a 3 pt. variable is what I want...use a "2" pt. variable and Maniac's x10 system.
You can also credit the before-combat knowledge of players given to them, especially in SMAC. Since who would win was not always readily apparent in conflicts (or the degree of victory) disallow odds-generating and the strengths of enemy units/stacks unless successful scouting has been performed- at least make it an option. Also throw in RCE's-Random Combat Events- which may affect any battle by a few % pts. either way.

[Ming]

I'm sorry... I have to disagree. The AI is a total idiot. If they at least let it judge the odds before wasting units for centuries attacking a mountain fortress, then maybe it would be ok The AI doesn't do any element of the game well except to cheat

[Simpson II]

I'm also of the opinion that the AI could have been made better given a wet weekend's work.

One thing which would massively help it would be the instruction to
1) Improve tiles which are being worked, and
2) Don't improve tiles which aren't being worked.

I can't see a particular problem with this, just have a city controller AI flag which squares it would like improved, and how.
These days I play Alpha Centauri mostly, and I have seen the AI in that build a mine on flat (i.e. the wrong type of) terrain which wasn't in the radius of it's base.

And the battlefield AI wouldn't be so hard either. In Smac the AI attacks with up to 20 (occasionally more) troops at a time, but it stacks them all on the same square and then sends them. They die from counter-attacks. Have them spread out a little and they would be dangerous.

Or an algorithm to count the number of squares on an island - just a simple floodfill, like you get in MS paint - and increase the priority of naval techs if it is small. Or to reduce settler production if there are no more city sites (Area/(21*city-number) = 1, if you want to be lazy).

Or to steal tech when an opponent is ahead, rather than at random or not at all.

Or to work out whether the base will grow next turn, and if so to work out if doing so will make the city discontent, and finally if so to create an elvis.

Or not to build marketplaces until they will pay for themselves. Likewise banks, stock exchanges, and on a more abstract level libraries and universities.

Or not to attack with warriors when your opponent is using tanks (yes, I've actually had this, a warrior and a catapult from a trireme while I way conducting a modern-age war. And yes, on Diety.)

I'm one of those players who trounces the AI at Deity, and I wonder how many people who play on lower levels know the extent to which is cheats. Open up the editor and count the columns of minerals & food. If you had nearly halved production costs, nearly double growth, king-level happiness, no maintainance, wouldn't you be rather incredible at the game? Watch a game with the map revealed. I think you will be astounded by how bad the AI actually is.

Yes, it has to cheat in order to put up a really good show. But ask players like Ming what sort of effect optimizing a city each turn, so that it grows a turn sooner, produces a turn sooner, or *doesn't go into revolt* makes. A computer is perfect for this, it doesn't take any great strategies.

I wish the AI were open, then I would put my code where my mouth is. Sadly, from the 10-minute look I had at Clash, they don't need AI help.

Anyway, enough ranting.

[Mark_Everson]

Some of the supporters of AI basically the way as it is, think that those of us who want to see the AI improved insist it be able to beat a person in a fair fight. Clearly that's unrealistic! What at least I personally want in Civ III is:
1. A set of difficulty levels where there is one the best players can't beat with their eyes closed, and,
2. An AI without the gross defects of the sort Simpson II and others have spoken of.

And if they make the AI avoid some of the really boneheaded things, and occasionally do clever things, the amount it has to cheat to be able to beat a good human player will be reduced substantially.

Simpson II: Thanks for the list of some of the AI's gross inadequacies... And on Clash, we'd still like to hear what you think of our plans. I'm sure there are some straightforward things (like the approaches you point out with respect to Civ) that we won't think of. The more people discussing these things in the context of the Clash models, the better a game it will be!

[tobyr]

Sanmdan,
A car recall IS a patch. And as I said, manufacturers do not do patches to make cars more interesting. They do them to make you less likely to get killed. For example:

(Press release Microprose released patch 1.2 for ToT today, after it was determined that approximately 0.001 % of gamers will go into violent, possibly fatal convulsions, when hearing the sound of an elephant attacking, immediately after they hear the game sound of cannon fire. All ToT players are earnestly urged to update their files. The patch ensures that some sort of goblin will always be interpolated between the cannon and elephant sounds. "While we were at it, we improved the AI combat logic, made it easy for scenario designers to animate their own units, included instructions for better controlling the random generation of maps 1, 2 and 3, and added a map editor," said a spokesperson for MP. "We tested out the map editor on maps produced by our rock solid civ2-to-ToT scenario converter, also included in the patch." Foreign language versions of the patch are expected in about two to three months; foreign language players are urged to turn off sound effects interim...


- toby




------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[SandMonkey]

lol good point

------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

"Ecky ecky ecky!"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Check out my 1602 A.D. site

quote: Originally posted by tobyr on 07-22-2000 10:20 PM (Press release Microprose released patch 1.2 for ToT today, after it was determined that approximately 0.001 % of gamers will go into violent, possibly fatal convulsions, when hearing the sound of an elephant attacking, immediately after they hear the game sound of cannon fire. All ToT players are earnestly urged to update their files. The patch ensures that some sort of goblin will always be interpolated between the cannon and elephant sounds. "While we were at it, we improved the AI combat logic, made it easy for scenario designers to animate their own units, included instructions for better controlling the random generation of maps 1, 2 and 3, and added a map editor," said a spokesperson for MP. "We tested out the map editor on maps produced by our rock solid civ2-to-ToT scenario converter, also included in the patch." Foreign language versions of the patch are expected in about two to three months; foreign language players are urged to turn off sound effects interim... - toby

Are you sirious??
I looked through the site and i didnt found anything about the 1.2 patch???
and where can I fine the converter, I suffer from a lack of quality scenario games!

[Shadowstrike]

It's called sarcasm. Anyhow, if there was such a patch wouldn't we all have it by now?
[This message has been edited by Shadowstrike (edited July 23, 2000).]

You sounded serious...

[Matthew]

Of course the AI has to cheat. But with some of the changes mentioned above, as well as scripting, it could be made a whole lot better. In fact, I'll mention a cheat I think the AI should be given that would make it better. Much better. Planning a coordinated assault involving assempling a force and moving it to the target is a bit much for an AI I would imagine. The hardest part being assembling the force and timing its arrival at the enemy city. Better to give the AI a build option of "assault force" in one city, consisting of whatever is needed; for example 2 caravels, 5 crusaders, and a dip with a remarkable ability to destroy city walls on the first try. Allow it to pour the resources of the whole civ to build the assault force. then, when built, choose an enemy coastal city, move the force there as a single unit, and attack in a scripted pre determined order. After the assault the AI disassembles what's left of the group, and treats them as separate units. With a powerful scripting language these plans could become far more intricate and dangerous, all without involving any evaluation or forsight on the part of the AI, beyond randomly selecting an enemy city that meets certain pre determined criteria for the assault force.

And I personally don't think that one level to be somewhat challenging to the experienced player is good enough. I think there should be a level at which the best civ 2 players will get waxed consistently, and two more levels above that. That way maybe 3 months from it's release date the game will still be somewhat of a challenge.

[Sieve Too]

Some simple things that could be done to drastically improve the CivII AI:

1) Calculate combat odds before attacking that fortified Alpine in a mountain fortress.
Attack en masse or go around fortifications.

2) Forget Catapults, Cannon and Artillery until the era of railroads. Attack with mounted units.

3) Never knowingly move units adjacent to fortified positions or cities unless the unit can also attack that turn.

4) Bring along Engineers to build fortresses for assaulting fortified positions.

5) Don't stack more than 2 units in a square outside a fortress.

6) Build more Diplomats and Spies. Use them, esp. to get around ZOC.

7) Build city walls. It is ridiculous to find size 12 cities with no walls. Nothing stops the early conquerer quicker than walls.

8) Build the road first before irrigating.

9) Change corn to silk, pheasant to buffalo, iron to wine, etc.

10) Don't build the Eiffel Tower. Ever.

[jpk]

I agree with the comments about decent micomanagement by AI cities. As important is a decent logarithm for locating cities. We have all seen AI city locations where the city could be located so that it had whales, wine, pheasant, and iron as specials and somehow the city was located to miss the whale and wine. At present the algorithm seems to deliberately pick inferior locations.

It has occurred to me that perhaps the people who program this game may not be that good at actually playing the game. Perhaps a few good players could be invited for a weekend of playing and talking to the programmers. Say have a multiplayer game and have a programmer talking to each of the players while the player is playing.

This message is probably worth less than $.02.

[Scouse Gits]

jpk - I think that you may have put your finger right on the spot - the programmers and designers had no real idea that their product was going to evolve into the game that we now know, love & beat into pulp on a regular basis - I'm fairly certain that ICS or OCC were never imagined and you can go on from there...



------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

[Simpson II]

Certainly the designers of the game are not the best players. I remember reading in the manual that, for Civ 1, they predicted that the computer could be beaten, but 'not consistently', on Emperor level! On the other hand, they probably don't have enough time to do a really brilliant AI before releasing the game - with constantly shifting rules, it would be hard to become expert. This is why the AI needs to be open, or at least updated after a month or two.
Still, that doesn't excuse the kind of idiotic mistakes the Civ2 AI makes.

[jpk]

Scouse Gits:

It occurs to me that it is no easier to develop an algorithm that picks a "one off" location for a city than develop an algorithm that picks the sweet spot for a city location. Perhaps it is even harder. If this is so, then the programmers may have felt the need to weaken the algorithms so they, or their game testers, could win.