AI Cheats

[Executor]

What kind of cheats will the AI have at its disposal?

The bonuses assigned to the computer in Civ2:
1. Ddepending on the difficulty level, had huge reductions in shield count
2 Could bribe enemy units using any of their units, not just diplomats or spies
3. No pollution
4. Could change production during other player's turns.
5. Only took one turn to change government types, whether or not they had the Statue of Liberty

While I don't mind 1 and 3, the rest should not be included in CivIII. The computer should win on its merits, not by outcheating the player.

[Urban Ranger]

None. Not allowed.

[Sabre2th]

The technology simply doesn't exist to make a truly smart AI. Some cheating will have to occur for it to be challenging.

[Urban Ranger]

Screw that argument.

I don't mind giving the computer players advantages at higher levels, however, these must be (a) known and (b) customisable.

A good way to make better computer players is to make the AI routines programmable by players.

A good way to make better computer players is to make the AI routines programmable by players.

If you really feel that way, Urban Ranger, why aren't you worshiping at the altar of WesW? Sounds like another CTP concept to me . . .

[star mouse]

Some AI cheating is inevitable. Without it, it would be difficult to manage levels of difficulty. One AI cheat that will almost certainly be present is AI's needing fewer shields to build improvements or train troops at higher difficulty levels. Another cheat you will see is the AI having information that you lack such as the location of your civilization. These are necessary to make the game challenging. Would you rather have a challenging AI with a few innocuous cheats, or a weak AI that makes you lose interest in the game after a few weeks?

One AI cheat that will almost certainly be present is AI's needing fewer shields to build improvements or train troops at higher difficulty levels. Another cheat you will see is the AI having information that you lack such as the location of your civilization.

Agreed. Without those cheats the AI is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with a veteran civer who really knows how to place workers and improvements and optimize resource allocation. Kind of like how a chess AI runs brute force through possible moves while master human players "chunk" small bits of information together.

The thing I'm worried about, however, is the tendency of the AI to into armaggedon mode at the end even if you've been friendly and helpful ala civ2. If the AI players gang up without cause, then firaxis has really wasted their time setting up their new diplomacy system. I think I'm entitled to play sometimes as a warmonger and other times as a green/diplomat. SMAC wasn't as bad, but still had a bit of a gang-up factor.

[Lemmy]

i agree with UR

Screw that argument.

the rest is true, look at space empires 4, the AI is programmable by users and if it's still easy, you can choose low/medium/high bonuses for the AI. In fact, the best AI for SE4 is made by the players.

if there is a cheating AI i at least want an option to turn it off.

Would you rather have a challenging AI with a few innocuous cheats, or a weak AI that makes you lose interest in the game after a few weeks?

i've been playing SE4 for 7 months now, with the original non-cheating AI, it has been improved with several patches.
I'm still winning the game, but then you would also win a difficult civ2 game with numerous AI-cheats.

I think it's possible to make a non-cheating AI, especially with the faster computers now, the programmer doesn't have to worry about how long one turn will take.

[The Viceroy]

It is quite possible to create an AI that learns and adapts .. however, I doubt that Sid is the kind of guy to take such a risky approach to CIV3 .. not with the expectations placed on it. The AI will most certainly be rule based only, and in that case, will require some level of cheat. It is possible to create some pretty impressive rule based AI's .. but they are limited to the imagination of the programmers at the time.

I would though ask Sid to consider Neural nets in some future project, as it needs to have a proven track record before being accepted into the world of CIV. You can provide a rule based AI as a base, and then program for experience .. allowing the AI to learn ... it is then possible to save AI knowledge .. the best players of Civ will have produced the hardest AI's (most learned).. and these can be placed on Apolyton to challenge us all.

Such code needs heavy use before I would advice using it in something like Civ ..

[campmajor!]

Sounds promising, that neural net thing. It would be really cool if the AI actually improved over time.

The only negative thing about it would be that it will become too addictive...

[Nenad]

1. I hate when AI cheats. It's more important to improve AI then to introduce animated units or something like that. Firaxis should spend more time on AI improving (if it's still like it was in civ2).

2. On the other hand, I often cheat (and probably many others) in combat by saving position and reloading it till I win the battle, althought i'm not a warmonger. So I suppose that i deserve that AI cheats on me, too.

[RedWhiteArcher]

You forgot that AI always knows where you have an undeffended city even I he has no contact with you.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I'll be happy if the programmers can create an AI that knows how to properly use an aircraft carrier. And to load its subs to the max with missiles, instead of just one to three missiles.

Small favors make me happy.

CYBERAmazon

I'll be happy if the programmers can create an AI that knows how to properly use an aircraft carrier.

CYBERAmazon, don't hold your breath.

1. I hate when AI cheats. It's more important to improve AI then to introduce animated units or something like that. Firaxis should spend more time on AI improving (if it's still like it was in civ2).

I agree with you here, Nenad. AI is what I'm worried about, not animations. But I assure you, the AI has to have some cheats to counter a human's ability to deal with information in large chunks.

[TechWins]

I'm going to make a very optimistic remark and say that the AI will be great. There won't be any or very little at most cheating by the AI. The AI will be so good that it will be compared to EU's AI. There I said it.

[Dauphin]

I don't want the AI outright cheating, but I don't mind handicaps, such as higher build costs or higher research costs. Free wonders, maps etc is a no-no.

The AI has to play by the rules.

[Lou Wigman]

We need to distinguish between cheating and giving the AI an advantage whether it be fair or unfair.

Here are some examples of CHEATING in civ2.

* I had a screen of phalanxes posted at a choke point to give me advance warning of any approaching enemies. The AI, however spawned new enemy units out of thin air between my screen and my cities!!!

* I built a city on an new continent. The bad guys rolled up almost immediately and took it off me. It was now a size 1 city. The very next turn Magellans Expedition appeared in this city!!!!

* I was about to capture a city which I had surrounded. Unfortunately all my units had attacked and there was no unit available to occupy the city. Since only one unit can be built in a city in any given turn this should not be a problem. When I attacked the next turn there were FOUR units in the city!

[TechWins]

Although I don't think it will be neccesary for the AI to have an advantage the AI should only receive an advantage and not the capability to cheat. If the AI needs to gain three production from a forest (without any modifications/variables in the forest) to be competitive then that's fine. If the AI needs to be able to have unlimited refueling capabilities on it's planes than this is unacceptable. The AI should gain a slight advantage that can't neccesarily hurt you like unlimited refueling by planes can.

[old timer]

What I would like to see is some cheating done in a way that is not obvious. For example, I made an AI script for Age of Kings and in it I allowed the AI to know exactly what units and how many of them each opponent had. However, this information was used in such a way that made it appear somewhat intelligent, rather than like cheating. Instead of always using this information to its advantage, it would only sometimes use it to advantage, simulating scouting by a good human player. This is what I'm hoping for.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
If you really feel that way, Urban Ranger, why aren't you worshiping at the altar of WesW? Sounds like another CTP concept to me . . .

Why should I? The concept has been around for ages, ever since the original Core War.

What? Never heard of it?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by star mouse
Some AI cheating is inevitable. Without it, it would be difficult to manage levels of difficulty. One AI cheat that will almost certainly be present is AI's needing fewer shields to build improvements or train troops at higher difficulty levels. Another cheat you will see is the AI having information that you lack such as the location of your civilization. These are necessary to make the game challenging. Would you rather have a challenging AI with a few innocuous cheats, or a weak AI that makes you lose interest in the game after a few weeks?

I don't see why computer players that don't cheat are automatically weak. It is taken for granted by a great number of people, yet I see no argument for it. I have made many suggestions on how to deal with the situation before so I'm not going to repeat myself, but let me assure you that this assumption is wrong.

Granted, computer players are not going to be as good as the expert players for a long time to come, but they are not necessarily weak.

[tishco]

going to war is harder with cheating than the space race ( which the enemy is crap at in some ways) like yesterday i had my units in a formation so noone can get through cos of Z.O.C. then right in the middle a load of tanks beat my mech infanytry up! and also after a nuke all the units are dead and i'm gouing to take over the city then more tanks smarm over me!

[Roman]

If the AI has to cheat to have a chance, let it cheat!!

[Deathwalker]

The AI should not need to cheat, if the AI is any good it should be able to compete on a even keel. and not need cheats to make it stronger. But I do also believe that we need a strange AI. If anything like the AI in CTPII, the game is doomed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I would though ask Sid to consider Neural nets in some future project, as it needs to have a proven track record before being accepted into the world of CIV. You can provide a rule based AI as a base, and then program for experience .. allowing the AI to learn ... it is then possible to save AI knowledge .. the best players of Civ will have produced the hardest AI's (most learned).. and these can be placed on Apolyton to challenge us all.

A neural network is not necessary for better AI routines in games such as civ. A good positional evalution algorithm will be a big help. Heuristic algorithms are definite possibilities, though I doubt any Firaxis programmers are trained in AI.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
A good way to make better computer players is to make the AI routines programmable by players.

And you think you are smarter then the programmers at Firaxis

[Edward]

Playing a game for a year or more is bound to reveal many insights that weren't apparent in the beginning. I remember reading that some of the programmers were quite surprised when they read on these forums what players had been doing. The best strategies are developed after EXTENSIVE playing. Just read some early Civ2 strategy guides (which touted the necessity of the Great Library yet said nothing of ICS) to convince yourself of this. Any Civ3 AI build now cannot beat a decent human player a year from now.

For the above reason, Civ3 must give the AI some advantages (eg. production) at higher levels to hope to challenge us a year from now.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Edward
Playing a game for a year or more is bound to reveal many insights that weren't apparent in the beginning. I remember reading that some of the programmers were quite surprised when they read on these forums what players had been doing. The best strategies are developed after EXTENSIVE playing. Just read some early Civ2 strategy guides (which touted the necessity of the Great Library yet said nothing of ICS) to convince yourself of this. Any Civ3 AI build now cannot beat a decent human player a year from now.

For the above reason, Civ3 must give the AI some advantages (eg. production) at higher levels to hope to challenge us a year from now.

What says that they can't add a patch to upgrade the AI if we find any situations it can't handle.

[tishco]

wot about a AI diffuculty level which isnt easyest where U get advantage, and next up where AI do. and a option for no cheating but on hard you are handicapped instead.
i'ts cos on all civ games there is a big jump from easy to the one where AI cheat, i think it is next up the settings

[Alfonsus72]

I hate AI cheatings, but sometimes is the only way to play a challenging game.

But there are different kinds of cheatings, some worse than others. P.e. In Imperialism 2 (and 1) the AI allways know your weaker province, and allways attacks it with the stricly necesary units number. That´s really frustration.

AI cheating must be those who give AI some material advantage: cheaper units, money bonus, ... But NEVER those afecting to game information (p.e. to build the wonder you are about to finish in 2 turns...). I also hate when all the AI civs unite against you, or when you foreign relationships collapse without cause. If not, you feel like if you were playing against a God.