Thread Tools
Old September 1, 2001, 17:33   #31
kolpo
Prince
 
Local Time: 12:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 314
there should be a difficulty level where the AI and the human player are completely equal, where the production cost is equal, where none can cheat, where none has acces to information the other doesn't,...
So that you can really compare yourself with the AI.

If in that difficulty level most players who bought civ3(don't forget that most played civ2 before) can't beat the AI on a standart random map after 1 week then would I call the civ3 AI revolutionary good
kolpo is offline  
Old September 1, 2001, 17:36   #32
Gramphos
staff
Civilization III MultiplayerC4WDG Team ApolytonCivilization IV: MultiplayerAge of Nations TeamC4BtSDG Realms BeyondCivilization IV Creators
Technical Director
 
Gramphos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chalmers, Sweden
Posts: 9,294
Quote:
Originally posted by kolpo
there should be a difficulty level where the AI and the human player are completely equal, where the production cost is equal, where none can cheat, where none has acces to information the other doesn't,...
So that you can really compare yourself with the AI.

If in that difficulty level most players who bought civ3(don't forget that most played civ2 before) can't beat the AI on a standart random map after 1 week then would I call the civ3 AI revolutionary good
I hope the AI is that good, but I doubt that.
__________________
ACS - Technical Director
Gramphos is offline  
Old September 2, 2001, 11:11   #33
squid
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.
The best post on this thread so far. I'm a Comp Sci grad, and he's on target here. Unfortunately, Civ is a difficult AI problem.

1) Branching factor. Each player can make possibly 3000 different actions for a given turn.

2) Horizon effect. It may seem completely irrelevant to the AI that I am moving my muskateers to Rhode Island, up until the point that I launch the ship, sail over to England, and take London. An AI would have a certain level at which (due to time and memory constraints) it could not plan ahead.

Chess is a harder AI problem than checkers due to the branching factor and horizon effect. Go has an insane branching factor. Civ3 is far worse than any of them. In Chess, it may be safe to look 15 moves ahead with reasonable certainty, but in Civilization, you have to plan for the entire game.

Also, it's not a zero-sum game. There are no winners and losers for every action. And the knowledge of the board is not 100%. A true non-cheating AI has to deal with unknowns!

So, all in all, I'd say the Civ AI is semi-rule based, with lots of heuristic evaluators. It doesn't plan ahead, but if it sees a city is a threat or an enemy is to strong, it may attack. The attack will not be overly strategic, but it will be made to achieve an immediate end.

Anyhow, it's a complex problem. With early 90's hardware, I can see why Civ cheated so much. From an ethics standpoint, I would not allow instant wonder construction, but I can see why it might be needed. Yet, even through the cheating, it was a very good game and the Civs put up a good fight. I'm sure the AI will far exceed Civ2.
squid is offline  
Old September 2, 2001, 11:16   #34
squid
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 160
One thing to note about AI in games.

Often they do well because they are not focused on a goal. They are mechanical, like ants, and never tiring.

In Warcraft II, for instance, the AI could control every peon and warrior simultaneously, if it wanted. It did not have to be looking at a certain corner of the map.

Similarly, with Civ, the AI does not grow tired fully developing it's terrain and laying railroad track over the entire continent.

It is at the same time very patient and slow. So, in some cases, moving without a plan and evaluating things a move-or-two-in-advance (not 50), allow for a better infrastructure and a more-balanced Civ.

I always find I build up enlightened but small countries. I have massive technological ability and great weapons, yet, not many units. So I overextend in combat.

The "dumb" AI improves most of his cities in the same way. He has a lot of weak cities, but lots of units ... as a result, he conquers the globe and builds mediocre cities....yet, my wonderful paradise (all hand crafted) cannot match the AI's numerical superiority and attention to detail.
squid is offline  
Old September 2, 2001, 13:10   #35
hexagonian
The Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
hexagonian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Smemperor
Posts: 3,405
Most enlightening...

Actually squid, I nominate your two posts for the best ones in this thread - and they should help clear up a player's understanding as to why the AI does and needs to have built-in cheats to compensate.

...particularly the item about the long-term and horizon outlook that is needed for a game like civ.

The levels in the civ-style TBS games are merely a set of defined cheats for the AI.
__________________
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
hexagonian is offline  
Old September 3, 2001, 01:46   #36
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by squid
So, all in all, I'd say the Civ AI is semi-rule based, with lots of heuristic evaluators. It doesn't plan ahead, but if it sees a city is a threat or an enemy is to strong, it may attack. The attack will not be overly strategic, but it will be made to achieve an immediate end.
I agree that the AI for TBS should be driven by heuristic evaluators that chooses from a set of rules to execute. I disagree though that it can't (or won't) plan.

Quote:
Originally posted by squid
It may seem completely irrelevant to the AI that I am moving my muskateers to Rhode Island, up until the point that I launch the ship, sail over to England, and take London.
Assume the AI has this info. It will have to be really dumb if it doesn't do anything when it sees your ship, loaded with brutes, is heading straight towards its country.

Quote:
Originally posted by squid
Anyhow, it's a complex problem. With early 90's hardware, I can see why Civ cheated so much.
Given that the minimum requirement for Civ 3 is a PII-300MHz, there should be plenty of horsepower for the AI routines. A TBS game can always take advantage of the CPU idle time, plenty of which will be available, to crunch the numbers.

Quote:
Originally posted by squid
It is at the same time very patient and slow. So, in some cases, moving without a plan and evaluating things a move-or-two-in-advance (not 50), allow for a better infrastructure and more-balanced Civ.
It does need an overall plan though, probably determined by a particular computer player's "personality" and some other factors (e.g. Civ 3's civ-specific abilities, to head towards a rough direction.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old September 3, 2001, 05:17   #37
Tingkai
Prince
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally posted by squid

1) Branching factor. Each player can make possibly 3000 different actions for a given turn.

Anyhow, it's a complex problem. With early 90's hardware, I can see why Civ cheated so much. From an ethics standpoint, I would not allow instant wonder construction, but I can see why it might be needed. Yet, even through the cheating, it was a very good game and the Civs put up a good fight. I'm sure the AI will far exceed Civ2.
Squid: that was a very informative post. A couple of questions, since you seem to be quite informed on this subject.

How did you come up with the 3,000 number?

How much of an improvement can be achieved with newer hardware?

Any thoughts on where the AI will improve?
__________________
Golfing since 67
Tingkai is offline  
Old September 4, 2001, 16:01   #38
Edward
Warlord
 
Local Time: 07:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally posted by squid
One thing to note about AI in games.
...
They are mechanical, like ants, and never tiring.
...
Similarly, with Civ, the AI does not grow tired fully developing it's terrain and laying railroad track over the entire continent.
...
The "dumb" AI improves most of his cities in the same way. He has a lot of weak cities, but lots of units ... as a result, he conquers the globe and builds mediocre cities....yet, my wonderful paradise (all hand crafted) cannot match the AI's numerical superiority and attention to detail.
Hey! That dumb AI's strategy sounds a lot like my usual one. Semi-ICS continual expansion like a plague and lots of weak mediocre cities. Similarly, the AI's wonderful paradise of huge cities can't match my numerical superiority.

Turn based games allow very patient humans to concentrate on every unit just like an AI.

I think the Civ AI would benefit from long range plans and better unit movement tactics. Pairing every attacking catapult with a corresponding phalanx should be pretty easy to program. If all they did was set a couple cities towards making an assault force over the span of a few turns, then sending that assault force all at once to a human city, that'd be a great improvement. (Of course this would require either naval assaults or a much better understanding of how to tactically move your troops up to a city. All ten of the AI assaulting crusaders ending their move on a grassland square right outside my city would NOT be a big improvement. The AI must understand stacking, counter attacks, and how to time their troops so they'll all be able to attack all at once. Seige tactics of fortifying good defensive units in defensive terrain adjacent the target city or timing 2-move units to all start just outside of counter-striking distance would be good too.)
Edward is offline  
Old September 4, 2001, 16:45   #39
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Maybe its just me, but I would be unnerved by an AI that can beat you without having to cheat. (That is once you have become somewhat of a veteran).

Its always been accepted that computers are faster, but not more intelligent. Intelligent may be the wrong word but you know what I mean. If you can't outthink a computer on an instinctual level, then it isn't a good omen.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old September 4, 2001, 17:55   #40
The Mad Viking
King
 
The Mad Viking's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: of the Great White North
Posts: 1,790
I really don't think it would take too much to make major improvements.

Militarily, Edward has it about right:
Quote:
Pairing every attacking catapult with a corresponding phalanx should be pretty easy to program. If all they did was set a couple cities towards making an assault force over the span of a few turns, then sending that assault force all at once to a human city, that'd be a great improvement... The AI must understand stacking, counter attacks, and how to time their troops so they'll all be able to attack all at once. Seige tactics of fortifying good defensive units in defensive terrain adjacent the target city or timing 2-move units to all start just outside of counter-striking distance would be good too.
Not building the same wonder in 3 cities at the same time-

Not building Copernicus in a city with no trade and no library...

Having a counterattack unit included in city garrisons, instead of just 5 riflemen, how about 3, a cavalrly and a cannon!

Not having a warrior attack a pikeman on a hill.

Not having small island civs that don't build triremes and settle the next continent asap... or at least start trading...

Smart things I've seen the Civ2 AI do:
Attack my city with a fighter first, to use up my fighter scramble, and then follow with 3 bombers
Move their capital to a 1 size city on my continent just before my dip was about to incite a revolt. (It was loaded with units.)
__________________
Best MMORPG on the net: www.cyberdunk.com?ref=310845

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. -Gandhi
The Mad Viking is offline  
Old September 4, 2001, 19:47   #41
Peter Triggs
CTP2 Source Code ProjectCivilization IV Creators
King
 
Local Time: 12:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gone Fishin, Canada
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Maybe its just me, but I would be unnerved by an AI that can beat you without having to cheat. (That is once you have become somewhat of a veteran).
Here's one for you BC. I remember reading it in some AI thingy, but I can't remember where:

Quote:
Remember, if we ever really could get computers to be intelligent, they might decide that they had better things to do than play games.
Peter Triggs is offline  
Old September 5, 2001, 00:46   #42
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Big Crunch,

I reckon the computer player should be able to play like an average player. In other words, if an average human player starts a game on the average level, he should win only 50% of the time.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team