Finally, some realism about the AI

Father Beast · October 10, 2001, 14:02

from the gamespy article, from soren johnson:

Quote:

The AI has been totally reworked. We started from scratch. We stretched out the difficulty levels. Chieftain is easier than it was in Civ II and Deity is now harder. Does the AI cheat? Yes, but sometimes in favor of the player! Below Prince level it cheats for the player, and above Prince level it cheats against the player. At Prince level there is no cheating.

Right now, no one at Firaxis can beat the AI at
Deity level, though we certainly expect players
to find ways to do so within a few months of the
game being released.

This is a bit more realistic than the civ2 form, in which they had somebody making sure that "deity level could actually be beaten". this is also a nod to the endless creativity available to TBS players, that we can beat almost anything, given enough time to consider the matter.

I appreciate the honesty that the computer will cheat. I DO hope they've cut it down some , though.

the thought that nobody at Firaxis can beat the AI at deity level is great, since if they could, a lot of apolytoners would be bored with the game before any MP would be forthcoming.

She also (soren is a "she", isn't she?) said that the old easy win of ICS just won't work.

all in all, I'm pleased

The Andy-Man · October 10, 2001, 14:12

wow, a she that plays civ. mmmmmmmmm

drake · October 10, 2001, 14:13

that cheat formula has always been used though

Shield boxes are smaller above prince for the AI, and larger for under....this isnt anything new.

Sarxis · October 10, 2001, 14:16

Just beat me to this post FB.

here's the link to the original article, for convenience sake:http://www.gamespy.com/gamespin/october01/gamespin26/

Surely, the AI will be much improved. Soren, from what I have heard, has a nack and background for AI programming.

But hopefully, eventually, this:"though we certainly expect players to find ways to do so within a few months of the
game being released": will no longer be true with the next generation of dynamic, learning AI. (if there can be such a thing)

Patriqvium · October 10, 2001, 14:16

Sorry to break your illusion, but Soren is not a "she"...

Pembleton · October 10, 2001, 14:17

Soren is male. Those who have seen one of the preview videos know this.

And there will always be critics who will complain that there isn't a strong AI that doesn't cheat. But I don't think this is possible given current technology. We are many years away from creating human-like AIs.

It takes a supercomputer to beat the best human in chess, and the difference there is that there very few variables to consider compared to computer games such as civ. There are just too many things to consider.

Inverse Icarus · October 10, 2001, 15:45

i dont care how hardcore the AI is, it's still NOTHING compared to a human player.

i take that back, a hard AI is a fun addition to a MP game, much like barbarians.

Skanky Burns · October 10, 2001, 21:27

Well, at least you know the MP situation now, UberSid

Now all you need to find out is when the MP part is coming out.

Alexander's Horse · October 10, 2001, 22:36

That doesn't prove anything - same team of braniacs left Multiplayer out!

dainbramaged13 · October 10, 2001, 23:03

And the person that is criticizing them is the same person who has dedicated his life to posting 10,000 times in an online forum and playing a 1995 game.

faded glory · October 10, 2001, 23:31

That kicked ass brain damaged

connorkimbro · October 10, 2001, 23:53

hey, i still play civ2. why not? it's a fun game!

Alexander's Horse · October 11, 2001, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
And the person that is criticizing them is the same person who has dedicated his life to posting 10,000 times in an online forum and playing a 1995 game.

Did the aliens forget to remove your anal probe?

Be Quicker · October 11, 2001, 04:21

Yes playing Civ II is still fun. Long live the horse!

LaRusso · October 11, 2001, 04:42

did anyone seriously believe AI wont be cheating?

Grumbold · October 11, 2001, 05:56

It is certainly possible to make an AI that does not need to cheat. Just look at EU where you get capable (but admittedly not brilliant) opponents who only ignore one rule and play the rest with exactly the same limits as the player. They may do stupid things but they know who their enemies are and will ally with everyone to wage war against them. All the exposed weaknesses are being worked on hard so they don't reappear in EU II.

Unfortunately for anything except traditional games like Chess most companies take the easy way out and think that its ok to replace artificial intelligence with artificial advantages. Normally this just exposes them to ridicule when they still can't crush you despite 10:1 superiority. If I capture a size 15 city in Civ III and discover it only had a library and a barracks I'm going to be very annoyed.

RedWhiteArcher · October 11, 2001, 06:39

I don't like these news. This means that I will spend most of my time at Prince level. Can they at least have the AI cheating optional or is this the only way they make AI better?

campmajor! · October 11, 2001, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by RedWhiteArcher
I don't like these news. This means that I will spend most of my time at Prince level. Can they at least have the AI cheating optional or is this the only way they make AI better?

Well, it is the only way to make the AI HARDER!

Sava · October 11, 2001, 07:47

I found the deity AI in Civ 2 to be harder than human players. Humans are stupid.

Ten bucks says I beat Civ 3 deity in the first week.

In terms of strategy, Civ is not the most difficult game. If you want a real challenge, play the game Nectaris:Military Madness. It isn't a civ game, it is a turn based military strategy game. The original combat model came out around 1989, and it is considered by many to be the best ever created.

Nectaris is available on Playstation. The old game can be found online for free. Get a Turbo Graphics 16 emulator and search for "military madness", if you can't find it, email me and I can send it to you.

There was also a PC version that came out in 1995, but I have never seen it. I think there is a version for Game Boy Color as well.

If you're a fan of Civ, check it out. It's a fun game.

Sava · October 11, 2001, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!

Well, it is the only way to make the AI HARDER!

Not true. I believe Firaxis' AI is the best that could be written with the resources they have. It would be possible to write an AI that doesn't cheat and is impossible to beat. It just would take a lot of time. And people need to get paid for their time.

drake · October 11, 2001, 09:13

Quote:

I found the deity AI in Civ 2 to be harder than human players. Humans are stupid.

I'm not an expert by any means, but you certainly didnt play the right people then

Father Beast · October 11, 2001, 09:28

I'm starting to think that the real reason they haven't released much info about the game, is that nobody at Firaxis has beaten it at Deity, and too much preinfo would allow us to map strategies and some of us beat deity on day 1.

Be Quicker · October 11, 2001, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast
I'm starting to think that the real reason they haven't released much info about the game, is that nobody at Firaxis has beaten it at Deity, and too much preinfo would allow us to map strategies and some of us beat deity on day 1.

LOL. that's the best theory about the lack of preinfo sofar!

BTW, what do we know about how good the test players at fireaxis are at playing CivII? Are they comparable in skill level to for example the best players at Apolyton?

Ozymandous · October 11, 2001, 09:46

Too bad Firaxis ran out of time (through whose error anyway

) or they could have recruited some top level players to run through the game and make sure it's balanced.

That model worked very well for Ensemble studios with Age of Kings, too bad more companies don't do that.

Urban Ranger · October 11, 2001, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
It is certainly possible to make an AI that does not need to cheat. Just look at EU where you get capable (but admittedly not brilliant) opponents who only ignore one rule and play the rest with exactly the same limits as the player. They may do stupid things but they know who their enemies are and will ally with everyone to wage war against them. All the exposed weaknesses are being worked on hard so they don't reappear in EU II.

While that indeed maybe the case one needs to remember that Civ is several orders of magnitutde for AI routines to handle than EU. Look at chess. Then look at Go.

Grumbold · October 11, 2001, 12:32

I disagree with you but have no intention of doing any math to try and quantify the decision making complexities in either game. I just point you to CtP2 where the fans were able to produce a significantly more challenging AI opponent than Civ II despite the added complexities of the game and without relying on more cheats. Hopefully Civ III will have AI of that or better standard out of the box.

Urban Ranger · October 11, 2001, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
I disagree with you but have no intention of doing any math to try and quantify the decision making complexities in either game. I just point you to CtP2 where the fans were able to produce a significantly more challenging AI opponent than Civ II despite the added complexities of the game and without relying on more cheats. Hopefully Civ III will have AI of that or better standard out of the box.

I have not played CtP 2 so I can't comment on its complexity or any player written AI routines. My point was the more stategic the game the harder it is to write computer players to play them.

The fact that these are all expert systems means player written AI routines will have the advantage of gaming experience.

Grumbold · October 11, 2001, 13:01

You are certainly correct that if the AI is bad it is because they didn't spend enough time playing their game and improving the AI to cater for different strategies. That is where a long beta phase, large scale open or closed beta or just more sign of intense effort being applied to the project would have been reassuring. Like Activision's offering the startlingly fast beta phase is not inspiring confidence. Unlike Activision's offering we won't have a scripting language to correct any mistakes.