It's just sad that the AI is not so good

[Coracle]

Originally posted by DeepO
. . .The suggestion that Firaxis should look at how vet players are winning might be a little late, I'm quite positive that many of the added AI routines resulted from looking at these boards. . .

Final remark to Coracle: it is very obvious that you don't know sh!t when it comes to AI. If you think a learning system is easily programmed, think again. . .

First, I'm glad you've admitted that Firaxis had to learn how screwed up their game was some months ago (and still is to a lesser extent) by reading the complaints and other valid and correct criticisms on the forums - comments posted by various forumers who were instantly vilified by the assortment of Firaxis flacks, sycophants, and hired shills trying to pump up the game. Although one might claim Firaxis KNEW how screwed up it was and just rushed Civ 3 to the Holiday season market anyway. But we the consumers didn't let them get away with handing us a $50 BETA game.

Your vulgar comments about me you can go stick where the moon don't shine. As far as I'm concerned, you've been an insulting arrogant Firaxis sycophant for a long time. But I well know that personally attacking critics of Firaxis is permitted here.

As for the AI, if this is the BEST they - Soren - can do in 2001 I am deeply disappointed. I find it hard to belive that the current state of AI development has reached it zenith with Civ 3 - a very predictable, easily fooled, cheating AI that does numerous strange and illogical things, both Militarily and Diplomatically.

I recall no one getting exorcised about the Civ 2 AI. Sure, we complained about battleships in lakes (Civ 3 still does that; I've seen it) and other things, but it was far better than Civ 1 and it was enjoyable - instead of irritating. The Civ 2 cheating was up front: you go up in difficulty level the combat percentages change.

But with Civ 3 I feel like I'm playing against someone with an IQ of 70 with an evil streak.

This is a thread about the AI. But for the record the AI is not my biggest complaint about Civ 3. Certain omissions of crucial game features, and the addition of bizarre unrealistic concepts, are my main complaints.

[DeepO]

Well what do you know... Coracle actually replying to arguments! Nice, I hope you'll do it more often, might give you some credability.

Originally posted by Coracle
First, I'm glad you've admitted that Firaxis had to learn how screwed up their game was some months ago (and still is to a lesser extent) by reading the complaints and other valid and correct criticisms on the forums

I think you missed my point. The best way to learn how to improve a game is to see how the best of a big user base is dealing with certain issues. That could mean that you try to analyse complaints, but most importantly you try to include improvements the users are given, if they make sense of course. And to improve AI, and make it more human like, trying to mimic tactics and strats from vet players is of course paramount.

Actually, I think Firaxis is doing a good job in getting this user feedback by reading here, it is in no way an argument that Firaxis has delivered a screwed up game. Not many developers will continue to improve basic things like AI when the game is nearly a year old, after it is sold the money is made, the rest is just a gift to the fans.

As for the AI, if this is the BEST they - Soren - can do in 2001 I am deeply disappointed. I find it hard to belive that the current state of AI development has reached it zenith with Civ 3 - a very predictable, easily fooled, cheating AI that does numerous strange and illogical things, both Militarily and Diplomatically.

You might have noticed that I seconded a lot of 'critisism' jt has given, and tried to devise better solutions, or give educated guesses why an easy fix is not possible. So if you want to tell me that I blindly defend Firaxcis, you'll have to explain yourself a little. Of course I love this game, but only because I feel it's good, not because I'm in some way tricked or paid to think that.

What the current state of AI is concerned: I think, without intend on bragging, that I'm in a relatively good position to estimate the state of the art in AI. There will certainly be others who have a better feel of what is possible, but until last year I programmed high tech, rule based AI systems, similar to those used in TBS. I 'see' certain characteristics of it in CivIII, and while everything can always be improved, it is my humble opinion that what you are asking is bogus, and what is here is fairly good, certainly given other constraints as development time allotted, and release pressure from the publisher and public.

But with Civ 3 I feel like I'm playing against someone with an IQ of 70 with an evil streak.

IQ of 70? Oh boy, Soren would be glad to hear that! I think that an IQ of 15 would be very good for an AI, you seem to think that AIs are nearly at the point that they could overtake human intelligence. Not by a long shot, Coracle. Not by a very long shot.

Your vulgar comments about me you can go stick where the moon don't shine. As far as I'm concerned, you've been an insulting arrogant Firaxis sycophant for a long time. But I well know that personally attacking critics of Firaxis is permitted here.

Personnaly attacking you, in that I just state I observe you don't know jack of AI? While I can stick my comments where the moon don't shine? It seems that in your view insults tend to become worse when directed to your own online persona, in comparison to the things you are permitted to say.

Strange. I don't feel like an insulting, arrogant Firaxis sycophant, but probably you don't feel like an insulting, ignorant whiner either. And it pains me that I lack the right English vocabulary to express my thoughts more clearly, without having to grab to the Hollywood-type responses we're getting spoonfed as American Culture. Sorry to have said you don't know sh!t about AI, if I had more responses in my trick book I certainly would have been more devious

DeepO

[Pythagoras]

I honestly dont know why nay-sayers hang around. Its one thing to criticize things that our fixable in an xp or patch, but stuff like this might as well be added to a civ4 suggestions list.

Coracle/JT - why not prove your game designing prowess and make a game?

[Zachriel]

The Law of Unintended Consequences is involved here. Every time you make a change, you leave open the possibility of the AI becoming unstable and making really crazy decisions, or the possibility of creating new human exploits. For instance, the "attack the weakest point in the line" suggestion. That one should be fairly easy to exploit.

It may be unreasonable to expect that a $50 computer game, running on a $1000 computer, with a maximum investment of a few million dollars, will have a state-of-the-art AI engine. The game just tries to give the appearance of intelligence. Real AI takes huge amounts of processing, and usually only works in limited abstract environments. Civ3 doesn't even remember from turn to turn, much less from game to game.

Of course, this may change one day. Seti@Home has now reached a ZettaFlop (10^21 floating point calculations).
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

[Panag]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The Law of Unintended Consequences is involved here. Every time you make a change, you leave open the possibility of the AI becoming unstable and making really crazy decisions, or the possibility of creating new human exploits. For instance, the "attack the weakest point in the line" suggestion. That one should be fairly easy to exploit.

It may be unreasonable to expect that a $50 computer game, running on a $1000 computer, with a maximum investment of a few million dollars, will have a state-of-the-art AI engine. The game just tries to give the appearance of intelligence. Real AI takes huge amounts of processing, and usually only works in limited abstract environments. Civ3 doesn't even remember from turn to turn, much less from game to game.

Of course, this may change one day. Seti@Home has now reached a ZettaFlop (10^21 floating point calculations).
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

hi ,

tip , Soren has a degree in AI ,, froman other university , ....intresting to check it out , ....

also , the AI as a whole is still in its infant shoes , ....

its a start , ...

Command and Conquer , tiberian sun , firestorm , was also a start , yet it contained only a fraction of what civ3 has , ......

have a nice day

[PGM]

I'm sure the AI is far from perfect (I hate many things, like a successful bombardment on an enemy ship always sends it right home; 4 or 5 units of artillery can keep a whole enemy fleet at bay), but people who are criticizing it that harsh should go back and play a couple of Civ2 games just to remember what bad AI is really all about.
I'd give a solid 8/10 to Soren's Civ3 AI.

[God]

Did Soren design the AI? Wondering why he's always the target.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by God
Did Soren design the AI? Wondering why he's always the target.

Yes, he did.

[Panag]

hi ,

well what Soren did , it aint that easy , ...

his "adaptive turn based strategy game" , advanced protection , the link is found true his profile , well it certainly makes one think , ....

also he probably went to stanford , and somewhere he ones told us where he got his degree in AI , not a bad univ either , .....

in all the team that works at Firaxis is very able to build something , now , they have to keep in thought that we dont all have Mac's in our home , with 3 cpu's , 3 HD's and a systembus of one thousand , ......
so it's a bit simple , yes but we dont all own a comp that is state of the art , .....

as for the fact that some people say the AI is not that good , well , they can always use the views of some people , ........

as for AI building , well Soren was one of the best students in his univ , more you should ask him .

as for AI building in broad spectrum , how many are there in games , not so many , most have just some calculations , pre-fixed , and no matter what you do , the outcome stay's the same , .....
at least this is different in civ3 , .......

in many ways civ3 is a small revolution with huge shockwaves , not only in the gaming world but also the gaming industry as a whole , ......

however they have said before that when they started the game it was not thought that it could hold more than 8 civ's , ....today we have 16 , next week 24 , next year maybe 30 , .....not bad when you start from a viewpoint of only 8 , ....

and its most likely that the AI shall improve , but for that they need to know what we think , what we like to see changed , ...do we want to give up waiting time , just to get more stupid AI , but one that play's faster , nope , no-one wants that , .....

now there are things that can make the AI faster , stupid little things that some of us forget , ...

do a defragmentation after installing the game , ...
get active X 8.1 , ....
get all the updates and patches for your OS , ..
get the latest patch from Firaxis , .....
when you play , close down your internet connection , ...
close down your firewall and antivirus software , ...
close down programs that you never use , .....

the above is not a complete list , but it shall help some , ...

have a nice day

[DeepO]

I take back what I said earlier on about the AI not using the RR to bomb ships passing by. Last night, I saw the AI put up a nice tactical fight, bombing the sh!t out of my batleships.

I quickly found out that multiple cities in the neighbourhood had artillery in them, so I tried to bomb, and leave my BS out of reach of any city. Great was my suprise when all of a sudden, a pikeman fortified in the middle of the railroad, and two artilleries rolled in, just in reach of my ship! After I moved away (after another bombing, of course), the artillery outpost was dismantled, and led back into a city. And if my ships moved parallel to the coast, the artillery would move, to bomb me again from another place, some 6 tiles further..

As a result, I had to withdraw a dozen ships to my own harbors to heal, or I would have lost them. While it was not a major tactic of the AI, I loved the nuisance: that was exactly the sort of reaction you'd expect in a human player as well. Of course it wasn't so big that it won the war for him, but it bugged me enough to let me retreat some troops. Very nice work, Soren!

DeepO

[Panag]

Originally posted by DeepO
I take back what I said earlier on about the AI not using the RR to bomb ships passing by. Last night, I saw the AI put up a nice tactical fight, bombing the sh!t out of my batleships.

I quickly found out that multiple cities in the neighbourhood had artillery in them, so I tried to bomb, and leave my BS out of reach of any city. Great was my suprise when all of a sudden, a pikeman fortified in the middle of the railroad, and two artilleries rolled in, just in reach of my ship! After I moved away (after another bombing, of course), the artillery outpost was dismantled, and led back into a city. And if my ships moved parallel to the coast, the artillery would move, to bomb me again from another place, some 6 tiles further..

As a result, I had to withdraw a dozen ships to my own harbors to heal, or I would have lost them. While it was not a major tactic of the AI, I loved the nuisance: that was exactly the sort of reaction you'd expect in a human player as well. Of course it wasn't so big that it won the war for him, but it bugged me enough to let me retreat some troops. Very nice work, Soren!

DeepO

hi ,

and the AI can even "learn" , .....

care to post a SAV(e) , ....

or some screenshots , .....

have a nice day

[DeepO]

Panag, it was not learned behaviour, but already included. The AI couldn't have learned it from me, because he defended the artillery with a pikeman... I just keep the artillery in the open when nobody has the opportunity to immediately cease it (no marines available yet).

I guess the reason why I saw it now, and not in any previous games was that the AI had a lot of artillery, but was not using it: he didn't need to defend his cities against a land attack (it was one continent completely for him, and I was not invading), so those artilleries got another task. In other games, you either combine a naval bombardment with an invasion, or another AI is also in the war, which is attacking him from another side. More important uses for the artillery, I guess.

I don't have a save (screenshots wouldn't show the action, I think), it was too late last night to think about those kind of practical issues. When I see it again, I'll save and post it here

DeepO

[Panag]

Originally posted by DeepO
Panag, it was not learned behaviour, but already included. The AI couldn't have learned it from me, because he defended the artillery with a pikeman... I just keep the artillery in the open when nobody has the opportunity to immediately cease it (no marines available yet).

I guess the reason why I saw it now, and not in any previous games was that the AI had a lot of artillery, but was not using it: he didn't need to defend his cities against a land attack (it was one continent completely for him, and I was not invading), so those artilleries got another task. In other games, you either combine a naval bombardment with an invasion, or another AI is also in the war, which is attacking him from another side. More important uses for the artillery, I guess.

I don't have a save (screenshots wouldn't show the action, I think), it was too late last night to think about those kind of practical issues. When I see it again, I'll save and post it here

DeepO

hi ,

, maybe the AI can learn from it self , ..... , ....

the AI aint stupid , that's for sure , it just depends on a lot of things , ...

you really want to see the AI at his best , let him start with several techs , and more units , including you , its allways a nice experience , .....

so , what level where you on , any mods , can you post a SAV(e) , ......

have a nice day

[DeepO]

It didn't learn it by itself, that's for sure. If anything, it was a combination of coded routines, combined in a tactical way not foreseen, but my guess is that Soren just coded this behaviour when ships/enemy units are near. It's too bad it normally remains hidden, as other tasks get the upperhand. Effective use of RR still is an exception, not a rule in this AI...

It was a monarch, large continents, large map, unmodded. I don't have a save anymore, it was in the middle of the game and I very rarely save (apart from autosave). I was playing Egypt, and I think they were Persian (or Greek). As said, when I observe it again I'll think about saving

DeepO

[Panag]

Originally posted by DeepO
It didn't learn it by itself, that's for sure. If anything, it was a combination of coded routines, combined in a tactical way not foreseen, but my guess is that Soren just coded this behaviour when ships/enemy units are near. It's too bad it normally remains hidden, as other tasks get the upperhand. Effective use of RR still is an exception, not a rule in this AI...

It was a monarch, large continents, large map, unmodded. I don't have a save anymore, it was in the middle of the game and I very rarely save (apart from autosave). I was playing Egypt, and I think they were Persian (or Greek). As said, when I observe it again I'll think about saving

DeepO

hi ,

, okay , ...

it seems that the higher the level , the more you shall get it , ....

its intresting to let the AI and you start sometimes with 4 techs and 1000 gold , you learn a lot from it , ....

a lot can de done with putting the default level of the AI at deity , .....

have a nice day

[vee4473]

This is to the original post from jimmytrick.

You say that the AI only defends with a handful of units even though it has hundreds????

In every game I have played, the AI threw every last unit it had against me. I specifically remember getting pissed because I thought that a stack of 8-10 units could withstand any attack the AI could muster. But then, I was waiting for about 10 minutes as the AI just advanced many dozens of units onto my forces.

My conclusion is that if the AI has the forces to kick your ass, they WILL use them.

"Handful of units out of hundreds"......bah...maybe the CD I got is programmed differently from yours.

[Capt Dizle]

Maybe it is. I have never had a strong position overun in the modern age. I have seldom had a strong position assaulted except in counterattacks, which sadly, are launched piecemeal.

Maybe there is some random element at work. I am still waiting to see some of these miracles.

[The Pioneer]

I have seen the AI use his RR, Privateers, Ships to bombard my coast, Units that it withdrew with 1hp for healing, massive attacking, diverting attack, upgrade its units, build a lot of city improvements and many more little things that make me go WOW!

Now that looks to me as an improvement from Civ 2 but that was never the question right?! But the AI is the best I have seen, sure it can be improved, everything can and will. But for the purpose of the game the AI is very good.

The AI should be improved when it comes to assesing a potential threat, its "diplomatic" & "foreign affairs" ministers should also be able to see more than balck or white.

Last but not least some of the things that we don't like about the game we can mod and like Civ2 make it more unique in that it will be adjusted to our playstyle.

I find that great. Thanks Firaxis for giving us the best Civ as of yet and of course for listening to our board!

[Deathwalker]

THough I do not aggree with all the complaints about the AI I do think it could have been done a lot better.
Also it is the one thing Fraxcis does not seem interested in adding to in patches or exspansion packs

[DeepO]

Originally posted by panag
its intresting to let the AI and you start sometimes with 4 techs and 1000 gold , you learn a lot from it , ....

a lot can de done with putting the default level of the AI at deity , .....

maybe I'll try it once. However, the early game still is most intimitading to me, I'm a bit hesitant to make matters worse by adding technologies from the start... one of the biggest goals in ancient times is to keep up with technology, or at least to not get hopelessly behind.

BTW, I made a mistake earlier; I was playing at emperor, not monarch. Haven't tried monarch in while, but somehow I'm still confusing the two.

DeepO

[SpencerH]

I think that one of the factors in how the AI fights wars is its calculation of its strength relative to you. If the AI is "stronger" it will perform specific actions that it wont do if "weaker". In my very first game of civ3 (1.07) the AI used arty effectively (it was way ahead). After that I've rarely seen it (possibly because I'm not so far behind strength-wise). I've also seen the AI use a coordinated battleship-marine-land unit attack, again the civ that did that was attacking a vastly weaker force. After that success it attacked me with the same strategy and almost broke through my defenses.

[Panag]

Originally posted by DeepO


maybe I'll try it once. However, the early game still is most intimitading to me, I'm a bit hesitant to make matters worse by adding technologies from the start... one of the biggest goals in ancient times is to keep up with technology, or at least to not get hopelessly behind.

BTW, I made a mistake earlier; I was playing at emperor, not monarch. Haven't tried monarch in while, but somehow I'm still confusing the two.

DeepO

hi ,

, no problem , so do you find there is a clear difference between level's , some people try to say it's not , ....

one thing is clear , the AI is somehow the best at his "deity" level , it seems that when you start with the same amount of units , either 1 or 25 , the AI is more intresting at the deity level , ....

what do you say , ....

have a nice day

[Blake]

One (very simple!) thing I would like to see is making the AI a tad less mechanical when it comes to diplomacy. I move a unit into AI territory, it is guaranteed to ask me right away to "get the hell outa here", I would much rather it did it randomly, say a 40% chance of asking you to leave for every turn your in the territory, note that %age should be higher for agressive civs and lower for less-agressive civs. Also it'll still only ask once, then wait for a random number of turns and evict you....

[Panag]

Originally posted by Blake
One (very simple!) thing I would like to see is making the AI a tad less mechanical when it comes to diplomacy. I move a unit into AI territory, it is guaranteed to ask me right away to "get the hell outa here", I would much rather it did it randomly, say a 40% chance of asking you to leave for every turn your in the territory, note that %age should be higher for agressive civs and lower for less-agressive civs. Also it'll still only ask once, then wait for a random number of turns and evict you....

hi ,

, its always intresting that when you move one square inside his territory the AI start to scream "fire" , ...but when he does it with you , you have to ask them many times before they do , .....

that should be fixed , or there should be more options to that .

when you ask the AI a certain number of times he declares war , and in between his attitude towards you becomes , well , "less positive" , .....but your attitude towards him can not be changed , ...

have a nice day

[Geekinstein]

A few thoughts...

It took over 50 years for 1000s of programmers to build an AI that could defeat the best human at Chess, and Chess has very few moves to program (on only an 8x8 board to boot) compaired to Civ III or any other wargame for that matter. Been there, done that...

However, it is possible to use the latest in Decision Science, Game Theory, and Statistics to design a game that can defeat most humans (and learn from them, BTW). Since you control all the rules in the design (not possible in Chess), you simply design the game to make it the hardest for humans to work against (people do NOT think statistically) - but this simply has not been done in Civ III.

Can a much better AI be designed? Absolutely; the US military has done some of this, but it will take a new game design, probably from the ground up.

But the real question is, will you (the general public) keep playing an AI that kicks your a$$ every time like the best Chess games do today? ...I think folks might not.

People like to win...

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Geekinstein
Can a much better AI be designed? Absolutely; the US military has done some of this, but it will take a new game design, probably from the ground up.

But the real question is, will you (the general public) keep playing an AI that kicks your a$$ every time like the best Chess games do today? ...I think folks might not.

People like to win...

Right on Target. I do not think that it would be any fun to get my butt kicked every time.

The AI is not perfect but it's a very good one and give s a decent challenge, if it was much harder or it could learn from playing I would have to stop playing because:

A. As stated above it would be kicking my butt.
B. and more importantly, I cannot afford a divorce at this time

It's not as bad as some people make it look. It's just a game, a game that I love and have played for more than a decade now.

[Blake]

But, the AI could really be improved quite a bit by a little bit of randomness here and there.... it's too mechanical... and unnessecarly so. Particulary at lower difficulty levels it could afford to use some "sub optimal" decisions thus making it appear more 'human', at higher levels it would also help to avoid some abuse which relies on the AI always working exactly in a particular way.

[The Pioneer]

That is true Blake, it would give the game a whole other dimension!

Firaxis is reading these Forums though and by now I think that this aspect of the AI is clear enough and since they listen and implement a lot I hope that they will be able pull another ace from their sleeves and improve this part of the AI in an upcoming patch or xp.

[jshelr]

At last I can make a constructive suggestion

_______________________________________
The AI is not perfect but it's a very good one and give s a decent challenge, if it was much harder or it could learn from playing I would have to stop playing because:

A. As stated above it would be kicking my butt.
B. and more importantly, I cannot afford a divorce at this time
_________________________________________


A. What you want is the illusion that your butt might be kicked. If you know it's not going to be kicked, that's no good either. By the modern age, the AI is not nearly the threat it was in the earlier ages. So, the end game gets dull.
B. If you think you can't afford a divorce now, it only gets worse as you get older

[Panag]

Originally posted by Geekinstein
A few thoughts...

It took over 50 years for 1000s of programmers to build an AI that could defeat the best human at Chess, and Chess has very few moves to program (on only an 8x8 board to boot) compaired to Civ III or any other wargame for that matter. Been there, done that...

However, it is possible to use the latest in Decision Science, Game Theory, and Statistics to design a game that can defeat most humans (and learn from them, BTW). Since you control all the rules in the design (not possible in Chess), you simply design the game to make it the hardest for humans to work against (people do NOT think statistically) - but this simply has not been done in Civ III.

Can a much better AI be designed? Absolutely; the US military has done some of this, but it will take a new game design, probably from the ground up.

But the real question is, will you (the general public) keep playing an AI that kicks your a$$ every time like the best Chess games do today? ...I think folks might not.

People like to win...

hi ,

, agreed but there is a drawback with "learning" , in most cases when you shut the comp of , or start a new game the comp cant remember what it has learned , .....

however , in Japan and Israel , they are having some nice idea's , they put a game on a DVD-RW , a part is the game , and the rest is room for the AI , actually a part where the AI can write its findings and next time it can use them , or change them .

with the use of the DVD-RW , you can take your special game , and AI with you , ......

have a nice day