The key to AI greatness

[alva]

lol@ DeepO: knowing where you come from I didn't think you would like these changes, cultural diversity and all that.
But I agree with you, If all the AI are the same then certainly on some maps under the right conditions, they will be killer civs, I.E. unbeateble( maybe to strong a word ).
But most of the time I'm guessing they will all be little more then mediocre.
And this really is no fun at all.
When they're different from each other though, surely some will not make into the modern or even industrial age. But at least ther's a very good chance a few will go on the become superpowers.
So I would be quite reluctant to change much too, maybe a few tweaks here and there.
But what you can do though, is when you are going to play a pangea map for example, is change certain things that won't be as important (build naval springs to mind offcourse), afterall Firaxis made this list to work on all maps.

Sounds a bit like nature doen't it

[Arrian]

Thanks for the replies, Soren. Cool, I was right.

So the key categories to produce power, so far as I can tell are:

wealth
trade
production

happiness and science improvements are also good, but I think the priority needs to be on the three I listed.

Some testing may help. Perhaps we could make some tweaks to this and use it in a "Apolyton U" game.

-Arrian

p.s. Why hasn't Theseus, the seeker of "killer AI's" visited this thread yet?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Arrian

p.s. Why hasn't Theseus, the seeker of "killer AI's" visited this thread yet?

I PM'd him about it in case he had overlooked the thread

... is he even online?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by alva848
lol@ DeepO: knowing where you come from I didn't think you would like these changes, cultural diversity and all that.

Yeah, sometimes you just have to have some conviction, and after that you try to find some 'proof' why you are right Indeed, I wouldn't like it if the Zulus start to build culture like crazy, let them overrun lesser civs in the ancient era, I'll gladly culturally flip their cities in the middle ages

But what you can do though, is when you are going to play a pangea map for example, is change certain things that won't be as important (build naval springs to mind offcourse), afterall Firaxis made this list to work on all maps.

Certainly... only choosing the right civs for some scenario would be good. And if you set the starting positions, you can generally predict which of the civs will do good in all games, and which won't reach the middle ages...

BTW, good to see you gained your avatar today, I'm hoping to lose my warlord status tonight

DeepO

[Theseus]

WHOA!!

Awesome thread, with Soren no less.

Let me digest...

alexman is da man!

[Theseus]

I'm going to need at least tonight to process 'build preferences' into my thinking...

I just want to say that the interactions of all features into rewarding gameplay balance is INCREDIBLY complex... my hat is off in another galaxy in respect to Soren and the Firaxis team.

[Txurce]

Alexman, thanks for a stimulating thread. As a Mac user with no editor to access, I found your chart in the original post to be invaluable. Now Arrian and others are running in the right direction with it.

This sems to be the best way to create as killer an AI as possible, and one that can be tested relatively easily and quickly. On Emperor, the AI's 20% production edge could theoretically make it competitive, if its focus was on shields to produce beakers. It might put the human in a position where war is (once again) the only way to the top.

Does anyone think that emphasis on offensive units would make an AI more dangerous? Despite the fact that this is flagged for six civs, I rarely see the sort of mounted forces that people on this forum routinely assemble.

[Lord Merciless]

Chinese, Persian, and Roman civ traits got changed in last second before the game was shipped. That should explain the discrepancies in the AI Civ's build priorities with their civ traits.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm going to need at least tonight to process 'build preferences' into my thinking...

But don't make it too hard, or else I'll have to start with Chieftain again, when I return to play .

[Arrian]

I was just thinking...

We all know the AI is incapable of using bombard units effectively. Therefore, they should not waste the shields building them. All civs should have "never build" for bombard units until such time as Firaxis provides a patch that changes how the AI uses them (if this ever occurs).

Whatcha think?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

They do use bombers... would putting no bombard mean no bombers as well? They are air units, sure, but would probably fall into both categories as well.

And, artillery gets used on defense, just stop too close with a ship to a city with art in it, and you'll see what happens.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Yes, they do use them defensively, but I've never seen more than 2 bombard units in any given AI city, and these will not bombard approaching stacks of troops. They will not be used offensively (well, ok, I did see the Greeks do it once, but it was a single catapult with a hoplite guard... ooooh, I'm scared now, Alex) and not even used properly for defense. The human knows that arty is only effective in numbers, so we put together stacks of artillery. These can be zapped around to pulverize invading troops. The AI will not do this.

So I'm saying maybe it's best to just tell the AI to forget it and build another spearman instead of a catapult.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Arrian, I agree about the poor handling of artilleries by the AI, but they can use bombers relatively good. If these also fall under 'arty', I wouldn't put the build never option in.
Besides, the AI will only use 2 per city max, but will also build 2 per city max... and they are nice to capture

DeepO

[player1]

Even defensively, if AI would just learn to stack all it's arties in several most important cities (using ZERO-movment rails), it would be much better.

And of course, it things get to tough, to fall back with those arties to some other cities (so they won't get captured).

[phunny_pharmer]

Question for Soren-

Are all buildings with the 'wealth' flag rated equally by the AI. Will the AI choose ANY 'wealth' related building, or is it subject to some restrictions.

For instance, suppose it has the choice between an 80 shield building that produces 50% tax @ 2 upkeep, or a 120 shield, 50% tax 25% science @ 3 upkeep building. I think one of the mods had this scenario.

Now, which would a 'wealth' choosing AI build? Is there any way to *make* the AI build one more often then the other without using prereqs?

[Theseus]

First off, I totally applaud the effort. As I've stated before, I think the challenge for any worldgame developer in meeting the needs / desires of the spectrum from builder to warmonger inherently limits the AI civs to a lower level of performance than I'd like to play against... thus, the search for ways to generate killer AI civs.

Thus far, I've tried approaches to this OTHER than going into the editor. In general, just using player settings, I've found that a) differentiated quality of starting territory and b) distance between civs seem to be the greatest factors. The strong get stronger, indeed. Where I've been frustrated is that often the successful AI civs don't push there advantage as much as one of us would.

My guess is that these build preferences are where the answers lie... this is actually much more important to me than most of the modding discussions I've seen thus far, which have primarily focused on units, buildings, and techs.

Some comments:

1) FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES

Alexman sort of went wild in re-setting build preferences. While I think thats fine for scenarios, I am mostly interested in improving the basic game, so I would tend towards minimalist tweaks. I also think that gameplay balance is incredibly difficult to manage... again, hats off to Soren and company, and it's my guess that just a few changes to build preferences will edge certain AI civs over into a killer state (again, predicated on their initial environment in a given game).

2) KILLER HUMAN CIVS

Basically, I want the killer AI civs that arise to play with a combination of the tactics / strategies that people discuss here and at CFC.

(I can just see it: "Oh no, it's a Horse-Samurai-Cav-Tank Army!!! %$@!@$@#@% Must be the Theseus code in the AI!!")

Seriously, I want the AI to do the same things we do... oscillate, don;t go offensive without barracks, upgrade units, attack along hills / mountains, follow Vel's fanatical insistence on Marketplaces, get Factories up ASAP, etc.

I'm not asking for a re-write of the code, but I think, with the patches to date, we can tweak build preferences to get there.

If I had to pick the things WE do that the AI civs don't, but that I think build preferences can help: Barracks (except I don;t know where these fall in the preferences), offensive land units, and treasury management.

3) WHAT ALREADY WORKS?

Before trying to make specific suggestions, I have a question for all: What AI civs already seem to be the closest to killers?

For me, it's been Egypt, France, Germany, and Greece...

What are their existing characteristics, and are there any commonalities? For instance, all four have a preference for Culture!! WTF? What role does that play in their successes?

Can we get some discussion on this point, before trying to reach a consensus on what changes might be most beneficial?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Theseus

For me, it's been Egypt, France, Germany, and Greece...

For me it is Persia almost every time.
The last 3 big games I've played on Regent have seen me dominate one continent and have to fight a strong Persian empire on another continent. Strange that it has worked out like that.

[Arrian]

Hmm,

In my experience:

Stong: France, Greece, Egypt and China (note 3 industrious civs in there)

Medium: Aztecs, India, Babylon, Persia, Japan, America, Russia & Iroquois (hmm, lots of religious civs)

Weak: Rome, Germany, Zulu, England

What do I notice? Well, without even looking at build preferences, 3 out of 4 "weak" civs are aggressive militarists with a mediocre 2nd trait. England just sucks. Three out of four "strong" AI civs are industrious, and all have medium-low aggressiveness ratings. In other words, they will attack only when they are stronger. Greece and China have UU's the AI can't help but benifit from, and France's is well-timed. Egypt's is really only powerful in the hands of the human.

Now, I have seen some of these civs in different categories in particular games. I've seen a stong India and a weak Greece. But I've never seen a strong Rome, Zululand or England. France, given time to develop, is almost always solid.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

What are their existing characteristics, and are there any commonalities? For instance, all four have a preference for Culture!! WTF? What role does that play in their successes?

What do cultural buildings do? They produce either WORKING (as opposed to specialist) citizens, especially in metropolises, or they produce science.

[Arrian]

Greece and Egypt have build orders which match their traits:

Greece = Sci/Comm -> Sci/Trade/Culture
Egypt = Rel/Ind -> Prod/Culture/Growth

France and China don't match up perfectly:

Fr = Ind/Comm -> Happy/Trade/Culture
Ch = Ind/Mil -> Growth/Prod/Sci

Perhaps their industriousness and medieval UU is what saves them.

India is one of the few (only? I need to look again) civs with 4 "build often" orders: Growth, Wealth, Trade, Culture. This suggests, to me, that if you give them some time w/o being attacked, they could do well. In a recent game I didn't play out, India was heinously big in ancient times. Of course, I was attacking them...

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Now we're talkin'....

About other civs: I've seen Rome powerful once. I've seen India get veeery large, but without power. I agree about China, although they never seem to be among the final superpowers.

Arrian, I didn't quite follow that last post. What do you think Industrious matches up to?

[alexman]

After everyone's comments, I agree that a better approach to creating a killer AI would be one with smaller changes, at least initially.

Here's a revised table of build priorities that might work:

Civilization  Off Def Arty Setl Work Nav Air Grth Prod Hap Sci Wlth Trad Expl Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome (4)       X   -                          -    X                 +         +
Egypt (3)                                     X    X    +       +              -
Greece (3)                            -            +        X        X         X
Babylon (4)                                        +    +   X                  X
Germany (5)    X                                   +        X        +         -
Russia (4)                                -   X    +        X        +
China (2)          +                          -    X        -        +         +
America (3)                               X   X    X    +                      -
Japan (4)      X                      -            +    X            +
France (1)                                         +    X            X         X
India (1)                                     -    +    +       X    X         -
Persia (4)     X                                   +        +   X    -
Aztecs (4)     X                                   +    X            +
Zulu (5)       X                                   +                 +    +
Iroquois (2)                                  X    +    X                 X
England (3)                           X            +            -    X         X

X = original
- = removed
+ = added

In modifying the table, I followed these rules:[list=1][*]Maximum of four build-often items per civ.[*]Production a build-often for everyone[*]Each civ needs at least one marketplace category (trade, wealth, or happiness)[*]Take advantage of civ traits: Scientific->Science, Religious->Happiness, Militaristic->Offense (or Defense) and trade (cheap harbors etc), Expansionist->Growth or Explore.[*]Don't change anything unless it violates one of the above rules.[/list=1]

Theseus, what do you think? Could we set up the next AU course with this, or a similarly modified AI build list? It would be interesting to compare notes on how the AI is affected by these changes.

Edit:
India: wealth instead of growth
Rome: culture instead of growth
China: culture instead of growth
Persia: wealth instead of trade

Edit:
Egypt: wealth instead of culture

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by alexman

Theseus, what do you think? Could we set up the next AU course with this, or a similarly modified AI build list? It would be interesting to compare notes on how the AI is affected by these changes.

It would be interesting to repeat AU 101 using these modified values. That way we would having a direct comparison.

[alexman]

Hmm... good idea, but I don't think it's possible. How do you edit the rules in a save? I don't think you can import its map into another bic file either.

[Theseus]

Awesome!

Some questions:

* Why add Def to China?
* I thought Soren indicated that Wealth was good for some builds too... are you assuming that having both Wealth and Trade is overkill?
* As I pointed out in an earlier post, Culture might be one of the key prefs... how about alternating Prod and Cult?

I definitely envision using this for AU... I'd love to get a minimalist approach to unit / building mods, maybe from Vel and those guys, and merge it with this.

Good work!!

[Theseus]

Re FPs point, we could generate a new map with all the same settings as AU 101... although starting environment would differ for each of the civs, which is probably the biggest determinant of who goes killer.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Theseus
* Why add Def to China?

China is militaristic. I thought flagging defensive units would at least take some advantage of their trait (and add variety). Perhaps they will build more barracks. I didn't add the offensive units flag because China is the only militaristic civ with low aggression. But maybe it's better to flag offensive units, as the AI makes enough defensive units as it is. I don't know.

* I thought Soren indicated that Wealth was good for some builds too... are you assuming that having both Wealth and Trade is overkill?

Initially I was proposing to put wealth in the build-never list, which is clearly a very bad idea. I started out with the intention of keeping Wealth flagged for some civs, but that would make them have more than four items in their list. Whenever there was a choice between a trade and wealth, I chose trade, because the latter clearly has more valuable builds, especially for militaristic civs.

* As I pointed out in an earlier post, Culture might be one of the key prefs... how about alternating Prod and Cult?

Culture and Production have very different builds. You clearly need both. On the other hand, happiness and science produce culture, so there is some overlap there. How about ensuring that each civ gets at least one culture-producing build-often category (culture, science, happiness)?

I'd love to get a minimalist approach to unit / building mods, maybe from Vel and those guys, and merge it with this.

I suggest player 1's conservative patch suggestion mod. He has made some brilliant tweaks that nonetheless keep the original Civ3 flavor.

Re FPs point

If we start from a bic file instead of a save, we can use the same map to create two initial saves with different AI strategies. We could post both saves as part of AU102, and people could choose which one to play, if not both.

[Theseus]

China: Get it.

Wealth: At least one civ should have this... change one of the Comm?

Culture: Good solution. BTW, I think Zulus have none.

I'll check out player1's mod.

Re AU 102, let me think about which one might best highlight the differences in the emergence of killer AI civs.

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm,

In my experience:

Stong: France, Greece, Egypt and China (note 3 industrious civs in there)

Medium: Aztecs, India, Babylon, Persia, Japan, America, Russia & Iroquois (hmm, lots of religious civs)

Weak: Rome, Germany, Zulu, England

I think it depends on the eras and starting locations, but here's what I've noticed:

Strong: Russia, Japan, Persia

Moderate: England, Aztecs (if they get a good stronghold), China, Germany (depends on their starting posistion too..), India, Iroquois

Weak: Greece, France, Egypt, Babylon (they can expand fast, but in my games, take out their capital and surronding cities, and they're toast), America, Zulu, Rome

While Greece and France have some of the best defensive units, I have yet to see the French USE their musketeers! I've used them with great success, since their stats are like 2 swordman in one.

[Arrian]

Chieftess,

Well, that's about the opposite of my observations. Clearly, all of this is heavily dependent on geography. A nice starting spot will mask terrible traits/build preferences.

Alexman,

Perhaps the scientific civs ought to have "happiness" instead of "culture." They are all flagged to build scientific things anyway. Happiness will encourage temples, cathedrals, colosseums and marketplaces.

I'd say add wealth and drop culture from Egypt. The addition of happiness keep culture production solid and get some more markets in there... and wealth will top that off. Actually, when you think about it, Growth+Production+Happiness+Wealth = Civ in a nutshell.

-Arrian