The dangerous sea...

[Hagbart]

What are the odds of losing a coast-ship (a galley) in the sea/ocean and a sea-ship in the ocean? It seems strange that sometimes my ships can survive 4-5 turns on the ocean before sinking , sometimes they sink instantly.

[Arrian]

I think it's something like a 50% chance of sinking in a type of water they are not suited for (whether it's sea or ocean). Like all other things in the game, it's hooked up to the RNG, which is why sometimes you will hit a lucky streak that allows a galley to make it across a large ocean whereas the previous 3 sank immediately.

-Arrian

[N. Machiavelli]

Which brings up a question. Does the AI have knowledge of the Random Number sequence? If so, it would explain why the AI can send galleys (prior to anyone discovering the appropriatt tech) into ocean/sea squares. While not as blatant a 'cheat' as previously ranted, it would prove a bit of an advantage to the AI if it knows whether or not it would succeed before hand.

[Arrian]

Actually, I've never seen the AI end their turn with galleys in sea/ocean squares without the appropriate tech. They will, however, find short crossings (1-2 tiles of sea or ocean, with coast available at either side) which allow them to safely island-hop. They tend to find these quickly, because they are programmed to explore like crazy.

I've often gotten a defeated civ's world map. Pre-astronomy, you will seen that their scout ships will have circled the continent, but have not ventured into the sea/ocean beyond... unless there is a short crossing available so that they didn't have to end their turn in dangerous waters.

-Arrian

[N. Machiavelli]

I've encountered it a couple of times before, usually with galleys on sea squares more so than on ocean. It's certainly not as regular an occurance as some others have claimed, but it does happen.

In any case, I just figured that if the AI has access to knowledge of the placement of all units on the map, it may very well have 'prior' knowledge of the random number string when considering it's moves.

[Minmaster]

u mean does the AI know his galley has chance of sinking?

[Bleyn]

If the RNG function is a good one, it shouldn't have prior knowledge. In fact, if the AI is properly programmed, even at the hardest levels, the programmers should not be having to resort to such simplistic cheats to help the AI.

[Thrawn05]

If the AI had access to the RNG, then it would NOT just be limited to galleys. This would also apply to combat as well. The AI would know when to attack so that it would get the highest chance possible.

I havn't seen any threads of people complaining about that (this is not related to the Tank v Spearman rampage), so I will have to say that Firaxis did their job right, and locked the RNG away from at least the core AI code.

[N. Machiavelli]

"Artificial Intellegence" is *not* intellegence as we humans use it. Instead, it's a series of scripts and "if" statements. AI is limited by those who program it and it's 'sophistication' is limited to the sheer amount of possible scenarios pre-programmed into it. When the AI makes a move, it gathers all it's "known" data (unit placement, number of units, goals, etc) and makes a 'decision' (i.e. "If I have 3 swordsmen and I know the enemy has 8, then switch production in X city to Swordsman") based upon that. It does this because the programmers gave it specific priorities and told the AI to build more swordsmen if it has less then the enemy.

Now, since the AI *must* have information such as number/position of every unit on the map (since programming 'unknowns'/speculation requires an untold number of pre-thought out algorythems), then would it be such a leap to think that the AI incorporates the terrain in it's 'decision making'?
If so, then does the AI incorporate the Random Number sequence in it's movement decisions? Did the programmers tell the AI (when deciding to move it's galley) "if the random number string is 50%+, then move galley to explore ocean/sea tiles. After all, it 'knows' that it will make it safely into those tiles, and if the same check fails next turn, it can safely move back to the coastline.

If this is true, then does such a knowledge pose as a 'cheat' for the AI? Like the AI's knowledge of unit placement, I personally don't look at it as a 'cheat' so much as a 'crutch' to help get past the limitations posed when attempting to program an in-depth AI for Civ3.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
If the AI had access to the RNG, then it would NOT just be limited to galleys. This would also apply to combat as well. The AI would know when to attack so that it would get the highest chance possible.

While it's possible, I do not feel that if the AI has access to the RNG for movement, it must have it for combat. The script for the movement and script for combat are mutually exclusive (unless Firaxis was *really* skimping on the time and budget). Writing a line calling for a RNG check in one script doe not automatically include it in another.

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I havn't seen any threads of people complaining about that (this is not related to the Tank v Spearman rampage), so I will have to say that Firaxis did their job right, and locked the RNG away from at least the core AI code.

Just because Coracle hasn't complained about it yet doesn't mean it isn't a future issue. Folks in the 18th century weren't concerned about a pollution-caused holein the Ozone layer, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
If so, then does the AI incorporate the Random Number sequence in it's movement decisions? Did the programmers tell the AI (when deciding to move it's galley) "if the random number string is 50%+, then move galley to explore ocean/sea tiles. After all, it 'knows' that it will make it safely into those tiles, and if the same check fails next turn, it can safely move back to the coastline.

I would hope not the AI has access to this. I don't think this is one program cheat the AI needs. At least for galleys anyway. I can understand maps and unit positions (which is only half true, the core AI doens't know either, it's "limited", since if I sell my maps to the AI is send hordes of settlers over, and it wound't have bothered with spy missions).

The RNG should be completly independent from both player and AI. What I would do is force a rule with galleys like this (crude C++)

void somegalleyfunction()
{

if (nexttile == (sea || ocean)
{
searchnewtile();
}
else
{
movetonexttile();
}

}

[N. Machiavelli]

Oh, I agree that the AI *should* not be able to 'conciously' access this information, but what I fear is that, in Firaxis' quest to make the AI more competative, it gave it access to the RNG variable strings on certain functions. Now, the AI is 'evolving' seemingly with every patch, since the Firaxis programmers now have much more time to sophisticate the AI commands without resorting to such things. So even if they gave this 'ability' to the AI, limited or otherwise, it may not survive an eventual patch.

[Jaybe]

Is someone trying to make Soren (I THINK it was him) a liar?
He definitely said that galleys do not end their turn in a sea or ocean tile unless they have the tech which enables them to do so SAFELY.

Remember, Astronomy allows ALL your ships to travel the sea, Navigation allows ALL your ships to travel the ocean. Galleys included. Lighthouse effects are additional.

In Civ2 you had to upgrade your ship to do this, and (gad, this is getting old), Civ2 it ain't!

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Oh, I agree that the AI *should* not be able to 'conciously' access this information, but what I fear is that, in Firaxis' quest to make the AI more competative, it gave it access to the RNG variable strings on certain functions.

This is certainly NOT true. That statement is in fact ridiculous if you think about it. The AI has NO chance of knowing what the RNG will be. Remember, sinking is not determined when you enter the sea/ocean tile, but JUST BEFORE your next movement turn. Even if the AI knew exactly ALL random numbers coming up, it would have to know IN ADVANCE all AI moves, human moves as well as the exact result of the combats and diplomacy that happens after it ends its turn and before it begins its next.

As you can see, while the AI in theory could know which RNG numbers are coming up, it has no way of knowing which one of those will be used to determine if the Galley sinks or not.

Besides, I have never seen (either myself or in any forum) any evidence that the AI would risk its Galleys in dangerous waters.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Is someone trying to make Soren (I THINK it was him) a liar?
He definitely said that galleys do not end their turn in a sea or ocean tile unless they have the tech which enables them to do so SAFELY.

Remember, Astronomy allows ALL your ships to travel the sea, Navigation allows ALL your ships to travel the ocean. Galleys included. Lighthouse effects are additional.

In Civ2 you had to upgrade your ship to do this, and (gad, this is getting old), Civ2 it ain't!

As someone else posted recently . . . Call a Vet! Call a Vet! We've got a dead horse here and someone continues to beat it senselessly!

I quoted the above from Jaybe just to highlight it again for those who have missed it in the past -- in response to a recent "AI CHEATS!" thread, I did a quick search for posts by Soren involving the "AI galley can cross oceans" phenomenon - the poor guy (Soren) has been trying to debunk this myth since December - do a search - he has posted on this subject seemingly more than any other (what a shame!). He has stated on more than one occasion that the AI will not allow its galleys / caravels to end their turns in a square where there is a risk of loss - it just won't happen - if it happens, it's a bug; save a copy of the game. Despite the seeming weekly announcement that AI galleys routinely cross seas and oceans, no one, not one single person, has ever posted an unmodified game where this has happened prior to AI discovery of enabling technology.

To repeat Jaybe's point - this is not Civ 2 - galleys can safely traverse seas and oceans when the enabling tech is discovered. And yet the myth refuses to die.

Catt

[Slax]

I have seen a ship can traverse un-traversable waters due to a withdrawal from territory, because there was no closer unowned tiles. I think the culture radius had changed that turn.

Its a very rare occurance, and could be considered a bug.

[Willem]

It also depends on your tech as well. If you have Navigation, any ship can cross the ocean.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Willem
It also depends on your tech as well. If you have Navigation, any ship can cross the ocean.

Ok thanks, I thought you'd have to build new ships after Navigation to sail safely on the ocean.

I do not think the AI cheats here. I don't think I've seen an AI sending galleys out on the ocean to explore. They stay along the coast.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Hagbart
I do not think the AI cheats here. I don't think I've seen an AI sending galleys out on the ocean to explore. They stay along the coast.

Same here, but I have read threads from people who claim that galleys are traveling ocean squares long before middle age period. That's a bug and requires a uninstall/reinstall to fix it. I haven't come accross it yet.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Hurricane

As you can see, while the AI in theory could know which RNG numbers are coming up, it has no way of knowing which one of those will be used to determine if the Galley sinks or not.

Sure it does. For one thing, the random number sequence, is exactly that: a sequence, or list of random numbers created at the begining of each 'turn'. Every command that refers to this sequence (i.e. the victor of a round of combat) takes the top number of that list, uses it, then removes that number from the list so that the next one can be used for the next command. For ease of programming, this top number can be referred to as a variable, so that whenever something needs to refer to that top number it just has to look for that variable, we'll call it "RNGTOP".

Now, the AI runs a seperate script of 'what to do' for each unit. All I'm saying is that for certain script sequences, there could be a reference to the RNGTOP variable as a check to see if the action will succeed. If so, then the AI carries out the script; if not, then the AI carries out another command for the unit. It's not really that complex. The AI already makes a reference to the positioning of units on the board. It has to in order to make it's movement decisions or else it would try to 'bump' into things or walk in a straight line to any goal, no matter where it is. It's also a given that the AI is knowledgible of settlers, workers, and open artillery units past it's line of sight, *and* figures this in it's attack decision-making; so it's really not a big leap to say that it already figures some things it 'shouldn't' know into it's decision-making.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying that this is fact, or definate. But it does offer an explaination to justify why the AI end it's galley's or caravel's turns on ocean squares and seemingly suffer no illl-will. It's not that the AI's units are impervious, only that they will not perform the action unless it 'knows' it can succeed. If Soren or any of the other developers wish to tell me wrong, then great. I'm merely offering a hypothesis and reasoning to support it.

Originally posted by Catt

Despite the seeming weekly announcement that AI galleys routinely cross seas and oceans, no one, not one single person, has ever posted an unmodified game where this has happened prior to AI discovery of enabling technology.

The problem is that this is a bit of a difficult thing to prove deliberately, since it would require that you have a unit trail every AI's galley or caravel before the discovery of navigation or magnetism. Just because it doesn't occur with the couple that happen to stumble into your line of sight, doesn't mean it can't happen.
Besides, I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a Civ3 game, especially during war, one of the *last* things I'm worried about it making seperate saves of every seemingly 'odd' occurance in the possability that one day, it might come up and someone will automatically discount it because I didn't happen to save it when it occured a week prior.

[Catt]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli

The problem is that this is a bit of a difficult thing to prove deliberately, since it would require that you have a unit trail every AI's galley or caravel before the discovery of navigation or magnetism. Just because it doesn't occur with the couple that happen to stumble into your line of sight, doesn't mean it can't happen.
Besides, I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a Civ3 game, especially during war, one of the *last* things I'm worried about it making seperate saves of every seemingly 'odd' occurance in the possability that one day, it might come up and someone will automatically discount it because I didn't happen to save it when it occured a week prior.

I don't disagree that it is difficult to prove -- you need to be in the right place at the right time (assuming it even ever happens ). And I certainly don't expect everyone to save the game at every turn -- but the seeming frequency with which this particular "cheat" is trumpeted would imply that it happens all the time - certainly someone can be bothered to save the game upon the sight of an ocean-going galley and / or load up autosave from the prior turn, save the game, play the turn, watch the occurence again, and then continue playing - I can't think that this is not too much to ask in the face of repeated denials from the game designers that the "cheat" is even possible?

Slax - I think I have seen that as well (can't remember clearly enough) and it would certainly seem to be within the "game rules" although I too think its a bug that ought to be fixed. I say it is "within the game rules" simply because the automatic withfdrawal function seems to move troops to the nearest available tile - regardles of whether the unit in question is capable of reaching that tile on its own (I have seen foot soldiers teleported across narrow stretches of sea and ocean to home territory). I say its a bug because the player making the "Leave" demand will often have no way of knowing the potential dire consequences of his action (and subsequent teleportation) -- all of a sudden the enemy has contact with the other continent!

Catt

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Catt


I don't disagree that it is difficult to prove -- you need to be in the right place at the right time (assuming it even ever happens ). And I certainly don't expect everyone to save the game at every turn -- but the seeming frequency with which this particular "cheat" is trumpeted would imply that it happens all the time - certainly someone can be bothered to save the game upon the sight of an ocean-going galley and / or load up autosave from the prior turn, save the game, play the turn, watch the occurence again, and then continue playing - I can't think that this is not too much to ask in the face of repeated denials from the game designers that the "cheat" is even possible?
Catt

You know very well that the reason the "cheat" keeps coming up this way is because the astonomy/navigation change from civ2 is not well publicized so people (like me) continually have to uncover the change in forums like this

[Wormwood]

If the AI has this supposed cheat, then why am I able to create a naval "blockade", along a coast with three or four ships, where the AI galley would have to end his turn in sea or ocean, and the AI will not try to get around it. They will tool around for 20+ plus turns, and never make that move.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Sure it does. For one thing, the random number sequence, is exactly that: a sequence, or list of random numbers created at the begining of each 'turn'.

Why do think that? There is no need for the game to do that. There is no good reason to it either. It is much more likely that the game calls the RNG routine ONLY when a RN is needed. Otherwise you would have to decide IN ADVANCE how many to generate each turn, set up and array to store them in, keep track of the pointer and then get fooled when the player decides not to attack.

All that is stored in the save files is a SEED not a sequence. The same seed will give the same sequence but the sequence cannot be predicted except by running the RNG itself.

Every command that refers to this sequence (i.e. the victor of a round of combat) takes the top number of that list, uses it, then removes that number from the list so that the next one can be used for the next command. For ease of programming, this top number can be referred to as a variable, so that whenever something needs to refer to that top number it just has to look for that variable, we'll call it "RNGTOP".

It could but why do something so wastefull.Its completely uneeded.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying that this is fact, or definate.

Its pure speculation with no data to support it.

But it does offer an explaination to justify why the AI end it's galley's or caravel's turns on ocean squares and seemingly suffer no illl-will.

An uneeded explanation since NO ONE has shown it to ever happen and Soren has made it clear that it isn't supposed to happen.

It's not that the AI's units are impervious, only that they will not perform the action unless it 'knows' it can succeed. If Soren or any of the other developers wish to tell me wrong, then great. I'm merely offering a hypothesis and reasoning to support it.

A labrynthine hypothesis to explain a non-existent phenomana.

Besides, I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a Civ3 game, especially during war, one of the *last* things I'm worried about it making seperate saves of every seemingly 'odd' occurance in the possability that one day, it might come up and someone will automatically discount it because I didn't happen to save it when it occured a week prior.

Autosaves. Besides NO ONE has shown the alleged phenoma to be real in the entire time people have making the specious claim. Not once. The main source of this fantasy on Apolyton is Coracle. Not exactly what one could call a reliable source.

Where there is smoke there is often someone with a smoke pot and no fire at all. I think some people are using Canabis Oil for their smoke screens and forget to stay upwind.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Ethelred

A labrynthine hypothesis to explain a non-existent phenomana.

Whatever; I've said my peace. Hope you feel more secure about yourself.

EDIT: Quote link.

[Ethelred]

I feel secure about what I said anyway. Thats good enough for here.

I still would like an answer as to why you think that Civ III would do something as strange as storing a sequence of random numbers when it so uneeded.

EDIT: Quote link.

What link?

You need to be a bit more specific. Are you asking for a link from me, if so then what kind of link are you looking for, or did you intend to supply one yourself?

[N. Machiavelli]

It's usually good form (manners) to note when one goes back and edits their post, so that it does not seem like the poster is going back to change what they said. I had to correct the "[/QUOTE]" link/tag because when I inititally typed it in, I forgot the "/".

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
I've encountered it a couple of times before, usually with galleys on sea squares more so than on ocean. It's certainly not as regular an occurance as some others have claimed, but it does happen.

In any case, I just figured that if the AI has access to knowledge of the placement of all units on the map, it may very well have 'prior' knowledge of the random number string when considering it's moves.

the only time the AI will ever have a gally end its turn in a sea or ocean square is if it has the tech which allows it to do so without risk of sinking (Astronomy for sea; Navigation/Magnetism for ocean)...

maybe I should add this to my sig?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
...
maybe I should add this to my sig?

Soren, please don't. This issue is already quite well known (especially now). Please put some OTHER (new) gem in your sig!

Or a link to a post/thread of a whole basket of gems/tidbits!!
War Weariness (nudge, nudge)?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
the only time the AI will ever have a gally end its turn in a sea or ocean square is if it has the tech which allows it to do so without risk of sinking (Astronomy for sea; Navigation/Magnetism for ocean)...

So there is no AI fuction called: AmIFeelingLuckyThisTurn() ? Darn, I was hopping the AI would take a chance on the open sea/ocean just like the player.