What is up with all the cheating by the computer

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Catt, those are the only two that are germain. I did not see any where that it said they cost maint, but it could have. LIke you said those two points have been backed up by the designers on this board. I did not put them in for Coracle, I know he is just looking for attention, but for ohters that come behind and think he has a point. I do not even believe him when he says he can not keep up with the AI on Regent, that makes no sense.

It would be very easy for an inexperienced player who has a poor understanding of the game to be outproduced by the AI at regent.

Such a player would presumably lack the requisite understanding of the game to make definitive statements about the workings of the AI routines. Presumably, such a player should be asking questions to develop understanding rather than making bald statements without sufficient facts to back up those statements.

Coracle:
The AI must be given advantages to make the game more challenging at the higher levels. The challenge, to the game producers, is to use advantages which are not obnoxious to the majority of players. (For example giving the AI a heap of techs, units, improvements merely because the human is doing well is something most players would consider as a cheat as well as obnoxious. OTH Starting the AI off with an extra settler at deity is an advantage not a cheat and perhaps few players would find that obnoxious. OTH "Gang up on the human player" is not a cheat but generally considered extremely obnoxious). If one does does not like a particular AI advantage then one may be tempted to describe that advantage as cheating. There is a difference between an advantage and a cheat.

If one does not like the AI advantages (or if you prefer to call them cheats) at a particular level then play at a lower level. I usually play at Civ 3 at chieftain for fun without botheration or warfare.

[MiloMilo]

Given my experience playing, here's how I think the map cheat thing works: The AI knows every bit of the map that it can know, given its current technology and current position, plus portions gained through map trading.

How does this play out?

Well, pre-mapmaking, a given AI civ knows every tile on its continent that it can reach. Which means that if you block a choke point, the AI will know nothing about your portion of the continent. If you unblock it, the civ will realize a door has opened and send units to explore/settle the new land.

Once it gets mapmaking, its awareness extends to all coastal tiles. This simply means that your block at the chokepoint is now useless (except to actually block movement, of course).

At this point, if you find an island separated from the continent by sea tiles, and the AI civ's galleys have not seen it (boats have a two-square range of vision), then you can settle it without interference. If you sell the AI your map when even a sliver of the island is available, or if the AI builds the Lighthouse wonder, expect it to send settlers to the island quickly.

Note that an exploit has been identified for this post-mapmaking, pre-astronomy phase of the game. Since coastal tiles are only one tile deep, they act as a chokepoint in the water. If you fortify two galleys in coast tiles, one on either side of an AI civ's borders, that civ will be unaware of any land beyond them. It could simply send galleys around yours, but since you're in the way, it won't think to do so.

With Astronomy, an AI knows of any islands connected to its land mass by sea squares and will go explore them. And with Navigation, it will be aware of the entire map and immediately go make contact with other civs and settle small unclaimed islands.

This is all hypothesis, but it's logical, and it's consistent with what I've seen.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I did not put them in for Coracle, I know he is just looking for attention

Right. That's why I stopped posting here for months - I "want attentiion".

What I want is a game that is a worthy successor to Civ 2, along with an apology from Firaxis for its buggy beta product I bought a year ago.

OK, everyone do a test. You all know what the AI does with REX/settler diarrhea marching settler/soldier combos into our territory and not leaving. If we attack them everyone hates the human forever. Let the human try doing the same thing to the AI - march those settler/soldiers in at the same rate and see how well you do with your military, infrastructure, etc.

Of course you won't be able to teleport your settlers magically to open tiles not on your map, among other things.

I'd like to see how well you.


BTW, cheating and stubborness with the Diplomatic and Trade AI is worse.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Coracle
OK, everyone do a test. You all know what the AI does with REX/settler diarrhea marching settler/soldier combos into our territory and not leaving. If we attack them everyone hates the human forever.

Nope. Learn the game.

[MiloMilo]

Coracle, you just have to be careful when you play this game. Make sure you have no units in an AI territory when you declare war, and no one will hate you. (Well they might dislike you if you get ahead in techs and territory and culture and money, but that's just some kind of species of envy. I'm an American, and believe me, it's perfectly realistic.)

Also, why complain about the AI sending units across your territory? Just make a right of passage agreement, and you can then do the same to them. I suspect, though, that you simply want them to not be able to get their settlers to open land at all. Why? If the other civ decides the possibility of having another city is worth the risk of going to war, that's their decision.

Finally, I teleport my units all the time, it can be useful but you have to know how to do it. I have units in AI territory, with no ROP. They ask me to leave. I politely say fine, I'll leave. Next turn, I don't leave (how rude!). The AI gets mildly pissed and demands I remove my troops immediately. I say fine, and choose the option "your troops will be moved automatically." The way it works is, my troops will be teleported to the nearest square outside their territory.

What this means is, if an AI unit teleports to the opposite side of your territory, it's because they were already more than halfway across. Kick them out before the get halfway (seriously, count the squares, I do), and I promise they will never teleport across. Of course, if you keep kicking them out over and over again they will eventually declare war on you, but again, that's their decision.

As Theseus said, learn the game.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Coracle

OK, everyone do a test. You all know what the AI does with REX/settler diarrhea marching settler/soldier combos into our territory and not leaving.

I remember when this was giving me problems, around the last week in october 2001.

I have found that it is quite easy to deal with the situation described, so easy that I dont' even think about it.

1. claim land that forms a blockade between the AI and the space you want for later, then build towards it.

2. Build temples or libraries to increase the cultural radius (or space your cities so there are no gaps.

3. Avoid trading your map.

4. expel them as soon as they enter your territory if they are crossing.

What's so difficult about that?

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by bongo
MosesPresley , there may be a penalty, you are just unable to see it.

WRONG, I know that in my case, very early in the game, ie little money, few techs, the Aztecs, who were broke, violated an ROP with me and they were able to renew their ROP with the Greeks who were bordering me. This crap goes on constantly in the game. The AI will march all over each others territories without penalty simply to go after my civ.

Originally posted by vmxa1
This says it all. What ever RoP action the AI does, it is the same for you. Just becasue you do not see the consequences, does not mean there are none. You can violate RoP and later bribe enough to get more deals, it just costs you

See above. I knew what resources the Aztecs had because prior to the violation we traded constantly. They were broke and were able to negotiate new ROPs and maintained the old ones.

I love this game, but it does have its faults, still.

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by Coracle
OK, everyone do a test. You all know what the AI does with REX/settler diarrhea marching settler/soldier combos into our territory and not leaving. If we attack them everyone hates the human forever. Let the human try doing the same thing to the AI - march those settler/soldiers in at the same rate and see how well you do with your military, infrastructure, etc.

If you declare war in a honorable way, none of the other AIs will like you less. To declare the war in a honorable way, you must not have any ongoing deals where you give anything per turn to that civ, and you cannot have any units inside enemy territory when declaring. So assuming you do this, no other than the attacked AI will hate you.
But you knew that of course...

Of course you won't be able to teleport your settlers magically to open tiles not on your map, among other things.

Why do you write this? Have you actually tested this or are you just writing about something you don't know?

I have actually done a test (search for it on CFC) where I made a map where both I and the AI had one island, and units on the other side's island that was unable to leave freely.

The test proved a few things:
* The human player can stay within enemy territory exactly as long as the AI before the "leave or declare war" comes. So no cheating here.
* The number of turns a unit can stay inside enemy territory is dependant of number of military units, range to closest enemy city, and number of non-military units (which counts much less than military units). Type of military units does not matter, so a MA can stay exactly as long as a warrior.
* When forced to leave, a unit is teleported to the closest uncontrolled or friendly controlled square. This may be unsettled territory on the other side or an otherwise unavailable island (since galleys are teleported to a coast square).
The rules for this is the same for the human and the AI, so you can get your units teleported as well.

One difference between the human and the AI is that the AI usually sends only one settler/spearman combo, and can therefore stay up to 4 turns before we can force it to leave, while the human player tends to consentrate its force a bit more and send in several military units at the same time, which kicks off the "leave or declare war" option after only a turn or two.
So if you want to get several units past the enemy, send them in one at a time, and the enemy must let them pass, just as the human player must.

But I guess you knew this as well Coracle, since you write about it again and again

BTW, cheating and stubborness with the Diplomatic and Trade AI is worse.

Could you be more specific, or is just more of the type: "If we attack them everyone hates the human forever." which is simply not true?

[vondrack]

Interesting info/test, theNiceOne!

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by Catt
BTW - especially for TheNiceOne - great thread at CFC. With respect to AI map knowledge, I still don't fully understand the full range of AI map knowledge. I did a similar test to your X map test and posted my hazily recollected thoughts in another thread not too long ago.

Catt: I have read your post before, and agree to it. I only tested that the AI determined the direction of a settler based on terrain and resources (even future ones) outside its explored area, but I didn't test whether it preferred special resources.

My guess is about what you conclude, that the AI simply gives a value to each square based on terrain and (future) resources when it decides where to settle.

The value of an unsettled resource square should be less if it already controlled at least one such square, and future resources should be worth less than existing, but I doubt this is the case. This should be possible to test though. I'll see if I get around to do it.

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by vondrack
Interesting info/test, theNiceOne!

Thanks. Except for diplomatic relations, all those suspected cheats can quite easily be tested by manually making maps to test for specific situations.

I have made such maps for testing Culture Flipping (no cheat), Border violation and teleportation (no cheat), AI galleys in sea/ocean (no cheat) and AI map knowledge (cheat).

[bongo]

theNiceOne

Just the kind of info I like to know.


MosesPresley , maybe the greek hates you more than they hate the aztecs? I haven't found any evidence that the AI gang up vs humans. It will look like they do sometimes cause they will all know if you are weak and take advantage of the situation. I've seen AI's move in like vultures against other civ's that have been seriously weakened after a war.

In a recent game I found that the russians were becoming dangerously strong so I formed an alliance with the germans and started an invasion on my own. The plan went well and both the germans and russians were weakened. At that point the chinese and japanese joined in vs the russians. In the end the once powerful russian empire were reduced to 2(from 18) cities. This was not a world vs russians war but simply two civs(japan & china) who seized the opportunity to grab some land from a weakened rival.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by bongo
MosesPresley , maybe the greek hates you more than they hate the aztecs? I haven't found any evidence that the AI gang up vs humans.

I didn't say they were ganging up on me. I am saying the AI doesn't enforce its border agreements against other AIs.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by theNiceOne

Thanks. Except for diplomatic relations, all those suspected cheats can quite easily be tested by manually making maps to test for specific situations.

I have made such maps for testing Culture Flipping (no cheat), Border violation and teleportation (no cheat), AI galleys in sea/ocean (no cheat) and AI map knowledge (cheat).

I find the culture flipping a most definite source of advantage to the human player at least up to regent. AI cities sometimes flip over to me without any of mine flipping to the AI.

Nothing flipped either way in my few incompleted deity games. I was far far behind in everything, including culture, in the deity games yet lost nothing to CF despite nearby AI cities.

I can not comprehend how there could be any AI cheating in the culture flipping. (If used properly CF could almost be described as a "human cheat" although "exploit" may be a more appropriate term).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by peterfharris
Nothing flipped either way in my few incompleted deity games. I was far far behind in everything, including culture, in the deity games yet lost nothing to CF despite nearby AI cities.

That's probably because no flips will happen if you have no foreign citizens and no foreign tiles are in your city radii. Factors like WLTKD, military forces, and culture total only modify the chances of flipping, you need foreign people or foreign tiles for there to be any chance at all.

I think in general most factors of the game, whether they are warfare, CF, or anything else, can be concentrated upon and built up very well by a human player. Humans can address a single goal from multiple angles, try to beat the system, and just generally manipulate any mini-game in Civ to a degree the AI just cannot hope to achieve. CF isn't unique in that regard; you'll find humans using better war strategy too almost 100% of the time (assuming they're any good).

[bongo]

MosesPresley , take a look at the tests made by theniceone. They explain alot. The AI will appearently tolerate a smaller number of foreign troops in their territory.

If an AI send large troops over someone else's territory without a ROP they may choose to ignore it. I mean, why commit sucide to protect somebody else? I will also turn a blind eye to massive border violation if I cannot hope to win the war that will follow a demand of withdrawel. Or if I'm happy with the fact that these troops are on their way to kick someone else's butt.

[theNiceOne]

Also note that the AI civs will make ROPs with each other all the time, and can therefore freely move within each other's territory.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by theNiceOne
Also note that the AI civs will make ROPs with each other all the time, and can therefore freely move within each other's territory.

DUH! Did you read my original post?

[HAND]

I don't think the AI gangs up on the human player (the only one that gets paranoid!).

I'm in the latter stages of a game at the moment on a large 12 civ map (monarch) with only 5 civs left! All 7 dead civs were destroyed by the other AI!
The dead civs didn't just "roll-over" either. I witnessed the some of the battles involved spying from my personal figther plane, checking for threatening troop movements towards my borders!
It was a very long and bloody death for the defeated AI and a very painful victory for the winner AI which lost about 40 Modern armor and many Mech Inf.

If you want a real reason to feel paranoid play PTW!

[Coracle]

Originally posted by HAND

If you want a real reason to feel paranoid play PTW!

You lost me there. Are you saying the AI conspires even MORE against the human in PTW than in the basic game??


(BTW, I'll get PTW when it is in the $9.95 bin).

[The Puny Celt]

If you play with the Respawn AI Civs option, the AI civ always re-starts with an extra settler, worker(s) and some military units. I mention that in this thread because the first time I came across it, as I was about to wipe out the Roman's last city for the second time and was confronted with a lot more units than they could have produced in the space of a few turns, I shouted at my screen "You little cheat - caught you red-handed!"
But it's not really "cheating", it's just an advantage the AI gets under that option. And if you don't like it, you can always turn off the option.

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by The Puny Celt
If you play with the Respawn AI Civs option, the AI civ always re-starts with an extra settler, worker(s) and some military units. I mention that in this thread because the first time I came across it, as I was about to wipe out the Roman's last city for the second time and was confronted with a lot more units than they could have produced in the space of a few turns, I shouted at my screen "You little cheat - caught you red-handed!"
But it's not really "cheating", it's just an advantage the AI gets under that option. And if you don't like it, you can always turn off the option.

This only happens on the higher difficulty levels. The amount of units they get is equal to the starting bonus, BTW. The bonus is:
Monarch - 2 defensive and 1 offensive land units.
Emperor - 4 defensive and 2 offensive land units, and 1 worker.
Deity - 8 defensive and 4 offensive land units, 2 workers, and 1 settler.

@Coracle: No, he's talking about multiplayer. Humans conspire against each other.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by theNiceOne

Thanks. Except for diplomatic relations, all those suspected cheats can quite easily be tested by manually making maps to test for specific situations.

I am now fairly well convinced that the Settler Rush after trading maps is an illusion (simulated intelligence). Many of you may remember this position:


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm11/bc2710-Borders.htm

Three Japanese cities completely block the Chinese from expanding south. I replayed the position, but instead of settling the south, I left it open and unexplored. Nevertheless, eventually the Chinese (and the French) lined up on my borders trying to pass. I played defense, blocking their movement over my land. When I finally got Map Making, I traded maps. They did not have information about the southern lands.

I think the illusion occurs because the AI apparently settles all available areas of the map that don't require crossing your territory first. By that point, most any player will have settled the territory in question, or the AI may have already discovered Map Making and sent a Galley around. The illusion is pretty strong, because suddenly my borders were full of rival Settlers, just about the time that Map Making was discovered.

The AI knows the entire map, all the time. But why doesn't the AI pop huts near its own borders? Does it "know" there are Barbarians within?

[Splint]

Regarding the ai tech trading - I remember a post a while ago where someone said there was another feature to help the ai that couldnt be accessed in the editor, namely that the selling ai will always accept whatever the buying ai can afford even if it is below the assigned ai tech trading value.

For instance if the ai tech trading value is 130 then it will sell a tech valued at 130 to another ai for 100 but if the buying ai can only afford 50 gold then the selling ai will acceppt that. According to the post, it will also accept nothing if the other ai is broke!

Sorry I can't remember who posted this ( it was a few months ago ) but I was wondering if anyone has any views on it ( e.g is it BS ). In my experience on regent the computer players on the same continent always trade all their techs to each other ( even broke ai's get all the techs ) and this would certainly explain how this happens.

[theNiceOne]

Splint: You only remember half of the story. On the difficulty settings in the editor there is a AI - AI trading bonus which is from 100 and upwards, and this setting affects how the AIs trade (which you have understood). This setting affects the minimum value the seller will accept - not the maximum value it will want, as you think.

Assume the setting to be 130 as in your example. This means that the AI owning a tech worth 130 gold will still want 130 gold from other AI, but if will accept down to 100 gold if this is the maximum the other AI civ can afford. It will not sell it for less than 100 gold though.

If it was as you suggest, that the AI would even give the tech for free, then a broke AI would always be on par with the tech leader - which is not the case.

[Splint]

In my experience, in the beginnning part of a game all the ai players are on a par regarding tech ( even the broke ones ). Every game I've played at regent they all give away their tech to each other and even an ai player with no money to buy anything from me can get 3 or 4 techs next round. This only stops if they start fighting each other.

I think u misundertood what I meant - the 100 in the example is the minimum the ai will accept ( I understood that idea ) but the post I referred to suggested that this is actually false and the ai will accept far less. I think the guy who posted it was suggesting that the designers were not exposing the full story of ai tech trading in the editor.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Splint
In my experience, in the beginnning part of a game all the ai players are on a par regarding tech ( even the broke ones ). Every game I've played at regent they all give away their tech to each other and even an ai player with no money to buy anything from me can get 3 or 4 techs next round. This only stops if they start fighting each other.

Perhaps the confusion lies in the "100 gold" terminology. It is not just "gold" that the AI will accept, but anything with a value of 100 gold. In the beginning part of the game, there is a lot of tech trading -- AIs trading one another (and the human) the free techs with which they started. If contact is wide-ranging, you also might have 4 or 5 different research paths -- voila, once again lots of tech to trade (even without gold). You might also notice a bit of a purt of tech trading when map-making strats to become diffused -- a new asset (maps) make their way into the trading circles.

Catt

[MiloMilo]

What's more, remember that as more civs get a tech, it becomes valued less by them, and thus cheaper for the civ trying to buy it. Plus, if an AI has researched half of a tech, it can get it for half-price. (Right?)

For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure that's an illusion, splint. I have a current game where three civs met each other and traded all their techs, and have easily been able to outresearch me when I don't trade with them. But the other two civs, on the other side of me from the three, never contacted us four biggies, fell behind, and now have now way to catch up, since they have nothing of value to trade.

The conclusion is in that last sentence: AIs with lots of tech will NOT give them to less-developed AIs with nothing of value to trade.

[HAND]

Originally posted by Coracle


You lost me there. Are you saying the AI conspires even MORE against the human in PTW than in the basic game??


(BTW, I'll get PTW when it is in the $9.95 bin).

I'm just saying that a human player is more likely to back-stab another human player with greater verocity and cunning than an AI player ever could!

Say you're in a PTW game with other human players...You are invaded by 4 other human players at once with no warning whatsoever, to grab your- numerous resources/luxuries/fertile land/strategic point etc(who needs a reason to invade!?). They had come to an agreement to carve up your land between themselves. That is a good reason to be paranoid. Similar things happened in Civ2 MP.