Thread Tools
Old December 9, 2002, 20:14   #91
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Perhaps because the AI remains in its peaceful "REX" phase (or something like it) until the OCN is reached. Once its empire is fully "fleshed out", it enters "production" or "military" phase, and looks for reasons to pick fights.
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
This for sure is true if the AI is under the OCN and has room to expand.
AU 202? Seems that more than a few of us experienced AI aggression well before the REX phase was even half over (I know, I know, there is more than just OCN considerations in AI aggression ).

But seriously, with the use of a modified OCN the only significant departure from what one might otherwise expect (that I've heard of) is an AI ending the REX phase despite available land.

Catt
Catt is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:15   #92
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
I'd help out alexman, but AU202 put me way back in my schoolwork. I'm eagerly awaiting the results though (my AU202 game could have benefitted from a Killer AI...).

Edit: I just thought of a simple test. Put 2 equally aggressive civs on a very small island and play with the OCN (some tests at around 5, some at around 50). The differene between the overall AI behaviours should become apparent...


Dominae

Last edited by Dominae; December 9, 2002 at 20:21.
Dominae is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:29   #93
Tharsonius
Chieftain
 
Tharsonius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
alexman: how did you test it? Is there a way to set up a game with only AI-players?
Tharsonius is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:32   #94
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
I gave myself a 1-tile island and played in debug mode. Join the worker, set production to wealth, remove all animations, and press enter for 20 minutes!
alexman is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:40   #95
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
alexman, here's an improvement on your methodology: put a heavy object (a small paperweight will do) on the Enter key. Although this may not improve results, it could actually allow for more tests to be run (due to lower boredom factor). Hope this helps.


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:43   #96
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
PS. Any help to get more data would be appreciated.
I'll help . Haven't tried debug mode yet, and despite my concerns re: OCCing and its effect on the sample, it probably makes sense to get lots of easy samples at 20 min a pop before rolling it out to a wider test in full game mode.

I'll try and do an OCC side-by-side tonight if I can get the time.

Catt

EDIT: at Dominae. I had a slightly diffferent boredom-reduction plan. Beer and Monday Night Football. Lots of beer.
Catt is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 20:54   #97
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by Catt
EDIT: at Dominae. I had a slightly diffferent boredom-reduction plan. Beer and Monday Night Football. Lots of beer.
Oh I get it: you're going to rest your beer on the Enter key! Smart thinking...




Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 21:18   #98
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Great discussion guys!

(And thanks for chiming in Soren, but you need to be a little less opaque )

My first efforts at generating killer AI civs, based solely on game settings, were ultimately predicated on the theory that differing starting conditions would create 'rich' and 'poor' AI civs, and that there would be a self-reinforcing loop where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Two comments, given all that's been learned since then:

1) I think the changes to AI civ behavior to date, including both ours and Soren's, will contribute to this taking place. Better mining, for instance, will increase the performance gap between an AI civ gifted with shielded grassland and one stuck with jungle.

2) But that doesn't get the AI civs to exploit relative advantage... or at least we don;t know what does. The whole impetus for me originally was the frustration at discovering a new continent equally divided by however many AI civs, when one of them clearly could have pulled an Arrian Deception ( ).

Hmmm...

What are the drivers for AI civ aggression / expansion:
* Resources (I almost always play 3B under the theory that clumping will somehow help)
* Aggression rating
* Military strength
* OCN and room (don;t forget this interplays with map settings too)

Soren at the time suggested giving the AI civs room, and thus time, to more fully develop in order to become killers. I'm guessing that he thinks increasing OCN in the same situation will just result in increased REXing.

With all due respect, Soren, I think you are missing what we are trying to accomplish. It's not that we are looking for more *successful* civs... I think our mutual improvements will already do that, especially for those blessed with good starting environments.

It's OK with me if an AI civ REXes more, in fact I'm sure it's better for the ones with good starting environments... I just want to know that when the rich meet the poor, the rich kick some f-cking ass. To me, that says:

AU Mod and PTW 1.14
125% OCN (maybe even 150%)
60-70% water
1 civ less than max
3 billion
Wet
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 21:26   #99
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Regarding testing, could someone play with this idea:

* OCC for the human

* Squarish main continent with 3-4 AI civs

* Design the map to give each civ wildly different starting conditions, including terrain and resources (i.e., rich and poor)

* Variables to test would be # of useable land tiles per civ and OCN.

Set beer can on Enter.

There's got to be a balancing point between the 'success' of the AI civs and the rich taking advantage of their relative strength.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old December 9, 2002, 23:09   #100
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Regarding testing, could someone play with this idea:

* OCC for the human

* Squarish main continent with 3-4 AI civs

* Design the map to give each civ wildly different starting conditions, including terrain and resources (i.e., rich and poor)

* Variables to test would be # of useable land tiles per civ and OCN.

Set beer can on Enter.

There's got to be a balancing point between the 'success' of the AI civs and the rich taking advantage of their relative strength.
Well . . . [looking down one's nose], we won't be setting our beer can on Enter. We might be persuaded to occasionally tap enter with the fine rounded end of our ale bottle or pint. [/looking down one's nose]

My thoughts are running the other way -- with a random start, or with a more or less equal start, I'd like to get a sense on whether increased OCN does actually produce a greater proclivity towards "killer-ness" or at least towards more aggressive exploitation of advantage. The self-reinforcing loop should naturally follow (although use of "should" in a complex environment is risky in and of itself). Part of the reason I am disinclined to test with starting positions whose characteristics are clearly disimilar is that I think you were on to something with the 3B world maps -- clumping of terrain features necessarily means that starting positions offer different inherent values -- and that the advantageous start is more likely to produce a Killer AI than other tweaks we've played with. But map features themselves haven't seemed to produce the "killer instinct" needed to exploit relative advantage.

My hope is that a test from random conditions (with some degree of natural variation, of course) together with an increased OCN will produce a proclivity towards "killer instinct." If true, then map variations, combined with the "killer instinct" mod, should produce a Killer AI through the strengthening of the self-reinforcing advantage of a favorable starting position.

Now I will open another ale and proceed to press Enter repeatedly (and then play some AU 202).

Catt

EDIT: Completely forgot to make clear my main concern . Given Soren's concern about our OCN idea, I would like to isolate whether it actually produces more aggression or not. If yes, then I think it adds to the likelihood of creating Killer AIs (building on natural advantages). If not, then we need not go further, nor be confused by a "non-Killer AI" simply using its inherent advantages to look "killer" in a random (not necessarily repeatable) fashion.

Last edited by Catt; December 9, 2002 at 23:20.
Catt is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 00:44   #101
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
ENTER Key: Doesn't it work to
Change Prefs to Not Wait At End Of Turn?

I disagree with the premise that the AI builds predominately more mines with 1.14. Just haven't seen it in my games. Not AU, no mods to AI build prefs, just a few unit changes and OCN at +50%.
__________________
JB
I play BtS (3.19) -- Noble or Prince, Rome, marathon speed, huge hemispheres (2 of them), aggressive AI, no tech brokering. I enjoy the Hephmod Beyond mod. For all non-civ computer uses, including internet, I use a Mac.
Jaybe is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 11:23   #102
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Jaybe, for some reason no wait at the end of the turn doesn't work. Maybe because if it did, since I was producing Wealth, I wouldn't be able to do anything to stop the game until it ended!

I don't believe PTW 1.14 changed the AI's desire to irrigate in general. The irrigation is partly a result of the AI's inability to use the luxury slider and needing more food to support entertainers, so it wouldn't be to its advantage to stop irrigating anyway. What 1.14f fixed was that the AI no longer unnecessarily irrigates grassland tiles in Despotism. This improves its production big time in the Ancient age.

I ran another test last night (beer or no beer on the enter key, it's still boring, and takes way longer than 20 minutes when the AI are at war BTW), and the higher OCN didn't seem to increase aggressiveness this time.

It seems that the AI becomes more aggressive (because it wants to use all the units being built instead of settlers) once it runs out of room to expand, or when it reaches the OCN, whichever comes first.

If the map is such that the OCN is reached when there is still room to expand (which is rarely the case when you play with the maximum number of civs), the AI will actually become more aggressive by reducing the OCN, as Soren suggested. If room runs out before the OCN is reached (which is usually the case when you play with maximum civs), increasing the OCN looks like it doesn't affect the AI's aggression.

If this is indeed the case, I still think that the AI would benefit from increasing the OCN because a) the game has less corruption than when Soren first established that the AI should stop expanding at the OCN, and b) the AI rarely expands enough to win by domination.

However, under Theseus' settings for a Killer AI (one less civ than max) the increased OCN would make the AI spend more time REXing instead of building units and infrastructure to attack its neighbors. Is that what we want?
alexman is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 11:38   #103
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 06:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae


Why?

Perhaps because the AI remains in its peaceful "REX" phase (or something like it) until the OCN is reached. Once its empire is fully "fleshed out", it enters "production" or "military" phase, and looks for reasons to pick fights. Thus, the OCN and AI aggressiveness may be inversely related (at least indirectly). Just a guess, though.


Dominae
more or less, this is true. Once the land grab phase is over, the OCN's biggest influence on the AI is whether they decide to raze or capture cities (which is also influenced by other factors...)
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 11:49   #104
BRC
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Prince
 
BRC's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
Quote:
more or less, this is true. Once the land grab phase is over, the OCN's biggest influence on the AI is whether they decide to raze or capture cities (which is also influenced by other factors...)
A question for Soren: If an AI is trimmed back to half the OCN later on in the game, and there are still open city spots, will the AI revert to it's REX or will it continue in it's "production" phase?

If someone else knows the answer, just throw it down. Don't need to waste Soren's time.
BRC is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 12:04   #105
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by BRC
A question for Soren: If an AI is trimmed back to half the OCN later on in the game, and there are still open city spots, will the AI revert to it's REX or will it continue in it's "production" phase?
The "REX" and "production" phases are just guesses, by the way (the AI always seems to be looking for new land to colonize, although maybe this has something to do with excess Settlers). To answer your question, an AI civ that gets knocked down to a few cities will expand again if land is available (or else Domination would be a lot easier!). I have no idea if this has anything to do with the various phases.


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 12:11   #106
BRC
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Prince
 
BRC's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
Quote:
To answer your question, an AI civ that gets knocked down to a few cities will expand again if land is available (or else Domination would be a lot easier!).
Most of the time, the AI overexpands at the beginning of the game, and is ripe to be hit. This is why archer rushes are so effective. I understand when you say they will expand again, but at what cost. Is it a full blown REX, comparable to their Ancient Age expansion, or is it a more controlled settling of the land? Basically, do they spread their defenses too thin and make it easy to overrun them again??
BRC is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 12:27   #107
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by BRC
Most of the time, the AI overexpands at the beginning of the game, and is ripe to be hit. This is why archer rushes are so effective.
Actually, I think the AI handles early expansion quite well: it escorts its Settlers, produces defenders in each new city, and does so at a reasonably fast pace.

Archers rushes are effective because us humans know the AI's habits (and the AI doesn't know ours!). Rushes are also effective against humans, by the way. Striking a fine balance between expansion and defense against a possible rush is not easy. This is primarily why I think Expansionist is amazing.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRC
I understand when you say they will expand again, but at what cost. Is it a full blown REX, comparable to their Ancient Age expansion, or is it a more controlled settling of the land? Basically, do they spread their defenses too thin and make it easy to overrun them again??
This an interesting question, but purely academic. If a civ is knocked down to half its cities, "spreading its defenses too thin" is irrelevant, because it's going to lose in the long run. Even if the AI did "regroup" and solidify its defenses, it would just prolong the inevitable. The point of the 'Killer AI' effort is to teach the AI to "go the distance" and wipe out such defeated civs.


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 12:43   #108
BRC
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Prince
 
BRC's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
Quote:
Actually, I think the AI handles early expansion quite well: it escorts its Settlers, produces defenders in each new city, and does so at a reasonably fast pace.
I agree. From reading Vel's earlier threads, they were amazed at the speed that the AI expands. I shouldn't have said "overexpanding", but I feel that this is one of the best times to hit the AI.

Quote:
This an interesting question, but purely academic. If a civ is knocked down to half its cities, "spreading its defenses too thin" is irrelevant, because it's going to lose in the long run. Even if the AI did "regroup" and solidify its defenses, it would just prolong the inevitable. The point of the 'Killer AI' effort is to teach the AI to "go the distance" and wipe out such defeated civs.
Here is where they tie in.

Let us say that on another continent, the Iroqouis are mauling the Aztecs. The Aztecs lose many cities. Do they start building Settlers instead of Military Units? If the answer is yes, then the Iroqouis should continue to run them over.
Now from the other side.
The Iroqouis are punishing the Aztecs. They have not yet reached OCN, and so are still building settlers pretty fast. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for them to keep producing military units so that the attack doesn't bog down?
Depending on how it works, the Iroqouis could end up as a "Killer AI".

What I want to know is if the Aztecs prevent the Iroqouis from becoming a Killer by locking down and fighting a slow war of attrition? This would not be a good thing.
BRC is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 13:26   #109
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by BRC
What I want to know is if the Aztecs prevent the Iroqouis from becoming a Killer by locking down and fighting a slow war of attrition? This would not be a good thing.
I think I understand your point. My comments:

1. The AI is rarely so focused as to build only Settlers (or a majority of Settlers). The sole exception is at the beginning of the game, where the AI does appear to have a definite REX phase. I think what you're asking is whether it can be knocked back into this phase during war. I would guess: usually not. If enemy units are threatening their cities, AI civs will tend to build defenders (in my experience).

2. The major problem in AI behaviour that I see with the "Iroquois mauling the Aztecs" scenario is that the Iroquois will be too open to a peace treaty. Unless the Aztecs have almost nothing to give, the Iroquois will stop their onslaught at a moment's notice. The difference between humans and AIs is therefore not "Am I close to the OCN?" but "Am I almost done defeating this civ?". Unfortunately, we cannot change this particular AI behaviour with the editor.

3. Confusing the AI is possible in some situations (thinking it's directly at war, believe now is a good time to build a Wonder), so maybe it is possible to trick it into entering a new REX phase. Again, I'm not sure.


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 13:34   #110
BRC
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Prince
 
BRC's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
Quote:
I think what you're asking is whether it can be knocked back into this phase during war.
Yes, this is what I'm asking.

Quote:
I would guess: usually not. If enemy units are threatening their cities, AI civs will tend to build defenders (in my experience).
Ok. I just didn't know.

Quote:
2. The major problem in AI behaviour that I see with the "Iroquois mauling the Aztecs" scenario is that the Iroquois will be too open to a peace treaty. Unless the Aztecs have almost nothing to give, the Iroquois will stop their onslaught at a moment's notice. The difference between humans and AIs is therefore not "Am I close to the OCN?" but "Am I almost done defeating this civ?". Unfortunately, we cannot change this particular AI behaviour with the editor.
Yeah.... The Iroqouis will stop. Is this where aggression factor could kick in? Does aggression affect how likely the AI accepts a peace treaty?
BRC is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 15:21   #111
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Report from the Labs 2
Too much beer, not enough civ.

Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
I ran another test last night (beer or no beer on the enter key, it's still boring, and takes way longer than 20 minutes when the AI are at war BTW), and the higher OCN didn't seem to increase aggressiveness this time.
Ain't that the truth. I am up to about 1700 AD in my "standard" game. One AI has been at war for over 1000 years. The other continent has been at war off-and-on for 700+ out of the last 1000 years. Much more than 20 minutes invested in this one (although I have found it much more interesting than alexman becuase this was the first time I had run a "debug mode" game and it's interesting to watch the AI development habits).

In my test game (only one sample) Egypt systematically destroyed 2 of its 3 continent mates and was well on the way to owning an entire (large) continent. It then began razing cities instead of keeping them, and wasn't settling the exposed land.

With Soren re-visiting to explain his concerns a bit more (and to inadvertantly provide an explanation as to why my Egypt razed and razed), I'm not really sure that continued "increased OCN" testing is worthwhile, at least in connection with a desire to induce more aggressive exploitation of relative advantage. What do you all think?

Quote:
If this is indeed the case, I still think that the AI would benefit from increasing the OCN because a) the game has less corruption than when Soren first established that the AI should stop expanding at the OCN, . . .
The current mod increases it by 50%, right? (For AI FP placement reasons, not corruption iteration reasons, of course). Let's hear some reports from AU 202.

Quote:
. . . and b) the AI rarely expands enough to win by domination.
With Soren's comment re: razing, I wonder if the AI will ever win via domination. Maybe another reason to increase OCN (aggression will still trigger with lack of elbow room)?

Catt
Catt is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 15:35   #112
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Catt, thanks for the report. You're right, I found it very interesting the first time I tried it too.

After your tests and Soren's comments, I'm convinced that we should increase the OCN, if only to avoid razing cities that could have been productive (reduced corruption), and to threaten domination.

I also agree that there is no need to further test the increase to the OCN in connection to AI aggressiveness.

BTW, the current mod makes no increase to the OCN at all. It gives the AI a 50% bonus to the OCN by way of the percentage in the difficulty levels, but apparently it's the raw OCN number that signals the end of expansion. (Otherwise our tests at 150% OCN and 67% the difficulty percentage would not result in any change in expansion).

Good work! This was a good series of posts!
alexman is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 16:11   #113
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Catt, thanks for the report. You're right, I found it very After your tests and Soren's comments, I'm convinced that we should increase the OCN, if only to avoid razing cities that could have been productive (reduced corruption), and to threaten domination.

I also agree that there is no need to further test the increase to the OCN in connection to AI aggressiveness.
I agree - I'd still like to experiment with an increased OCN; I just no longer believe that it can assist in exploiting relative advantage. If it helps stop the razing without creating problems elsewhere, it would be welcome. [Egypt wouldn't settle the land, but others would. Egypt would decide that the land was too cluttered and would wipe everybody out. New civs would again settle (since Egypt wouldn't). And Egypt would again decide to raze everything to the ground.]

Quote:
BTW, the current mod makes no increase to the OCN at all. It gives the AI a 50% bonus to the OCN by way of the percentage in the difficulty levels, but apparently it's the raw OCN number that signals the end of expansion. (Otherwise our tests at 150% OCN and 67% the difficulty percentage would not result in any change in expansion).
Doh! I knew that.

Quote:
Good work! This was a good series of posts!
Yup. I had fun.

Catt
Catt is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 16:54   #114
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
I agree that OCN should go up for the AI just to stop the razing habits that Catt's Egypt got into.

I played a standard PTW game in which Japan razed a gigantic subcontinent of Mongolian cities, and only kept cities with access to resources. While the resource keeping was smart, the giant whole in the map meant that all of the other civs put all kinds of distance corrupted cities on former MOngolia, and Japan's strength didn't go up nearly enough to relfect winning such a definitive victory.

If Japan (or Egypt) had kept all of the cities then they would have been in a much stronger position, even if many of them were corrupted.

Would it be to the AI's advantage, without being too much of a human helper, to reduce corruption levels with the slider?

That way AI's (and human) distant cities that they keep under increased OCN percentage would be even more profitable for them, assuming they build courthouses and police stations in them.

Since humans are better at dealing with corruption than AIs are, (better city placement, chopping forests for production, disbanding military units, etc) making corruption less crippling would, I think, help the AI out more than it would us.
Fosse is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 17:03   #115
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Corruption stays as is for the human!
Don't get me started with all those reduced-corruption mods out there!

Sorry, just acting out my signature.

However, we could play with the slider at Chieftain (a level which is used exclusively by the AI in this mod), instead of increasing the percentage of optimal cities to compensate for the bad FP placement.

As many have stated, this is not the ideal way of improving the AI though.
alexman is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 17:16   #116
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
I'm confused: how often does the AI raze cities if it's already reached or surpassed the OCN? In my games, I've never seen a big AI leave land unclaimed. Rather, it always gobbles everything up (much like the human player). In 'Son of SVC', the Germans were nearing a Domination victory by the time I launched the Spaceship. Have things changed with PTW?


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 17:45   #117
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Alexman, I've no problems with human corruption as is, and am in agreement with your rant (though scared! Plese don't hurt me! )

If it can be changed for only the AI and not the human then I'm all for that... if it can't then I would favor a global reduction IF we can show that it would be more beneficial to the AI than to the humans.

You say it's not the ideal way to improve the AI... but will it cause any improvment? My guess is it's effect would be to increase the development speed of units and infrastructure, since it give them more shields/commerce per worked tile. Does it have any negative effects on the AI?

Dominae, I don't have exact answers, but I've played several games where wars past the middle ages result in the AIs burning down twenty or thirty cities in a war, leaving a barren wasteland that gets filled in by smaller powers.

My interpretation of Soren's earlier post is that the AI will burn any city past its OCN unless that city has a wonder or access to resources or luxuries. I would also hope that it would keep any cities that it captures that it also founded or has signifigant culture. (for example, I take Babylon, it has no wonders, Babylon reaches its OCN and retakes its old capital... they shouldn't burn it).
Fosse is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 17:50   #118
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Dominae, perhaps your Germans had very high culture compared to their victims in that game? I'm sure another factor that determines whether or not the AI razes a city is the probability of a culture flip of that city. Another is, as Fosse mentioned, access to resources or a Wonder.

As an extreme experiment, reduce the OCN to 1 and watch the AI never build a settler. I did it yesterday. Definitely not domination threat from such an AI.

Fosse, the AI's corruption can be changed without affecting the human, because in this mod the AI plays at a difficulty level that is not meant for the human. I say this is not the ideal way to help the AI, because the idea is to make it react better to game situations, not to make it cheat more.

Last edited by alexman; December 10, 2002 at 17:56.
alexman is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 17:57   #119
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm confused: how often does the AI raze cities if it's already reached or surpassed the OCN? In my games, I've never seen a big AI leave land unclaimed. Rather, it always gobbles everything up (much like the human player). In 'Son of SVC', the Germans were nearing a Domination victory by the time I launched the Spaceship. Have things changed with PTW?
I'm only making inferences (i.e., wild-ass guesses) based on Soren's short post from above, the "debug mode" game I'm watching, and memories of other games -- but I think that OCN must be a reasonably important factor in an AI's decision to capture or raze (I would guess that flip chances, "terrain value" and the like also are included in the calculations).

I have never seen the AI win by domination. To be honest, I've never heard of the AI winning by domination.

In the "debug game" (again, admittedly only one sample), Egypt has taken a large portion of the largest continent. It is also a cultural powerhouse, having built a bunch of wonders and enjoying a strong infrastructure. In wiping out a couple of smaller civs, it seemingly refused to keep certain cities -- the terrain was decent (though no, or very few, resources), and the enemy culture was not a danger. Not only was it razing, but it wasn't building settlers to settle the land -- but it was building workers and other non-military units / improvements.

I have seen games where, if it gets down to an AI civ and the human, unless the human settles razed lands, they will remain open. Always assumed it was the AI's attitude towards OCN at work, but never tied that attitude to a decision to raze or capture. I briefly went back to "Son of SVC" -- I don't think your Bismarck was very close to domination. Compare your winning minimap to Dave McW's upon his domination win.

It might be worth the twenty minutes to play a human-AI "duel" on a small or standrad map, lots of land, with the human on a one-tile island, in debug mode. No possible war means only 20 minutes of debug mode (). The way would be clear for an easy AI domination win if the AI settled enough of it's large continent (on a small map, or even a standard map, would the AI continue to settle, or stop short of Domination?)

Catt

EDIT: Doh! Cross-posted with alexman. And his OCN=1 test much easier and simpler than my duel. ("give me a santa hat" )
Catt is offline  
Old December 10, 2002, 18:19   #120
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Catt, you're right in saying that Bismarck was not going to win via Domination in my Son of SVC game right away. Probably he needed another 30-50 turns or so. But from the time I started building the SS to its launch, he almost doubled his land mass through conquest alone. He didn't raze many cities, as far as I could see. Maybe he didn't win earlier because he was in fact razing cities...I wasn't looking too closely at the time. But there's probably a good explanation for this (relative culture, etc.).

This is how (I think) the AI should behave: if it's above the OCN and has low relative culture, it should raze and rebuild; if it's under the OCN, it should always conquer; and if it's over the OCN and has high relative culture, it should always conquer. The second scenario isn't exactly optimal, but big civs are usually the stronger ones, so I don't think it happens too often. Now, the question is: does the AI do this?


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team