A.I toughness - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  A.I toughness

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   A.I toughness

Shining1 posted 02-25-99 08:17 PM ET
It seems as if the aggression of the A.I on the highest levels is simply intended to make the game that much harder to win. While on the Librarian/Specialist levels the A.I can be pleasant, if you don't provoke it, the high level A.I tends to react very aggressively, regardless of how you behave. Even the 'nice' characters, like Deirdre and Lal are against you.
IMO, while this makes the game more challenging, it also makes a less rich experience when compared to the more rounded interaction with the A.I on lower levels.
Which leaves this player in a hopeless position, because those levels are far too easy to win.
Are there any ways to 'soften' the A.I's interactions toward you on the higher levels (short of rewriting the faction profiles)? Can there ever be peace?

TheClockKing posted 02-26-99 01:11 AM ET
Deirdre is usually against me and I think of her as an evil rather than nice character, Lai splits either way. I play on Librarian and the level before it as then you and the computer are equal more or less. I agree that at the tougher levels they should not make the computer more psychotic but then this does tend to make the game harder.
yin26 posted 02-26-99 01:35 AM ET
Before anybody labels me as a SMAC basher (I've posted a few other topics trying to isolate the flaws in this game), I do recognize this as a great game.
And I haven't actually played the game yet at the highest level, so if other people have different experiences with the A.I. please set me straight so I won't feel like ignoring the two highest levels.
HOWEVER:
The (seeming) fact that the best Firaxis could do to make the game harder at higher levels was to make the A.I. illogically difficult shows a lack of respect (or understanding) for how players want to win a game at higher levels.
I don't want to beat warmongering idiots who have no regard for anything anywhere. I want to beat opponents who are smarter at ALL aspects of the game--how they govern, how they negotiate, and, of course, how they eventually attack me with such coordinated brilliance that I actually LEARN to play better the next time--until I finally, through becoming a much better player, can match wits and resources against the toughest opponents imaginable.
I understand that designing such a game would take staggering effort, but don't insult me by making me play against nerotic fools and calling that "Transcendence."
Again, I shouldn't speak until I've encountered these problems myself, but if the game really plays like that (for no reason--I can understand if particular playing styles cause the problem), then what a disappointment.
I'd love to read more support for the A.I. at the highest levels. Thanks.
Dire posted 02-26-99 02:24 AM ET
I haven't played a whole lot of SMAC, but all my games have been thinker level.
The higher level AI isn't exceedingly terrible. It sometimes spontaneously declares war with no apparent reason, but that's probably because I always never give them money/tech when they ask In my last game, Santiago would always demand a cash payment every time I talked to her - I always gave it to her and she never declared vendetta...however when I became powerful enough, I refused her demand and of course she declared vendetta.
Your social engineering choices play a large role in the AI's relationship towards you: I managed to ally with the Morganites due to my free market, while everyone else had declared vendetta against me. Sometimes social choices are not even enough: I was allied to the Gaians one turn, then they broke the pact and declared vendetta the next even though I had a Green economy! I proceeded to destroy the Gaians until they surrendered. The Gaians always seem to surrender if they become overpowered, while other factions fight to the death.
All my examples were actually from the same game (that shows how little SMAC I have been playing)...I'd be interested to hear what other people think.
Centaurion posted 02-26-99 06:47 AM ET
The AI does more than often react in very unrealistic ways. In my current game, I�m playing as UoP and my faction is leading in every possible way, (I�m playing Talent)
still, Almost every faction is/has declaring vendetta agianst me. I�ve destroyed Yang and Morgan (Morgan is almost never afraid of a fight no matter how pathetic his empire is)
but the Spartans/Peacekeepers/Believing is still treathning every time I speak to them...
Wouldn�t you expect that they would start to suck up to me or something?
Ender4000 posted 02-26-99 07:23 AM ET
I haven't had any problems with this. The AI is much more friendly than it ever was in Civ II IMO. If you are the most powerful the computer should go to war with you immediately, they need to gang up on you. When I'm going to go to war with someone I tend to go after the strongest first, if you beat them now you'll save yourself a lot of grief later.
Centaurion posted 02-26-99 01:39 PM ET
But the other factions have no chance in hell to beat me....
Scrubby posted 02-26-99 01:52 PM ET
Centaurion:
You want the computer to be less harsh on you, the faction in the lead, because they "have no chance". Would you prefer they give up and automatically give you the win? Then we'd be reading posts like:
AI too easy on difficult level -- they just give up!
I have a difficult time understanding people who complain about the bloody difficulty. If it's too hard TURN IT DOWN. If it's too easy TURN IT UP. If you want it right in between.. tooooo bad! If you want it to be a rewarding gaming experience shouldn't you expect a little hardship? If you want munchkinism go ahead "cheat" or play citizen, hell I do sometimes. Just have fun! It isn't a contest! I'm raving!
agoraphobe posted 02-26-99 02:08 PM ET
Once again, one has to guard against overgeneralization here. These days I always play on transcend level and although the AI is more "hostile" as one would expect (it's supposed to be more difficult) there's still plenty of nuance in its behavior that gives me breathing room and manuvering space, in my experience.
Brian Reynolds addressed this question in an interview with an online PC game reviewer. I don't recall all of the details, but it dealt with how the current faction rankings affected their attitude towards one another, and at what play levels do arbitrary advantages accrue to the AI. On the first, the #1 and #2 ranked factions are always in some degree of hostility with one another (not necessarily war), and if #1 was double the strength of #2, you could expect qualitatively more hostility all around. The behavior of other rankings I don't recall. On the second, the "even playing field", according to Reynolds, is at Librarian level (correct me if I'm wrong). Beyond that, the AI gets faster build rates, etc., and no doubt (although Reynolds didn't make this clear) gets hostile sooner than later.
Keep in mind also that Social Engineering choices make a big difference. That's why one should avoid overgeneralization and instead "timeline" concrete instances of what you think you're seeing. I recall a thread that started up here after Demo 1.2 was released, where many thought the AI had suddenly and arbitrarily more hostile. That thread died out quite awhile ago. It was an overgeneralization.
Just think: If faction #1 was 2X faction #2 and I was one of the lesser factions, I'd be fighting like the devil against #1. Yes, I'd be very "neurotic" about my survival. If it were the converse, I'd be very surprised if the AI didn't do the same.
AI is by far the most difficult thing to program into a game. That's why commercial games are usually crap, short time-to-market cycles don't allow for good AI development (I'm sure the Pentagon/CIA have GREAT AI in their simulations!). The AI in SMAC represents a _qualitative_ improvement over CIV. In fact, it is the most significant improvement in the game, and the most significant contribution of SMAC to this genre.
Fenris posted 02-26-99 02:37 PM ET
The AI player will turn on you if your integrity level is too low. If you break treaties don't expect those that make treaties with you to honor them. If you knuckle under to each demand, then suddenly stop (even if you think you are stronger) don't expect the AI to automaticly accept this. Also, just because a faction has a vendetta against you doesn't mean that you're automaticly going to get into a shooting war. I've had games where a faction or factions showed vendetta for more than a hundred turns and we never traded shots (granted we were on seperate continents).
Usually, (and I play at Librarian or above)I've seen the AI play consistantly. It's not been overly aggressive. It will, however, turn aggressive if it thinks you are barganing from a position of weakness.
redryder posted 02-26-99 03:01 PM ET
The AI has some shortcomings at the upper levels is an evident truth if you play enough. The AI gives up if you smack up side the console hard enough. Just finished a game where I as YOH had beaten the other factions back hard. Like down to 3 bases each and the AI for those factions just sat there. Didn't build any colony pods, didn't build any new facilities, didn't build any new formers, didn't do much except take up some terrain.
I was hopping that I could beat the AI down and then watch it try and climb back up to beat me. I pulled all my units back about 10 spaces and sat there so I wasn't blocking paths. So for patch number 2 how about an AI that doesn't give up just becasue it's down to 1 base late in the game? Let it do something like trying to steal tech from other players, or allaying itself to another faction and staying loyal for the balence, or
stage a drone riot and have it cross over to another player, or build a set of planet busters (if it has the tech) and send them on to wipe out the key city of the one that beat you so bad. Anything but going passive.
Thanks,
Morganstern posted 02-26-99 03:03 PM ET
A recent development in my current game supports agoraphobe's report of the Reynolds interview. For over 200 years, my Morgan faction got along famously with UoP, exchanging techs, etc. Once I polished off Brother Lal (some Peacekeeper - this guy's always picking a fight), UoP moved clearly into second place. Playing only at the second level in my second game (how do you others get to the higher levels so fast?), I've been well ahead of the other factions for some time. UoP is about 1/2 my advancement, gets over one of my cities through a drone riot (no big deal at the time), and voila! Twenty years later, out of the blue, he attacks me without warning.
I do like this game, and agree with those who say that the AI has made important strides on diplomacy, but this really made no sense. Perhaps what Reynolds said he installed overrides all other considerations.

Gergi posted 02-26-99 03:09 PM ET
While I haven't played on the highest level, I think maybe Shining1 has a good point...I think maybe Firaxis should revamp how they make the computer harder. Making the computer illogical seems a contradiction of the diplomacy system they spent so much time trying to implement.
As a sidenote, congrats Firaxis on making the computer AI superb on the middle levels such as Librarian which I have been playing on.
hellrazor posted 02-26-99 03:46 PM ET
Unfortunately, there is no computer AI in existence that can consistantly beat an experienced human opponent without cheating. The AI in SMAC is very good, maybe the best yet for this type of turn based strategy game, yet it still is no match for a human opponent on equal terms. If Firaxis could have made it more difficult at the higher levels, they would have. As it is, they did a pretty good job. Remember, the only way the CIV II AI could compete was massive cheating at higher levels. If you want to play the computer at the best level for pure AI, play at Librarian, else you better be prepared for some cheating.
will posted 02-26-99 04:57 PM ET
I agree that the AI can occasionally change its strategy abruptly. But it's not entirely irrational -- once someone gets to the number two position, they usually start gunning right away for number one.
I'm otherwise quite impressed with the AI. It's actually capable of cooperating, and if you're nice to your opponents, there's actually a greater chance that they'll surrender to you. Once they surrender, I find that they're real pussycats, and even quite helpful.
Shining1 posted 02-26-99 05:29 PM ET
Hellrazor: I have no problem with A.I cheating - it's kinda flattering, in fact. And the technology doesn't exist, economically speaking, to create a human level A.I. If Brian Reynolds can't do it, I doubt anybody else can, either.
My problem is the aggressiveness of the A.I in general on higher levels. It interferes with the fun of the game, in that the 'good' factions become warmongers to start with - their personalities get a little warped.
I have no problem with fighting Shenji-Yang and Santiago, but when Pravin Lal, SMAC's architech of peace, declares vendetta on me when I refuse to pay him a lousy 50 energy credits, THEN there's something wrong (actual event that occured on Thinker level).
Oh well, I guess there's not really anything I can do about it.
hellrazor posted 02-26-99 06:24 PM ET
Maybe the solution is to give the AI more production/econimic advantages and make it less agressive. The problem I find, is that in games where I am challenged, the AI always gets me early on...once I 'get ahead', its all over. In CIV II, this wasn't the case...one of the things that made the game so addictive, was that even when you thought you were way ahead, the AI would 'catch up' all of a sudden and threaten you again. Of course, this was accomplished through cheating, but again, there is no other way to make the AI competitive. It's finding the proper balance between 'cheating' and 'fairness' thats difficult.
Shining1 posted 02-26-99 07:44 PM ET
I agree. On the other hand, I'd hope Firaxis had experiemented with these changes too. If so, then I guess they couldn't find anyway to make the higher levels challenging enough. And the lower levels ARE REALLY EASY to kick ass on.
I don't really mind the aggression that much, it just lessens the emphasis on 'soft' diplomacy, thats all.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: A.I toughness
Shining1	posted 02-25-99 08:17 PM ET It seems as if the aggression of the A.I on the highest levels is simply intended to make the game that much harder to win. While on the Librarian/Specialist levels the A.I can be pleasant, if you don't provoke it, the high level A.I tends to react very aggressively, regardless of how you behave. Even the 'nice' characters, like Deirdre and Lal are against you. IMO, while this makes the game more challenging, it also makes a less rich experience when compared to the more rounded interaction with the A.I on lower levels. Which leaves this player in a hopeless position, because those levels are far too easy to win. Are there any ways to 'soften' the A.I's interactions toward you on the higher levels (short of rewriting the faction profiles)? Can there ever be peace?
TheClockKing	posted 02-26-99 01:11 AM ET Deirdre is usually against me and I think of her as an evil rather than nice character, Lai splits either way. I play on Librarian and the level before it as then you and the computer are equal more or less. I agree that at the tougher levels they should not make the computer more psychotic but then this does tend to make the game harder.
yin26	posted 02-26-99 01:35 AM ET Before anybody labels me as a SMAC basher (I've posted a few other topics trying to isolate the flaws in this game), I do recognize this as a great game. And I haven't actually played the game yet at the highest level, so if other people have different experiences with the A.I. please set me straight so I won't feel like ignoring the two highest levels. HOWEVER: The (seeming) fact that the best Firaxis could do to make the game harder at higher levels was to make the A.I. illogically difficult shows a lack of respect (or understanding) for how players want to win a game at higher levels. I don't want to beat warmongering idiots who have no regard for anything anywhere. I want to beat opponents who are smarter at ALL aspects of the game--how they govern, how they negotiate, and, of course, how they eventually attack me with such coordinated brilliance that I actually LEARN to play better the next time--until I finally, through becoming a much better player, can match wits and resources against the toughest opponents imaginable. I understand that designing such a game would take staggering effort, but don't insult me by making me play against nerotic fools and calling that "Transcendence." Again, I shouldn't speak until I've encountered these problems myself, but if the game really plays like that (for no reason--I can understand if particular playing styles cause the problem), then what a disappointment. I'd love to read more support for the A.I. at the highest levels. Thanks.
Dire	posted 02-26-99 02:24 AM ET I haven't played a whole lot of SMAC, but all my games have been thinker level. The higher level AI isn't exceedingly terrible. It sometimes spontaneously declares war with no apparent reason, but that's probably because I always never give them money/tech when they ask In my last game, Santiago would always demand a cash payment every time I talked to her - I always gave it to her and she never declared vendetta...however when I became powerful enough, I refused her demand and of course she declared vendetta. Your social engineering choices play a large role in the AI's relationship towards you: I managed to ally with the Morganites due to my free market, while everyone else had declared vendetta against me. Sometimes social choices are not even enough: I was allied to the Gaians one turn, then they broke the pact and declared vendetta the next even though I had a Green economy! I proceeded to destroy the Gaians until they surrendered. The Gaians always seem to surrender if they become overpowered, while other factions fight to the death. All my examples were actually from the same game (that shows how little SMAC I have been playing)...I'd be interested to hear what other people think.
Centaurion	posted 02-26-99 06:47 AM ET The AI does more than often react in very unrealistic ways. In my current game, I�m playing as UoP and my faction is leading in every possible way, (I�m playing Talent) still, Almost every faction is/has declaring vendetta agianst me. I�ve destroyed Yang and Morgan (Morgan is almost never afraid of a fight no matter how pathetic his empire is) but the Spartans/Peacekeepers/Believing is still treathning every time I speak to them... Wouldn�t you expect that they would start to suck up to me or something?
Ender4000	posted 02-26-99 07:23 AM ET I haven't had any problems with this. The AI is much more friendly than it ever was in Civ II IMO. If you are the most powerful the computer should go to war with you immediately, they need to gang up on you. When I'm going to go to war with someone I tend to go after the strongest first, if you beat them now you'll save yourself a lot of grief later.
Centaurion	posted 02-26-99 01:39 PM ET But the other factions have no chance in hell to beat me....
Scrubby	posted 02-26-99 01:52 PM ET Centaurion: You want the computer to be less harsh on you, the faction in the lead, because they "have no chance". Would you prefer they give up and automatically give you the win? Then we'd be reading posts like: AI too easy on difficult level -- they just give up! I have a difficult time understanding people who complain about the bloody difficulty. If it's too hard TURN IT DOWN. If it's too easy TURN IT UP. If you want it right in between.. tooooo bad! If you want it to be a rewarding gaming experience shouldn't you expect a little hardship? If you want munchkinism go ahead "cheat" or play citizen, hell I do sometimes. Just have fun! It isn't a contest! I'm raving!
agoraphobe	posted 02-26-99 02:08 PM ET Once again, one has to guard against overgeneralization here. These days I always play on transcend level and although the AI is more "hostile" as one would expect (it's supposed to be more difficult) there's still plenty of nuance in its behavior that gives me breathing room and manuvering space, in my experience. Brian Reynolds addressed this question in an interview with an online PC game reviewer. I don't recall all of the details, but it dealt with how the current faction rankings affected their attitude towards one another, and at what play levels do arbitrary advantages accrue to the AI. On the first, the #1 and #2 ranked factions are always in some degree of hostility with one another (not necessarily war), and if #1 was double the strength of #2, you could expect qualitatively more hostility all around. The behavior of other rankings I don't recall. On the second, the "even playing field", according to Reynolds, is at Librarian level (correct me if I'm wrong). Beyond that, the AI gets faster build rates, etc., and no doubt (although Reynolds didn't make this clear) gets hostile sooner than later. Keep in mind also that Social Engineering choices make a big difference. That's why one should avoid overgeneralization and instead "timeline" concrete instances of what you think you're seeing. I recall a thread that started up here after Demo 1.2 was released, where many thought the AI had suddenly and arbitrarily more hostile. That thread died out quite awhile ago. It was an overgeneralization. Just think: If faction #1 was 2X faction #2 and I was one of the lesser factions, I'd be fighting like the devil against #1. Yes, I'd be very "neurotic" about my survival. If it were the converse, I'd be very surprised if the AI didn't do the same. AI is by far the most difficult thing to program into a game. That's why commercial games are usually crap, short time-to-market cycles don't allow for good AI development (I'm sure the Pentagon/CIA have GREAT AI in their simulations!). The AI in SMAC represents a _qualitative_ improvement over CIV. In fact, it is the most significant improvement in the game, and the most significant contribution of SMAC to this genre.
Fenris	posted 02-26-99 02:37 PM ET The AI player will turn on you if your integrity level is too low. If you break treaties don't expect those that make treaties with you to honor them. If you knuckle under to each demand, then suddenly stop (even if you think you are stronger) don't expect the AI to automaticly accept this. Also, just because a faction has a vendetta against you doesn't mean that you're automaticly going to get into a shooting war. I've had games where a faction or factions showed vendetta for more than a hundred turns and we never traded shots (granted we were on seperate continents). Usually, (and I play at Librarian or above)I've seen the AI play consistantly. It's not been overly aggressive. It will, however, turn aggressive if it thinks you are barganing from a position of weakness.
redryder	posted 02-26-99 03:01 PM ET The AI has some shortcomings at the upper levels is an evident truth if you play enough. The AI gives up if you smack up side the console hard enough. Just finished a game where I as YOH had beaten the other factions back hard. Like down to 3 bases each and the AI for those factions just sat there. Didn't build any colony pods, didn't build any new facilities, didn't build any new formers, didn't do much except take up some terrain. I was hopping that I could beat the AI down and then watch it try and climb back up to beat me. I pulled all my units back about 10 spaces and sat there so I wasn't blocking paths. So for patch number 2 how about an AI that doesn't give up just becasue it's down to 1 base late in the game? Let it do something like trying to steal tech from other players, or allaying itself to another faction and staying loyal for the balence, or stage a drone riot and have it cross over to another player, or build a set of planet busters (if it has the tech) and send them on to wipe out the key city of the one that beat you so bad. Anything but going passive. Thanks,
Morganstern	posted 02-26-99 03:03 PM ET A recent development in my current game supports agoraphobe's report of the Reynolds interview. For over 200 years, my Morgan faction got along famously with UoP, exchanging techs, etc. Once I polished off Brother Lal (some Peacekeeper - this guy's always picking a fight), UoP moved clearly into second place. Playing only at the second level in my second game (how do you others get to the higher levels so fast?), I've been well ahead of the other factions for some time. UoP is about 1/2 my advancement, gets over one of my cities through a drone riot (no big deal at the time), and voila! Twenty years later, out of the blue, he attacks me without warning. I do like this game, and agree with those who say that the AI has made important strides on diplomacy, but this really made no sense. Perhaps what Reynolds said he installed overrides all other considerations.
Gergi	posted 02-26-99 03:09 PM ET While I haven't played on the highest level, I think maybe Shining1 has a good point...I think maybe Firaxis should revamp how they make the computer harder. Making the computer illogical seems a contradiction of the diplomacy system they spent so much time trying to implement. As a sidenote, congrats Firaxis on making the computer AI superb on the middle levels such as Librarian which I have been playing on.
hellrazor	posted 02-26-99 03:46 PM ET Unfortunately, there is no computer AI in existence that can consistantly beat an experienced human opponent without cheating. The AI in SMAC is very good, maybe the best yet for this type of turn based strategy game, yet it still is no match for a human opponent on equal terms. If Firaxis could have made it more difficult at the higher levels, they would have. As it is, they did a pretty good job. Remember, the only way the CIV II AI could compete was massive cheating at higher levels. If you want to play the computer at the best level for pure AI, play at Librarian, else you better be prepared for some cheating.
will	posted 02-26-99 04:57 PM ET I agree that the AI can occasionally change its strategy abruptly. But it's not entirely irrational -- once someone gets to the number two position, they usually start gunning right away for number one. I'm otherwise quite impressed with the AI. It's actually capable of cooperating, and if you're nice to your opponents, there's actually a greater chance that they'll surrender to you. Once they surrender, I find that they're real pussycats, and even quite helpful.
Shining1	posted 02-26-99 05:29 PM ET Hellrazor: I have no problem with A.I cheating - it's kinda flattering, in fact. And the technology doesn't exist, economically speaking, to create a human level A.I. If Brian Reynolds can't do it, I doubt anybody else can, either. My problem is the aggressiveness of the A.I in general on higher levels. It interferes with the fun of the game, in that the 'good' factions become warmongers to start with - their personalities get a little warped. I have no problem with fighting Shenji-Yang and Santiago, but when Pravin Lal, SMAC's architech of peace, declares vendetta on me when I refuse to pay him a lousy 50 energy credits, THEN there's something wrong (actual event that occured on Thinker level). Oh well, I guess there's not really anything I can do about it.
hellrazor	posted 02-26-99 06:24 PM ET Maybe the solution is to give the AI more production/econimic advantages and make it less agressive. The problem I find, is that in games where I am challenged, the AI always gets me early on...once I 'get ahead', its all over. In CIV II, this wasn't the case...one of the things that made the game so addictive, was that even when you thought you were way ahead, the AI would 'catch up' all of a sudden and threaten you again. Of course, this was accomplished through cheating, but again, there is no other way to make the AI competitive. It's finding the proper balance between 'cheating' and 'fairness' thats difficult.
Shining1	posted 02-26-99 07:44 PM ET I agree. On the other hand, I'd hope Firaxis had experiemented with these changes too. If so, then I guess they couldn't find anyway to make the higher levels challenging enough. And the lower levels ARE REALLY EASY to kick ass on. I don't really mind the aggression that much, it just lessens the emphasis on 'soft' diplomacy, thats all.