Is AI cheating ?

Wendigo · #1 November 21st, 2003, 04:39 PM

Disclaimer: I have no problem with bonused AIs, I expect the AI in strategy games to be boosted if it has to put up a fight vs an experienced human player.

That said, I still insist the my experience doesn't match the one of the OP, the AI certainly fails at 'predicting' or being informed of my moves. Dunno if anything he does in his testing might tip his results (building local def?), but I have one to propose myself:

-Let the enemy AI siege one of your forts, let it build up the sieging force while you round up a massive flying relief force a couple provinces away (or a boosted SC flying pretender). Attack the sieging force & waste them. If the AI knew that your uberpretender was coming, why would it keep its army there mantaining the siege?

Taqwus · #2 November 21st, 2003, 05:15 PM

The AI does a bad job of reacting to my assassins and succubi. *evil smile* I've assassinated Pretenders before, and had assassins seize provinces on their own...
I'm quite sure that it doesn't know troop sizes; it's accepted battles that it otherwise would have had no business accepting e.g. it losing 89 of 91 commanders and roughly 85-90% of a 700+-troop army because of the far higher quality of mine (mages present, equipment, troop types).

SurvivalistMerc · #3 November 21st, 2003, 05:52 PM

I don't get the sense that the AI is cheating either.

I've moved forces of archers into an undefended province the same turn he moved illithids in. Would he have done that if he had known that an incredibly cheap missile force was on the way?

I've also assassinated pretenders with empoisoners before. Without items. And no guards. Surely he would have added guards to his pretender if he was aware of my assassination attempt, right?

PvK · #4 November 21st, 2003, 07:59 PM

SurvivalistMerc, only if the AI was cheating and programmed to think about those things while cheating, which seems even more far-fetched than what's been suggested here.

Whismerhill, I think you're probably getting paranoid - no offense!

I haven't seen anything that made me think the AI might be moving based on my moves. Quite the contrary. I've seen plenty of cases where the AI has seemed to "guess wrong" (or, not even considering) about where I was going to move, and as others have pointed out, the AI itself seems slightly overly-predictable about always moving its armies around, usually inside its own territory, so that a very strong province surrounded by empty or weak provinces, will probably be weak the next turn (assuming it has commanders to lead the men away). Often, though, the AI has multiple armies marching around, and unless you have scouts behind their lines, you may not see the army that is about to march into a province.

As for catching spies, I think the mechanic has changed since Doms I - I've caught many AI spies and assassins without having any patrols or units in my provinces - just some defense. That's just a sensible change in the game mechanics for both sides, and has nothing to do with AI. (Unless I'm wrong about the cause of more captures on both sides compared to Doms I, in which case the AI is just uses more spies and defense, which would just be an AI quality improvement.)

PvK

[ November 21, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: PvK ]

NTJedi · #5 November 21st, 2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:

I've moved forces of archers into an undefended province the same turn he moved illithids in. Would he have done that if he had known that an incredibly cheap missile force was on the way?

This is already known... everyone knows and agrees with this. We've all seen this while playing.

Quote:

by SurvivalistMerc

I've also assassinated pretenders with empoisoners before. Without items. And no guards. Surely he would have added guards to his pretender if he was aware of my assassination attempt, right?

Those factors are not factored into the games programming... that's why it happens. And again we've all seen enemy territories be left unguarded... my point is that when an assassin is hidden on enemy territory there is always an army that moves to that territory the next turn and some type of army is always there. An assassin never sees unguarded territory except for the first turn he arrives.

[ November 21, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

SurvivalistMerc · #6 November 21st, 2003, 09:33 PM

This does certainly sound a bit fishy. But it doesn't really bother me. The AI is hampered enough by not building fortresses, etc. that I don't really mind.

It doesn't break seiges when it could easily deal with the force coming at it from either direction but not with the combined force.

Do your assassins see unoccupied territory when they don't have an army with them? Because it isn't unrealistic imo that there would be reports of possible stealth forces in the event that you brought a force of sufficient size. Granted, the player doesn't get such reports....

Gandalf Parker · #7 November 21st, 2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NTJedi:
An assassin never sees unguarded territory except for the first turn he arrives.

Or any other sneaker that can affect the province I think. Priests, spies who can do incites, assassins, etc.

Ive used this against the AI. Sending units into his far territorys so he will build up forces next to another AI. Having large armies on each others borders tend to toss them into combat sooner.