Playing to Lose: AI and “Civilization” (Soren Johnson)

Playing to Lose: AI and “Civilization” (Soren Johnson)


>> LANDIS: Hi, everyone. I’m Matt Landis with
NGDU (ph), and we are thrilled to continue our Serious Games Tech Talk series with Soren
Johnson. As a designer, his work has included some of the most complex and commercially
successful titles out there: Civilization IV, Spore, other web-based strategy games,
and others I’m sure he can name. His Designer Notes blog and Design of the Times column
inspires and informs both novice and experienced designers. And he continues to push the envelope
for complex games that engage players and give serious game advocates and educators
like myself; hope that we can use these games for learning, and growth, and change. And
it’s a pleasure to welcome Soren Johnson.>>JOHNSON: All right. Thank you. It’s great
to be here. So, let’s get started. So, a little bit of my background. I’ve got a Masters in
CS. You know, I did a lot of my work previously in AI, which was kind of my first entrance
into the videogame field. Big projects I’ve worked on: Civ III, Civ IV. Civ IV was a project
that I kind of led from beginning to end, so I was very, very into the details of that
project. I came on for the last year and a half of Spore, did some work with AI, and
helped design sort of the latter half of the game. The year after that, I worked on sort
of a small prototype, strategystation.com, which is an attempt to build basically a Mod-dable
site for strategy games on the Web. It’s actually built entirely with GWT, which I found to
be kind of a really nice toolkit. And I’m currently the lead designer of a web-based
MMO, done inside of EA2D, which is a small group inside of the EA Games label. But today,
I’m mostly here to talk about AI. And here’s a little outline of what I’m going to be going
through. First of all, I’m going to just define two types of AI that people typically aim
to make. One, I’ll sort of categorize as “Good”, and the other type I’ll categorize as “Fun”.
And I’ll go into the details of, you know, what the differences are. Then I’ll talk about
Civilization, because the AI for that game kind of fits somewhere–sometimes uncomfortably
between those two extremes and I’ll talk about some of the issues with that. Always a popular
one, people discover that the AI cheats and they’re very upset so I’ll talk about all
those issues. And then, talk a little bit about the development of the AI. And actually
the AI to Civ IV was released publicly about maybe six months after the game shipped. So
if anyone actually wants to look through that I’ll forward the link to that code and hopefully
we’ll have time for some Q&A. So, what would I mean when I say “Good” AI versus “Fun” AI?
So “Good” AI, the idea is you’re trying to build an AI that is, you know, literally trying
to beat the player. That’s its pure goal. It’s meant to be a substitute for a person
when, you know, you can’t find someone else to play the game with you or you don’t want
to wait for someone to do their turns, etcetera, etcetera. “Fun” AI is a game where you’re
using AI algorithms as the actual content in itself. And it’s all–it’s, you know, these
are generally single players all focused on the player’s direct experience. You know,
it’s not about, you know, trying to replace another human. So, you know, sort of the classic
example of “Good” AI, of course, is something like Deep Blue, you know, which is now capable
of playing at the very highest levels. And, you know, this is, you know, just–you know,
you want to play chess and you want to play against a human, you know, that problem is
now solved. And people who–people who are into this field has sort of get–take a perhaps
a perverse pleasure in showing us that a lot of the games we enjoy are now over, if you
want to play against the AI; that no matter what, they can beat us. It was proved a few
years ago that checkers is solved. You know, no matter what you do, the AI can always find
a way to beat you or, you know, draw. And, you know, as I mentioned before, you know,
sort of a human substitute, you know, people want to play all sorts of different types
of, you know, war games, strategy games, board games, and, you know, it’s simply convenience.
It allows them to practice on their own or maybe they–that’s just, you know, the way
they prefer to play. They don’t like the intensity of playing against one of the humans or a
friend. So the “Fun” AI, the algorithms themselves are the content. Now the two examples I put
up here are Black & White and The Sims. You know, these are both examples of games which
have a lot of AI in it, but that AI is all about behavior. You know, what–and learning,
in the case of the creature in Black & White. You know, if you slap it around, it does one
thing. If you pet it, it ends up, you know, developing a different way. And The Sims is
sort of this little, you know, ant farm-type game where, you know, you place down, you
know, you build your little house, place down your own furniture. The one that makes the
game interesting is seeing how the little, you know, AI entities, you know, move around
the environment and either enjoy their lives or, you know, die because their bladder explodes.
And here’s an example that I’m going to do draw on a lot in this talk. It’s a game called
Desktop Tower Defense which is a really fun little flash tower defense game. I recommend
everyone should play it because it’s a really neat little game. But essentially, in this
game, you have–I’m sorry–you have what are known as “creeps” come from one side of the
grid and they’re trying to get to the other side. And your job is you’re trying to prevent
that. And it’s essentially a game about path finding. And what that means is, you’re going
to place down these little towers, which are those little square things you see on the
screen here. And, you know, the AI is going to route through them and try their best to
get to the other side. And you want to–you want to make that as hard as possible for
them. You want to inhibit their progress. So, you know, in many ways, this is a game
about path finding, essentially. That’s what makes the game interesting. If it didn’t have,
you know, a good path finding engine, you know, it would–it wouldn’t be nearly as fun.
And the other main point about “Fun” AI is, you know, focus is really on the player. And
one of the best examples of this is the concept of Aggro in MMOs like World of Warcraft which
I’m showing here. And the idea here is, you know, Aggro is a great case of “Fun” AI because
it’s not meant to be challenging. It’s meant to be understandable, comprehensible. And
for people not familiar with this basic concept, in MMOs, in sort of classic MMO combat, you
have three different character types. You have your tanks, your healers and your DPS.
The tanks are there to absorb damage. They are the most best defended, they have the
best armor, for example. The healers are meant to heal the units as they get hit and the
DPS characters are there to actually damage the enemies. And Aggro is a sort of an internal
algorithm that determines who the AI is going to attack, which, you know, who the monsters
decide to target. And what Aggro does is, as you attack–as you attack the monsters,
it starts deciding, “Okay, that guy’s been doing a lot–is–that guy has been attacking
a lot, so we’re going to start targeting him.” Or, “That guy’s been healing a lot so we’re
going to target him.” But the game gives you a number of ways to control Aggro. You know,
there’s various spells you can use to sort of trick the AI to attack the wrong characters.
You can, you know, there is, you know, big Web pages and strategy guys devoted so you
know how to control Aggro, how to, you know, move your characters around so they don’t
suck up too much Aggro. Because, essentially, what you want is you want your tank to get
all of the Aggro of the monsters. And because the tank isn’t the one that’s essentially
doing all the attacking, that can be tricky. And you’ll see that this is really essentially
a puzzle; it’s not really AI. You know the–there are–this is–what I’m showing right here
is actually a World of Warcraft Mod; something that people can, you know, put inside of the
game where they can, you know, get quick information about who the AI is Aggro-ing, who they want
to attack and how that works. And this is a sign that Blizzard actually wants players
to be able to control Aggro. It’s an active game play element. It’s not something that
the AI is trying to defeat you, right, because it would be very easy for their programmers
to essentially say, “You know, Aggro is a really kind of a dumb idea. We shouldn’t let
the players be able to influence it. We shouldn’t let the players be able to find out,” you
know, “Who is Aggro-ing who. We should instead, you know, always focus on which character
is doing the most damage.” But that’s not actually fun. You know, it’s more fun if,
you know, Aggro becomes this little gameplay element that you can manipulate. You know,
the game is about the player after all. So essentially, you have this spectrum which
goes from, you know, “Good” AI on one side, which is, you know–excuse me–Chess is sort
of the classic example. And “Fun” AI on the other side with Desktop Tower Defense. And,
you know, there’s–I’m going to talk about a few other games and where they kind of fit
in. StarCraft sort of fits on the left side of the spectrum here, especially because it’s
a sort of symmetrical game. You’re–you know, when you’re playing against one or two or
three AI opponents, they’re really playing the same game as you are essentially. I don’t
mean, you know, the balance between Zerg, Protoss and Terrans, but I mean that like
they have the same goals; they’re playing on the same map. You know, they could be a
human, they could be an AI; it’s not really going to matter. And also there’s no real
diplomacy in StarCraft, which is important. It’s something I’ll talk about a lot later.
A game like Heroes of Might and Magic is more on the “Fun” side of the spectrum. You know,
this is a game where you’re, you know, you’re taking your hero character around the map,
you’re bringing an army with you, and you’re fighting a series of battles. But the game
is essentially giving you a series of challenges to overcome. It’s not, you know, it’s not
seriously trying to, you know, defeat you in the same way. It’s more of an example of
an asymmetrical game. Now, Civilization kind of fits somewhere in the middle. And the main
reason it’s not on the far left like StarCraft is because of the diplomacy issue, which I’ll
talk about later. But let’s talk about the few other things that define the difference
between a “Good” AI and “Fun” AI. One is how the rules change over time. On the far extreme
left, a game like Chess, the rules are very fixed. You know, they’re not going to change,
so that the AI becomes sort of a known problem. Go is a good example of this because Go AI
is actually much, much, much worse than Chess AI. So this is a–this is a sort of a standard
problem that, you know, the AI field is focused on. Whereas on the other side of the scale,
a game like Desktop Tower Defense actually changes monthly. You know, they’re constantly
twiddling with the rules, adding new towers, changing the way the mobs work. The point
is not that there is some, you know, fixed game that they’re trying to, you know, improve
the AI against, it’s something that sort of constantly changing. Symmetry is another big
issue. When you’re talking about “Good” AI, generally speaking, the game is going to be
very symmetrical. You know, all of the opponents are playing the exact same type of game. On
the far right side, you know, it tends to be very asymmetrical where, you know, it’s
sort of like player versus environment essentially. You know, you have to have this challenge
and you’re facing entities that maybe have AI but they’re playing a completely different
game from what you’re playing. Usually, the only question is whether you can overcome
that specific challenge. Generally speaking, when you’re talking about these type of games,
“Good” AI tends to be multi-player focused and, you know, “Fun” AI tends to be single
player. You know, symmetrical games tend to be mapped to multi-player very well because
the idea is, you know, you just have two humans seeing down, facing, usually facing off against
each other, and the AI really is just a pure replacement. Another issue is what type of
tactics are available. When you’re writing “Good” AI, everything is on the table. You
know, you’re free to choose from any tactic that a human might choose from. When you’re
a “Fun” AI, you very much actually want to limit the tactics that your AI is going to
pursue. Similar to my example earlier about Aggro and WoW in that, you know, the AI designers
purposely chose to take some things off the table to let their AI be manipulated with
Aggro. In Desktop Tower Defense, for example, also, you know, you don’t really want the
mobs to develop intelligence so that they’re like, “Okay, let’s actually gather our strength
and let’s wait,” you know, “Let’s form up a big force for awhile and then we’ll go through
the maze.” You know, that’s something a human might do if they were in control of the mobs.
But we don’t want the AI to do that because that’s not the point of the game, you know.
The point of the game is that the player can anticipate the way that the mobs work and
anticipate the rhythm of the game. When you’re measuring the performance of your AI, there’s
also a difference. Usually, when you’re talking about “Good” AI, you have a very objective
measure, you know. We kind of have this concept of how Chess AI has been improving over the
years, you know, every few years at a time. And it’s easy to measure that. But when you’re
on the right side of the scale, it’s completely subjective, right? It’s just one of these
things that depends upon sort of a gut feeling about, “Are your players having fun or not?”
It’s almost more about a puzzle-type thing. And when it comes to the Turing Test, you
know, when you’re on the far left side of the scale, your goal really is to pass the
Turing Test. And similarly with games like Chess and Checkers, you know, they probably
have done that, unless they’re actually perhaps too good at this point, that maybe a question.
But they can easily pass that if we want to. On the right side of the scale though, it’s
really irrelevant. No one thinks that the mobs in Desktop Tower Defense, you know, are
controlled by a human. It’s obvious that they are not. But that’s not really the point.
So, you know, here’s a sort a quick summary of the differences between the two. And this
is one you might want to sum that up. You know, “Good” AI is playing to win; “Fun” AI
is essentially playing to lose. You know, you’re providing an interesting challenge
for the human but your ultimate goal is, you know, you want the human to have fun, you
want them to win at the end. Okay, so what about the Civ AI, you know, where does that
fit in? Before we dive into that, I’ll give sort of a quick history of Civilization. Now,
I assume a lot of you have played it here so I’m probably not going to go into too much
detail. But, you know, sort of a classic turn-based game about the history of the world. Sid Meier
first developed it back in 1991. It’s had four versions so far, although a fifth one
is coming out in a month, I guess. And there’s usually been a version every four or five
years. Civ II added more units. I mean, you had a different view, create a scenario editor.
Civ III came along in 2001. That was the first one I was involved in. It added culture which
controlled your borders and resources which, you know, limited what you could build, which
are kind of the big, big sort of gameplay improvements there. Civ IV was in 2005; added
religion and great people. Those are the big changes. But we also went through and kind
of tried to simplify all of the design craft that had been developing, you know, over the
first three versions of the game to kind of pare back to the parts of the game that we
really cared about. It’s also the first game where we really focused on multiplayer from
the very beginning. That, you know, it wasn’t something that was just going to be sort of
patched on as an afterthought. So, you know, where does the Civ AI fit? Like I said, it’s
somewhere in the middle. So, that can lead to some issues because it’s not necessarily
always clear where–what, you know, what solution we should use for, you know, the various problems
you face as an AI developer. So, for example, when it comes to whether it’s fixed rules
or evolving design, Civ is kind of both. You know, there’s some core things about the Civ
franchise that haven’t changed in, well, I guess in the 20 years it’s been around. But
obviously with each version, things change. So it’s not like we can still use the AI that
Sid wrote back in 1991. It had to be rewritten every time, and with every expansion pack,
and even to somewhat times, with every patch. It is a symmetrical game. You know, you expect
that the–your AI opponents are playing the same game as you are. You know, they’re simply
China while you’re India or Germany; you know, they’re just–they’re just a different Civ.
Civ is generally known as a great single player game. You know, there is a multiplayer community,
but that’s really–where probably 95% of our players spend their time is in the single
player. It is a game with limited options and some people might actually not assume
that, you know, right off the bat. But there’s actually a lot of things we don’t let the
AI do, because we feel like it would be annoying. They would be, you know, types of play that
we only really want that–we only really expect a human should do and a lot of these issues
come down to diplomacy. There is–there are some subjective factors here but there is–there
definitely are some objective test where you can use to make sure our Civ AI is still going
well. We have–we made some automated testing with Civ IV where, you know, in every night
I could see whether the AI was improving or getting worse. And so, you know, those are
some ways–are some ways to do it objectively. And this is probably maybe the most different
one. If people would like it to pass the Turing Test, but it never will. It completely fails
on the Turing Test. And that’s because we really want–it’s kind of a funny thing about
humans themselves. When we write the AI for Civ, we actually want them to role-play. You
know, we want Isabella to play a certain way. We want Montezuma to play a certain way. We
want Gandhi to be, you know, nicer than the other leaders, perhaps, but even though he’s
not always. But when you play humans, you don’t actually really expect them to role-play.
I mean, they’re going to do whatever they can to win, you know, including some very
nasty things. And then maybe, like I said, that may be okay for Montezuma, but it’s not
okay for everyone else. So the trick here is trying to, you know, strike a balance.
You know, where–what should we do with the Civ AI when it comes in these really fuzzy
areas where it’s not clear whether it should be “Good” AI or “Fun” AI. And making this
problem worse is that every player is different. I say there’s really kind of three types of
players for Civ. There is the Challenge players. And these are people who really try to work
their way up the difficulty scale. You know, they want to eventually beat the game at Deity.
You know, that’s what defines Civ for them. You know, there’s the Sandbox players, they
don’t really care. You know, they probably come to Civ from other games like SimCity
or something like that and they’re just kind of enjoying the experience of going through
history and, you know, and playing with the different world wonders and with the different
leaders, and, you know, just seeing how things go. Then there’s probably also the Narrative
players, who really get into the concept of role-playing, you know, where they really
want play a leader a certain way and they really want the AI to have–to have it’s–their
own personalities and their own styles. So for these players, you know, we really–it
was really important for us that the AI maintains a memory of the things you’ve done, that if
you’ve stab them in the back earlier in the game, they’re not going to trust you later
in the game. And, you know, furthermore, it’s okay they even let the AI fall for traps.
You know, that if the player has, you know, gone to a lot of effort to trick them into
thinking that something is one way when it’s really not, you know, we want the AI to make
a mistake. You know, that gives the player a lot of satisfaction. You know, at the end
of the day though, we real–we want the players to win or to at least understand why they
lost. You know, that’s really the number one thing. And so on top of that, we need difficulty
levels for a number of reasons. First of all, it lets the sandbigs–it lets the Sandbox
players off easy. If you play a game on Settler on Civ IV, it’s very, very hard to lose. In
fact, the AI will never declare a war on you, period, you know. I mean, you can–if you
really try, you can lose, of course. But, you know, generally speaking, if you just
kind of flow through the game, you’re going to do fine. But on the other end of the scale,
difficulty levels will give Challenge players something to aim for. You know, a goal. You
know, working their way up, up the scale. And, you know, different tactics are available
at different levels, which makes the game–you know, there are certain things you could just
never do at Deity, you know, if you want to–if you want to compete and vice, you know, vice
versa on Settler. So it kind of, you know, just sort of changes the nature of the game.
So, that leads to the question of sort of AI cheating, because the AI in Civ is so complex,
that there’s no way we can just change the difficult levels by making the AI dumber.
Instead, it usually comes down to giving the bonuses on the lower levels and giving the
penalties on the higher levels. And AI cheating is a very, very, very, subjective issue. And
in fact, humans are notoriously poor at judging cheats. You know, I’ve had years of experience
of, you know, looking through the forums, seeing how people respond to the games. And
so it was very interesting to read so many times they perceive the AI cheating when it’s
not cheating, and when it is cheating they don’t notice it, you know. It’s very, very
strange. And I don’t how many people have maybe played a game called Puzzle Quest, but
it has kind of a very interesting issue with cheating. This is a sort of a variation of
Bejeweled, you know, which is a Match 3 Game. You know, you’re trying to arrange, you know,
three-colored items in row and then they disappear, and things fall from the top of the screen.
And if you get lucky when they fall, it can lead to chains and you get, you know, a series
of matches which gives you an extra bonus. So, the issue there is when it’s the AI’s
turn, if they get that kind of lucky drop from the top, people perceive that the AI
got lucky. You know, when the human gets the lucky drop, they always perceive that, “Well,
that’s because I was smart.” You know, “I arranged it that way so I was,” you know,
“my luck would be–it was more likely that I was going to succeed.” But when the AI gets
it, you know, “It’s a dirty, filthy, stinking cheater.” All right, are we still on? Is that
just one projector? Okay. The AI is getting back. But, yeah, in the–but the AI developer
for Puzzle Quest has sworn over and over and over again that the AI does not cheat, it
s just purely random. And, you know, I mean, I can’t know for sure, but I’ve had similar
experiences, so I believe him. And in fact, I, you know, if I was talking to him I will
recommend to actually anti-cheating, where they make sure that the AI does not get lucky
drops, because it’s more important that the human feel comfortable that the AI isn’t doing
something nasty behind the scenes then to actually have a fair playing field, even if
it means handicapping the AI, that’s totally fine. So there’s a lot of sort of philosophical
questions with cheating but, you know, let’s get into the details here. So obviously, on
the far left of the scale, no one wants your Chess AI to cheat, you know. That’s not going
to work. You know, they should be stealing pieces while you’re not looking and, you know.
And on the far right of the scale, I mean, you don’t really play it like, you know–if
the AI started warping units around the grid of Desktop Tower Defense, you now, you just
quit. You know, it does–you will–you would assume actually it would be a bug and not
really cheating. Now for Civ, as I said, yes, we definitely cheat, but, you know, how should
we cheat? So first of all, here are the production modifiers. Now, when you play a game of Civ,
on the Noble level, it’s essentially even. Where all the techs and buildings and units,
they all cost the same for the AI as they do for you. On Settler, everything cost the
AI 50% more, so it takes them–you know, it’s slower. On Deity, everything cost them 40%
less. You know, this has a huge impact over the game because, of course, you know, Civ’s
one of those games where it’s kind of slows–slow–slowly snowballs, you know, where, you know, if you’re
able to get your grain out faster, that’ll let you grow citizens quicker which let’s
you work more plots, which let’s you build the next building faster, and, you know, you–it
sort of grows exponentially. And here is the, you know, the same idea in graph form. See,
it’s a very big difference. But actually, even is not really even. And this is something
that’s bothered a certain subset of our players a lot. They–we told–you know, we said, “Okay,
Noble is essentially the even level”, but it’s not really. There’s a number of other
cheats that the AI gets. It gets bonuses when you’re–when it’s attacking Barbarians. It
doesn’t have to pay the same amount for unit support or unit upgrades. It doesn’t have
the same issues with inflation and there’s a reason for that. The AI simply needs more
help in this area. You know, when a human plays the game, they have–they don’t think
of it this way, but they have a lot more options available than the AI does. They can reload,
right? They can open up the World Builder and just get themselves some free units. They
can–and even something more basic like, you know, when you’re playing the game of Civ,
oftentimes, people will just leave all of there cities empty, in their interior, of
units because, you know, they know that, you know, these units, these cities are safe,
they’re far from their borders and, of course, they always have the option of reloading if
something crazy happens. There’s no way I can have the AI follow a similar tactic, right?
You know, if I said, “Okay, you know, let’s have the AI leave half of their cities empty.”
You know, they’d be wiped off the map very quickly. So, it’s just not an option to do
those type of things. So, the question of like, “Is there an actual level of–a difficulty
level of Civ IV, where everything is completely even; you know, the AI’s playing the exact
same game,” that’s really essentially an academic question. And it’s one that I’m not really
concerned about. I’m only really concerned about the player experience. And in that sense,
you know, cheating should not be linear. You know, there is–there are some things that
the AI is going to need help with at every level, regardless. So I guess this is important.
However, it’s very important that the game never feels unfair. In Civ I, there was essentially
free wonders. And what that means is not just production bonuses but every once in awhile,
if one of the AI was falling behind, Civ rode in that it would just give you the Pyramids
for free. Give the AI the Pyramids for free or you’re–have the Great Wall and so on and
so forth. And this is something that just felt very wrong to players especially, of
course, if they were aiming for the same wonder. And it’s funny, the difference between where
we give the AI just kind of a little bonus every turn. You know, they maybe can still
build the wonder before you do, but somehow it feels more fair because, you know, you
see the AI is actually building the wonder instead of just being granted them. Even worse
though was the idea of ganging up on the human, which is that in Civ I, there’s literally
a piece of the code that says, “If the year is 1900 and the human is in the lead, then
declare a war on the human.” And people suspected it and it’s true. But they also hated it.
It’s really–that was probably a mistake. So with Civ III and Civ IV, we move to human-blind
diplomacy, which means all of the diplomacy calculations the AI uses is to determine who
to attack, when they’re willing to make peace, who they’re willing to trade with. At no point
does it ask whether the person it’s talking to is a human or not. However, there are definitely
lots of information cheats in Civ III and Civ IV. And this is kind of a learning process
because, if they–if the human can see behind the curtain they can still feel unfair, so
it’s something we have to work on. And my favorite example of this is the Amphibious
Assault problem, which is sort of an interesting exploit that players found after Civ III came
out. Basically, and doing an Amphibious Assault is a very tricky proposition for an AI programmer.
And so one of the things we did is, “Okay, we have four transports loaded up with goods,
let’s look at the AI Civs, let’s look at our enemy cities and try to figure out which one
has the least numbers of troops in it, and we’ll go, and, you know, we’ll try to invade
right next to it.” Players figured this out and they figured out this way to essentially,
you know, sort of trick the AI where they said, “Okay, we’re going to put one unit,
where they’ll leave the city empty because we know the AI is coming with an invasion
force. So I see the AI is going to start rallying all the ships towards that city. But when
it gets just a turn or two away, I’m going to move a unit into that city and take a unit
out of the city that’s way on the other side of the coast.” And I think you’re already
anticipating what happens because, yeah, because essentially, you see the entire fleet turn
around and start going around to the other side. And of course when they get there, you
just switch them around again and then it turns around, you got the AI stuck in a loop
looking like a moron. So, you know, that’s not good at all. Although I do kind of admire
their, you know, their ingenuity. We random–we start randomly updating the assault targets
that we only changed our target every eight turns, every 12 turns; you know, it kind of
changes randomly. We also ignore temporary data like units. So, you know, the human could
never just kind of change things from turn to turn and to mess around with those calculations.
Because really, I actually didn’t–this is the type thing that I don’t trust myself to
do it right so that there’s no way a human couldn’t figure out a way to exploit it. So,
let’s talk about diplomacy right now because this is kind of the big issue for, you know,
the Civ AI. You know, “When is it okay for the ally–the AI to ally with each other?
Does that feel fair to the human?” Because if you’re facing a big, you know, AI alliance,
you know, are they allying against you just because you’re the human or is it because
that actually what makes sense in the game? “Is it okay–should the human be trusted ever?”
Like let’s talk about the fake peace problem, right. The–in–everyone I’m sure has probably
done this at some point, but, you know, when we’re playing in the Civ, you’re beating down
some poor opponent and he comes begging to you for peace. He says, “Here, I’ll give you
200 gold if you just end the war with me.” And you’re like, “Okay, sure. I’ll take the
200 gold and next turn, declare war,” right? You know, because humans, of course, can’t
be tricked. Should the AI do something like that, right? This is an example of something
where we take an option off the table. In Civ IV, we kind of solved this at the very
top level, where we just said, “Okay, if you make peace, you literally cannot declare war
for 10 turns.” But it’s a good example of something where, you know, the AI cannot really
play the game the same way that the human can. You know, we want–we want the AI to
be role-playing where the actions they make seem like what a AI character, what a historical
character would do, not a human that’s trying to game the system, that’s not what we’re
aiming for. And then there’s the Tech Trading Problem, where it really shows out that, you
know, cheating is relative. Like here are these three true sentences that I’ll read
here, you know. We know that when you’re playing the game, the AI should be trading techs with
each other; they will all agree with that. The AI should be trading techs fairly with
each other. They shouldn’t be just swapping techs between each other because, like, “Oh,
hey, you’re an AI, too. Okay, well, we’ll give you a better deal.” And then it’s also
true that the human has the agency to tell–sell techs–sell technologies cheaper than they
would normally just if they, you know, feel like it’s to their advantage. You know, the
human can even give away techs if they’d like. There’s a problem here. These three sentences
cannot all be true at the same time. Yet, there’s sort of an issue which is, “Should
the AI be able to sell techs cheaply?” You know, if you’re saying that the AI should
be able to pursue all the tactics that a human would, then the answer would be, “Yes.” But
unfortunately, that leads to lots and lots of problems. You know, namely that–the main
problem is it felt like–okay, in Civ III, I went out and said, “Okay, I’m going to have
the AI try to trade techs the way humans would.” So, for example, if you’re–if you’re playing–you
know, you’re the human and you’re playing the game, Germany is your neighbor; they’re
very weak, they only have a couple of cities, and they come to you asking for Iron Working,
right? And you’ve got Iron Working, that’s a very powerful tech, you don’t normally want
to trade it away, but, “Okay, Germany’s weak, Germany will never be a threat, doesn’t really
matter to me if I give away Iron Working.” However, Germany only has 20 gold to give
me, right? Clearly, Iron Working is worth a lot more than that but I could never get
more than 20 gold from Germany anyway so my choice is either 20 gold or nothing. So in
that situation, I might decide, “Okay, I am going to trade Iron Working for much less
than they’d be worth normally to Germany just because I want the money. I might be better
off than I was after making that trade.” Fine, you could say that’s a good strategy. The
problem is, is that if the AI pursues that same route, it may be doing everything fairly,
you know, underneath the hood. But from the player’s point of view, all they’re going
to see is all of the AI essentially, you know, moving through the tech tree at the same rate
and also at a very fast rate. And there’ll be these AI Civs out there that are very weak
but have actually quite a lot of technologies because, you know, all the AIs are essentially
arbitraging with each other and trying to get these small gains by trading away all
their techs. In fact, this was referred to by the name of, “tech whoring” inside of our
fan community. So, I tried to solve this problem with the Civ IV AI. And I think it seems I
basically solved it. It wasn’t as big of an issue with that game. Which is basically that
I said, “Okay, I’ll let the AI undersell it’s technologies for a third. But if at all possible
you try to make up the difference in gold; it only trades on certain random turn intervals.”
So it’s not just constantly happening in every turn. And almost–most importantly there’s
kind of a high level “Refuses to Trade With” logic that’s going on. Where even if we can
make a deal there’s some reason why I don’t like you; you know, you have a different religion,
we have close borders, we’ve had conflict in the past. The AI has used that same logic
between each other as they do with a human. And that seemed to give the system enough
friction that it prevented that problem. You know, where the AI can still undersell techs
but not to such an extremity. You know, here is really a point to–important to go back
to the question of, “What’s the whole point of cheating?” You know–you know, “Are you
trying to write the best AI possible? Are you trying to beat the human? Are you trying
to be fair?” You know, cheating is simply for challenge, which is one source of fun,
right? You know, when the AI’s cheating, you’re trying to provide an interesting game for
the players who are looking for a challenge. But you try and do it in a way where it’s
still going to be, you know, a fun engaging experience, and something that’s not annoying
or make the player suspicious of the AI, or think the whole system is, you know, jerry-rigged
against them. Which leads to this other issue of, “To what extent do we design for the AI?”
Because it’s a–because Civ is a symmetrical game, every option that we include in the
game has to be handled by the AI as well as for the human. Which means there’s going to
be some options that, you know, might be a good design idea, but if the AI just completely
can’t handle it, we may have to take it out. There can be some exceptions to that rule,
but only if they come in very specific, you know, very, very, you know, small places;
things like nukes. Nukes are very powerful but generally, we basically just disable them
entirely for the AI so they don’t have to worry about handling them and players don’t
have to worry about handling them on the business end, I guess. But there are a number of design
changes we made over the years with the series, especially in Civ III and Civ IV, where, you
know, we changed the game design in a way that really helped the AI managed its empire.
Things like moving from localized unit support where every city supported this specific number
of units to global where it’s just, you know, all comes out of every National Treasury;
the idea of closed borders where you can’t just wander freely to someone else’s territory;
enforce peace treaty, which I mentioned earlier, which is the idea that when you make peace
with someone you literally cannot declare war again for another 10 turns. This ICS is
a term called–it means Infinite City Sleaze. It’s kind of a degenerate strategy where players
essentially found a city on every other tile on the map. And, you know, it’s something
we would never want the AI to do and we don’t really want the human to do it either. But
most importantly, you know, we don’t want to have to build the way the AI in a way they’re
supposed to compete with that. However, every one of these times when we make a design change
in a way to help out the AI, we’re also making sure we’re not just designing simply for the
AI. You know, each one of these examples is a change that the human would enjoy as well.
Players really like the fact that their borders actually meant something now. And they hated
the AI–in Civ III, they hated AIs just sort of randomly wondering through their territory.
So it’s a change that was really embraced by the fan community for Civ IV. Same with
enforced peace treaties because now diplomacy in multiplayer games can be actually interesting,
you know. If you come to me in a multiplayer game of Civ III, I can say, “Hey, let’s make
peace.” I go like, “Well, you know, it makes no difference whether we’re at war or at peace.
I still can’t trust you.” But in Civ IV, if I say, “Okay,” you know, “here’s peace.” That
means we literally can’t attack each other for 10 turns. You know, it actually has a
meaning now. So I want to take a little bit time here to kind of talk about some more
details about the Civ AI. So one of those things that’s kind of unique about Civilization
is that the AI has always been written by the game’s lead designer; which I think is–it
shows that the AI is not really an afterthought. It’s really much, very much thought as a core
piece of the design. You know, the way the AI behaves is just as important as how the
gameplay mechanics work. It’s not actually a very, you know, a large chunk of the code.
And as an example, this is–this is the overall Civ IV code-base. The AI is maybe just, you
know, two to 3% of it. And the big issue with AI, to me, usually is the question of, “How
do you test it?” You know, it can be very–be fairly easy to write some AI and, you know,
it looks like it works but, you don’t really know until you’re able to like, you know,
stress test it essentially. You can’t really do traditional testing where you just–which,
you know, in videogame development means, you know, you take four, six, eight testers,
you give them some checklist and you have them play with the game and make sure the
AI does, does, you know, this and that. Now the problem is there’s just so many variations
to a game like Civ and so many things that we’re not even to be able to anticipate ourselves
as the designers, that that’s not going to work. So, we use the–we use essentially a
two-prong approach where we had some automated testing, you know, where every night we would
see, you know, how the AI has changed from the previous day’s build. But then we also
gathered about a hundred of our hardcore fans to play the game for a year or a year and
a half before we released. That made a huge difference, because they found all the things
before we shipped that usually get found after we shipped. So we were able to, you know,
fix those things early. The other thing that’s important about the Civ AI is it’s what I
coined a term, “Soft-Coded,” which that means there’s no AI scripts; there’s no specific
build orders. In fact, there’s no enums in the code at all. Like for example, you might
imagine that in the code for a game like Civ, there’s a list of building enums, you know,
where it’s, you know, zero equals Temple, and one equals Barracks, and two equals Granary.
It actually was–essentially the way it worked in Civ I, but it’s something we’ve moved away
from over the years, where everything is just essentially data-driven. You know, all of
those concepts exist in XML files that can be changed purely as data. And, you know,
we can’t even–you know, the AI has to anticipate the fact that, you know, the–this concept
of a Temple might disappear. You know, we might someday decide just to take it out or
add different types. This leads to a less brittle code. You know, obviously, if you
have some sort of hardcore rebuild order if the game balance changes, you know, that really
changes, you know, that–it’s suddenly now, you know, this whole strategy doesn’t work.
It’s also a less predictable AI which is kind of–can be kind of a mixed blessing. So, when–well,
let me give you an example here of what this means. If you had, you know, an enum for a
Temple inside of the function where you decide what building to choose, you’d have something
like this, you know. If this is the building, you’ll give it a–give it the weight of 20.
And that’s not the right way–that’s not the right way to do it. Instead, what you want
to do is breakdown the Temple–you know, look at the Temple at a high abstract level; what
does it actually represent. Well, a Temple gives you happiness and it gives you culture.
So instead, let’s assign values to how much happiness it gives and how much culture. And
beyond that, you know, maybe the city isn’t even–isn’t unhappy to begin with. In which
case, now the happiness that the temple brings my city is irrelevant. So now suddenly, we
have a much more, you know, nuance view of how to give value to a Temple, something that
could handle the only type of building that we create that has this type of–has these
types of values. Further, generally speaking, when the AI is making a decision, it uses
what I would call, “Probabilistic Reasoning.” Which is we look at a number of factors, we
assign weights to them, we adjust those values according to situation, we add some random
noise, and then we finally, you know, come out with the decision. And here is an example
of the tech value function which is how it decides which technology to research first.
Obviously, this is a much bigger function in the real game but here is, you know, kind
of a smaller one. So first off, you know, it says, you know, “Does this tech provide
irrigation?” In that case, give it a certain value. “Does it give open borders?” Okay,
well, if it does, “Have I met anyone,” because if I haven’t met anyone, that’s irrelevant.
If I have, okay, it gets some more value. “Do I actually have coastal cities?” Because
if I don’t have coastal cities, it’s unlikely–excuse me–that I’m going to be able to do any trading
with them yet. Okay, if I do, all right, we’ll give it a higher value and then finally add-in
some random noise at the end. So, in a nutshell it just kind of describes how we make the
decisions. The nice thing about having a soft-coded AI is it enables essentially very data-driven
Mods. Double your Pleasure was a very popular Mod for Civ III where, essentially, they doubled
the game. You know, they added 100 buildings, added 100 technologies, added a couple hundred
units; all doing things that we didn’t necessarily anticipate originally. And the AI can essentially
handle it because it use–it looks at buildings abstractly, not in terms of, “This is a temple,
this is a barracks, this is a bank.” So they can, you know, create new buildings that do
things very differently and the AI can still function. Fall from Heaven is a very popular
Mod from Civ IV. That’s essentially the fantasy version of Civ, and it may have even added
a magic system into the game to change the way you can promote your units, to give them
spells, for example. And similarly, it had, you know, building types and technology types
we just never anticipated and the AI was still able to handle it. I mean, obviously, not
necessarily as well as with the core game because that’s how the AI is balanced for,
but still it handled it pretty well. So we released the AI code for Civ IV about six
to seven months after we shipped. It essentially allows you to compile a custom DLL which replaces
not just the AI but actually all of the core game code. You know, the code that determines
how techs are researched, you know, how buildings are built, how diplomacy works, so on and
so forth. It was 100% independent of the engine, so it doesn’t know anything about the graphics
or the sound. I don’t think it even necessarily needs to be–know much about the operating
system even. It just simply extends–and you can use it to extend the game functionality.
Like for example, in Fall from Heaven, they added a magic system which is only possible
because we allowed them to build their own game DLL. Now here’s a link to the Civ IV
code. It’s easy to find. You know, just type in, you know, Civ IV code or AI–AI STK, and
I’m sure you can find it. And that’s it. And it looks like we have a few minutes for questions.
So, I’d be happy to answer anything.>>I had a question about risk-taking as opposed
to randomness, which is what I really liked when I would play these games with a human
and then afterwards, you’d be like, “Why the hell did you do that crazy move?” And I will
be like, “I was just going for it, man.” Does the AI ever do that? And when it does these
weird things, does it ever sort of log it so you could sort of see afterwards like,
“Oh, that was a weird thing. It was trying. It wasn’t cheating.”
>>JOHNSON: It wasn’t cheating? You know, there’s so much kind of noise and unpredictable-ness
that’s kind of inherent in the system because the AI is such a, you know, a giant, a giant
beast that I would say that sometimes it happens. Mostly that was handled at the high level,
with the diplomacy, right, because that really changed what the AI was deciding to do. And
so, that was kind of the constant question of how random do we want the diplomacy to
be. Because, usually, what you’re talking about, we’re taking a big risk that usually
involves declaring war on someone or deciding that like, “I’m not going to help this guy
out anymore.” And I think we kind of solved that problem with AI personalities, where
some of the AIs are a lot more predictable than others. When AIs, I mean, you know, Montezuma,
Bismarck, Ghandi, Washington. So if you look in–because actually in an AI, there’s actually
an XML file that defines the personalities for those various different leaders. And you’ll
see–I forgot what they’re called now, but you’ll see some columns. They’re literally
like, you know, randomness, or predictableness, or which is I think fairly close to what you’re
talking about, which is you know–this is the chance that this Civ will attack a larger
opponent, you know, or try to buildup an alliance, an unlikely an alliance against this guy.
Or, you know, be really abstinent in, you know, refusing to make peace even when they
should. So, yeah, we had–we had some stuff like that. I mean, it’s–I’d like to, I’d
like to–I think there’s more we could do like I’d like it to do some kind of crazier
things but.>>Yeah. I’d like that breakdown at the end.
Like if it was random and whether it should make peace so that at the end you could see,
“Oh, wow, it like rolled with really low numbers so that’s why the hell it wasn’t dealing with
me.”>>JOHNSON: Yeah, that’s the nice thing about
playing a game like a D&D game where it actually shows you like, “Oh, I actually–this crazy
thing happened because this thing actually rolled,” you know, as opposed to something
else. Yes?>>How much does the AI cheats as far as like
intelligence gathering? So I know in–if it was Civ III or Civ IV, they added Espionage.
But generally, it seems like the AI opponents like have more knowledge about like how many
troops you have than they would have been able to surmise if you had close borders.
>>JOHNSON: Yeah.>>So, do they do cheating around that so
they’d actually know whether you’re a weaker opponent or if you’re just faking?
>>JOHNSON: Yeah, that’s always a tricky one to answer. They definitely do, like they have
complete knowledge. But that–I mean, the AI is not some sort of independent entity
that’s kind of looking into things. Like I only let them look at things at appropriate
times, if that makes sense. I’m trying to think of the best way to describe this. For
example, I’m not–I’m not keeping track of when units move in and out of the fog of war,
because at least a really tricky AI problem of, you know, “Can you–can you move–you
know, can you move in this direction?” The human sees like, “Okay, the AI have a bunch
of units here and now they just moved in the fog of war and now they’re invisible. Well,
I know they’re there where I can’t see them, but I know–I know they’re there.” I’m trying
to get the AI to be able to have a similar type of memory where they’re like, “Okay,
there was a unit here a couple of turns ago. It’s probably still in this location but I’m
not sure and that has to fade away over time.” That’s doable but everything, when you’re
developing a game like this, is resource-constrained. You know, it’s not an academic project, right?
So we have to say, “Okay, is it–is it worth trying to develop this very complex memory
system or should we just simply try to handle this subjectively, where we let the AI see
whatever we want to let it, but not go overboard,” and that’s essentially the line we have to
walk. So they know–they know everything. I mean, we don’t limit them from knowing anything
but, you know, we’re making specific decisions about when they kind of like get to look,
get to peek, if that makes sense.>>Cool.
>>Hey, nice talk. Some real quick kind of like series of questions; one, what the delay
for the release of the AI code, I’m just kind of curious; and also, did you see any–were
there any interesting contributions from the community that significantly changed the AI?
>>JOHNSON: Right.>>So the Mods you talked about were, you
know, more gameplay Mods? And then maybe a little bit about debugging if you want to
work that in or maybe after this line.>>JOHNSON: Okay. Yeah, I’d be happy to have
a talk afterwards, sure.>>All right.
>>JOHNSON: Yeah. So there was a delay when we–with the AI code. I mean, that was partially
just because it was kind of a hard project to push through legally inside of 2K. It was
actually kind of–because it was this whole thing I just kept pushing for over and over
and over again and talking about it until it kind of finally just happened, you know.
And it wasn’t–it wasn’t necessarily an easy project that they’re going to buy-in on because
they’ve never done anything like that before. But there was also the issue of, games like
this are big and they almost inevitably get a number of patches the first three of four
months after that. So we figured, we wanted–we figured, it would be best to release the AI
code when we knew that the code-base was not going to change, and so that’s one of the
reasons we did that. And there were tons of very, very interesting things that came through.
Obviously, there were sort of interesting gameplay Mods. Things like Fall from Heaven,
there’s a very interesting Dune Mod. There’s an interesting Mod where they kind of try
to recreate Alpha Centauri. But there were also some improved AI Mods where they’re simply
focusing on making a better AI. There’s one guy named Blake, who’s from New Zealand, I
think, who made a really fantastic one and he eventually got hired as a contractor to
work on the expansion packs. And the work he did, I think, was literally just rolled
into the expansion packs. So he wrote a better AI for us and, you know, we used them and
paid him for it.>>Hi, so the Amphibious Assault I think made
me think of this which is that, what a human being would do in that situation is they’ll
go, “Oh, he’s using this strategy on me and I’m not going to win unless I change my behavior.”
>>JOHNSON: Right.>>And there was–the human being would represent
and then analyze the other human’s strategy. I noticed that these programs don’t actually
tend to do that. There will be sort of an extremely soft-coded approach which is like
figure out what your opponent’s goal is.>>JOHNSON: Right.
>>And I noticed you guys don’t do this in any kind of AI situation, is that because
it’s too hard or because it would be too weird, and too difficult for the…
>>JOHNSON: I’d say it’s too hard and it’s beyond our resources because what you’re talking
about is you need some kind of higher level AI, that’s above the AI that’s watching the
AI.>>Right.
>>JOHNSON: And like, “Oh, you’re not making good decisions. You need to change this.”
And that means there’s a number of problems there; challenges. You know, one is you just
simply–that assumes you understand your AI code better than you probably do. And in fact,
there’s been times we’ve experimented with that and what usually happens is like, “Oh,
wow, I didn’t realize that that’s actually the way the AI’s making the decision.” So
it’s really hard. It’d be nice but, like I said.
>>So to follow up; is it a matter of processing resources or a matter of…
>>JOHNSON: It’s a matter of developer resources.>>Okay. I don’t matter, I’m sorry.
>>JOHNSON: I don’t–I don’t think the processor is the issue. It’s simply a question of how
well you can understand your own code which is constantly getting bigger and bigger and
bigger and more complex.>>Okay, thanks.
>>Okay, so I was wondering how often, when you were developing the AI, you’d have like
some idea for something that seemed like it would be really cool and you go and implemented
it and it totally sucked, or vice versa. Or someone was–someone’s like, “Oh, that’s a
terrible idea,” and you put it in, and it just works amazingly well. And also just looking
back, is there something that you would’ve wanted add to the AI that maybe their adding
for Civ V, or? And also, I guess if anyone’s on VC, you can pipe in with questions as well.
>>JOHNSON: Right. Yeah, I mean, we make mistakes all the time; all, all, all the time. That’s
very much what game development’s all about. Although most of the mistakes I usually think
of are generally game mechanics mistakes, the things the way we were changing the design
of Civ III and Civ IV. With AI, AI is usually catching up so that the game design–you know,
the game design plows ahead and the humans, you know, when we’re testing the game, the
humans are the only ones who were able to really mess around with it and then sort of
the AI comes up behind. When I think of mistakes, it’s usually stuff that comes afterwards like–reveal
afterwards that makes me look dumb, I guess. You know, things like the Amphibious Assault
problem. If there’s something I really wish I could have fleshed out better, it would
definitely be personalities. Like I think there’s a lot of space to grow for that where,
you know, there are personalities in Civ IV, but I feel like they could be a lot deeper,
a lot richer, or remember a lot more things. You know, when you talk to them, players get
a lot of feedback if you say, “Oh, I remember when you attacked me here,” you know, stuff
like that. You know, I would–I would like to experiment more with that.
>>Do–to what extent do AI Civ have an advantage or a disadvantage because of their ability
to micromanage units. Do they use the same, the unit management that’s kind of the default
automatic one that the humans get or do we do something different?
>>JOHNSON: Yeah. Civ has a couple of examples of places where it’s making decisions automatically
for you, especially if you turned on worker automation or work sites to place the citizens,
and it is essentially using the same code as the AI uses. The AI has some micromanagement
advantages, but I’d say those really come to play more in real-time strategy games because
time is a resource. You know, the human can’t be everywhere on the map, moving everyone
around at the same time. In a turn-based game, I mean, that’s what happens to the highest
players you can beat the game at Deity and Emperor and so on. They’re the ones who can
spend 20 minutes doing a single turn, going through everyone in the city, making sure
everything goes in the right box exactly right. Although that was actually one of our high-level
design goals that Civ IV was trying to remove that stuff. Like for example, in previous
Civs, if you had–if you’re building a granary, and you had more hammers or shields than you
needed they would kind of go to waste. So it would be–instead of players to pan and
to go back to their cities and rebalance that, in Civ IV, we had those extra shields spillover
to the next project, which means you no longer had to do that type of micromanagement. And
that kind of helps the AI and the human, and as a high level, that’s what we’re trying
to get to where–you know, there isn’t really a micromanagement advantage for either the
AI or the human.>>Okay.
>>Okay, my only question is what makes in I think most of the Civ games, the AI for
naval combat, air combat, seemed just totally different and much harder for the computer
to figure out.>>JOHNSON: Yeah, naval combat is especially
hard. And this is the problem in a lot of computer games. I would say the problem is
just that it’s so orthogonal to the rest of the game. You know, sort of your classic land
combat kind of fits in with a lot of the other algorithms about determining, “Okay, these
tiles has certain values. There’s a resource here; we want to protect it,” you know, “This
city is important,” you know, and just spending a lot of time thinking about path finding
over the land. The water and everything is just so much different. And especially when
you’re talking about Amphibious Assaults because it’s not just moving some ships; you have
to build transports; you have to build the appropriate number of land units; you have
to move those land units to the right coastal cities; you’ve got to move the transports
to them; you have to make sure you have enough escort units; you got to make sure those escort
units are in the same–in the same cities of the transports; you’ve got to make sure
all those transports are ready at the same time and make sure that they’re in the path
to their targets so one of them is not going to get there two turns early. Compare that
to like a land war where you’re just like, “Okay, get all my offensive units ready, move
them towards the front, and go.” You know, it’s really an order of magnitude difference
between those problems.>>Okay.
>>JOHNSON: And you can see that in a lot of other games, too. There’s a lot of our
RTS’s have a problem where the AI’s just really terrible at Amphibious Assaults. And one great
solution was in the RTS: Rise of Nations, where when you take your land units to the
water, they literally just turn into boats, you know. They walk into the water, they magically
become boats, you just cross the sea, and they turn to land units again. I think–I
think–I’ve heard Civ V is trying something similar to this.
>>Okay.>>JOHNSON: And I think, generally, that’s
a good solution if you can–if it works for your game.
>>All right.>>And I just want to pause one second to
see if there’s any questions from the VC. With that, thank you very much.
>>JOHNSON: Thank you.

49 thoughts on “Playing to Lose: AI and “Civilization” (Soren Johnson)

  1. Me gusta más ver que hablen de tanking, healing y DPS en un entorno académico, que ver periodistas y "expertos" hablando de #SocialMedia

  2. @Luke1d20 & @frenzyfol

    Game developers do not have infinite time nor infinite resources to devote to AI development. Expecting a perfect AI in a commercial game is unrealistic. Sure they could have fixed it after they realized it was a problem, but that means either longer development or more maintenance after release. Then it becomes simple economics: "Is it worth it in dollars, reputation and/or time for me or my company to solve?"

    Blame the Businessmen.

  3. @Luke1d20 This is a pointless comment unless you define "cheating". The AI doesn't have eyes, is it cheating for the AI to look up the precise location of the player?

  4. I am REALLY interested in thsi topic but between the smacking of his lips and the fact that he is the WORST public speaker I have heard in months… I can't get through this.. I fall asleep after roughly 10 minutes.

  5. @frenzyfol And what logic and factors would you use to achieve this goal? You yourself use a multitude of factors and rather complex logic based on your own intelligence, environment, and past experience (aka you learned) for the most basic decision of which cities are vulnerable to attack. Try recreating this logic in a game AI and see how well you fare.

  6. i think soren johnson establishes a false dichotomy here (roleplaying vs playing the same game). it all depends on game design: if a strategy breaks the roleplaying, eliminate it. design the rules so that roleplaying is the same as playing to win.

    have a look at the paradox titles (eu3 and vicky2): they do that pretty good by having a few simple mechanics (stability, infamy, religious turmoil) that move strategies that are playing to win and those that are roleplaying close together.

  7. his example of religion providing a plausible casus belli is actually not a very good one: yes, if you are owner of the holy city you want to spread your own religion in civ 4, but other than that you would have no gameplay-reason to dislike players with different religions – yet the ai is doing exactly that for roleplaying reasons
    in the paradox titles having other religions spread actually causes nasty uprisings plus you get valuable casus bellii on heathens, providing a real incentive for war

  8. The most galling aspect is his contempt for the players. They're too stupid to notice if the AI cheats, and if they do they're just being whiny little hypocrites because they all cheat anyway.

  9. And yet there were (and are) trolls around who says that Civ 4 ai does not cheat.

    Well, you can always cheat back anyway, LOL

  10. Why not have the AI code determine what it's "best" X choices are then include a modifier (based on difficulty setting) that determines which of these options it can choose from and roughly how often it chooses each. For example, settler mostly goes with it's "worst", occasionally with the next to worst and never with the top 2 or 3 then adjust that range all the way to deity which would be the opposite. That way you have an AI playing to win on harder settings but easy enough to be fun on lower

  11. I cite the AI in Warhammer: 40k "Dawn Of War". The AI in that game, in the original on the most difficult setting was fantastic. I would always win a 1v1 against them but only after huge amounts of practice. The AI is spectacular and DOESN'T CHEAT. Against 2 AIs they sync with each other and play brilliantly. They're even more difficult 2v2. And so on, 3v3 and 4v4 are just much harder. I once beat 3 AI with 1 human ally but we had to resort to cheese and luck. It *is* possible.

  12. At the end: "Civ 5 will solve the amphibious assault problem by not requiring troop transports." lol. That only exposed AI stupidity even more. I'll just pick off their unprotected tanks with my caravels one by one.

  13. Good God. Fat basement dwellers as far as the eye can see.

    Other than my above "humorous" comment, an interesting look at AI design philosophy.

  14. You're wrong the AI in Dow was shit. Very easy to defeat, HOWEVER there was this amazing modder called Thuddmesier (or something like that) that created DowSkirmish. His AI was absolutely incredible in contrast to the vanilla AI. Shame Relic never hired the chap.

    Its worth noting as this guy says a lot of the advantages that AIs get in multitasking in RTSes is lost in Civ IV as its turn based making it much more difficult to make a challenging AI.

  15. I think "lazy" is a bit harsh. I'd say more "pragmatic" given the time and resources it takes to make an AI. The game itself takes long enough to make, to make a properly incredible AI would probably take an exponential amount of time to make in proportion to the complexity of the game….. and Civ IV is probably one of the most complex games out there.

  16. After reading some of the source code is certainly doesn't cheat as much as you'd expect. Doesn't peek to see if you're making wonders, doesn't even peek to see what tech you're researching (although it does know, as the player also does if a tech has already been researched).

  17. I was talking about the original DoW without the terrible, terrible expansion packs. The increased types of units and the destruction of the interesting differences between the factions resulted in the AI for Soulstorm and the other expansions being massively inferior. I never played DoW after people stopped playing the original online. Did he make any mods for that?

  18. I believe they should work on future games sort of like Bethesda does in there elder scrolls games, and that is to specialize in a specific game concept or factor while simply transferring over everything else from it's successors. I personally agree with him. The AI "personalities" should be improved on. (im my opinion it's the most important feature) How would that leader react to this circumstance? This should be the overall goal to AI development in my opinion.

  19. It's impossible to make AIs that can beat you without cheating (mostly).

    For example, in HOMM 6, easy AIs started with about 200% more resources and they had at least quadruple my amount of units.

  20. In other words, we can agree that corporate games (or any other product) will never be perfected and thus we need to do something about the economics to fix this and make it profitable to release fully developed projects.

  21. I realized the blatant cheating in Civ5 on prince mode!  PRINCE!  I won't ever play another Civ game ever again.  What's the point?

  22. Putting a fake 10 turn limit on breaking alliances is a dumb, easy way to approach AIs. I would rather go with a "human trustwortiness" meter, and the AI would share that rating with each other, making it so the AIs would treat your word accordingly to how much value you put to it. If you were at peace since 50 turns it would evaluate the chances are low you will break it, and if you've broken up 3 pacts before it would treat your word like garbage.

  23. Civ V might look pretty, but man they took steps back on AI.  In the process of streamlining the experience, they eliminated a lot of the diplomatic modifiers that made the experience rich.  Early on they went back to AI ganging up on the human, then, when the fans hated it, they scaled back to the point that only the psychos aren't completely passive.

    So much was made that the AI was trying to win, but that is clearly not the case.  Worse it's not even playing the same game. Developers need to treat AI as essential and valuable.

  24. Would naval combat be improved by establishing rally points at sea?  That way you reduce the pathfinding issues and timing issues.  Have a loading rally point, a midway rally point in the ocean so that stragglers can catch up, and a beachhead rally point with some degree of variability for the invasion?  Once disembarked, land units would behave as normal.

  25. This was a very interesting talk, the guy was very open and explained concepts well. Thanks

  26. This is an interesting talk, but the AI has been the worst aspect of the recent Civ games. So it's kind of a talk about how smart people rationalize making poor design decisions in a massive title.

  27. Isn't this the same guy who admitted the A.I. programming was garbage in the game and was totally done on accident?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *