StevenRLynchAbundanceThatIAM StevenRLynchAbundanceThatIAM

I'm not playing again until the AI players have to wait to raze cities.

▼

I'm not playing again until the AI players have to wait to raze cities.

from Elemental Forums

It is just too unfair that we have to hold a city for five turns before we are allowed to raze it, but the AI can just waltz in and immediately demolish any city they can.  And they only do this for cities that you have built too, never their own cities that they're capturing back.  So they can choose to immediately raze OR not.  We have to hold for five turns before we can raze at all.

26,575 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 24


Quoting Sythion, reply 23


Based off the nature of all the bugs I see it's pretty likely that the AI is not connected to the same rules system as the players at all, and instead tries to mimic all the rules the player has in a way that makes sense to the AI code.

 

That's not how it works.

The AI has to play by the same rules in virtually all cases.  The only time that isn't the case is where a game play rule is implemented at the UI level rather than at the game level.  Generally speaking, we try to avoid this sort of thing precisely because it causes the kinds of problems we're discussing.

So in this case, the Raze City *button* has an IF statement on it that determines if it's enabled or not.  The AI does not.  But the AI only evaluates whether it should raze a city at the time of conquest.  

However, late in the beta, it was decided to change it to require a 5 turn minimum and it was implemented as a UI restriction on the player.

 
End of Frogboy's quote

 

Oh, I see, thanks for explaining!

 

So it sounds like the implementation issue exists, but at a higher level, and only when logic is added the the wrong place (UI).

 

Player's interaction: Game Systems<-UI<-Player's decisions

AI's interaction: Game Systems<-AI's API (or whatever)<-AI's decisions

 

 

 

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top
 

 I'll grovel to see if something better can be put into LH.

End of quote

Yes pls because the idea of the city reducing in size (improvements being trashed etc) over a few turns is nice.

 

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 14

Well anything else is going to take a lot of work. So if Im going to do that I'd want something better tha the 5 turn thibe.
End of Frogboy's quote

 

 

suggestion:

 

How about you decide to raze at any time, but razing immobilizes your army for a period of time, based on a factor of number of units in army/city level * number of improvements in city.  Catapults  allow for 1 turn insta-raze no matter what.  Rabble for the purposes of razing is just as effective as elite units.  You'd also gain gold based on amount of improvements.

 

Might be a bit difficult for the AI, but a fairer system.

 

 Really, what I'd settle for and be ok with it just having humans and AI play by same rules instead of giving the AI a cheat.

 

On the UI rules- even if it's just a 1% difference, like in GC2 where I'm pretty sure now AI to AI tech trading was on a special rule, I can really feel it in the areas the AI and human play different  (it annoys me when I see the AI do its quests via diceroll in FE for example, even though I understand the logic as to why it is this way)

 

 

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Alstein, reply 28


On the UI rules- even if it's just a 1% difference, like in GC2 where I'm pretty sure now AI to AI tech trading was on a special rule, I can really feel it in the areas the AI and human play different  (it annoys me when I see the AI do its quests via diceroll in FE for example, even though I understand the logic as to why it is this way)

 
End of Alstein's quote

 

This is the limitation of today's computers and likely wont change. We are using a giant calculator to play a game. Without random factors and die rolls if the AI where designed to choose the correct action every single time it would be completely predictable and no fun. Also players are able to come up with new strategies through trial and error. The AI without random elements will always do one thing which is whatever the best logic it was programmed to do. That being said if you want to limit yourself to the AI constraints you can always turn tactical battles off and have your battles done on a die roll as well. 

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 12
The fix is likely going to be the removal,of the 5 turn wait for the human which can be done in elementaldefs.xml
End of Frogboy's quote

Thank you thank you thank you! I win I win I win! :) This will make games very challenging and scary from the getgo. If you could though could you program a grunt rushing AI that might go on a scorch n burn tear vs the player and other AI's? ;)

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Illauna, reply 29


This is the limitation of today's computers and likely wont change. We are using a giant calculator to play a game. Without random factors and die rolls if the AI where designed to choose the correct action every single time it would be completely predictable and no fun. Also players are able to come up with new strategies through trial and error. The AI without random elements will always do one thing which is whatever the best logic it was programmed to do. That being said if yo
End of Illauna's quote

 

The real issue is that quick battles are just not designed well enough to be worth it, and I suspect AI vs AI is played on different rules even there.

 

 

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 13



Quoting Frogboy,
reply 12
The fix is likely going to be the removal,of the 5 turn wait for the human which can be done in elementaldefs.xml


Seriously?... That doesn't sound like a fun solution

~ K
End of Kongdej's quote

Does to mEEEEEEE I'm happy! ;)