"Cheating" AIs that nevertheless pose an enjoyable challenge

[Nutmeg]

I can't be the only one who really likes playing Civ 4 on Deity.

Counter examples are R:TW and CoH hard AIs. The former just becomes super formulaic, and the latter employs no tactics so it becomes tower defense.

But manipulating Civ 4 AI with a huge resource handicap to defeat them anyway is a fun puzzle.

What are some other "cheating" AIs people like to play against?

 

[Galdred]

I liked the old Microprose AIs:
I remember one of my Civ 1 games in which I had taken over the main continent in ancient times with my fearsome Greek chariots, with only a single civ left, Then the US showed up on my door step with tanks, planets, and battleships while I was still fielding late medieval/early renaissance armies.
I ended up relying on hordes of "diplomats" to catch up and bribe units and steal technologies from the opponent.

I also liked playing the MOO2 AI. MoM AI was much stupider, but it had flashes of brillance. I had a flyinh etheral champion with magic resistance or something like that, but the AI casted web to remove flying, then crack to have him swallowed by earth.
The new MoM: CoM AI steems much better though

 

[Nutmeg]

Not really after brilliant AI. It can be stupid and manipulable as long as manipulating the cheating and stupid AI poses enough challenge by itself.

There's another thread about actually good AI.

 

[Norfleet]

I think the distinction between whether an AI that cheats is interesting comes down to whether or not playing the game, independently of the presence of AI, is interesting. The domestic gameplay of Civ remains interesting without anyone trying to murder you, so the exact nature of the murderous outside force is unimportant. Meanwhile, Total war is entirely in the battles, so when the AI cheats outlandishly, but without actually being good, it just becomes increasingly repetitive.

 

[DakaSha]

AI War

 

[JarlFrank]

I always dislike cheating AI because it's no fun having to cheese. It means that strategies the AI can use against you won't work against them, and you have to play in degenerate ways to overcome their ridiculous bonuses.

 

[Nutmeg]

I think the distinction between whether an AI that cheats is interesting comes down to whether or not playing the game, independently of the presence of AI, is interesting. The domestic gameplay of Civ remains interesting without anyone trying to murder you, so the exact nature of the murderous outside force is unimportant. Meanwhile, Total war is entirely in the battles, so when the AI cheats outlandishly, but without actually being good, it just becomes increasingly repetitive.

I don't think this is true. Civ 4 isn't fun because it's a spreadsheet, it's fun because at high difficulty levels you have to make every turn count. If the AI wasn't present, this wouldn't be the case.

 

[DakaSha]

Immersion fags don't like cheating ais
Autist fags don't mind it


Ai war makes both happy since it was designed around a cheating ai (though it is of course real time).

More games should be doing this. There really is no reason that everything should have to be symmetric

 

[Zarniwoop]

Immersion fags don't like cheating ais
Autist fags don't mind it


Ai war makes both happy since it was designed around a cheating ai (though it is of course real time).

More games should be doing this. There really is no reason that everything should have to be symmetric

Does it really cheat or does it just start with a massively overwhelming force?

I could never get into AI war, never reached that tier of 'tism and just found it banal shit boring.

 

[DakaSha]

Immersion fags don't like cheating ais
Autist fags don't mind it


Ai war makes both happy since it was designed around a cheating ai (though it is of course real time).

More games should be doing this. There really is no reason that everything should have to be symmetric

Does it really cheat or does it just start with a massively overwhelming force?

It doesnt play by the same rules period

 

[Norfleet]

Is it really cheating if it is simply a completely DIFFERENT thing that plays by its own rules, meaning it was never presented as a symmetric game in the first place?

 

[JarlFrank]

It's not cheating if it's set up as completely assymetrical from the start and the rules are clearly defined.

Cheating AIs in Civ and Total War have the same rules as the player on the surface, but the game gives them literal cheats that override the rules players have to abide by.

 

[Nutmeg]

It's not cheating if it's set up as completely assymetrical from the start.

It's just a matter of perspective and dressing. Like imagine if deity was the only difficulty available in civilization and you gave the other civs alien graphics.

 

[JarlFrank]

Then I wouldn't enjoy playing Civ much because it's not fun to fight against inflated numbers.

The AI would still use the same rules as you (have to found cities, build buildings, roads, units etc) but it would just get insanely inflated numbers compared to you. They don't follow different rules or play a different game - they follow the exact same rules as you but they get bonuses that give them free shit.

 

[Stavrophore]

Cheating ai was a bane of rome total war, they could disregard corruption and money pretty much. I dont like cheating ai implemented in any way.

 

[Norfleet]

On the subject of Cheating AIs in Civlikes, I've always found that the only effect this has is to completely destroy the early game: Your strategy for playing the early game pretty much becomes entirely artificial and aimed around cheesing the AI, as there's no way to play the game normally at this point.

However, if the AI doesn't cheat, then it has no chance of remaining competitive in the slightest by midgame, let alone late game.

I've always wondered how to deal with that, and came to a thought: What if the AI doesn't cheat, but also doesn't actually exist until discovered, at which point it spawns into existence at an appropriate power level based on how a human would have played for a given difficulty to that point in the game? From that point on, it would begin playing the game until ultimately defeated? Would this be a better way of doing things?

 

[Nutmeg]

What if the AI doesn't cheat, but also doesn't actually exist until discovered, at which point it spawns into existence at an appropriate power level based on how a human would have played for a given difficulty to that point in the game?

Kind of similar to the TW games spawning doom stacks in fog of war. IMO it's not a very fun type of challenge, cause now you're not interacting with anything (except the fog, really), it's just attrition.

Playing Civ 4 on deity is all about interacting with the AI. The key point is, the AI behaves quite predictably, so even though you have a huge handicap you can still manipulate it into holding untenable positions. You might call this "cheesing" but to me this act of "cheesing" is difficult, challenging and enjoyable.

High level Civ 4 absolutely requires a strong understanding of the AI.

 

[Oberon]

In EU4 I hate knowing in the back of my mind that the AI is cheating because it kills my immersion. I also hate knowing that it is derping around with doomstacks in the middle of some God forsaken desert half way across the world taking massive attrition damage.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

Civ4: Colonization's Independence cheating is actually somewhat good. It's like a final boss fight that you have to plan and prepare for.
It doesn't work however in an AI vs AI scenario as the colony AI will nearly always get steamrolled. But it's a fun challenge for a player.

The cheating part is that the motherland can spawn matching forces based on how well the colony is doing, so you can build and build and build you'll never get ahead of them. You just have to have a good plan and the logistics to deal with the invasion.

 

[Norfleet]

The cheating part is that the motherland can spawn matching forces based on how well the colony is doing, so you can build and build and build you'll never get ahead of them. You just have to have a good plan and the logistics to deal with the invasion.

I wouldn't call that "cheating" or even "AI". The motherland isn't "playing the game", it's an entirely different, outside-context entity. Also, the Royal Expeditionary Force isn't keyed to your prosperity or even your own militarization, but increases based on the amount of bells you have produced. If you're not producing bells, you can crank your economy and militarize as much as you want with no REF growth.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

Also, the Royal Expeditionary Force isn't keyed to your prosperity or even your own militarization, but increases based on the amount of bells you have produced.

Right, I might be thinking of the modded experience then because I did remember Vanilla being a tad too easy. Religion and Revolution as well as We the People scaled to prosperity and military strength.

 

[Norfleet]

Also, a funny thing happens if you block all of the landing sites, making it impossible for the REF to land, so all of their ground troops are rendered useless.

 

[Deflowerer]

Cheating AI is fine, but I'd like to know on what exactly he's cheating.

 

[Hace El Oso]

I didn't mind the AI cheating in the second Shogun Total War for the same reason that I think it's the only setting that really suits the series properly: My hated rival clan surprising me with an army they 'shouldn't have' in a forested mountain pass or attacking some lightly defended keep feels in keeping with medieval Japan, like a scene out of 'Ran' (complete with yourself as the pouting and desolated lord):



I don't know if the AI cheated in the original Shogun, but even if it did (which wouldn't surprise me) one thing that it did not cheat at was succession and inheritance. More than once I saw what were just before two or three reasonably powerful clans suddenly united into a potential Shogunate through a succession collapse/marriage ties, or saw a huge menacing rival suddenly broken apart.

Which reminds me, I need to download the 'best of' mods for it and play again, I lost mine. A real shame it's so difficult. I think they were linked here on the Codex somewhere.

 

[civac2]

On the subject of Cheating AIs in Civlikes, I've always found that the only effect this has is to completely destroy the early game: Your strategy for playing the early game pretty much becomes entirely artificial and aimed around cheesing the AI, as there's no way to play the game normally at this point.

However, if the AI doesn't cheat, then it has no chance of remaining competitive in the slightest by midgame, let alone late game.

I've always wondered how to deal with that, and came to a thought: What if the AI doesn't cheat, but also doesn't actually exist until discovered, at which point it spawns into existence at an appropriate power level based on how a human would have played for a given difficulty to that point in the game? From that point on, it would begin playing the game until ultimately defeated? Would this be a better way of doing things?

Civ4 AI bonuses increase with game era. So late game building and research discounts are higher than early/mid game ones.