AI cheating or hidden mechanic?

[ElPrezCBF]

Beryl always expands at an extremely fast rate and even before I get artisans, she already has a huge economy with lots of artisans and a decent navy. This makes me wonder if the AI cheats in 1800 to different extents depending on their "difficulty" or do advanced AI opponents play by the same rules, yet start with massive bonuses over the human player?

There seems to be some hidden mechanic in 1800 that I'd like to clarify. I know that providing goods (as opposed to luxuries) is necessary to attract more pops but when you build a new production building for the first time, the upkeep immediately escalates even to start small-scale production. For example, I know the bread production ratio is 2 farms: 1 flour maker : 2 bakeries. But due to the high financial and manpower upkeep, I decide to just build 1 bakery less first. And even that is still very costly.

So early expansion becomes a slow waiting game of starting costly production, taking the huge upkeep hit, waiting for pops to trickle in to reduce your treasury losses and running around the map on quests to compensate for the massive negative cash flow until you get artisans. Am I missing something or is the AI really cheating in terms of bonuses if not playing by different rules?

[Tankfriend]

The AI doesn't have a working economy. You cannot starve them out, you cannot make them go bankrupt, and their expansion speed is defined by their difficulty parameters, rather than by actual building supply management.
In essence, everything except their island defenses and units is just a front to interact with and make them more believable.

Originally posted by ElPrezCBF:

So early expansion becomes a slow waiting game of starting costly production, taking the huge upkeep hit, waiting for pops to trickle in to reduce your treasury losses and running around the map on quests to compensate for the massive negative cash flow until you get artisans.

If you go into the red just by adding the first bread production chain, then chances are that your population is just far too small. Add more peasants and workers to compensate.

Also consider adding sizeable populations of peasants and workers to your other islands, as long as the islands can supply themselves (they only need to be happy, so you don't have to provide *everything* they ask for). Even though these people don't bring in the big money, it adds up, and wood is cheap and fast to produce in large quantities.

If you want to optimize your settlement strategy, try to stay just under 1000 people per population level per island (except your main island or when needed locally), since that's where you start paying royal tax, which reduces your income.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The AI doesn't have a working economy. You cannot starve them out, you cannot make them go bankrupt, and their expansion speed is defined by their difficulty parameters, rather than by actual building supply management.
In essence, everything except their island defenses and units is just a front to interact with and make them more believable.

I'm not sure what "difficulty parameters" mean. If the AI is not playing by any rules or having any bonuses over the human player, that sounds rather unbalanced from a gameplay perspective regardless whether you eventually catch up with them or not. I don't consider AI bonuses unbalanced as long as they play by the same rules because it's common in games to compensate for the AI disadvantage against the human mind. However, not playing by any rules is another story.

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

If you go into the red just by adding the first bread production chain, then chances are that your population is just far too small. Add more peasants and workers to compensate.

Also consider adding sizeable populations of peasants and workers to your other islands, as long as the islands can supply themselves (they only need to be happy, so you don't have to provide *everything* they ask for). Even though these people don't bring in the big money, it adds up, and wood is cheap and fast to produce in large quantities.

If you want to optimize your settlement strategy, try to stay just under 1000 people per population level per island (except your main island or when needed locally), since that's where you start paying royal tax, which reduces your income.

I was aware of rapid pop expansion to compensate for treasury losses but hesitant to do so because I was afraid production wouldn't be able to keep up. But after restarting, I managed to stabilize the situation by starting a second island early and aggressively pushing up pop and production at the same time. I still have my gripes about this because it's too scripted. It works easily on normal difficulty because you have a generous treasury and lots of resources. Once the difficulty is increased, I'd expect more micromanagement and rushed colonization of more islands.

[Tankfriend]

Originally posted by ElPrezCBF:

I'm not sure what "difficulty parameters" mean.

Level 1 AI doesn't expand, unless you allow them to.
Level 2 AI does expand, but they generally unlock areas when you unlock them.
Level 3 AI expands faster than level 2 AI, and moves into new areas independently of when you unlock them.

A higher AI level also translates into larger fleets, larger numbers of large ships, faster switch to steamships / airships, larger island defenses, and a more aggressive approach to warfare and share buying.

[Emelio Lizardo]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The AI doesn't have a working economy. You cannot starve them out, you cannot make them go bankrupt, and their expansion speed is defined by their difficulty parameters, rather than by actual building supply management.
In essence, everything except their island defenses and units is just a front to interact with and make them more believable. ...

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

[XceptOne]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The AI doesn't have a working economy. You cannot starve them out, you cannot make them go bankrupt, and their expansion speed is defined by their difficulty parameters, rather than by actual building supply management.
In essence, everything except their island defenses and units is just a front to interact with and make them more believable. ...

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

The actual problem was, they have never been able to actually make this work in a satisfying manner.
So having them not play by the same rules as the player made them more of a challange at least.
And your actions against them do have effects on how well they'll do. Shooting their trade ships and blockading islands will hinder them, but you won't be able to completely shut them down.

It's not a nice or good way how they are implemented, I think, but neither were the pre-2070 style opponents (they were more believable, though, but that's all they had going for them).

[Tankfriend]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

I doubt there's a lot of games out there of this scale where the AI doesn't cheat or gets around the rules in some way. It's just way too expensive and time-consuming to program it that way.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

I doubt there's a lot of games out there of this scale where the AI doesn't cheat or gets around the rules in some way. It's just way too expensive and time-consuming to program it that way.

If you don't consider giving AI bonuses while still following the rules as "cheating", it's actually very common in games. Examples include Civ, Total War and Xcom. In fact, giving AI bonuses is the easier way compared with making the AI smarter. Allowing the AI to play outside the rules takes away the sense of a fair challenge because it turns the game into a puzzle where you either trial and error or just ask those who already "figured it out" as the only way to deal effectively with the AI or not at all.

[Humble]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

Originally posted by ElPrezCBF:

I'm not sure what "difficulty parameters" mean.

Level 1 AI doesn't expand, unless you allow them to.
Level 2 AI does expand, but they generally unlock areas when you unlock them.
Level 3 AI expands faster than level 2 AI, and moves into new areas independently of when you unlock them.

A higher AI level also translates into larger fleets, larger numbers of large ships, faster switch to steamships / airships, larger island defenses, and a more aggressive approach to warfare and share buying.

No, Level 2 A.I do expand even you don't unlock on most world, only arctic is lock for all level ai, the arctic do lock till build first airship in the arctic, it's depending on who AI, if dr hugo, he seem always go colony enbesa before new world is why it's easier to colonize new world before dr hugo because dr hugo codes go enbesa first, I think level 1 only colony every hour, level 2 ai colony every 30 minutes but not sure detail.
Level 1 had limited numbers asked colony island, like you turn down like 6 time, they will stop asking and keep colony.

AI isn't code or design to follow rule like player do.
It's just do scripted to make world felt little alive, illusion if you will, dr hugo is little bit more useful than all other ai due trade right to get item specific.

Level 2 and 3 A.I usually expands on based of their time and building, not human player expect the arctic world map, they go on without player level/building.

[Tankfriend]

Originally posted by ElPrezCBF:

If you don't consider giving AI bonuses while still following the rules as "cheating"

Of course that's still cheating.

[Yeast Lord]

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The AI doesn't have a working economy. You cannot starve them out, you cannot make them go bankrupt, and their expansion speed is defined by their difficulty parameters, rather than by actual building supply management.
In essence, everything except their island defenses and units is just a front to interact with and make them more believable. ...

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

So doesn't exist like that for strategy games. They have always cheated or used turtle/rush tactics since age of empires.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

Originally posted by ElPrezCBF:

If you don't consider giving AI bonuses while still following the rules as "cheating"

Of course that's still cheating.

That's why I said "consider" but personally, I don't because I see it as using bonuses to compensate for the AI's inherent weakness against the human player. Have you ever lost to an AI that relies on bonuses because it cannot match human thinking fully? I know I haven't so far. Making a 100% human-like AI is probably impossible with today's technology and I've yet to see a game that's like this, which is why most games give the AI bonuses instead of trying to mimic human intelligence fully.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by The Old Crone:

Originally posted by Emelio Lizardo:

Kind of makes the game meaningless for me. I want a functional AI that has to abide by the same rules, resources, and limitations that I have. That rationally expands or diminishes. It's disappointing to know it's fiat.

So doesn't exist like that for strategy games. They have always cheated or used turtle/rush tactics since age of empires.

See my last reply above. Trust me, I've played enough strategy games like AoE, Total War, Endless Space, Stellaris, Civ and Xcom to know that saying the AI is "cheating" is too simplistic. "Turtle/rush tactics" sounds like what some human players would do, so I'd consider that a good thing. Yet, having aspects of human intelligence doesn't make a human mind out of the AI. Probably the only games that can truly challenge the human player on a more equal level are those that don't rely on bonuses as their fundamental mechanics are inherently designed to mimic reality as much as possible, such as Oxygen Not Included. But such games are rare.

Edit: Anno is the only game I concede that the AI is cheating because it completely ignores bonuses by outright playing by different rules from what I understand.