• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Rogues

DeletedUser110235

I understand that when your city is attacked the response is computer controlled.

What I don't understand is how it can be programmed to be so stupid. If you get into a fight with seven rogues and one other unit, you kill that other unit first. Then the rogues are easy.

The computer program fails to understand this giving those who exploit that glitch an easy victory.
 

DeletedUser653

its not like that in all ages and in some ages fighting with 1 unit and 7 rogues is madness as they just target the 1 unit every time
 

DeletedUser110235

Possibly so but it's happened to me twice in different ages.

I must say I'm less than impressed by players who use this defect too
 

DeletedUser108379

The programming is stupid on purpose.
If you fight on the map of continents you will see, that in higher ages the program does target the real unit first.

It is done like that, so that fighting is easier. If the program would target the real unit first always (neighbours, GE and GvG) much less would fight. There is not much fighting already now.

Have you ever seen an event were a quest requires you to conquer a sector on the map of continent by fighting (buying would not count)? I have not. Why? Because most players are unable to do so. And because of that, the program is as stupid as it is now.
 

DeletedUser110235

I thought the modern era was quite advanced but it's still happening.

Personally I think fighting neighbours is a waste of time for what you gain but I'm very active in GE. It's not difficult if you add in a couple of AW and use the tavern silver to boost your stats. And the pay is better.
 

DeletedUser108379

@Rhyull
No, no, the better program is ONLY on the map of continents. No where else.

What is "AW"?
 

DeletedUser110131

As some have pointed out, it's deliberate, as proved by the fact that the AI behaves differently on the Continent Map. I suspect that they're also right that the reason is to make the base difficulty low enough for everyone. Once you know this, you can adapt to it. Simply pick your defending troops so that they compliment the AI tactics. Also, maximize the effect of the peculiarities that favor the defense; the attacker goes in blind, the defender doesn't risk troops, watchfires are space efficient, and more.

Even if the AI in FoE is weak on purpose, note that building an AI without the kind of flaws that human players can easily exploit, would be a major undertaking, more suited to scientific institutions (e.g. MIT), large corporations (e.g. IBM), a handful of the largest game developers, or a developer specialized in AI (e.g. Chessmaster by UBISoft). Such an AI would also require more processing power than Inno will want to spend on every battle. Complicating it further, once such an AI is developed, it must then be gimped in a balanced way, so that human players stand a chance. Simply not trying, and instead create obstacles and solutions through simpler means, makes sense.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'd love to see a higher grade AI in FoE, and news that they were working on it would be great. It's just that I'm going to wait a bit, before I start holding my breath.

Edit: Clearer wording, fewer typos.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser108379

Some month ago they used on Beta the better AI from the Continent map also in GvG and GE (and neigbours). There was an outcry in the forum, they dismissed it as a bug and changed the AI back. I am quite contend with the current AI. I like to win, but I am not a good fighter.
 

DeletedUser110131

HRC said:
I am more impressed by players who use it, shows they have intelligence and know how to play the game
Click to expand...
Exactly. The game is about identifying and utilizing all possible advantages. Ideally, those advantages will be carefully optimized features of the game, seamlessly integrated into an immersive experience, and completely consistent with the internal logic of the game world. Of course, ideal features being few and far between, even in much higher value game productions than this, many of the advantages available are related to limitations, workarounds, and patchwork solutions. It's unavoidable, happens in all games, and Inno is aware of it, to the point where they are themselves using it as a source of features.

The line is drawn at exploits; that is, deliberately gaining significant advantage from obvious bugs, rather than report them to Inno.

By the way, the approach of the Continent Map AI is far from flawless. A good player can easily keep a single non-Rogue alive, even against that. More importantly, with a few tanks to absorb damage, its exclusive focus on standard troops can be used against it, to great effect.
 

TheKingOfKool

General
It's pathetic that Anyone would complain about the AI. If foe wanted to they could make it so that you wouldn't be able to win or barely win any fights unless you had boosts 3 time more than the opposing forces. Is that what you complainers want? Keep wishing! You'll get a whole lot more than you bargain for; the "wanna cries" always do. They're just not happy unless they're crying - lol - here's a box of tissues.
 

DeletedUser110131

TheKingOfKool said:
If foe wanted to they could make it so that you wouldn't be able to win or barely win any fights unless you had boosts 3 time more than the opposing forces.
Click to expand...
Not by improving the AI, they couldn't. They could easily improve on the one they have (which is pretty sad, really), but building an AI that can outdo the human brain is a major project. Even a brute force solution requires significant programming. The battle engine is also complex enough that brute force will be very resource demanding, further complicated by the random factors in damage, which will make it impossible to precisely predict outcomes. Of course, if they're willing to, they can give the AI beneficial treatment and exemption from restrictions. However, then it wouldn't be an improved AI that outdoes the player, but rather the extent of "cheating".
 

DeletedUser108379

To write a program that could outdo an world master in chess was a major project. A program that can outdo most of the players should be relatively easy. I think many players are even now unable to compete against the AI from the continent map.
 

DeletedUser110131

@Cardena
This is what I was responding to:
TheKingOfKool said:
It's pathetic that Anyone would complain about the AI. If foe wanted to they could make it so that you wouldn't be able to win or barely win any fights unless you had boosts 3 time more than the opposing forces.
Click to expand...
I'm making the generous assumption that the majority of those prone to complaining about the AI being too weak, are capable of reliably beating it.

Outdoing a world master of chess was more than just a major project; it was the prestige project of the worlds biggest electronics company, IBM. The science behind it had been decades in the making, before Deep Blue finally accomplished the task. The team behind Deep Blue were the foremost experts on AI in the world, and they had the entire IBM Research organization behind them.

Obviously, there's no need for anything close to a grand master level AI to beat the vast majority of FoE players. There is, however, a huge distance between "relatively easy" and "creating a grand master AI". What took IBM Research eight years, and the hiring of top experts with previous years of experience, wouldn't be difficult for Inno; it would be entirely impossible. It's completely out of their league, and there's no shame in that. You can be a pretty darn good toy airplane manufacturer, even if you can't match NASA in technological expertise.

The current AI relies on wearing players down, through a large number of battles; essentially, when players who regularly fight are brought to a halt, it's not because they've lost a lot of battles, but because of a cumulative erosion of units. The hard battles in GE IV are double; the player takes on twice the number of his own troops, and will generally be at a disadvantage with regard to boost. The AI fights with a huge advantage.

I'd say that an AI that could reliably defeat the top half of active fighters, under equal conditions (same boosts, same number of troops), would require a huge improvement. Assuming that only the top 10% are prone to complaining about the AI, reliably defeating this group is significantly harder still. Furthermore, according to the comment I was answering, they would have to be completely outclassed, to the point where they'd need a triple boost advantage.

Even a fairly average human brain, once it has mastered a skill (which the players we're talking about has), and provided that it's a complex skill (which this is), is incredibly difficult to outperform with an AI. What's inside our skulls are still the worlds most powerful supercomputers. Exactly how long that state of affairs will last, is another matter. The year 2025 has been suggested for about twenty years now, an estimate that has changed disturbingly little. However, even once we're outdone in raw computing power, it will still remain to outdo us on software. We're much further away from managing that.
 

DeletedUser110235

TheKingOfKool said:
It's pathetic that Anyone would complain about the AI. If foe wanted to they could make it so that you wouldn't be able to win or barely win any fights unless you had boosts 3 time more than the opposing forces. Is that what you complainers want? Keep wishing! You'll get a whole lot more than you bargain for; the "wanna cries" always do. They're just not happy unless they're crying - lol - here's a box of tissues.
Click to expand...

Booo hooo I've just been insulted by the King of Koolaid. I'll drag myself into a corner and whimper. Not. Do you really think I give a flying ferret if someone occasionally rips off a few supplies?

For a more reasoned response, this seems to have got into a more general discussion about the combat AI. Personally I have few problems with it. As another player pointed out, it achieves its limiting factor by attrition rather than overwhelming force.

However, to return to my actual point on one single aspect of combat. If the computer controls my response to an attack then I have a reasonable expectation that it will use a degree of human logic. In the case of rogues, this means destroying any units they can morph into first. That doesn't require the facilities of IBM labs to achieve it. A very simple code such as 'if rogue then attack not-rogue' would do the trick.

So all I seem to have achieved is to show the less combat oriented players how they can attack their neighbours with minimal risk. I do hope you will have the same respect for these wannabes when they attack you, as for those who figured it out for themselves.
 

TheKingOfKool

General
And then they can payback all the diamonds everybody spent unlocking rogue slots & paying for rogue hideouts. So stop the whining; the point is: it's easy for the foe team to make the AI beat everybody with less than 3x the boost of the troops that foe is controlling. Which brings me to my original question: Is that what you all want?
 

DeletedUser110179

TheKingOfKool said:
... the point is: it's easy for the foe team to make the AI beat everybody with less than 3x the boost of the troops that foe is controlling. Which brings me to my original question: Is that what you all want?
Click to expand...
Well, everybody probably wants to enjoy playing FoE ... to varying degrees of satisfaction and intensity (some full-time and some merely part-time). Even one player might prefer playing against different AI styles from time to time ... it's not really about winning or being beaten by the AI.

I enjoy the double battles in GE when I'm more interested in walking away without any casualties (esp trebs, since I haven't researched them) ... or even, without any damage whatsoever. Othertimes, it's fun playing an interesting battle where you can see that the AI is hanging-back a few troops and not merely crushing you at all costs. Chess computers come in different flavours and playing styles (Aggressive, defensive, quick kill, slow death or human-like). Chess can have many rounds of play while FoE battles are all over within 3 or 4 rounds (FoE should be able to come-up with interesting AI without the need for super-computers).
It could be fun playing single-wave battles (L3 & 4 GE) that have upgraded AI as apposed to double-wave battles of outright attrition. Playing human-like AI may also have it's moments. Quickie battles can be mixed-up with longer (thought provoking) battles ... or even 3-wave battles.

Interesting battles are key. City battles could have a random style of play similar to the random terrain generator. The sometimes-stupid AI is also necessary to let players feel clever from time to time. ◆
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vesiger

Vesiger

Monarch
Einrikr said:
As some have pointed out, it's deliberate, as proved by the fact that the AI behaves differently on the Continent Map. I suspect that they're also right that the reason is to make the base difficulty low enough for everyone. Once you know this, you can adapt to it. Simply pick your defending troops so that they compliment the AI tactics.
Edit: Clearer wording, fewer typos.​
Click to expand...
What kind of defending troops complement the tactic of transforming all the Rogues first before attempting to fight back?
I ended up placing all missile troops against the player who keeps attacking me with one MG squad and seven Rogues - occasionally the AI damages the single 'real' unit by a random fluke after transforming all the others, at which he retreats. (Apparently he doesn't mind about losing Rogues.) If you don't attack them from long distance the units return fire multiple times per round and massacre everything :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top