Hermann the Lombard
01-09-2003, 22:32
This is a reply to Hakonarson in the Main Hall. For context, I provide his quote as well:
*****
Quote[/b] ](Hakonarson)
Quote[/b] ](Jacque Schtrapp @ Jan. 07 2003,23:45)
If the human player makes a move on the campaign map and ends the turn, he/she can witness that AI moves for the same year before the florins/year are updated in the bottom right of the campaign map. These AI moves are supposed to be based on the AI's strategy regarding the humans movements from the previous year. Yet I have found save after reloaded save that (especially in the latter stages of the game) when I move a large army out of a province that I possess which shares a border with either an enemy/neutral/ally and leave that province virtually undefended I will be attacked. However, if I reload and do not remove the army from its province I will not be attacked. I have even gone so far as to reload the same turn numerous times adjusting the quantity and composition of my troops and have discovered that when the AI achieves a numerical or qualitative superiority it will attack.
Now those of you who claim that the AI cannot see the players movements that take place during the same calendar year, please explain how this is true when I have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the AI does in fact respond in 1276 to moves that I intentionally orchestrated in 1276.
Same holds true in naval situations. Share a sea zone with a foe, where the number of ships is in your favor and he will not attack. However, if you move enough ships out of the sea zone so that the numbers favor the AI, then he will attack the remaining ship(s) the same turn that you are moving your ships to a new sea zone. Reload and leave the ships and he does not attack.
The AI does see and react to player movements if it is in its best interest to do so. Still, all in all, its not nearly as prevalent or asinine as STW.
You haven't proved anything of the sort - indeed you seem to have an odd understanding of the word prove.
Moreover no-one has to provide any explaination as to why the AI makes teh moves it does - it is you making the accusation, therefore it is YOU who has to provide all teh information to justify your own position, not everyone else who has to show that your accusation is wrong.
Unless you go to the code and show how it's happening all you have showen is that in some individual cases the AI has made those moves - yuo have shown nothing at all about why it has made those moves.
Unfortunately I don't expect you to accept this - howls of justified outrage rarely answer to the requirements of logic or objective evidence because they are so deeply based in emotional terms.
You are not going to get any joy from your demands that the programmers admit that the AI cheats - indeed as yuo said at the start they have quite explicitly said that the AI does not cheat.
***
Hakonarson,
Regarding proof, Jacque Schtrapp stated a hypothesis, that the AI cheats defined as choosing a move based on the player's actions or inactions within the same turn. He then conducted an experiment involving multiple repetitions where he attempted to control all variables except the player's choice of moves. The results of the experiment support the hypothesis.
Now, does that constitut proof? Perhaps not in and of itself, but the hypothesis meets the criteria of falsifiability (it can be DISproved). If other researchers are able to reproduce the experiment in multiple game situations, then collectively they will have produced results that strongly support the hypothesis.
It's true that we don't have the precise data on the number of repetitions so we can't even calculate the size of the error bars...but you could conduct such an experiment yourself and see if your results support the hypothesis or not. You could even ask J.S. for a copy of HIS saved game, allowing you to reproduce his experiment as closely as you wish.
Obviously there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the AI sometimes responds to human moves within the same year...but we know that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. We remember the incidents that support an idea and fail to notice the cases which don't.
So did he prove his point? No, but he obviously made a good-faith and relatively scientific effort to do so...and if you wish, you can try to disprove his point by experiment (as opposed to using Aristotelian reasoning).
*****
Quote[/b] ](Hakonarson)
Quote[/b] ](Jacque Schtrapp @ Jan. 07 2003,23:45)
If the human player makes a move on the campaign map and ends the turn, he/she can witness that AI moves for the same year before the florins/year are updated in the bottom right of the campaign map. These AI moves are supposed to be based on the AI's strategy regarding the humans movements from the previous year. Yet I have found save after reloaded save that (especially in the latter stages of the game) when I move a large army out of a province that I possess which shares a border with either an enemy/neutral/ally and leave that province virtually undefended I will be attacked. However, if I reload and do not remove the army from its province I will not be attacked. I have even gone so far as to reload the same turn numerous times adjusting the quantity and composition of my troops and have discovered that when the AI achieves a numerical or qualitative superiority it will attack.
Now those of you who claim that the AI cannot see the players movements that take place during the same calendar year, please explain how this is true when I have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the AI does in fact respond in 1276 to moves that I intentionally orchestrated in 1276.
Same holds true in naval situations. Share a sea zone with a foe, where the number of ships is in your favor and he will not attack. However, if you move enough ships out of the sea zone so that the numbers favor the AI, then he will attack the remaining ship(s) the same turn that you are moving your ships to a new sea zone. Reload and leave the ships and he does not attack.
The AI does see and react to player movements if it is in its best interest to do so. Still, all in all, its not nearly as prevalent or asinine as STW.
You haven't proved anything of the sort - indeed you seem to have an odd understanding of the word prove.
Moreover no-one has to provide any explaination as to why the AI makes teh moves it does - it is you making the accusation, therefore it is YOU who has to provide all teh information to justify your own position, not everyone else who has to show that your accusation is wrong.
Unless you go to the code and show how it's happening all you have showen is that in some individual cases the AI has made those moves - yuo have shown nothing at all about why it has made those moves.
Unfortunately I don't expect you to accept this - howls of justified outrage rarely answer to the requirements of logic or objective evidence because they are so deeply based in emotional terms.
You are not going to get any joy from your demands that the programmers admit that the AI cheats - indeed as yuo said at the start they have quite explicitly said that the AI does not cheat.
***
Hakonarson,
Regarding proof, Jacque Schtrapp stated a hypothesis, that the AI cheats defined as choosing a move based on the player's actions or inactions within the same turn. He then conducted an experiment involving multiple repetitions where he attempted to control all variables except the player's choice of moves. The results of the experiment support the hypothesis.
Now, does that constitut proof? Perhaps not in and of itself, but the hypothesis meets the criteria of falsifiability (it can be DISproved). If other researchers are able to reproduce the experiment in multiple game situations, then collectively they will have produced results that strongly support the hypothesis.
It's true that we don't have the precise data on the number of repetitions so we can't even calculate the size of the error bars...but you could conduct such an experiment yourself and see if your results support the hypothesis or not. You could even ask J.S. for a copy of HIS saved game, allowing you to reproduce his experiment as closely as you wish.
Obviously there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the AI sometimes responds to human moves within the same year...but we know that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. We remember the incidents that support an idea and fail to notice the cases which don't.
So did he prove his point? No, but he obviously made a good-faith and relatively scientific effort to do so...and if you wish, you can try to disprove his point by experiment (as opposed to using Aristotelian reasoning).