Let's discuss AI

From my experience and from what I have seen so far in the dll code, the biggest change to DoW logic from G&K to BNW is basically the block that takes into account trade routes with the potential target (as explained in another thread that became a rant).

I think the solution to all this is that they bring back the "Aggressive AI" setup option; in this case, they could relax the TR code a bit to let the AI make some of the stupid DoWs early on (even if they go into deficit) in order to appease the group of people that miss the suicidal early AI.

On the other hand, if they are going for an "all-rounded" unique solution, then it's just a matter of balance. I think the formula for calculating the decrease in probability of War as related to TR may need a revisit; as it is now, it uses an absolute gold value that may be too prevalent in the early game (thus, making early wars less likely than the designers really intended). If I have the time, I might come up with a revised formula and test it in a new dll to see what happens.

But please, those that want a more aggressive early AI, please stop using the argument of "dumbed down" game because of the new code and mechanics; sometimes, it starts to sound like the pathetic "my appendix is larger than you-uuursss!" childish argument... ;)
 
Makonnen91 said:
I plan to start a game tonight after work with some different settings.

Map-Continents plus
Size-Standard
Speed-Epic
Difficulty-Emperor
*Raging Barbarians on
*Random Personalities on
*Adding two Civs. (Total of 10) Reducing City states to 12

Maybe this will shake things up a bit.
Click to expand...

Interesting, because I play Emperor/Fractal/Standard/Raging/Random Pers/ and I can tell you I have always seen "shaking". Granted, the biggest part of the shaking has shifted towards the mid-end game, but the waves are magnified because the AI seems to play the development game better (but for the early suicidal ones, which still exist, and when they fail, they are crippled for the rest of the game... although I have seen a spectacular come back from an AI in my second game).
 
Aristos said:
I think the solution to all this is that they bring back the "Aggressive AI" setup option; in this case, they could relax the TR code a bit to let the AI make some of the stupid DoWs early on (even if they go into deficit) in order to appease the group of people that miss the suicidal early AI.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that, while the early war is almost always catastrophic for an AI, it also forces the human player to reprioritize to dealing with it (however small), and so it gives the rest of the AIs a better chance against a human, as it does not require any effort on their part.

So while it does not help the Civ who started it, it certainly does its job of making the SP game 'harder'.

(I will also note that if early wars do not cause a moderate-to-severe issue for human players, the AI is certainly better off not attacking.)
 
Aristos said:
Interesting, because I play Emperor/Fractal/Standard/Raging/Random Pers/ and I can tell you I have always seen "shaking". Granted, the biggest part of the shaking has shifted towards the mid-end game, but the waves are magnified because the AI seems to play the development game better (but for the early suicidal ones, which still exist, and when they fail, they are crippled for the rest of the game... although I have seen a spectacular come back from an AI in my second game).
Click to expand...


It's not that folks want suicidal AI. I just want that early attack to hold it on and be imposing without crippling and bankrupting the AI in the process.Is this not possible? A middle ground would be nice.

We need to stop mixing up "Suicidal early attacks" with "opportunistic early wars that favor the AI" If an early assault by the AI can't be effective WITHOUT crippling them then something needs to change.

On the topic of our settings. I'm just hoping it makes the early game a bit less predictable. I've always loved the early stages of Civ games for its unpredictable nature.

I always think of this example for this topic:
Ex. CIV IV. Early game.- You have a resource heavy start and you look to get the jump on a really helpful wonder at the start of the game. You figure you can skip out on Archery, when all of a sudden you see the yellow borders of Shaka or brown ones of the Khans. Well, you know they are typically very early aggressors (as they are built to be). So do you try to skate by with lackluster early defense? Or bypass one the better techs to grab Archey to defend against the impending invasion?

These types of things kept you on your toes. Even if you did not get declared on early, it causes you to make some sacrifices and alter your game plan so to speak. And when you did get declared on, it was a force that could wipe you off the map.
 
Makonnen91 said:
It's not that folks want suicidal AI. I just want that early attack to hold it on and be imposing without crippling and bankrupting the AI in the process.Is this not possible? A middle ground would be nice.

We need to stop mixing up "Suicidal early attacks" with "opportunistic early wars that favor the AI" If an early assault by the AI can't be effective WITHOUT crippling them then something needs to change.

On the topic of our settings. I'm just hoping it makes the early game a bit less predictable. I've always loved the early stages of Civ games for its unpredictable nature.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about early attacks vs. the player or early attacks of AI vs AI? Because I've had plenty of BNW games already where early, aggressive AI's have had all kinds of success. Shaka's wiped the board, and Rome was raging in another game until I cut them off.

Either way, in a game with 8-10 players (regardless of whether they are computer or human controlled), a civ going early attack is basically banking their shot for victory on that early attack. There's almost never going to be a workable plan B unless the whole rest of the world also gets in attrition wars.

IMO, the whole point of having some AI-controlled civs being aggressive against ME early is to keep me honest militarily and/or diplomatically. Otherwise, the entire game is about manipulating tech and culture to boom to victory as fast as possible.

Also, it would be nice, IMO, if the AI had enough sense to not send the cannons to the front and infantry to the rear so often. :crazyeye:
 
Unthinking Pain said:
Are you talking about early attacks vs. the player or early attacks of AI vs AI? Because I've had plenty of BNW games already where early, aggressive AI's have had all kinds of success. Shaka's wiped the board, and Rome was raging in another game until I cut them off.

Either way, in a game with 8-10 players (regardless of whether they are computer or human controlled), a civ going early attack is basically banking their shot for victory on that early attack. There's almost never going to be a workable plan B unless the whole rest of the world also gets in attrition wars.

IMO, the whole point of having some AI-controlled civs being aggressive against ME early is to keep me honest militarily and/or diplomatically. Otherwise, the entire game is about manipulating tech and culture to boom to victory as fast as possible.

Also, it would be nice, IMO, if the AI had enough sense to not send the cannons to the front and infantry to the rear so often. :crazyeye:
Click to expand...

Yes being aggressive towards the player is what I meant. Sorry for the lack of clarification. You are right. And by keeping you honest, it forces you to make decisions and sacrifices depending on the situation and political climate of the game.
 
Makonnen91 said:
It's not that folks want suicidal AI. I just want that early attack to hold it on and be imposing without crippling and bankrupting the AI in the process.Is this not possible? A middle ground would be nice.

We need to stop mixing up "Suicidal early attacks" with "opportunistic early wars that favor the AI" If an early assault by the AI can't be effective WITHOUT crippling them then something needs to change.
Click to expand...
I don't know what it is about 100% of games featuring an early onslaught of Warrior Diarrhea that makes you think that constitutes a challenge, but it really, absolutely is not. As it stands right now, I tend to have an AI neighbor initiate an early military rush in about 1/3 of games, and in those cases, it does this apparently because it got screwed in the trade game and has little else to lose. That seems about right, and should manage to leave you wondering whether you should prioritize military or trade well enough.

If you're asking for this to happen every damn time because It Is Known Khaleesi, you're definitely not asking for a smarter AI.
 
Makonnen91 said:
Yes being aggressive towards the player is what I meant. Sorry for the lack of clarification. You are right. And by keeping you honest, it forces you to make decisions and sacrifices depending on the situation and political climate of the game.
Click to expand...

This leads to a more general discussion of my point: do people want the AI to get better at playing the game, or do people want the AI to get better at preventing the human player from winning?

These are not the same, and lead to rather different behavior. If the latter, then a more 'game-oriented' AI that KNOWS it's playing a game is in some parts necessary, even if it's not transparent to the human player.

One of the clearest differences is whether an AI should sacrifice its chance for winning the game to make it less likely for the human player to win the game. If you want a 'better game-playing AI', the answer is clearly no. If you want a 'AI that gives the human player a harder challenge', the answer is clearly yes.

The only way to thread this needle is to have a very sophisticated AI that is good enough so that it can pass a Turing Test not just to the human, but also to the other AIs. I am afraid that this is rather difficult if not impossible to achieve, because any fault/weakness/loophole in an otherwise perfect AI will be magnified by the number of computer AIs in the game.
 
Polisurgist said:
I don't know what it is about 100% of games featuring an early onslaught of Warrior Diarrhea that makes you think that constitutes a challenge, but it really, absolutely is not. As it stands right now, I tend to have an AI neighbor initiate an early military rush in about 1/3 of games, and in those cases, it does this apparently because it got screwed in the trade game and has little else to lose. That seems about right, and should manage to leave you wondering whether you should prioritize military or trade well enough.

If you're asking for this to happen every damn time because It Is Known Khaleesi, you're definitely not asking for a smarter AI.
Click to expand...

Then you are obviously not reading my post closely enough my friend. I pose the simple question...Why can't an early assault be effective? And if it can't, something should change. I am not asking for a revert to suicidal AI. Though if the AI decides to make an early rush attempt it should be competent and effective enough to cause the player some worry. That's all I am saying. If they need to do this via more gold bonuses or what so be it. The fact that you as the player knows that every time an early rush by the AI will fail is problematic. Wheres the challenge in that?
 
Makonnen91 said:
Then you are obviously not reading my post closely enough my friend. I pose the simple question...Why can't an early assault be effective? And if it can't, something should change. I am not asking for a revert to suicidal AI. Though if the AI decides to make an early rush attempt it should be competent and effective enough to cause the player some worry. That's all I am saying. If they need to do this via more gold bonuses or what so be it. The fact that you as the player knows that every time an early rush by the AI will fail is problematic. Wheres the challenge in that?
Click to expand...

IMO the main reason the AI's early rushes against me aren't effective is the AI is, comparative to me, rock stupid about the tactical game.

For the sake of humility, a rank of intelligence about the tactical game could be Civ 5 AI << me << everyone else. ;)
 
Makonnen91 said:
Then you are obviously not reading my post closely enough my friend. I pose the simple question...Why can't an early assault be effective? And if it can't, something should change. I am not asking for a revert to suicidal AI. Though if the AI decides to make an early rush attempt it should be competent and effective enough to cause the player some worry. That's all I am saying. If they need to do this via more gold bonuses or what so be it. The fact that you as the player knows that every time an early rush by the AI will fail is problematic. Wheres the challenge in that?
Click to expand...

Early assaults can and sometimes are effective. They just are no longer the AI's sole option for the early game, and tend to only happen when it's advantageous for the AI to do so, or at least when the AI has less of an opportunity cost because they aren't trading much anyway.

The only early game rushes that have been removed have been the suicide rushes.
 
Polisurgist said:
Early assaults can and sometimes are effective. They just are no longer the AI's sole option for the early game, and tend to only happen when it's advantageous for the AI to do so, or at least when the AI has less of an opportunity cost because they aren't trading much anyway.

The only early game rushes that have been removed have been the suicide rushes.
Click to expand...

What settings do you play on btw? I'd like to do a comparison for when I start my game here shortly.
 
Small point:

Civ V BNW AI does kind of try to win. It doesn't go for it very hard, and it doesn't cripple the player trying to win, but it does, sort of. The reason it's this way is because of player feedback. It's not Firaxis alone, nor an executive developer decision. Back when the AI was much more aggressive and transparent about winning, the CivFanatic Forums were racked with thread after thread after thread complaining about this. So it's been "fixed." You can't fault Firaxis for being unresponsive to its dedicated fans.

I've played something like 10 or so games on Prince Standard speed. Even at that low level, I have been attacked in the Classical Era. It doesn't happen every game, but it does happen. The Civs that attacked me were Huns with Horse Archers and Battering Rams, Genghis with his usual army mass, Napoleon with GG and mass of Archers and Warriors, and Alexander with Hoplites and Companion Cavalry.

It's happens about 33% of the time. It's a LOT more likely to happen if the AI is amassing troops. This is actually easily observable if you park your level 3 Scout where you can monitor AI unit numbers. I consider this a great improvement over previous AI where every AI just attacked (even if it's against its interests), or made a bunch of units and then did nothing with them.
 
alpha wolf 64 said:
The AI is still incredibly weak once you take away its gigantic advantages in creating things. It does many illogical things just to get in the humans' way. For instance, a distant civ sent a settler across the ocean to try to settle a wasteland between 2 of my cities when there were plenty of prime spots much closer to home. So I had a unit get in its way and for the next 50+ turns, the 2 units went back and forth over the same same tiles. The AI had no memory of my past moves and thus never changed its movement.

Second example is the Mayan attempt to cross the channel and attack my lightly held city. Instead of putting all their units into the channel at once and overwhelming my 2 ranged units/city, they never put more than 4 in at a time. With my double shots and city, that gave me 5 shots per turn, easily sinking most every turn.

Or when units just sit there and get bombarded into the ground. When I am getting slowly killed, I run away. And yet they also will continue to bombard a city long after it is out of hit points.

And they are too set on their ways with their build queue. How many times do we have to watch them build the Colossus or GL with minimum access to water tiles? Or they build settlers while at war that they are losing, and then promptly walk it right into the enemy. I like to up the population to 4 before anyone can build a settler, and it really helps.
And finally, they have no concept of the human reactions. I frequently get one civ to declare war on another that has a defensive pact with a 3rd. The 1st seems to have no idea why I am offering it 3 luxuries, and just goes for the greed. There is no real feedback from us to them for things like denouncing, settling too close to me, spying, etc. My only 2 choices are to put up with it, or wipe them out, as anything short of total destruction and they will go back to doing the thing that annoyed me to begin with. They hve no idea how annoying their constant begging is. Enough already, I am NOT giving you 75% of my gold for nothing. When I catch them spying and they agree to stop, they dont and I have no options but war. I want the option that tells them that the next time, I will consider it an act of war, so tread lightly.
Click to expand...

Man I want all of these things ^^
 
Quineloe said:
The AI no longer trying to prevent your victory on higher difficulties is really, really bad. It appears the WoW-ing of this game has arrived.

Any aggressive warmonger leader should DoW you and try to prevent your victory if you're getting too close. I can live with Ghandi being satisfied of surviving the game but Attila or Napoleon should raise hell.

This game has a total of 7 different difficulties (not counting settler because that's basically the tutorial game where you can't ever be DoW ad will win every war because the AI is set to only build 1 unit), even if you're playing much worse than the computer, you should still be able to win on Chieftain. Instead, those who actually understand the game and play it well have to play it on the absurd cheating levels of immortal / diety because the AI needs massive, massive economic advantages to overcome its incompetence.
Click to expand...

A potential fix for this is already in the coding, it just needs to be turned on: each leader has a flavor for "victory competitiveness". It's usually civs that are "real world game winners" (Russia, America, Rome, etc. etc.) that are really high in this category. Tuning the higher difficulties to make this flavor have a more dramatic impact on your games would probably do a great deal in terms of the AI actively trying to prevent your victory.
 
I don't even reload turns anymore and I haven't done it in many years now. This is because of superior combat system in civ 5 compared to civ 4.

They just need to improve the military AI so that the game stop being a complete cakewalk.

I always mass large armies expecting to get dogpiled and attacked everywhere but it never happens.
 
Ulthwithian said:
What's interesting is that, while the early war is almost always catastrophic for an AI, it also forces the human player to reprioritize to dealing with it (however small), and so it gives the rest of the AIs a better chance against a human, as it does not require any effort on their part.

So while it does not help the Civ who started it, it certainly does its job of making the SP game 'harder'.

(I will also note that if early wars do not cause a moderate-to-severe issue for human players, the AI is certainly better off not attacking.)
Click to expand...

Very well said and it brings up a good point.

If the "devs" would spend less time on what they think is "game balancing" and more time on just making it accurate, a more enjoyable game emerges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

foreverlost
Need help to advance to beating the AI Civs
Replies
4
Views
526
foreverlost
foreverlost
Tiramisu
[BNW] Bug? AI receiving thousand gold pert turn
Replies
3
Views
373
Tiramisu
Tiramisu
M
defense treaty
Replies
3
Views
237
martindo
M
M
Triple win
Replies
0
Views
246
martindo
M
M
AI Cheating
Replies
2
Views
471
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Top Bottom