AI aggression and 'Snowballing'

Hi guys,

First of all, a bit of context given this is my first post. I've been an ardent Civ fan since Civilisation 1 (yes with an 's' - silly yanks ). I shudder to think how many hours i've put into this series.

When Civ 5 came out, after playing a couple of long games, i felt that things didn't really hang together all that well, e.g. AI combat, diplomacy, the absurd cost-benefit ratio of buildings (weighted towards cost), the fact that all the land tiles seemed to have homogeneous attributes. A year ago, if i had to choose, i think Civ 4 would have been my favourite of the series.

A few days ago i decided to pick up Civ 5 again and see how the expansion and interim patches have changed the game, IMO game balance is much improved, whilst the addition of religion adds an interesting strategic dimension. This is now a game that i would play over Civ 4.

However, there are a couple of things that still bother me (playing on Emperor difficulty, Pangaea map):

1. AI aggression. Maybe my memory is clouded by nostalgia, but in Civ 4 it used to be possible to have meaningful relationships with the AI. It was possible to nurture long-lasting friendships and alliances through the ages. In Civ 5, diplomacy is simply an unending cycle of peace-denouce-war-'oh **** we're losing'-peace-denouce-war'. NOT conducive to an immersive experience and simply not logical.

2. AI snowballing. In the 3 games i've played post-expansion, one AI will always subsume all others, such that it ends up being me vs the super-AI. I've abandoned all 3 games just prior to the modern era, not because i was losing, but because at this point, i know how the rest of the game will pan out. My economy is far more developed and the AI can't match my combat tactics. The AI will declare war. I'll take half a dozen cities. The AI will sue for peace. Then it will declare war. I'll take half a dozen cities. The AI will sue for peace. Then it will declare war...until nothing is left. .

The end-game would be far more interesting if there were more than one AI left standing.

Maybe the 3 games i've played so far are just a coincidence - i'm starting another one as we speak. I want to be playing a building game with the option of combat. In Civ 5, at least at the higher difficulties, combat seems an unavoidable eventuality. I find that sad .

So, can anyone tell me if my experience so far is atypical of the game? Can anyone recommend some good mods which may change AI behaviour? Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post - wanted to get that off my chest .

I know exactly what you mean and I totally agree that it definitely ruins the immersion of a game. I just played a game as Songhai on Emperor Pangaea and I was good friends with Pachuti and Theodora all match. We had gone to war with Napoleon and Alexander a few times and Theodora got one of Napoleon's cities. We had various trade deals going and out of nowhere Theodora surrounds my city Jenne in one turn and Inca and Ghandi start denouncing me and joined the fray a few turns later. I lost Jenne and it basically crippled me so my 4-5 hours in the Epic time match was wasted. I did nothing wrong to upset them, they just simply backstab me every match... no matter what civ it is.

I thought, like you, it may have been a coincidence my past few matches as it was civs like Greece and Mongolia. I have just recently started playing 5 (w/ G+K) and this is becoming a deal breaker for me. Please anyone who knows more about how to make the game more immersive, shed some light. It would be much appreciated.

Yes, I agree that on Emperor level some civ refuse to play at all. Often there is one civ that gets crazy overpowered. Like on my Incan OCC science game. Celts for some reason played OCC as well as me. Why? Mongolia was not expanding at all. France end up with a massive empire. In the late game they took out Celts, Mongolia, China. I was bothered all the by game by neighbor Egypt.
They DoWed me constantly but couldn't handle my military superiority even having only one city. Only Ethiopia played reasonably.

The most thrilling part for me was that Celts played OCC all game until France took them out. So I think that some things are still broken. I hope it will get better after Fall patch release.

BR

I'm just starting to move up to Emperor, and to be honest, not doing all that well. I like building buildings too much for my own good. My theory at this point is that diplomacy works better on King than it does on Emperor. The AI seems to be strong enough on Emperor (on paper), that it doesn't have any incentive to deal with you on anything like equal footing. On King, you can be big enough that the AI doesn't always arrive at the "Kill him while he's weak" answer in it's calculations.

As to why runaways seem more prevalent in Emperor than King, I'm not sure, although all the Emperor level bonuses are going to start stacking up quickly as soon as an AI gets even a minor advantage.

My favorite game on King was one where Greece had its own continent, Rome had its own right next to them (so close that triremes could cross), and the rest of us had a bigger one to ourselves. We basically watched while Greece and Rome beat the stuffing out of each other for 4000 years. Rome went hi-tech, small army, Greek when lo-tech horde. It was fun to watch.

I agree. The best overall strategy is to take over your entire continent and hope that a naval invasion won't prove to be much of a threat (the AI still stinks at naval combat and can't land a ground invasion force for it's life).

I think there needs to be a factor of war-weariness in order to make diplomacy and warfare realistic and unique. I shouldn't be able to war a nation for 3000 years and never ensue peace. That doesn't happen in real life. Heck, people got mad after 4 years of Veitnam! I feel like this is a principle that has been implemented in past Civ games that needs to return the most.

OmniPotent42 said:

I agree. The best overall strategy is to take over your entire continent and hope that a naval invasion won't prove to be much of a threat (the AI still stinks at naval combat and can't land a ground invasion force for it's life).

Click to expand...

I would still say that it has far more potential than back in Vanilla. Like, this was the AI's idea of a Naval Invasion back then (there were only... 2 BBs tops):



These days they would bring more of those battlewagons (or the Renaissance equivalent, the Frigate) plus all those melee ships and at least try to land their support units (if they do bring 'em) before they push in a melee. But it is not enough.

This is what they should be doing, and bringing, for all naval ops from King onwards:



It would give them an actual and decent chance of overwhelming my continent at from its weakest point or two.

Huh, interesting to hear an unvarnished perspective. I'm surprised to hear you're consistently running into runaways. I hardly see them anymore post-G&K.

I think diplomacy will be partially improved by the upcoming patch making the AI less manic. Still, I'm not bothered by the AI deciding it hates me if I'm in a position to win. The AI should be attempting to stop me from winning.

bcaiko said:

Huh, interesting to hear an unvarnished perspective. I'm surprised to hear you're consistently running into runaways. I hardly see them anymore post-G&K.

I think diplomacy will be partially improved by the upcoming patch making the AI less manic. Still, I'm not bothered by the AI deciding it hates me if I'm in a position to win. The AI should be attempting to stop me from winning.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in part - however i'd phrase it slightly differently. The AI should be attempting to win. The subtle difference is that it shouldn't be aggressive for the sake of slowing the player down or to be an annoyance. Rather, it should be aggressive when there is clearly something to be gained for itself. Most of the time, when an AI declares war on me this does not feel like the case.

IMO, this irrational aggression hurts the immersion of the game. I'd like to see the AI behave more rationally with regard to its own survival. e.g. When the AI has 2 cities and i have 20, and i have never demonstrated any aggression towards it, there should be some value judgement that stops it from declaring war.

I like the idea in one of the posts above of having a 'war weariness' dimension to the game. Another idea would be to give the AI some kind of memory. e.g. if an AI has lost repeatedly to the same opponent in the past multiple times, the likelihood of the AI declaring war on that opponent in future should decrease, or there should be a higher threshold for declaring war. This effect would attenuate with for realism.

Super_Nova said:

I agree with you in part - however i'd phrase it slightly differently. The AI should be attempting to win. The subtle difference is that it shouldn't be aggressive for the sake of slowing the player down or to be an annoyance. Rather, it should be aggressive when there is clearly something to be gained for itself. Most of the time, when an AI declares war on me this does not feel like the case.

IMO, this irrational aggression hurts the immersion of the game. I'd like to see the AI behave more rationally with regard to its own survival. e.g. When the AI has 2 cities and i have 20, and i have never demonstrated any aggression towards it, there should be some value judgement that stops it from declaring war.

I like the idea in one of the posts above of having a 'war weariness' dimension to the game. Another idea would be to give the AI some kind of memory. e.g. if an AI has lost repeatedly to the same opponent in the past multiple times, the likelihood of the AI declaring war on that opponent in future should decrease, or there should be a higher threshold for declaring war. This effect would attenuate with for realism.

Click to expand...

This. The irrational aggression leads me to believe that the "AI" is trying to win the game rather than each player trying to win. This is the only explanation for garbage wars that hurt the declaring civ much more than they hurt the player. I suppose it makes sense if they're "taking one for the team," but otherwise their just slowing themselves down at critical points in the game.

I play on Emporer and Dido right now is a crazy runaway in my game. She has an entire continent to herself, she's like 2 ages ahead of me in techs and her military strength is 188k compared to the next best civ which is like 75k.

I'm going culture vic and she's going science. I don't think I can make it because she just got the Cristo Redentor instead of me.

Super_Nova said:

1. AI aggression. Maybe my memory is clouded by nostalgia, but in Civ 4 it used to be possible to have meaningful relationships with the AI. It was possible to nurture long-lasting friendships and alliances through the ages. In Civ 5, diplomacy is simply an unending cycle of peace-denouce-war-'oh **** we're losing'-peace-denouce-war'. NOT conducive to an immersive experience and simply not logical.

Click to expand...

I liked Civ 4, but diplomacy overly favored shared religion.

In Civ V, I have plenty of long-lasting friendships and alliances throughout the game. I can maintain friendships with multiple civs - sometimes with all the civs in the game.

It can be hard to understand how the Civ V diplomacy AI works. Once you figure it out, you realize how to make friends and alliances.

So no, I don't get stuck in unending cycles of peace-denounce-war-etc.

2. AI snowballing. In the 3 games i've played post-expansion, one AI will always subsume all others, such that it ends up being me vs the super-AI. I've abandoned all 3 games just prior to the modern era, not because i was losing, but because at this point, i know how the rest of the game will pan out. My economy is far more developed and the AI can't match my combat tactics. The AI will declare war. I'll take half a dozen cities. The AI will sue for peace. Then it will declare war. I'll take half a dozen cities. The AI will sue for peace. Then it will declare war...until nothing is left. .

The end-game would be far more interesting if there were more than one AI left standing.

Click to expand...

Then do something about it. Maintain the balance of power. Try to keep other civs alive. I do it all the time. Between:

- Paying civs to war with each other
- Peacefully interfering with your units
- Warring with civs yourself
- Liberating conquered civs

There is a lot you can do.

Maybe the 3 games i've played so far are just a coincidence - i'm starting another one as we speak. I want to be playing a building game with the option of combat. In Civ 5, at least at the higher difficulties, combat seems an unavoidable eventuality. I find that sad .

Click to expand...

I like playing builder games too. And I find that I can play Civ V just fine with a builder mindset. I get through plenty of games without ever going to war.

Can anyone recommend some good mods which may change AI behaviour?

Click to expand...

I don't think the AI behavior needs to be changed. Most of the time, players who complain about the AI behavior just don't understand how it works. Instead, what they usually need to do is change *their* behavior!

Super_Nova said:

I agree with you in part - however i'd phrase it slightly differently. The AI should be attempting to win. The subtle difference is that it shouldn't be aggressive for the sake of slowing the player down or to be an annoyance. Rather, it should be aggressive when there is clearly something to be gained for itself. Most of the time, when an AI declares war on me this does not feel like the case.

Click to expand...

I've mentioned it on the forums before but I want to point out that the AI isn't picking on the player. The AI behavior also applies to other AI's and they can be *extremely* aggressive against each other.

In most games, the AI's are much nicer to me than they are to each other!

The whole "runaway civ" problem has existed since Civ V Vanilla. Yeah, it sucks when a civ on another continent overruns everyone (I never really let anyone runaway on my own continent) and you didn't have a chance to stop it (since it's happening on the other side of the world) and it costs you the game, but it sorta beats the alternative, which is that YOU become the runaway civ and the game just becomes a joke because you're so far ahead in tech, which just results in you trying to blow through turns as quickly as possible until you win.
As for aggression, I find they're a lot more agreeable in G&K compared to Vanilla. Usually you can maintain good relations with at least one civ, as long as you don't do things like warmonger like crazy/become friends with the one civ everyone despises.

The upcoming patch includes an item which indirectly decreases the likelihood of runaway civs, although it remains to be seen how this will work out in practice.
Namely the fact that friendly civs will liberate eachothers' cities when at war with a common foe (I've forgotten whether a defensive pact is needed for this to occur).
This means that the chances of a more equal balance of power is slightly more likely because civs that lose their cities have a higher chance of regaining them (as opposed to the current situation where "once lost, gone forever" is nearly always the rule of thumb).

I also dislike the 'constant runaway civ on another continent I can't do anything about' problem.
In my last game I was playing fantastically yet kept getting Notifications about unmet players losing their capitals. By the time I met Cathy, she had eliminated France, Netherlands, Sweden, Byzantines and Celts. She had a gold stack of 160k, was earning 2k per turn, had over half the world's landmass, nearly all CSes, etc. Etc. Needless to say the game was completely lost. To my credit, I played until the bitter end and considered all manners of possible victory, from cultural (which I quickly decided was a no go), to Diplomatic, from Scientific (until I saw I was losing ground no matter what I did), to even domination (by attempting to organise sniping capitals in one turn with aircraft carriers and atom bombs. The latter couldn't be organised before she launched her space ship...(!). Anyway, just needed to share that.

I couldn't figure out diplomacy until following some of Halcyan2's advice. I've got it down up to King, but at Emperor I haven't had a match (6 or so attempts) go without a war if I'm on a non-island map.

Last game was the most peaceful I've had. Both wars were somewhat provoked. Settled close to Thailand, on lower levels they'll at least wait to see if I would do it again. On Emperor it was inevitable they would declare. The 2nd war I provoked because I was tired of Indias faith bombing. The nice wonder laden culture oriented capital was tempting too. But the big reason I felt I could get away with it is because he was the outcast. Faithbombing the other AI's got him on their bad side. So much so that when we finally called a truce, the other Civs all asked join them in war against him. I declined as I didn't want a warmonger penalty.

None of the other Civs (different continents) declared on me or ran away with the game. Very peaceful relative to my other Emperor games. Good indicator of a well played diplomacy game is other Civs following your lead on denouncements.

I think the key on Emperor is to resign yourself to building a healthy military early so the AI will focus on each other. They do the same so wonders are still out there for the taking. King is less severe and Prince you can cruise with single digit units for most of the game without war. Not that you need double digits on Emperor, but you should be closer to 10 than 5

In terms of diplomacy, there will be a group of two to three AI who are in an alliance. Join them. There will be a lone wolf. If Japan is on the (non island) map, he'll be it. Aztecs, Greeks, and even India or Incas (religion spreading and wonder spamming makes the other AI hate them) are also good targets.

So ally with the "friends". Give them spare lux when they ask, to solidify the bonds. Overlook spying incidents initially. Don't declare friendship with outcast Civ. You don't have to denounce them, but don't declare friendship with them.

Maybe give a go on an island or continents map (or even lower level) just to see that diplomacy can be managed.

whyidie said:

I couldn't figure out diplomacy until following some of Halcyan2's advice. I've got it down up to King, but at Emperor I haven't had a match (6 or so attempts) go without a war if I'm on a non-island map.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the shout out. I've been meaning to write out a Diplomacy strategy article that I could eventually post to the War Academy. I'll get around to it one of these days!

Last game was the most peaceful I've had. Both wars were somewhat provoked. Settled close to Thailand, on lower levels they'll at least wait to see if I would do it again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, 9 times out of 10, there is a good reason why the AI decides to denounce or DoW you. If you understand the AI's "logic", then you can get along with them better. Most often I see Civ V players who do one of the following:

- Declare war a lot (even "just" on city states) and/or wipe out other civs
- Build lots of cities, especially in the early game
- Expand/settle near other civs

and many of these players don't realize that doing these things will not be looked favorably by the AI.

In particular, if you want a more peaceful game and the map allows it, you should expand away from the other civs rather than towards them. And you can peaceably "deter" them from settling close to you.

Of course every now and then, you will end up with an aggressive civ (Montezuma, Alexander, Suleiman, etc) right next to you from the start and in those cases you're likely going to get attacked no matter what you do.

So ally with the "friends". Give them spare lux when they ask, to solidify the bonds. Overlook spying incidents initially. Don't declare friendship with outcast Civ. You don't have to denounce them, but don't declare friendship with them.

Click to expand...

Some easy ways to score diplomacy points with a civ is to Denounce or DoW the same opponent.

If that civ hasn't denounced anyone or isn't at war with someone, you can manufacture the situation. Pay that civ (or someone else) to start a war and now you can jump right in if you want. Easy way to get another civ denounced (other than denouncing yourself) is to pay that civ to DoW one or more city states. Not every civ will do it and not all the time - the more aggressive civs are obviously the ones more inclined to such offers. If you pay Genghis Khan to DoW several city states, then the other major civs will very likely Denounce him. You can join in the Denouncement even though you instigated the wars. Or you can pay Genghis to DoW Elizabeth (or vice versa) and then DoW Genghis, if you want to improve your standing with Elizabeth.

Halcyan2 said:

Thanks for the shout out. I've been meaning to write out a Diplomacy strategy article that I could eventually post to the War Academy. I'll get around to it one of these days!

Click to expand...

That would be well read. I came online around G&K's release so was fortunate enough to see you layout diplo strategies in the various "Diplomacy stinks" threads. Huge help.

In particular, if you want a more peaceful game and the map allows it, you should expand away from the other civs rather than towards them. And you can peaceably "deter" them from settling close to you.

Click to expand...

This really crystallized for me when I saw the AI doing it on a King game. I had close neighbors to my east and west. Polynesia was to my east and they expanded away from me. Mongols were to my west and surprisingly they settled away from me as well, at least initially. Had Arabs north of me and they went further north into Alexander. That didn't work out too well for them. Watching how the others purposefully settled away from me really drove home how much close borders matters in the early game.

If that civ hasn't denounced anyone or isn't at war with someone, you can manufacture the situation. Pay that civ (or someone else) to start a war and now you can jump right in if you want. Easy way to get another civ denounced (other than denouncing yourself) is to pay that civ to DoW one or more city states. Not every civ will do it and not all the time - the more aggressive civs are obviously the ones more inclined to such offers. If you pay Genghis Khan to DoW several city states, then the other major civs will very likely Denounce him. You can join in the Denouncement even though you instigated the wars. Or you can pay Genghis to DoW Elizabeth (or vice versa) and then DoW Genghis, if you want to improve your standing with Elizabeth.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the next level of diplomacy for me. I've had some success with this on lower levels but haven't been able to get other elements (economic/science/culture/military balance) of my game in order on Emperor. If the target is chosen wisely how much does it take ? Nice touch with the city states, hadn't even crossed my mind.

OmniPotent42 said:

I think there needs to be a factor of war-weariness in order to make diplomacy and warfare realistic and unique. I shouldn't be able to war a nation for 3000 years and never ensue peace. That doesn't happen in real life. Heck, people got mad after 4 years of Veitnam!

Click to expand...

Orly.
Rome and Carthage recently signed a peace treaty just 27 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/19/world/rome-and-carthage-plan-a-peace-treaty.html
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198503/delenda.est.carthago.htm
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/R...131-Years/id-9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b

State of war lasting over two thousand years ;D

Sorry but I couldn't resist.

If the AI really wanted to win then they would become extremely hostile to other AI's who are about to win.

This is not the case. The AI doesn't seem to care when another AI finishes the Apollo Program and starts going for Science Victory. They still seem to just declare war on me and keep on having good relations with the guy who's about to win the game.