AI doesn't try hard enough to win

[Badtz Maru]

I recently won a game on Prince through spaceship victory. My permanent alliance was most powerful in score combined, but the next runner up had a much larger empire than either of us and was about equal in tech. When I started getting close to finishing the spaceship, I started building up an army in my capital for defense, and filling the adjacent waters with ships to hold off any invasion force. But nobody tried to stop me. Even though the runner up was not particularly friendly with me and had a much larger military, she just kept building spaceship parts, even after I launched my ship.

I think the game would be a lot more interesting in modern times if the other civs actually tried to keep the player from winning. When I've launched the spaceship, or I'm drawing close to a cultural victory, or there's only a few turns left before I win by score, there should be some last-ditch efforts from the runners-up to stop me. If I recall correctly, in Civ1 (and maybe Civ2, not sure) the AI would attack you if you were about to win by spaceship victory. The AI does seem to be aware of winning conditions, as the reason it will give sometimes for not trading techs is "Sorry, we'd rather win the game", but it doesn't seem to do anything else towards that end.

[Willem]

When it comes to the space race, the AI definitely can't recognize a lost cause. I've had a number of games where I've have such a solid lead in getting my spaceship built that the AI didn't stand a chance, yet it still kept pursuing that path. It would certainly make things interesting if they would switch to something like a cultural win if it comes across a hopeless situation like that.

[Peteyboy]

I've always found that a frustrating aspect of the AI's make up - about 4 months ago I had a similar kind of game where I was going to win by space race - and did so - even though it would have taken Pericles no effort to wipe me out - he had about 15x my power and 45% on domination stats (+5 Vassals) and it kinda seemed a shame that the AI didn't bother to declare war on me to stop me - instead with 4 turns till my ship arrived he DOW'ed Mansa Musa - who was neither big enough to matter and a far harder initial fight.

HOWEVER.....

I would be a bit concerned if the AI was overly programmed to stop you (or any player/AI winning) as it would make cultural victory virtually impossible - i.e 3 AI's DOW you and all focus on 1 big city!! Also generally I think the game would feel frustrating - so not quite sure how this could be done.

Generally would feel nice to see the AI make more of an effort though or prioritise correctly - I play knowing if Mansa is in the game - even though he may be way ahead in tech for Space Race - I've never seen him pursue it - he always seems to stop and try culturual victory (which he can be dangerous at - but thats not the point!)

[VirginiaRounder]

The space race definitely seems like the easiest way by far to win a typical game. I guess that's probably the reason why many people disable it.

[Badtz Maru]

I don't think every civilization should attack you if you are close to winning, I think they should only do it if they think it might result in THEM winning. Wby would #3 want to help #2 win by attacking #1 when he's about to get a cultural victory? He'd be better off attacking #2 while he is focusing on #1, with the hopes that he could sabotage #2s chance of winning and come out on top, especially if #2 is also close to a cultural win. When it looks like one civilization may be close to winning, the AIs should check to see if they could potentially win if #1 is prevented from winning. If they have no hope of winning, maybe their priority should be changed to survival or increasing their rank so that, even if they have no chance of being #1, they may be able to go from #4 to #3.

I usually play with Permanent Alliances on, and though I know there are some balancing issues with it, sometimes the AI does play as if they are wanting to win. I've had AI civs offer to join my team towards the end, in one case moving us up from #3 and #5 up to #1 in score, and we were able to win easily. I think it would be interesting if the AI started trying to form permanent alliances when one civilization pulled ahead or was about to win.

[jauggy]

I would like to see the AI stop me winning.

Just won a cultural victory. My Capital, which was one of the legendary cities, had a warrior guarding it. My other two legendary cities had crossbow unit guarding it. The other civ on my border, Pacal, has mech infantry in his cities. And yet I won the game without a scratch. Pacal doesn't declare at pleased. Everyone else on my continent was on good terms with me and I was in DPs with them all.

[phungus420]

Exactly the opposite opinion found here:

Just got completely screwed

So it appears the old addage is correct: "You can't please all of the people, all of the time." No matter how firaxis had decided to program the AI, someone would be complaining.

[Silu]

Originally Posted by Badtz Maru

I think the game would be a lot more interesting in modern times if the other civs actually tried to keep the player from winning. When I've launched the spaceship, or I'm drawing close to a cultural victory, or there's only a few turns left before I win by score, there should be some last-ditch efforts from the runners-up to stop me. If I recall correctly, in Civ1 (and maybe Civ2, not sure) the AI would attack you if you were about to win by spaceship victory. The AI does seem to be aware of winning conditions, as the reason it will give sometimes for not trading techs is "Sorry, we'd rather win the game", but it doesn't seem to do anything else towards that end.

Well there is an AI mechanic in Civ4 that makes them a lot more prone to attack you if they perceive you will win before them (not sure how the human win timer is counted for Space Race, might be just a launched SS, or after Apollo is built). As with all war decisions it's a die roll though so with luck no one will declare, and if you're good enough buddies this doesn't change things at all. And even if they declare they don't actively seek to capture your capital so I guess they're not specifically trying to prevent you from winning

I agree that the AI should actively seek to win games instead of just stumbling onto near-wins and finishing them off - most noticeable in Space Race, though they should also seek out wars more actively to complete a domination victory.

[TeraHammer]

Play multiplayer.

[acm2033]

I have recently thought that the AI does more to win than I wished...

But I'm still learning. Losing a lot, but learning.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally Posted by TeraHammer

Play multiplayer.

I barely have the time for single player.

[Lay_Lay]

The AI wins way more than us humans do. There are more of them - they should win a lot more, and they do.
The AI wins during the ancient/medieval eras more often than we care to remind ourselves. Every time our early game gamble goes so wrong that we quit the game and start over, nearly every regeneration of the map, all of these are AI wins! We knew we couldn't cut it, so we quit for the loss. Dan Quayle are we.

We don't mistake this for the AI being so clever in trying to win. We know it is a function of our own poor civ abilities. So this may not have been on topic.

[3 EMS]

I don't think the AI is particularly good at building spaceships. For instance: I know that I can build thrusters in a secondary city. So what if it takes 60 turns (marathon). It will take me longer to build the main parts anyway. I wonder if the AI thinks it will win the space race if it is also building parts?

[Lay_Lay]

It is less to type if we just list out what the AI is good at.
Pangea, all normal settings, no code modifications.

[TheMeInTeam]

If the AI played to win, it would be far less dynamic to counter it and the game far less practical. Let me give you an example of an almost-impossible-to-beat-on-high-levels AI I did in the past, using ONLY XML value changes:

1. It is creative and imperialistic.
2. It has a unitprob of 80, so it builds units twice as often as shaka
3. It is not willing to declare on a target unless it has over double its power
4. It will trade tech at any disposition
5. It will declare war at any disposition. In fact, the moment it has enough power it plans a war on that hapless target.
6. It is willing to trade resources at any disposition
7. Its favorite tile improvement is the cottage

A deity player tried a game with this AI at immortal and promptly got spanked (essentially, the way it was set up guaranteed the human was the target if on the same continent, and he ate a TON of units on that declaration...!). However, such an AI is a threat anywhere:

- It will tend to vassal every civ if on another continent, and actually has enough units in its naval stack to be a threat
- Since it trades MORE often than mansa musa, it isn't as far behind in tech as expected.
- If it's on your continent and the AIs are getting a lot of bonuses, you're probably toast. For one, it will never, ever leave you alone and the other AIs tend to like it.

There is a good reason fireaxis did not make an AI like that.

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by Badtz Maru

I barely have the time for single player.

I barely have time for multiplayer... , let alone single player.

[jauggy]

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam

If the AI played to win, it would be far less dynamic to counter it and the game far less practical. Let me give you an example of an almost-impossible-to-beat-on-high-levels AI I did in the past, using ONLY XML value changes:

1. It is creative and imperialistic.
2. It has a unitprob of 80, so it builds units twice as often as shaka
3. It is not willing to declare on a target unless it has over double its power
4. It will trade tech at any disposition
5. It will declare war at any disposition. In fact, the moment it has enough power it plans a war on that hapless target.
6. It is willing to trade resources at any disposition
7. Its favorite tile improvement is the cottage

A deity player tried a game with this AI at immortal and promptly got spanked (essentially, the way it was set up guaranteed the human was the target if on the same continent, and he ate a TON of units on that declaration...!). However, such an AI is a threat anywhere:

- It will tend to vassal every civ if on another continent, and actually has enough units in its naval stack to be a threat
- Since it trades MORE often than mansa musa, it isn't as far behind in tech as expected.
- If it's on your continent and the AIs are getting a lot of bonuses, you're probably toast. For one, it will never, ever leave you alone and the other AIs tend to like it.

There is a good reason fireaxis did not make an AI like that.

Did you modify an existing civ in the XML or create a new one? I might try this AI as I only play on Prince.

If you have a copy of the XML file/changes that would be good to look at.

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by jauggy

Did you modify an existing civ in the XML or create a new one? I might try this AI as I only play on Prince.

If you have a copy of the XML file/changes that would be good to look at.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=311889

I can make even stronger ones now, but the runaway AI should be a sufficiently powerful thorn in anybody's side. Remember though: CUSTOM assets.

[TheWilltoAct]

Originally Posted by Lay_Lay

The AI wins way more than us humans do. There are more of them - they should win a lot more, and they do.
The AI wins during the ancient/medieval eras more often than we care to remind ourselves. Every time our early game gamble goes so wrong that we quit the game and start over, nearly every regeneration of the map, all of these are AI wins! We knew we couldn't cut it, so we quit for the loss. Dan Quayle are we.

We don't mistake this for the AI being so clever in trying to win. We know it is a function of our own poor civ abilities. So this may not have been on topic.

An interesting point, and well made.

Originally Posted by Lay_Lay

Dan Quayle are we.

[Zeiter]

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam

If the AI played to win, it would be far less dynamic to counter it and the game far less practical. Let me give you an example of an almost-impossible-to-beat-on-high-levels AI I did in the past, using ONLY XML value changes:

1. It is creative and imperialistic.
2. It has a unitprob of 80, so it builds units twice as often as shaka
3. It is not willing to declare on a target unless it has over double its power
4. It will trade tech at any disposition
5. It will declare war at any disposition. In fact, the moment it has enough power it plans a war on that hapless target.
6. It is willing to trade resources at any disposition
7. Its favorite tile improvement is the cottage

A deity player tried a game with this AI at immortal and promptly got spanked (essentially, the way it was set up guaranteed the human was the target if on the same continent, and he ate a TON of units on that declaration...!). However, such an AI is a threat anywhere:

- It will tend to vassal every civ if on another continent, and actually has enough units in its naval stack to be a threat
- Since it trades MORE often than mansa musa, it isn't as far behind in tech as expected.
- If it's on your continent and the AIs are getting a lot of bonuses, you're probably toast. For one, it will never, ever leave you alone and the other AIs tend to like it.

There is a good reason fireaxis did not make an AI like that.

This might actually be really fun to play against...on noble or prince. I see nothing wrong with making the AI stronger in this way, if it is done in lieu of the random brute-force bonuses that the programmers resort to as a substitute. I would tend to think that the preference for how to make the AI harder would be to improve the AI's gameplay (as this does), and, only upon failing that do we tolerate a simple brute-force handicap for the AI to simulate such a challenge. But the better-gameplay AI is always preferable, I would think.***

Also, if I were going to play against an AI like this, I would insist on having all of the AI's like this. It would ruin the game's intrigue and surprise to know that one AI is going to dominate all of the others from the outset.

In fact, to partially simulate this, I always now play with randomized leader personalities so that I can never count on any particular AI not declaring at pleased, or not being a military or tech threat, or whatnot.

***Maybe this would be asking too much of the programmers, but if there is ever going to be a Civ5, maybe the programmers could include two options for AI personality: competitive AI that is meant to play as much like a human as possible (even with all of the frustrations that that might entail for newbies), and "sandbox AI" as the default toggled option (for either newbies, or those who want a more historical, sandbox feel to the game), which would place restrictions on AI personalities and on the AI's willingness to resort to dirty human-like tricks to win at all costs.