reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
The AI seems/acts stupid because the intelligence is artificial. Natural intelligence on the other hand, doesn't seem/act that stupid.
Lets list AI stupid behaviors
- Thread starter Ninakoru
- Start date
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
It's not even intelligence. It's a group of mechanics programmed so a civ will react a certain way or different ways to something done by another civ. True Artificial Intelligence (AI) does not exist yet. That would mean a computer would think and actually physically learn as people do, which they cannot do. Yet.
Sneaky Snake
GDR Noob
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 166
Targeting that scout for ranged bombardment that happened to be wondering by as my battering ram was knocking on their capital. I suppose there was nothing that could have stopped it either way. 
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
It's not even intelligence. It's a group of mechanics programmed so a civ will react a certain way or different ways to something done by another civ. True Artificial Intelligence (AI) does not exist yet. That would mean a computer would think and actually physically learn as people do, which they cannot do. Yet.
The AI does stand for Artificial Intelligence as an abbreviation, but isnt the AI programmed by computer languages?
George Abitbol
Prince
I also noticed when AI try to capture a camp, they often send warriors+archers. But if the warriors are wounded, they will fortify and heal, unstead of clearing the camp if the last barbarian has been killed by the archers. So if your scout is walking around, the camp is yours!
In AI other stupid things, I hate when they clear barbarian encampments before the CS quests about them even start.
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Create musicians in the early game and use them for culture bom with a power of 100
adwcta
King
Their economics is still wonky. Their valuation for gpt vs gold is still one directional. They value your gold as much as their gold, but value your gpt far less than their gpt.
AI should either be very difficult to bribe, or you should receive a diplo penalty for bribing anyone to go to war (via a via the civ which is the target of the DoW), and a diplo benefit the same way if you bribe for peace. Doesn't have to be a huge one.
AI defaults to culture victory, which just kills diversity in this game. They should focus on conquest, science and diplo midgame more to be more challenging, because those are the only 22 VC with intermittent benefits even if they switch away end game. Conversely, culture is the worst focus early as tourism is late game.
AI needs to actually respond to your requests, unless being deceptive. Right now, don't spy, don't settle, and don't convert are completely broken.
AI is not properly valuing the diplo penalty vs benefit for taking a CS. It does this far too often. Either the diplo hit should be reduced significantly for CS conquest, or the AI behavior should change. Right now, the world just gangs up on whoever first kills a CS.
AI should not be allowed to vote for themselves or abstain from voting with their 2 base votes for world leader/host. I still have no idea why they removed this diplo mechanic from G&K.
AI, when going order, uses great engineers as soon as they have them, instead of counting backwards to use GEs on the last spaceship parts.
Whatever is making the AI hugely disproportionately favor Order needs to be changed. I suspect fixing the Exploration /Commerce tree valuations by the AI should do the trick.
AI settlers are still being taken by barbarians at an alarming rate (mostly a deity problem). I'm not sure why, I always see them with escorts.
AI builds too many carriers because its a naval flavor. It should stringently require both high naval and high air, and be capped by the number of planes.
This may be just me, but the AI being forced to always research the most optimal tech on higher difficulties greatly reduces game diversity. I would bump up their bonus science rate and add back some of the randomness of lower difficulties.
AI is obviously still oblivious to the culture/science penalties of settling extra cities, only worrying about happiness and seeing all cities as net gains (this is why city spam comes immediately after ideology). They should get a per-era negative modifier toward propensity for settling new cities, and have a hard rule about how much pop a city needs to support to be settled (so, min of 4 3+ resource worked tiles in first 2 rings). All that late game middle of the water / snow /desert settling needs to stop. It's really hurting the AI's end-game science.
AI should either be very difficult to bribe, or you should receive a diplo penalty for bribing anyone to go to war (via a via the civ which is the target of the DoW), and a diplo benefit the same way if you bribe for peace. Doesn't have to be a huge one.
AI defaults to culture victory, which just kills diversity in this game. They should focus on conquest, science and diplo midgame more to be more challenging, because those are the only 22 VC with intermittent benefits even if they switch away end game. Conversely, culture is the worst focus early as tourism is late game.
AI needs to actually respond to your requests, unless being deceptive. Right now, don't spy, don't settle, and don't convert are completely broken.
AI is not properly valuing the diplo penalty vs benefit for taking a CS. It does this far too often. Either the diplo hit should be reduced significantly for CS conquest, or the AI behavior should change. Right now, the world just gangs up on whoever first kills a CS.
AI should not be allowed to vote for themselves or abstain from voting with their 2 base votes for world leader/host. I still have no idea why they removed this diplo mechanic from G&K.
AI, when going order, uses great engineers as soon as they have them, instead of counting backwards to use GEs on the last spaceship parts.
Whatever is making the AI hugely disproportionately favor Order needs to be changed. I suspect fixing the Exploration /Commerce tree valuations by the AI should do the trick.
AI settlers are still being taken by barbarians at an alarming rate (mostly a deity problem). I'm not sure why, I always see them with escorts.
AI builds too many carriers because its a naval flavor. It should stringently require both high naval and high air, and be capped by the number of planes.
This may be just me, but the AI being forced to always research the most optimal tech on higher difficulties greatly reduces game diversity. I would bump up their bonus science rate and add back some of the randomness of lower difficulties.
AI is obviously still oblivious to the culture/science penalties of settling extra cities, only worrying about happiness and seeing all cities as net gains (this is why city spam comes immediately after ideology). They should get a per-era negative modifier toward propensity for settling new cities, and have a hard rule about how much pop a city needs to support to be settled (so, min of 4 3+ resource worked tiles in first 2 rings). All that late game middle of the water / snow /desert settling needs to stop. It's really hurting the AI's end-game science.
Ninakoru
A deity on Emperor
Thanks again for all the info, I ended fixing the promotion selection, I will try to focus on the most glaring issues, the go for the details.
Adding another bunch of issues to the list, next time I will clean up and organize them.
Adding another bunch of issues to the list, next time I will clean up and organize them.
Sr_Rainbow
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 16
A very minor issue, the AI seems to never want to upgrade their explorer ships. Like still having triremes in the atomic era.
Sr_Rainbow
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 16
Also, the AI always clear cuts their jungles for farms, for some reason they value the +1 food over the +2 science all the time.
Plus, the AI does not know how to economy(see the attached photo, guess who's the human). Even when not at war, the AI has very low GPT and very low, sometimes empty treasuries. This leads to scenarios where my friends are asking for, literally, all my money just because they don't know how to build a cargo ship.
Image upload wasn't working: http://imgur.com/NnP4fFP
Plus, the AI does not know how to economy(see the attached photo, guess who's the human). Even when not at war, the AI has very low GPT and very low, sometimes empty treasuries. This leads to scenarios where my friends are asking for, literally, all my money just because they don't know how to build a cargo ship.
Image upload wasn't working: http://imgur.com/NnP4fFP
forcedalt
Warlord
I am new to this community , and , just wanted to pop in here to vent some of my opinions about Civ 5 , and its AI.
After getting BNW , I have been trying to improve the experience by : using mods to make the game more tailored to the kind of game i want to play. I like to play it more like a "strategic sim" , taking on a "world police" role ,and using my forces to liberate and/or protect the civs from each other. Civ 5 is so not originally designed for this type of purposely protracted ,non-victory committed game play. The biggest hurdle in getting my desired experience is : the AI.
From reading a lot of forums and articles on the civ 5 AI , i subscribe to the theory that : The previous civ AI's were made to act like they were running a nation or empire within the imaginary universe of the game environment. The AI was programmed to do what is best for its simulated nation under the given circumstances.
In Civ5 the AI is given a simulated inherent awareness that its actually participating in a computer game ,so , when you create a circumstance where : the AI cannot achieve a victory condition ,or , dominate the whole map , it generates what i would call a "simulated frustration" ; a hard coded but hurt that can only be extinguished through total annexation. This explains a lot of "AI dumbness". Its kind of clever that they made an AI that "knows" its a game , however , for me , its frustrating that : i am more immersed than NPC's whose only job it is , is to : play the game with me. This AI is not immersed whatsoever. It feels like they basically plopped an RTS AI into a grand strategy.
When there isn't a clear path to quick and decisive victory the AI gets "bored" and "confused" and "angry" , and , really doesn't know what to do. This is why you catch the AI doing ultra stupid useless things late game ,such as : building 20 archeologists and not working nearby antiquity sites , or , denouncing one turn , offering friendship the next , and , offering war pact the next. When an AI is not winning it stops caring. Its like playing against a human player except : it can't learn ,and , it can't just quit the game when its losing.
Falcon AI , and , WWGD , are excellent mods ,but , they are not what i was hoping for. They address common AI behavior complaints by : fixing symptoms ,but not the underlying problem.
Example : " the AI chain denounces , and , calls me "warmonger" even though : they have war and forgive each other all the time" They take away the ability to denounce from the game altogether, or , eliminate the warmonger status. Its like you neutered a dog that humps your leg ,and , now : your being dry humped by a ball-less dog.
I think the reason there hasn't been a good AI mod yet is : it would actually involve completely building a new AI from scratch.
So, that's what i want in an AI mod : an AI that continues to properly run and expand its own civ as well as it can ,and , doesn't poop the bed because it was hyper-focused on a victory condition that it was never given the ability to properly execute.
After getting BNW , I have been trying to improve the experience by : using mods to make the game more tailored to the kind of game i want to play. I like to play it more like a "strategic sim" , taking on a "world police" role ,and using my forces to liberate and/or protect the civs from each other. Civ 5 is so not originally designed for this type of purposely protracted ,non-victory committed game play. The biggest hurdle in getting my desired experience is : the AI.
From reading a lot of forums and articles on the civ 5 AI , i subscribe to the theory that : The previous civ AI's were made to act like they were running a nation or empire within the imaginary universe of the game environment. The AI was programmed to do what is best for its simulated nation under the given circumstances.
In Civ5 the AI is given a simulated inherent awareness that its actually participating in a computer game ,so , when you create a circumstance where : the AI cannot achieve a victory condition ,or , dominate the whole map , it generates what i would call a "simulated frustration" ; a hard coded but hurt that can only be extinguished through total annexation. This explains a lot of "AI dumbness". Its kind of clever that they made an AI that "knows" its a game , however , for me , its frustrating that : i am more immersed than NPC's whose only job it is , is to : play the game with me. This AI is not immersed whatsoever. It feels like they basically plopped an RTS AI into a grand strategy.
When there isn't a clear path to quick and decisive victory the AI gets "bored" and "confused" and "angry" , and , really doesn't know what to do. This is why you catch the AI doing ultra stupid useless things late game ,such as : building 20 archeologists and not working nearby antiquity sites , or , denouncing one turn , offering friendship the next , and , offering war pact the next. When an AI is not winning it stops caring. Its like playing against a human player except : it can't learn ,and , it can't just quit the game when its losing.
Falcon AI , and , WWGD , are excellent mods ,but , they are not what i was hoping for. They address common AI behavior complaints by : fixing symptoms ,but not the underlying problem.
Example : " the AI chain denounces , and , calls me "warmonger" even though : they have war and forgive each other all the time" They take away the ability to denounce from the game altogether, or , eliminate the warmonger status. Its like you neutered a dog that humps your leg ,and , now : your being dry humped by a ball-less dog.
I think the reason there hasn't been a good AI mod yet is : it would actually involve completely building a new AI from scratch.
So, that's what i want in an AI mod : an AI that continues to properly run and expand its own civ as well as it can ,and , doesn't poop the bed because it was hyper-focused on a victory condition that it was never given the ability to properly execute.
Ninakoru
A deity on Emperor
I think all you say is more "bad design", not the AI not caring of what they do, trust me. Redoing the Ai completely would mean thousands of hours of several people, not attainable.
But saying bad design is unfair, there's a ton of code for each AI decision and there are lots of them. The devs just did their best under their development schedule.
I'm working on the part of the AI not being able to move and fire with ranged units, and it's taking me a good pack of hours only to search where is the issue and how to resolve it. Good thing is that I'm half-way to do so. The bad thing is that I suspect the turn times will be increased, I hope is not a big one...
forcedalt
Warlord
well, yeah , i think we're on the same page here. I actually admire what they went for. Making the AI more challenging by making the AI "play to win" , its just not my cup of tea ,and , i worry that a mod to gear it toward my preference may ,unfortunately, not be reasonable to expect.
I do ,however (to be more with the theme of the thread) ,have a highly specific example of AI behavior that i disliked ,and , i felt to be foolish :
I was using the "civ 4 diplo features" mod. I start a war with a civ for founding a worthless 1 citizen city on the ONLY free plot left on a small continent that was otherwise completely filled by my boarders. The plan was: conquer and raze the city on my island , build a citadel to prevent another civ from building there , conquer and liberate any CS's , or , conquered cities ,and finally : insist on vassalage as a peace treaty condition. i am not sure ,but , i was hoping vassalage gives you control of the civ's UN votes ,and , i could use vassalage to highjack the UN and get unpopular resolutions passed , such as : "nuclear non-proliferation"
So : i accomplished all my goals except : the vassalage. So , i capture all the rest of his cities so , i can offer him his cities back in exchange for the peace and vassalage , no dice. I wiped out all of his units , i have the capital surrounded in such a way that i could conquer in one turn , at this point : the rest of the world denounced/declared war , so , even if i backed off completely he is completely f-ed without accepting my vassalage agreement ,yet , his words : "insulting and unfair". Basically : he would rather die at this point than be under my protection for a few turns (vassalage always expires after some turns) while he rebuilds his nation with a safety net of free military protection.
In a weird way , its actually a smart move , because , its what an actual human might do under the same circumstance ; " look , just take me out. I'm not playing anymore"
BTW: @ Sr Rainbow : Those two problems you mentioned might be related. The AI probably builds a big of a force as it can , as soon as it can ,and , the upkeep expense keeps the coffers too depleted to afford the upgrades , even if the AI has enough gold to upgrade one unit , its probably not programmed to selectively upgrade individual units ,so , it wouldn't upgrade unless : it could upgrade everything unilaterally ,but , it would never get that much gold saved because , it would spend surpluses on new builds. Also , its kind of funny you mention the cutting jungles decision. I always cut the jungles too , because : it also gives a hammer by : turning the jungle into a plains ,and , i feel it works out better in the long run research wise to have research structures build quicker.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
I know that it is an abbreviation but the computer program cannot freely think. There are hundreds of thousands of algorithms that determine what it will do. The closest thing to true AI is IBM's Watson. For something to have true AI it would need to be able to make its own decisions not based on programming, and learn.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
forcedalt
Warlord
Very true ,and , Watson® is a really big and expensive machine. At the end of the day ,even the best possible AI can only be as "smart" as an average home computer.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
A very good laptop is as "smart" as a lizard. Also, the best robot ha the thinking capacity of an insect. They are getting infinitely better though. A scientific calculator has the same processing power as the entire Apollo mission.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
I'm sure everyone knows how stupid they are with their civilian units/missionaries/prophets in times of war... trying to run through my borders with workers and settlers and whatnot...
(you think converting my holy city is going to make it flip over to your side or what?... thanks for the free prophet.. I hope it still has all its charges left)...
(you think converting my holy city is going to make it flip over to your side or what?... thanks for the free prophet.. I hope it still has all its charges left)...
Sr_Rainbow
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 16
I agree with the gold issue;perhaps the AI should be more strategic with their money instead of spending it all whenever they can.
But I still, like, worship my jungles, especially if I have a lot of them. With a trading post, free thought from rationalism, and sacred path pantheon if I can get it, jungles became a strong tile IMO.
forcedalt
Warlord
I have what is probably a way too simplified solution to my "AI immersion" issue.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...7VoufBU/s3000/BNW%20Leaders%20Spreadsheet.png
If the Victory competitiveness trait were unilaterally dropped to zero , could that possibly stop the AI from "worrying" about winning , or not winning the game ,and , make it focus more on development and conquest for the sake of itself? , or , would it make the AI more sluggish ,by way of removing "motivation"?
Since the AI can't actually worry , or , be motivated , i guess i am wondering about how this game is actually built ,and , if such a drastic change would affect stability , and , if it could make the AI be perceived as behaving better by me , and all the other gripers who complain about Civ5 AI.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...7VoufBU/s3000/BNW%20Leaders%20Spreadsheet.png
If the Victory competitiveness trait were unilaterally dropped to zero , could that possibly stop the AI from "worrying" about winning , or not winning the game ,and , make it focus more on development and conquest for the sake of itself? , or , would it make the AI more sluggish ,by way of removing "motivation"?
Since the AI can't actually worry , or , be motivated , i guess i am wondering about how this game is actually built ,and , if such a drastic change would affect stability , and , if it could make the AI be perceived as behaving better by me , and all the other gripers who complain about Civ5 AI.
