This is not right - Civ5 AI

[endejan]

Alright, I love the Civ 5, it's so bad I think it's a pretty great game. I get that the AI isn't perfect and honestly can't ever be completely up to snuff, but that's acceptable. I'm fine with the AI gaining certain advantages over the player in correspondence with the difficulty level.

But I've been noticing something since getting Brave New World (which I think is a great expansion) and that's that the AI seem to be able to ignore all penalties relating to things like happiness and their economy.
An example, I remember that, at least in the original game (and G&K), units would disband if the empire goes bankrupt (meaning that empire is both losing GPT and has an empty treasury). But recently, I've noticed that in a few games, the AI would retain all of it's units while still being in bankrupts. In one game, the Polish civilization was losing around 500 GPT and still continued to pump out new military units AND settlers. In another, the Russians were losing over 1000 GPT (!!) and STILL managed to retain their troops and cities.

So what the hell? Has this mechanic been removed entirely from the game or are AI just that poorly programmed that they need to be able to completely ignore common sense and continue to build troops even after all their money has disappeared.

Another thing. It isn't exactly new, but the AI tend to expand like all hell for no reason. I get it, they need to expand. But the AI will literally expand everywhere just for the sake of expanding. In the same game as before, the Russians built some 13 cities, 3 on the small-as-hell Indonesian islands (it was an Earth map) and one in Alaska, which was completely covered with tundra and snow. Why? Why settle there? Why not somewhere else? In a different game, the Aztecs lost all of their cites, right after settling one way up North on an isolated island. A sound enough idea, but then they proceeded to declare war on the (much larger and more powerful) Americans for no reason. I mean goddamn.

This is why I don't play on King difficulty, because the AI will almost always win. It wouldn't really bother me as much if the AI weren't as ******ed. It just feels like complete BS to lose to a completely incompetent force, just because they have all these ridiculousness advantages that let them get away with stupid moves.

Anyone know anything about this? Is this a bug? Is it Firaxis completely screwing up?

Moderator Action: Please do not use the word removed from the thread title. We are reviewing this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[georgie]

The AI often does cheat and do silly things like expanding ridiculously. However, the AI cheating helps make the game more difficult on higher levels, so it is quite okay in my opinion. I don't think it is a bug.
Also, could we avoid using the word ? It is derogatory and offensive.

Moderator Action: Agree, but better to report it than repeat it. Word removed.

 

[headcase]

I think the way it's supposed to work is when the AI gets low on gold, its flavours start changing to want gold (when choosing production). Then they have a safety net in the form of not losing stuff when they're in debt.

The problem may be that some civs have such low gold flavours to start with that they don't increase enough when going into debt, so they conveniently ignore the problem entirely, which they can because of the safety net they get.

If that's true, the solution would be to make it so AI for all civs treats their debt seriously. Technically, ignoring the debt may be a good strategy, but it's not really fair or enjoyable for the AI to take advantage of it without trying to recover.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Um, AI doesn't get any big advantages on King. They get smaller ones, and King isn't really hard.

Irrationally high negative GPT is a display bug, or so everyone says. Check the Diplomacy tabto see the true value of their gold/gpt.

And penalties to happiness happen to them. AI sometimes gets below 1 even on Emperor, because in BNW their bonuses are considerably smaller.

 

[Socratatus]

But I've been noticing something since getting Brave New World (which I think is a great expansion) and that's that the AI seem to be able to ignore all penalties relating to things like happiness and their economy.
An example, I remember that, at least in the original game (and G&K), units would disband if the empire goes bankrupt (meaning that empire is both losing GPT and has an empty treasury). But recently, I've noticed that in a few games, the AI would retain all of it's units while still being in bankrupts.

Absolutely agree. i`ve been in a long war with Shaka. He was losing 5300 a turn and making only 300. But he`s still chucking out units like nothing`s wrong. then he started producing Xcom units! Whaaaat??

It`s really put me off bothering to play the game any more. I mean, I know the AI has to cheat, but most good programmers know how to do it so it don`t LOOK like it`s cheating so obviously! At least HIDE the extra Aces, for Heaven`s sake!

 

[Yzman]

Absolutely agree. i`ve been in a long war with Shaka. He was losing 5300 a turn and making only 300. But he`s still chucking out units like nothing`s wrong. then he started producing Xcom units! Whaaaat??

It`s really put me off bothering to play the game any more. I mean, I know the AI has to cheat, but most good programmers know how to do it so it don`t LOOK like it`s cheating so obviously! At least HIDE the extra Aces, for Heaven`s sake!

Think to yourself, do you actually think he is losing 5300 gold/turn? How would that even be possible? It is likely a display bug as others have said.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, this is a known bug, IIRC. It isn't within the realm of possibility for a civ to be losing that amount of gold. Moral of the story is that there are explanations other than 'the AI is cheating!' The AI is not a thinking individual, but rather plays to a set of defined rules which people are well aware of. Even if an AI is not playing to these rules, which isn't the case here, it's called a bug, not cheating.

 

[endejan]

I did in fact check the diplomacy screen, that's how I found it. I don't think it was a display glitch, considering that the value wasn't static and would change from time to time (as it normally would for most).

Even if it weren't a bug or something unintended and the developers made it specifically so the AI could do this, then that's still pretty stupid. I get it, the AI isn't a thinking individual, but the bonuses it gets and the things it gets away with on King and (to a lesser extent) Prince) are ridiculous. I'd seriously like to try and settle as many cities and build as many units as the AI without acquiring the proper backbone. I wouldn't be able to settle as many cities due to the Happiness penalty and I wouldn't be able to retain units due to the disbanding thing (assuming it's still in the game, I never got to actually see). I guess I wouldn't care so much if the AI didn't exploit it like hell (like a lot of you mentioned). If the AI were just smarter and started caring more about Happiness and Gold, they probably wouldn't expand as much.

 

[Socratatus]

Think to yourself, do you actually think he is losing 5300 gold/turn? How would that even be possible? It is likely a display bug as others have said.

Alright... You`re right. It`s not 5300 per turn since it`s changing by about -800 per turn.

But the point is, if was that much in the RED, I`d have no units left!

Yeah, this is a known bug, IIRC. It isn't within the realm of possibility for a civ to be losing that amount of gold. Moral of the story is that there are explanations other than 'the AI is cheating!' The AI is not a thinking individual, but rather plays to a set of defined rules which people are well aware of. Even if an AI is not playing to these rules, which isn't the case here, it's called a bug, not cheating.

Well, just looking at how he`s getting battered by me he shouldn`t be spewing out units like he is. Much of his territory is smoking due to his own rebels pilaging, it seems reasonable to assume that his cash is well into the minus.

And of course, i`m well aware the AI works on programmed routines, but it could be programmed better than this. i`m not asking to Human levels, financially.

I suppose in WW2, Hitler managed to keep going even when his Reich was falling to bits and economy obviously destroyed. i`ll just consider the AI must be doing that.

But the money amount should be hidden from the Player except to spies.

 

[phstein86]

I agree with the OP in some points, but what I truly don't understand is this "increased" difficulty level. If I understood it right the increased difficulty is, basicly, advantages for the AI. Plain and simple. Some techs, units, etc. A great head-start and some perks.

I fail to realise a challenge here. I think I already "beated" this AI in prince (normal) level and see no reason to play other difficulty. They won't get smarter on higher levels and, therefore, makes no sense to "rise" this challenge.

My question is to you guys is: what motivates you guys to play on higher difficulty lvls?

 

[dexters]

I agree with the OP in some points, but what I truly don't understand is this "increased" difficulty level. If I understood it right the increased difficulty is, basicly, advantages for the AI. Plain and simple. Some techs, units, etc. A great head-start and some perks.

I fail to realise a challenge here. I think I already "beated" this AI in prince (normal) level and see no reason to play other difficulty. They won't get smarter on higher levels and, therefore, makes no sense to "rise" this challenge.

My question is to you guys is: what motivates you guys to play on higher difficulty lvls?

Challenge, also most of the OP's complaint has to do with a known bug.

 

[phstein86]

Challenge, also most of the OP's complaint has to do with a known bug.

Yes, I got that. I was actually thinking out loud about the difficulty system since the AI won't change.

 

[Catalytic]

My main issue with the AI "cheating" is the happiness issue. Happiness is one of the most frustrating and annoying mechanics in the game for me. It forces you to go heavy into culture in order to get the social policies for happiness to allow you to expand past your initial 3 cities at 5 pop. I'm ok with the concept of a mechanism to slow growth, but the way the penalties work can be crippling. Your growth stops, you science is crippled, your military takes across-the-board penalties. If it's too big, you get barbarians that spawn right on top of you and pillage everything they can get their grubby mitts on, or even will cause you to lose a city.

The AI for the most part can avoid all of these considerations, and gets tons more golden ages as a result of the artificial happiness boost. The only time you can really change that is if they're dumb enough to pick the wrong ideology in a game you control culturally. I think that is broken. I understand it's a crutch to the AI, but it's frustrating.

 

[dexters]

My main issue with the AI "cheating" is the happiness issue. Happiness is one of the most frustrating and annoying mechanics in the game for me. It forces you to go heavy into culture in order to get the social policies for happiness to allow you to expand past your initial 3 cities at 5 pop. I'm ok with the concept of a mechanism to slow growth, but the way the penalties work can be crippling. Your growth stops, you science is crippled, your military takes across-the-board penalties. If it's too big, you get barbarians that spawn right on top of you and pillage everything they can get their grubby mitts on, or even will cause you to lose a city.

The AI for the most part can avoid all of these considerations, and gets tons more golden ages as a result of the artificial happiness boost. The only time you can really change that is if they're dumb enough to pick the wrong ideology in a game you control culturally. I think that is broken. I understand it's a crutch to the AI, but it's frustrating.

AI gets a happiness bonus because it plays on cheiftain handicap, it doesn't cheat with happiness IIRC.

 

[phstein86]

My main issue with the AI "cheating" is the happiness issue. Happiness is one of the most frustrating and annoying mechanics in the game for me. It forces you to go heavy into culture in order to get the social policies for happiness to allow you to expand past your initial 3 cities at 5 pop. I'm ok with the concept of a mechanism to slow growth, but the way the penalties work can be crippling. Your growth stops, you science is crippled, your military takes across-the-board penalties. If it's too big, you get barbarians that spawn right on top of you and pillage everything they can get their grubby mitts on, or even will cause you to lose a city.

The AI for the most part can avoid all of these considerations, and gets tons more golden ages as a result of the artificial happiness boost. The only time you can really change that is if they're dumb enough to pick the wrong ideology in a game you control culturally. I think that is broken. I understand it's a crutch to the AI, but it's frustrating.

Honor needs a heavy rework. That's a consensus, right?

 

[glider1]

It's a good point you make phstein86. It becomes an intellectual exercise in "optimising" a few select strategies and there are enough players around that like that sort of play style.

The only thing that keeps me playing this game is modifying it to keep the interest. There are ways to mod the game to make it challenging at higher difficulties but keeps the variety and creativity in strategies. Problem is that it is not everyone's cup of tea because ultimately at the end of the day if the AI can't fight with quality, it has to fight with quantity.

 

[glider1]

My main issue with the AI "cheating" is the happiness issue.

You can easily fix that to make the game more fun for humans, but the cost is that the AI's military has to be made larger and the AI has to be able to fund it cheaper. Unless the AI's combat quality is improved, quantity is the only option.

 

[phstein86]

It's a good point you make phstein86. It becomes an intellectual exercise in "optimising" a few select strategies and there are enough players around that like that sort of play style.

The only thing that keeps me playing this game is modifying it to keep the interest. There are ways to mod the game to make it challenging at higher difficulties but keeps the variety and creativity in strategies. Problem is that it is not everyone's cup of tea because ultimately at the end of the day if the AI can't fight with quality, it has to fight with quantity.

I'm not a programmer and I guess that AI coding is very hard, but I often wonder if the quantity x quality issue is caused by laziness from the developer team or actual restrictions from it's engine.

 

[glider1]

Just economics. No profit in improving the AI. If we want we can have a better AI but we would need to lobby Firaxis hard for a better AI that we would be willing to pay for. At a guess it probably needs 200 hour man hours to improve the AI. To make it economic I could take a guess and say that they would need 20,000 people to buy a better AI DLC and be willing to pay $40-$50 just for a better AI nothing else.

It could be done but we the players have to demand it and let them know we are willing to pay. There are probably 50-100 simply logical improvements that could be made to the AI that would improve it at least a level probably two in difficulty.

I can tell you I would be willing to pay $50 for a better AI DLC.

Gone are the days when the modders did if for free. It happened in Civ4 because of a very rare set of coincidences. There were a lot of very talented programmers in the modding community that had time and money to spare before the GFC happened. We live in a post GFC world now and not many people have got the time to improve the AI for free.

We are going to have to be willing to pay for it.

 

[Socratatus]

Gone are the days when the modders did if for free. It happened in Civ4 because of a very rare set of coincidences. There were a lot of very talented programmers in the modding community that had time and money to spare before the GFC happened. We live in a post GFC world now and not many people have got the time to improve the AI for free.

We are going to have to be willing to pay for it.

Aye. Gone are those days indeed when modding was true freedom and free modders did what Devs couldn`t. I saw Devs say `they can`t` then modders came along who `DID`. Some of them made better AIs. Some Devs even employed them cos they figured out how to do it better.

Now due to greed (and much in part to stuff like Origin and Steam) modders are much more restricted in what they can do, even though they get repeatedly told they`re playing the `most moddable game ever`.