War Bad for AI?

[ShunNakamura]

I have gotten to play . . . what? . . . 4 games so far(none finished because it became very obvious that I was going to win period).

2 were on Prince which was just too easy. 1 on King and 1 on Emperor. Particularly on King and Emperor(especially this one) I noticed a trend. I am losing horribly score wise, tech wise, culture wise, etc(basically I am about 2/3 down in everything). Then everyone and their great-great-3rd-removed-nephew declares war on me. 50 turns later I am in a runaway position(in the recent Emperor game though there is still a chance for those on the other continent to keep up, but still I went from dead last to decidedly first).

As a builder I do have smallish military most of the time(1 archer or siege per city and some 'rush units' to run to reinforce wherever that may be. What unit I use for reinforce varies from game to game). However, even with a crippled military I can generally fend off 4 AI's at once without issue(even more so if they are fighting each other like usual). And every-time I come out on top with a huge lead. In Emperor I even refrained from taking cities and the same occurred(though it is closer at least). The AI just cripples itself when focusing on military domination. It can defend itself well enough due to the strength of cities and all, but it really can't do squat on the offensive.


So I just have to wonder if the 'all war' state of mind of the AI is actually preventing it from winning while also annoying people who would rather not play an always at war game.


And before someone says I suck at Diplo, other than the one time I played as Aztecs I have never had the whole world at war with me. Damn does the AI not like Monty or something, played much the same I always do except I made a larger army early since warriors obsolete relatively fast. . . by turn 50 at war with everyone. In contrast on Emperor I played Russia and was in the middle of Monty, Alex, Genghis, and Bismark. Other than a 3 front war at turn 40 I have been at peace the whole game(well Genghis made a 5 turn war once he had Keshiks, but I am not sure that counts since I never was attacked(though my crossbows/knights picked off 2 of his Keshiks)).

However, the point here is that the neighbors always declare war and then end up lagging behind the player/other AI's the rest of the game. Bismark seems the exception to this in my games. While an aggressive bastard he tends to play it a bit smarter than Alex or Monty. So he doesn't fall to dead last afterwards. Though often I don't end up at war with him until later era's so that may be the reason.


Anyways long story short is - does anyone other than me think that the AI is hurting itself more than the player with the early wars?

 

[snarzberry]

If you're an experienced civ player, as I assume you are, it's probably that you have your head around many of the key concepts to be able to handily deal with the AI on those levels. I guess pretty much anyone who get's to really understand the game mechanics well will be able to beat emperor level at near 100% success rate. It's at the immortal level where 'good' players will begin to be pushed and deity when things become very difficult. For instance when you move up to imm/deity, as I suppose you should, you will likely sometimes be overrun by early wars from those same inept AI's. I have lost many games that way. So the AI wasn't hurting itself on those occasions, it won.

The AI's care about your strength, your reputation and your location. On the high levels you'll often be in a position on a map where you know there is near certainty that you'll be involved in early wars/invasions and you must prepare to fight for your life from the outset. In those types of maps there really is no place for the builder's at heart to play their preferred style (trust me I know as I used to be a builder before taking up civ 5, now I'm an irredeemable warmonger ). But you can still find maps where you're isolated, protected by mountain ranges or oceans etc, where you can maintain peace and friendly relations with the AI's and pursue a builder type play style, even on deity. But you need the right map, and personally I find that kind of game far less rewarding in civ 5 than BtS.

 

[ShunNakamura]

Actually in my own estimation I stink a fair bit. Usually on most civs I am a Prince player. This is the first one I can comfortably play King+. However, I do generally play Tactical RPG games like FFT, AoW, Langrisser, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, etc. Thus, I am very accustomed to fighting Turn Based 1upt type combat(though civ has a lack of ranged units, but so do some of the above).

That could possibly be why I lose until they go to war(I am not great at CiV but I always play the above type of game in the hardest possible difficulty). In a lot of those games I mentioned you end up fighting foes vastly outnumbering you so managing Terrain and proper defense is VERY important(though I keep forgetting CiV has Zone of Control, many of the mentioned don't). Also the AI in those games is much better at combat, not that is saying much!


However, I may bump up again. I am just kinda wondering if I was the only one experiencing that at least up to Emperor that the computer kinda shoots itself in the foot when going to war.

 

[Talim [own]]

every level are pretty much an automatic win except Diety if youre an advanced player

 

[Ruler]

Emperor and below are easy mode (joke), real playing start on Immortal. Its like Civ 4's Emperor.

 

[ShunNakamura]

Emperor and below are easy mode (joke), real playing start on Immortal. Its like Civ 4's Emperor.

Well I'll try immortal next then. Though, in that Emperor game(which I just finished since I was going science so I knew it was only going to take X more turns) boy am I glad I know Bismark's attitude. . . Just as predicted he backstabbed me even with multiple +'s from him and no negatives(denounce same leader, fought same enemy, traded recently, and desires good relations or something if memory serves). However, I lost FAR more units than intended. Nearly all my Cossack promoted Armors. Friggin Fighter Plane spam. . . seriously even with 1 damage a hit he had enough just on the border to fry two armors a turn! I thought Four SAM medics would be enough . . . boy was I wrong! Still won handily though, just really underestimated fighter spam!

Thinking of trying either America or Ottomans next(which will be on immortal I guess). . . I want to try out Jans(and I tend not to tech rifles very quickly), but I really do like bombers and evasion would have been useful in this last one(AI does build SAM's so I guess they aren't hopeless in the modern era).

 

[TyBoy]

The AI probably hurts itself against the player with early wars, because the player has a sort of anthropic principle advantage that means that AI just sets itself as the first direct opponent of the most likely winner of the game. Assuming the AI treats the human player about the same as it treats another AI player though the general trait to start wars early seems like a good one, since it means they'll start wars between each other. Since the AI doesn't underestimate the power of another AI the same way it might with a human player the one who thinks he is much stronger when he starts the war probably really is much stronger and will win, probably getting a pretty sweet peace settlement. That gives that AI the best chance of being the runaway AI civ.

I know in my games, even on the immortal or deity where an early war can be a big setback, it still never works out well for the AI. It might put me in a bad spot as well and I would have been much better off without it, but it still hurts that AI a great deal. Best case scenario for them they throw a ton of hammers into the meatgrinder then get peace having gained nothing. Frequently it gets me into a frame of mind where I'm thinking how nice their cities would look in my colors when they might not have been a target otherwise.

 

[joncnunn]

Emperor and below: war always bad for AI

At Immortal levels, the AI with the handicap production can produce enough units to make up for their inferior tactics. (At least good enough to be a serious setback in hammers diverted to no good use; pretty much handing the game over to some 3rd AI [probably not met yet] that managed to be outside of all initial kill zones)

Only way I know of to avoid an early war at any level is to play on a map where no AI is on your starting landmass. (Archepello + reroll as needed) There's a good chance your closest AI will eventually DOW you even in this case, but it's a bit later in the game.

 

[Smokeybear]

The AI just cripples itself when focusing on military domination. It can defend itself well enough due to the strength of cities and all, but it really can't do squat on the offensive.

So I just have to wonder if the 'all war' state of mind of the AI is actually preventing it from winning while also annoying people who would rather not play an always at war game.

Anyways long story short is - does anyone other than me think that the AI is hurting itself more than the player with the early wars?

YES! In my experience, the most dangerous civs are those who take it slow and steady, actually working and developing their lands and expanding with settlers instead of conquest, teching smartly and making a solid base to work from (kinda like a smart human player would, eh? hehe), that end up large and tough and challenging in the long run.

After a certain point, they have gotten so much better and stronger than the stupid Alex's and Monty's and Ghengis's, that they roll those idiots up and really threaten to go runaway on you. Ones I frequently see doing this are England, Russia, Siam, Persia, and Arabia.

The flash-in-the-pan civs that focus solely on building up huge early armies and rushing the player, do indeed cripple themselves for long term success. After you beat them badly 2 or 3 times in a row, they just kinda hunker down and pout in their little crappy-city enclaves, never ever amounting to anything after that, and just grow mildew until some smarter civ (or me) comes along and puts them out of their wimpy misery.

 

[Ruler]

Well I'll try immortal next then. Though, in that Emperor game(which I just finished since I was going science so I knew it was only going to take X more turns) boy am I glad I know Bismark's attitude. . . Just as predicted he backstabbed me even with multiple +'s from him and no negatives(denounce same leader, fought same enemy, traded recently, and desires good relations or something if memory serves). However, I lost FAR more units than intended. Nearly all my Cossack promoted Armors. Friggin Fighter Plane spam. . . seriously even with 1 damage a hit he had enough just on the border to fry two armors a turn! I thought Four SAM medics would be enough . . . boy was I wrong! Still won handily though, just really underestimated fighter spam!

Thinking of trying either America or Ottomans next(which will be on immortal I guess). . . I want to try out Jans(and I tend not to tech rifles very quickly), but I really do like bombers and evasion would have been useful in this last one(AI does build SAM's so I guess they aren't hopeless in the modern era).

I dont say its not fun I think most fun games I'ever had was on lower difficult in Civ 3-4, but aye, I think Civ's real nature of the game start to show on Immortal or above, what this game is all about.

 

[Glassfan]

I've also played only 3-4 game and a couple scenarios. My question - What are the prizes Steam keeps talking about, and what do you have to do (finish/win?) to get them?