.

[kaltorak]

Example 1 out of 100:

A civ asks you to help them against another civ. You do so and the first civ hates you for warmonger.

 

[RD-BH]

AI:
... seek peaceful culture victory
... wait
... human seeks peaceful culture victory
... peace with human?
... No!
... ... Kill! Kill! Kill!

This feature is working as intended.

 

[Kerosene31]

Sometimes diplomacy works, sometimes the AI just attacks you for no reason at all.

I have no problem with the AI attacking when it is in their best interest (if I am weak, etc) but they will ignore diplomacy AND attack when they are weaker.

My last game, France was growing massive somewhere on the other side of their continent. Germany is on my border between us. I fight zero wars with anyone the entire game, until suddenly Germany declares war on me. I fight them back easily and ask for peace.

Not long after, they declare again (I never even took any of their cities, just enough to knock them back). This time, they have few units at all. I start into their territory and they are being completely destroyed by the French. The French had all sorts of advanced units and was just destroying them, yet they attack me?

Things like this push me away from the game. We should be uniting against the runaway France, or at least not attacking each other in the shadow of this massive threat (France was huge in this game). Instead it feels like Germany just wants to run interference so another AI can win the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In the absence of war weariness and trade it's optimal to attack people. The only claims I see here are that the current version is better at executing this concept, and that may be so. My argument is that it's simply a bad game design and I hope that they dump it in the next version.

If you don't have shared VC, you don't have an argument. There is only 1 winner in civ. Are you saying you want a permanent alliance mechanic on by default? It would make some sense with that to find someone and PA to raise win odds, but barring that the only optimal play will always be temporary alliances with small groups to raise the odds among the group with an ultimate backstab...or on continents style maps a divide and conquer look.

Frankly I was sick and am sick of AI that don't play the game (IE don't try actively to clear a win condition). If anything, Civ V's still isn't cutthroat enough. Forcing the AI to play stupid on purpose but then heaping bonuses on it nonstop is not a solution. It does not make any difficulty dynamic. If you want balanced VC between war and peace, scale the difficulty of each. Otherwise, this is a war game under the current rules with some coop incentive to get an edge, and behavior SHOULD reflect that.

 

[dexters]

Civ5's difficulty model is definately borrowed from Civ3 and Civ4.

Maybe we need a paradigm shift on how to handle future AIs, but the current system is most economical .You build one AI and give is penalties or advantages depending on difficulty.

But the Civ5 AI have crucial differences. While we can justifiably heap scorn on the tactical AI for being half baked, the top level AI is really pretty amazing. It knows/cares about points/nodes on the map - that's a first in a Civ game. And obviously it cares about not losing. So whilst previous Civs wouldn't care when the human player is clearly making a run for victory and or actively impinging on their interests to win, they do in Civ5.

I also somewhat agree the AI isn't cutthoat enough. They seem to have patched down the rounds of DoW against the Civ that's about to win (human or AI) likely due to myopic human complaints about the AI gangbanging them.

 

[Glassmage]

Yes, this is ultimately a war game where only 1 person can win. Backstab and killing you any chance they get IS the objective. Alliances are always temporary.

IRL, USA is arming Taiwan and Phillipine navy while Russia arms Vietnam and China. USA recently just did practices with Vietnam navy. I mean... WTH.... Vietnam was USA enemy some years ago. Same with Saddam Hussein the Middle East....

You people always want to WIN every time you play, that is why you hate Civ 5 AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's fine to want to win, and to attempt to win. Where frustration comes in is random king-making behavior from other factions (IE AI civs doing actions that cause them to lower their win odds in order to prop up another AI).

 

[lschnarch]

I cannot agree to this statement "the AI is programmed to win".

This whole forum is full of postings about the AI not going for clear win conditions.
Where are the incidents, when AIs group together to fight a runaway AI?
But there are reports that AIs are grouping against the human player, which leads me to the conclusion that the AI is programmed to be an obstacle for the human.

Depending on personal preferences, one could say this would be good and fine as it adds a "challenge". But it is not being "programmed to win".

 

[dexters]

@lschnarch AI is programmed to win and care about not winning. That's irrefutable.

Also, you still haven;t posted the save I requested from a previous thread. And from your own contradictory statements where the same AI behaviour is twisted to mean different things (always negative), it seems pretty clear to some of us that you either haven't played the game seriously, is lying, or just don't care.

I'm not sure what further benefit there will be to continue talking to you.

 

[lschnarch]

@lschnarch AI is programmed to win and care about not winning. That's irrefutable.

Seems that both of us aren't native speakers. Anyway, I don't understand what you want to say?

Also, you still haven;t posted the save I requested from a previous thread.

Where and when?

And from your own contradictory statements where the same AI behaviour is twisted to mean different things (always negative), it seems pretty clear to some of us that you either haven't played the game seriously, is lying, or just don't care.

Which contradictory statements?

I'm not sure what further benefit there will be to continue talking to you.

For not being sure you seem to do it in quite some dedicated way, don't you?

And finally, you would be well advised to guard your tongue.

 

[qemist]

The pure fact that the AI complains about you buying tiles next to them is an indication already that there isn't real diplomacy involved, but "obstacle-ism".
Do you know, whether an AI buys a tile or whether it spreads due to culture?

Point. This asymmetry breaks verisimilitude/immersion by making it obvious that the other player (the AI) isn't playing the same game as you. Similarly, the AI knows exactly what you have when at war with you, but you cannot see what he has unless he is willing to negotiate.

And still, the old habits of settling next to the human player and then complaining about him settling next to the AI are in the game.

True. Happened yesterday. I said I wouldn't do it again. Later he was angry with me for breaking my word about not settling near him, despite my not settling any new cities in the meantime.

There are numerous instances when the AI's diplomacy is unbelievable. Such as picking fights with potential allies when already in a war of national survival. Or inviting someone to join them in a war then denouncing them when they do because they're a "warmonger". Or making hostile demands on one turn and then acting friendly the next. Or continually proposing "give me all you got" peace treaties in wars they're obviously losing. Or the fact they don't seem to form alliance blocs. Or the fact that when they want a luxury/strategic resource they'll accept any other resource of the same kind as a substitute.

 

[qemist]

the top level AI is really pretty amazing. It knows/cares about points/nodes on the map - that's a first in a Civ game. And obviously it cares about not losing. So whilst previous Civs wouldn't care when the human player is clearly making a run for victory and or actively impinging on their interests to win, they do in Civ5.

I had a peaceful science victory as Gandhi on Emp recently. Continents game where I had my own continent. Built all of three cities. Surely they should have attacked when I started logging spaceship parts.

I also somewhat agree the AI isn't cutthoat enough. They seem to have patched down the rounds of DoW against the Civ that's about to win (human or AI) likely due to myopic human complaints about the AI gangbanging them.

That may be. I notice a common genre of posts here is basically "I lost a game because of X. Get X out of the game now!".

 

[dexters]

Seems that both of us aren't native speakers. Anyway, I don't understand what you want to say?

In simple English
-AI will care if you are trying to win the same victory condition
-AI will try to win
-AI knows you are close to winning and will sometimes try to stop you. But as I noted, they seemed to have toned this down, likely due to people like you who can't get off the 'Civ5 is a wargame' highhorse.

Where and when?

The emperor game you were going on about in the War AI needs help thread.

Which contradictory statements?

Too long to quote since you like to post wall of texts in broken english, its earlier in this thread and was quoted, but someone else already summarized it for me:

"Astounding logic....so, when you eliminate an AI, they should get angry when it suits your argument because you got stronger, or else they should be happy if it suits your arguement because you got rid of a competitor... I love it.."

For not being sure you seem to do it in quite some dedicated way, don't you?

And finally, you would be well advised to guard your tongue.

Concerning?

 

[blasto]

If the way the AI acted WAS totally transparent, you would probably be complaining about that then as being no fun.

Enjoy a bit of a unpredictability..