A Better AI.

[Julian Delphiki]

Of course,it needs tuning - that was just a quick example how less aggressive ai could work (changing aggressive AI <> to hug you AI within those changes would probably take something like 2 minutes ) .

Edit/add. I absolute agree within the idea that AI's should be able to defend themselves well and retaliate (they should play like usual), but not direct their aggression towards the player on first possible moment. And, if they get in bad relations with player - whoop it on.

 

[aelf]

"You declared war on us" should wear off, and fairly quickly. It drives me nuts that it lasts forever.

I think "You have traded with our worst enemy" is even worse. You get up to -4 in relations for an innocent resource trade (eg. corn for wheat) and it seldom ever goes away, even after a 1000 years and the two civs are no longer worst enemies.

 

[kettyo]

I remember that in Master of Orion 1, the other races would get mad at you if you became too large (say 40&#37; of the star systems or something like that). Master or Orion II didn't have this feature, I think.

Old games, but still good memories.

I still play them once a year or so they are so great (CivNet too).
And have a very good AI as well i think like seeing your fleet-gathering and doing a preemptive strike.
I may try galciv2 though to see if it's up to MOO (there is a demo i think).

I believe such little offtopic can still go but Iustus/Blake can decide.
It's kinda community now

 

[kettyo]

"You declared war on us" should wear off, and fairly quickly. It drives me nuts that it lasts forever.

Historically war itself has been no cause for prolonged periods of bad relations between countries. Fifty years has made Western Europe peaceful and (fairly) friendly within itself even though those same countries were at war much of the time for two thousand years before that.

Atrocities like, perhaps, "You razed a holy city!" on the other hand, should never go away, or go away very very slowly. The penalty for razing a holy city is too low. A permanent minus 10 perhaps would be better.

'Declared war on us' might last too long so it's not real i agree but this is one negative modifier that the AI can also get and AI lacks in negative modifiers.
The only serious ones are the war, the religion, and the 'traded with enemy'
modifiers that could make AI's hate each other aside the basic sympathy modifiers.

 

[kettyo]

I think "You have traded with our worst enemy" is even worse. You get up to -4 in relations for an innocent resource trade (eg. corn for wheat) and it seldom ever goes away, even after a 1000 years and the two civs are no longer worst enemies.

This is also right but this is one of the few negative modifiers the AI gets too so it's a must to keep it.
To form mixed AI blocks.
Without these every game would be simply warmongers vs. peacemongers which would be damn boring.

 

[Blake]

... still bit worried about the date when BetterAI reachess consiousness and becomes self aware and enslaves humanity .. well, you know rest of the stuff!

It's on the to do list!

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I knew it, humanity is doomed . Well, it was overappreciated anyways ..I as for one welcome our new overlords!

 

[Watiggi]

Maybe an internal 'we fear you becoming too powerful' modifier. I guess making it in diplomacy would be outside of the scope of this mod, but maybe an internal one could exist. It does makes sense for those civs that really start to get away, to have the other leaders become more cautious with them...

I know! Make the other leaders become more demanding towards the one that really starts to get away. The player (AI or otherwise) not complying with the demands will start to become singled out and ignored more.

...

I must say Blake, I am playing a game now (on an earlier build - the first one that came out with the ($$$) concept). It is one of the best games I have played. Alex, Genghis, Cyrus, Ragnar are pretty much the warmongers in the game. I was Hannibal. I wont bore you with the details [edit: apparently I do ^.^], but Genghis commited to a total war with Cyrus VERY early in the game - he wasn't even ready to attack, so there were a stack of archers and what not. The thing is, he couldn't get a city, but he kept wanting to fight (his value was about 140ish while cyrus kept creeping up to ultimately 3800ish). I guess he was winning in the odds game or something. Cyrus only had access to horses, but no copper or iron. Genghis had access to copper, iron and lots of ivory but no horses. He attacked here and there, got Cyrus's capital and then lost it. His desire for peace was surprisingly still low. He did *NO* pillaging, which in my mind, prolonged the war because he was fighting immortals. Had he pillaged horses, Cyrus would have been really stuffed. Genghis then started to get a force of elephants, catapults and swordsmen going and started to steam roll Cyrus, finishing him off. He stayed at war for a VERY long time, but that is what made it work, imo. After that, I convinced him to attack Mehmed II for quite a lot of techs. He lost a city and his 'peace' value increased, but it was still low. Peace was sued and then he immediately turned on another neighbour - Wang Kon - and hit him in a dogpile war. He took a couple of cities and sued for peace. I think he then went after Mehmed II again (can't remember the exact order), took out his capital and razed two others until Mehmed II capitulated. He then went to war with Wang Kon and finished him off (without capitulation).

At this point, there was Alex and Ragnar who were getting along really well (all of us: Genghis, Hannibal (me), Ragnar and Alexander were Buddhist and Ragnar had the holy city). Alex and Ragnar had a defensive pact and were friendly. I had a defensive pact with Genghis and was friendly. I then found that Genghis was ok to attack Alex for a few techs. Gave it to him and then it triggered WWI as Ragnar declared war with Genghis too (due to the defensive pact). I thought Genghis was history. Ragar was next to Genghis and Alex was next to me (and I was neighbours with Genghis). Genghis went at Ragar and obliberated him!! I couldn't believe it! I closed borders with Alex so that he couldn't use my territory for his offensive, but Genghis hit Ragnar and took city after city after city with little razing. His vassal, Mehmed II also got a city too. Anyway, now the game is looking very much like Genghis getting a dommination victory or something. Pretty impressive. I would also note that Genghis gave a lot of techs to Mehmed II. Is this normal for AI masters to give so much to their vassals?

...

While reflecting on this game, it is that steam rolling aspect that the warmonger AI doesn't seem to usually get too that made ALL the difference. I believe Genghis got there because a) he started a war very early, b) he was relentless and kept waring and c) he capitalised on the conquests, which lifted his power rating and kept him steam rolling. I also think the added vassals/defensive pacts helped him too as it may have lifted his power rating which in turn may have also contributed to steam rolling other civs.

Problems/issues that bothered me a little: I know you have essentially killed the pillaging AI and replaced it with a city attack strategy (dagger AI) - which I love, as it give the warmonger AI a chance -, but there needs to be a balance with pillaging and city taking. Well, balance may not be the right word, I think there needs to be two distict ways of attacking: City taking and pillaging and razing. As said in the last few posts, maybe a limited war could become a war of pillaging and razing or maybe create a new war type called pillage and burn or something. A warmonger AI can then go to war, get lots of loot and then either use it to build a good city attack stack, or use it to reseach quicker. Either way, pillaging strategic resources before going to war needs to be incorporated back into the game. Genghis made absolutely no attempt to pillage horses (remember, this is an earlier build, so this may have changed).

Fantastic work Blake, Iustus and co

[edit] A question or two: The power rating values (ie, 305 (460)), when considering max nearby power ratios and what not, is it using the vassal/defensive pact combined power rating (the bracketed value) or the normal power rating? In the game, it looked like it used the combined power rating but I didn't think it did this.

Also, how does that factor in with the VassalPowerModifier and is that also represented in the bracketed number. Iow, 305 (460). Is the 460 taking into account the vassal power modifier? I'm curious because the warmongers have higher vassal power modifiers and I am wondering if it might help to contribute to that steam rolling effect.

 

[Danielos]

Sorry, if this is a silly question, but I haven´t been here for long, and don´t have time to read 53 pages. Is this AI-improvement an official one, or is it just a mod? Is Blake employed by Firaxis?

 

[Abegweit]

It's not a silly question at all. As for the answer, it is "just" a mod. And Blake has no affiliation with Firaxis.

 

[HardCoder]

This is also right but this is one of the few negative modifiers the AI gets too so it's a must to keep it.
To form mixed AI blocks.
Without these every game would be simply warmongers vs. peacemongers which would be damn boring.

What's funny about "trading with worst enemy" is that it's not always easy to figure out who "worst enemy" is before you wind up trading with him (/her).

I don't find the -4 from that to be a big deal though, because -4 isn't a big hole. But that -6 from a couple declarations of war against a vassal that you wind up giving 10 techs and oil to, that's irritating.

 

[mjs0]

What's funny about "trading with worst enemy" is that it's not always easy to figure out who "worst enemy" is before you wind up trading with him (/her).

Even funnier, and proving the point you are making...on occasion that reviled worst enemy ends up beng someone the AI is actually pleased with since 'worst' is entirely relative!

I don't find the -4 from that to be a big deal though, because -4 isn't a big hole. But that -6 from a couple declarations of war against a vassal that you wind up giving 10 techs and oil to, that's irritating.

There are many examples where the decay of diplo modifiers could be improved. A slightly more sophisticated system that classifies diplo modifiers as either cultural or political with cultural modifiers hanging around longer and political modifiers decaying faster would be nice. In particular, Governmental civic changes should impact the decay rates of political modifiers since a change of Govt will often reflect a change of heart with respect to foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure I'm veering OT here though, sorry.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

What's funny about "trading with worst enemy" is that it's not always easy to figure out who "worst enemy" is before you wind up trading with him (/her).

It's also possible to trade with civs "worst enemy" before meeting the civ that will hate you for trading .. with their "worst enemy" - that's the really sucky part.

 

[phungus420]

Chipotle is cool. Is there anyway possible an AI can flip it's war stance, from limited, to dogpile, to defensive to total? Can the AI change it's warstance while at war?

I ask cause, I've seen the AI pick a target, like I sometimes do early, hit a civ where it sees two protected archers, and it stays on total war... Why not go to a limited war, pillage to get some cash, then hit him with your next stack? Instead, the offensive is alway on a total war, and self destructs on cities. And the AI is awesome at harrasment on limited wars.

 

[HardCoder]

...As said in the last few posts, maybe a limited war could become a war of pillaging and razing or maybe create a new war type called pillage and burn or something. A warmonger AI can then go to war, get lots of loot and then either use it to build a good city attack stack, or use it to reseach quicker. ...

I haven't had any cities (of significant size) razed in a while. Does that still happen as it used to? I understand that the modified AI does not pillage cities it's not going to raze, which is a good idea if it can manage to take the city in question, but is it still razing with the same frequency?

Actually I think that the razing AIs are easier to deal with, because you don't have to retake the cities ... just build new ones on the same already improved spots.

 

[phungus420]

Actually I think that the razing AIs are easier to deal with, because you don't have to retake the cities ... just build new ones on the same already improved spots.

The bastards still burn cities to the ground.

 

[kettyo]

It's also possible to trade with civs "worst enemy" before meeting the civ that will hate you for trading .. with their "worst enemy" - that's the really sucky part.

Forming blocks this way is not the worst part of the game.
The same happens to other AI's too so it's not a big problem.
With this sometimes you just 'get' your friends and enemies not really choose them

The 'declared war on us' thing is different.
It could be better surely but through a general improvement, not possible with a mod i think.
So in ideal case 'declared war on us' should fade away fairly quickly but a new negative should be added 'you are occupying our homeland', a heavy modifier for losing own cities to the civ and another, slowly fading one: 'our people still remember your cruelty' for extensive pillaging especially towns etc. etc.

And surely a modifier like 'we cannot stand your imperialism' against much warmongering and conquering civs from the other civs would be very nice to have for gameplay.

So diplomacy could be improved a lot but i don't think it's possible with mod.

 

[kettyo]

No, that bug should have been fixed, are you still seeing a problem?

Thank You!
Sorry i didn't have time these days to play just wanted to know if i'm safe to reenable battle animations when i'll play again (maybe this night).
Thx again.

 

[WuphonsReach]

All that said, it might be logical if a group of civilization would group together when they observe that a single civilization is trying to conquer everyone else. This could be achieved by a diplomatic penalty related to capturing cities.

Yeah, that's my complaint in a nutshell.

The problem is that even with a diplomatic modifier, AI civs are often too chicken to tackle war with that single civilization that is on a roll. I don't know if there is any way to get the civs to realize that the juggernaut is rolling their way and that they'd better band together for sake of an external enemy.

Which would be an interesting scenario. Picture a bunch of AIs all squabbling between themselves as long as they are the biggest threat to each other. Another civ enters the picture and becomes a threat to them. The AIs cease squabbling for long enough to deal with the interloper, then go back to squabbling between themselves.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... for now.

Some short-lived modifiers that might make sense (times are based on Marathon / Huge). I really wish these values could be fractional (based on map size). Values are entirely off-the-wall and may not balance well:

a) -0.10 for 20-40 turns (marathon) every time you capture a city. On smaller maps, this might scale up to a full -0.5. Or do it as a % chance to incur a negative when you capture a city. (10% chance on huge, scaling to 50% chance on tiny maps). The negative should be incurred with any civs who are on pleased or better terms with the victim, unless they are also at war with the victim. Ideally, only neighboring civs would see aggression as a negative. Maybe only civs with cities within X distance (50 tiles on a huge map?) of the city that is captured. Or maybe civs that aren't close to the action get only a partial negative value.

Maybe a larger penalty for capturing a holy city if you don't follow that religion. But not as large of a penalty if you raze it (see point b). Or maybe you get a complete pass for capturing a holy city away from a heretic civilization if you're trying to control the holy city of your religion.

b) -0.25 (huge) to -1 (tiny) for 60-120 turns (marathon) for razing a city. Civs that are farther away from the action should care less. Diplomatic hit should probably be for cautious or better relations.

Maybe there should be a significant long-term hit for razing a holy city with all followers of that religion. On the flip side, maybe there should be an automatic +2 if a civ that follows a particular religion captures a holy city away from a heretic (another religion or no religion). All AIs that subscribe to a particular religion should get the diplo neg/pos adjustment. Something like 500-1000 turns on marathon, with the penalty/bonus values being dependent on how fanatical a particular civ is about that religion. (Either leader type, or % of population that follows that religion.)

...

Those short-term hits would help to eliminate the situation where you attack an AI, declare peace, then suddenly they're back to "friendly" with you.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

All in all, I think many of the 'issues' I've seen in the past builds have been greatly improved in the 12-21 build. The AI is now much more competitive in Production capability again.

About the only thing I would comment on at this point (after 2 full games and part of a multiplayer game) would be that perhaps the AI builds too much artillery (in proportion to its regular troops). In the last two games I've witnessed large wars in the Middle Ages. Often an AI stack will be something like 2 Macemen, 1 Knight, 3 Catpults and 4 Trebs. Now while that might be terrifying to someone simply hiding in their cities, the AI is severely handicapped when fighting in the field. Its just much harder to dislodge Str 8 and 10 units than Str 4 and 5 units.

Of course if the intended victim doesnt have a fairly large field army of their own they are in trouble. Perhaps the AI should mix it up a bit and have some stacks that are more combat units than siege while they have other stacks that are the opposite?

Either which way, this latest build is a significant step forward IMO.

Thanks for the effort!