A.I. dosen't know when to call it a day

[Masklinn]

I have captured or razed half of their cities, beat them back the few times they tried to recapture there city, my empire is like 2.5 times his size so i can outproduce him with troops, and i way out tech him but he refuses any thing but a white peace. [...]

Hmmm, I think the AI is being pretty clever there : it surprises and annoys you, it's being proud, stubborn and strong !

Let's put it in an other way : What would YOU do if you were the AI ? GIve up all your gold and techs that easily ? Wouldn't you try to do something ? Would you just give up ?

This AI sounds human (not saying its clever or dumb, just human) to me : "I won't give you nothing, unless you take it from my cold dead hand !!"

 

[r_rolo1]

Some notes in here....

AI in war measures his sucess mainly by the kill ratio ( his losses vs our losses ) , with a look at the power ratio as well. It also looks to the combined strength if one of the sides is fighting multiple wars ( AI rarely bet on the losing horse... ), hence some dogpiling is inevitable.

OTOH AI values his cities a lot when negotiating and will rarely get rid of them ( in BtS sometimes it gifts some culturally pressured cities, but it is rare ). It may come to extremes, like one thread I saw long time ago , where the poster grumbled about the fact that Toku didn't wanted to trade a annoying fishing village, not even for 20 cities....

Capitulation is another complettely diferent deal... AI will capitulate if:

-You have the double of his size
-You have double of his power
- You are perceived as being winning the war ( measured in kill ratio )

I don't think that the rules are bad in it self, but sometimes they create wierd results, like capitulating 1 civ by just smashing their ill placed SoD, when if you had pursuied their cities , they would still think that they were OK or even thinking they were having the upper hand..... OTOH AI gives unreasonable value to frozen fishing villages in peace. IMHO if the AI gave a little less value to cities in peace ( nothing like the buy cities option of other days, but reasonable city per city deals .... ) and a little more in war, it would be better...

 

[deanej]

I think the AI should take more into consideration in war and be a bit more willing to surrender. This could be balanced with a harsh diplo penalty (and possibility of immediate dogpile) if peace is broken within a certain amount of time after the peace treaty ends.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some notes in here....

AI in war measures his sucess mainly by the kill ratio ( his losses vs our losses ) , with a look at the power ratio as well. It also looks to the combined strength if one of the sides is fighting multiple wars ( AI rarely bet on the losing horse... ), hence some dogpiling is inevitable.

OTOH AI values his cities a lot when negotiating and will rarely get rid of them ( in BtS sometimes it gifts some culturally pressured cities, but it is rare ). It may come to extremes, like one thread I saw long time ago , where the poster grumbled about the fact that Toku didn't wanted to trade a annoying fishing village, not even for 20 cities....

Capitulation is another complettely diferent deal... AI will capitulate if:

-You have the double of his size
-You have double of his power
- You are perceived as being winning the war ( measured in kill ratio )

I don't think that the rules are bad in it self, but sometimes they create wierd results, like capitulating 1 civ by just smashing their ill placed SoD, when if you had pursuied their cities , they would still think that they were OK or even thinking they were having the upper hand..... OTOH AI gives unreasonable value to frozen fishing villages in peace. IMHO if the AI gave a little less value to cities in peace ( nothing like the buy cities option of other days, but reasonable city per city deals .... ) and a little more in war, it would be better...

Power rating must be pretty !@#$ significant. I've had a situation where I captured 3 AI cities on a continent unique to that AI, with both my "ally" and myself fighting him. I killed far more units and took more cities. As far as I could tell the rival civ hadn't killed very many units at all, likely just naval units.

The target capitulated to the computer that never set foot on his soil or took a city. The mechanics are not totally broken but that begs a tweak IMO.

 

[I_Scorpio]

Agreed. It should also be possible to make deals of both sides for peace, as this has happened numerous times in real life. You won't see anything like the Congress of Vienna in civ, because it's not allowed. It would also fix the inability to get cities out of a treaty with Alexander even if they aren't redded out.



If I can produce units to replace those lost it isn't such a good call on the part of the AI, is it? And what if I have many more units? If I lose 5 units for every 1 of his, but am able to take city after city and am still as powerful or more powerful as the AI, does that mean the AI is winning the war?

Like another poster pointed out the power rating is also taken into account. If you're losing units on a 5:1 ratio but able to produce 12 units/turn while the AI manages 2 units/turn, the AI will pay the price for peace and might even capitulate. My point was that if your production is lacking, and you can't continue taking over the AI, it made a good decision not giving anything for peace.

 

[BakingTheArt]

Yeah, in the war I was talking about, I was taking heavy losses. Still, I was producing enough units to replace the lost ones.

AI definitely needs to learn the win the battle, lose the war thing. It's kinda stupid as it is.

 

[Wodan]

Seems to me the AI is emulating quite well the "screw you!" factor that a human will do.

i.e., capitulate to the guy who isn't killing him.

Wodan

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Seems to me the AI is emulating quite well the "screw you!" factor that a human will do.

i.e., capitulate to the guy who isn't killing him.

Wodan

Well then, I said SCREW YOU BACK, and promptly declared war on both civs in that game. I completely wiped out the little capping weasel, and damaged the idiot who accepted it badly and took some nice gold for peace. I later wiped that sucker, who was once my friend, off the map en route to a UN "diplomatic" victory (vote for me vassals, NOW!).

Considering I was able to do that easily, the capitulation doesn't make much sense, although I could see an annoying 14 year old doing it as you point out. I didn't think that behavior was what programmers were targeting for the AI though (the AI plays even younger, I think )

 

[Wodan]

Well then, I said SCREW YOU BACK, and promptly declared war on both civs in that game. I completely wiped out the little capping weasel, and damaged the idiot who accepted it badly and took some nice gold for peace. I later wiped that sucker, who was once my friend, off the map en route to a UN "diplomatic" victory (vote for me vassals, NOW!).

Considering I was able to do that easily, the capitulation doesn't make much sense, although I could see an annoying 14 year old doing it as you point out. I didn't think that behavior was what programmers were targeting for the AI though (the AI plays even younger, I think )

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with most everything you said.

I guess I was trying to say that making it 100% predictable is not necessary good for the game.

Wodan

 

[AnitaGaribaldi]

The AI takes into account while negotiating peace:
-> power
-> cities
-> population
-> number of tiles that it has border with your civ
-> war success (capturing cities, pillage, troops kills)

I tried to read the SDK in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270938

 

[Comrade Alex]

This AI sounds human (not saying its clever or dumb, just human) to me : "I won't give you nothing, unless you take it from my cold dead hand !!"

It's being Japan. Lol