Aggressive AI = The Real Civ?

[CivScientist]

I think when people are talking about diplomacy, some of them are talking about the GAME of Diplomacy. You know, the one where you play as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, or the Ottomans and backstab one another into a fine, red mist. The boardgame, I mean. And that's perfectly fine to want that--But when I want to play Diplomacy, I'll break out the board and call up six of my friends. I'm not going to load up Civ4 to play Diplomacy. I'm going to load up Civ4 to play friggin' Civ4.

I think Drew's point is that Civ 4 offers a lot of diplomacy features that may be pointless because the civs will do whatever they want anyway regardless of your relationship with them. It's not so much a question of how sophisticated diplomacy is or should be in Civ 4, but rather, diplomacy is an extra strategic dimension as advertised or no.

 

[Arlborn]

I think Drew's point is that Civ 4 offers a lot of diplomacy features that may be pointless because the civs will do whatever they want anyway regardless of your relationship with them. It's not so much a question of how sophisticated diplomacy is or should be in Civ 4, but rather, diplomacy is an extra strategic dimension as advertised or no.

I will repeat what I said before: I think that the diplomacy values for war decision are not changed with aggressive AI on.
Please somebody tell me if I am wrong. Because if I am not, then diplomacy has value still.

 

[Lurking Liu]

I think Drew's point is that Civ 4 offers a lot of diplomacy features that may be pointless because the civs will do whatever they want anyway regardless of your relationship with them. It's not so much a question of how sophisticated diplomacy is or should be in Civ 4, but rather, diplomacy is an extra strategic dimension as advertised or no.

Oh, I'm agreeing with Drew, despite having both been a Patriot and a Cowboy (one is almost inexcusable, but both?!). I'm just saying that I think when some people say the diplomacy is more important in Aggressive, they're thinking more in terms of Diplomacy--the game--than diplomacy--the application of international relations that helped earn me a shiny degree.

Being attacked while Pleased by about 90% of the AIs isn't Civ, it's Diplomacy. If I want that, I'll play the boardgame =)

Whether there are other games which depict war better than civ is irrelevant. Since civ1 the franchise has in fact been mainly empire building and then clashing of empires ie. war. I can just as easily argue that empire building is not civ's strong point either, by comparing it to games like simcity etc. When you think about it, the way the economy works in civ is probably more unrealistic than the warfare aspects eg. you use resources from mines to help you build horses faster?? . Anyway...

I'd say it's totally relevant. Civ is and always has been a game of empire building that has a mechanic for combat. But combat is JUST a game mechanic, it's not THE game. I'll put it this way... Saying Civ4 is a wargame is like saying Final Fantasy 8 is a card game. Triple Triad and war are mechanics that enhance the game, not the sum and substance of the game.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Oh, I'm agreeing with Drew, despite having both been a Patriot and a Cowboy (one is almost inexcusable, but both?!). I'm just saying that I think when some people say the diplomacy is more important in Aggressive, they're thinking more in terms of Diplomacy--the game--than diplomacy--the application of international relations that helped earn me a shiny degree.

Being attacked while Pleased by about 90% of the AIs isn't Civ, it's Diplomacy. If I want that, I'll play the boardgame =)




I'd say it's totally relevant. Civ is and always has been a game of empire building that has a mechanic for combat. But combat is JUST a game mechanic, it's not THE game. I'll put it this way... Saying Civ4 is a wargame is like saying Final Fantasy 8 is a card game. Triple Triad and war are mechanics that enhance the game, not the sum and substance of the game.

Im a fervent Jets fan irl btw

Whoever said that CIv should be a history based strategy game, with a combat mechanic summed it up perfectly. It really shouldn't be a war game, with a bit of history thrown in.

 

[Thalatta]

Out of curiosity, does anybody know which (if any) XML file(s) give(s) the numeric details of aggressive AI? Since the discussion has mentioned pleased leaders declaring war, I've been looking through the leaderhead files and one of the categories is "<NoWarAttitudeProbs>".

So, for Alex and Catherine, for example (text truncated somewhat):
<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</AttitudeType>
<iNoWarProb>20</iNoWarProb>
<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</AttitudeType>
<iNoWarProb>80</iNoWarProb>
<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_FRIENDLY</AttitudeType>
<iNoWarProb>100</iNoWarProb>

Julius Caesar and Tokugawa, but also Mansa Musa and Lizzie:
Annoyed - 10%
Cautious - 50%
Pleased - 90%
Friendly - 100%

Gandhi, Augustus Caesar and others:
Annoyed - 20%
Cautious - 70%
Pleased and Friendly - 100%


Now, what exactly "50%" means I'm not sure, but what that does seem to show is that if an AI is furious and comes to the conclusion that it should war, it will. (This is good, IMO. ) It also shows that the AI won't war when it's friendly, ever. I'm wondering - does aggressive AI actually modify these values? Or, perhaps, does it simply make it more likely that the AI will come to the point where the modifier kicks in?
As an example: Perhaps on average, on normal AI, Julius Caesar hits the point where war is considered by the modifier 10 times in a game; if every opponent considered is pleased, he can be expected to only declare 1 war. If Julius Caesar can be expected to declare twice as many wars on aggressive AI does that mean that his pleased modifier has dropped to 80, or war is considered 20 times?


If it's the latter (which I think it is), then this is the key point for many of us arguing in favor of aggressive AI over normal AI (in terms of how it should be, not necessarily difficulty): The AI considers war a more viable option, and in so doing, reduces the viability of war for the player. War tends to be the strongest option on normal AI, so weakening it for the player makes for a more balanced game.


(It can, of course, be argued that the military emphasis on aggressive AI makes it easier to out-tech and win peacefully, but I've not found that to be entirely true - usually one or two more AI than normal lag behind, but enough keep up to maintain tech parity by trades and the like; also, peaceful strategies tend to work better on less military which is a greater risk when the AI has placed more emphasis on it.)

 

[phungus420]

Blake stated unequivacobly that the AI will never declare war at friendly. What happens sometimes is the AI chooses to war at pleased (as some can do, notebly alex, monty and the like) and your relations go to friendly after the AI has already decided to DoW on you (or any civ this relates to for that matter), in this case, and only this case the AI will DoW at friendly.

As to the Agg doing anything other then unthrottling unit production, I'm not entirly sure. But based on experience, and reading some quotes from Blake, I don't think it does. I think Agg only unthrottles unit production, I don't think there is any other effect. Though there very well may be. I haven't looked into the AI code to be sure.

 

[Lurking Liu]

I will repeat what I said before: I think that the diplomacy values for war decision are not changed with aggressive AI on.
Please somebody tell me if I am wrong. Because if I am not, then diplomacy has value still.

I don't know either, but I think you're right. However, the parameters to check for war are probably lowered, incurring more checks. Increase the numerator enough times, and eventually the denominator doesn't matter. That's speculation on my part, but people are saying that the AI declares more frequently, so if the Diplomacy part isn't changed, that only leaves the parameters to see if conditions exist.

 

[Grimus]

So nobody EVER attacks Friendly/Pleased Civs? I'll be diplomatic to them if they're somewhere near my power level... allies are always good to have when wars wage out among my custom, little Civ world that I created.

But...

What good are weak allies? (unless you've become their "master")

If my friendly/pleased little friend is backwards and weak... I'll continue to act nice to him as long as it's not too troublesome, but it's only a matter of time before I conquer his/her lands for my own, because I'm playing to WIN. The only factor is that I'm waiting for when it's most convenient and beneficial for me to do so, while still handling the other AI civs - or I'm still massing troops while I'm smiling and waving over to him/her.

Why can't the computer do the same if it's pleased with you but believes it can take you out? Why not Friendly even? Yeah, the bloodthirsty AI's will attack you no question, but if it's to their advantage, the more "peaceful" AI's should attack too - just as the player would do. Nothing wrong with that.

Let's throw espionage out the window as well because that's naughty and dishonorable as well. Shame, shame... ::slaps wrist:: (I'm just kidding)

All in all, diplomacy is alive and well... but so should your military, because war is a reality in Civ and in the world (in the past especially). Don't try and do business with Lions when you're a little mouse.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."... fine, be courteous and friendly to your rival civs if you so please, but back up your diplomacy with military force or your words don't mean squat and you'll soon pay the price.

 

[Grimus]

Also, I believe the way players create their maps has a BIG influence on the personality of your game.

Those that think the Aggressive AI is too out of control...

or those that think the Normal AI is too vulnerable and easy to take out at the beginning...

... what type of maps are you playing on? I'm curious.

Yeah, if you cram 18 civs onto a Standard size map, (especially one "Pangea" continent)... there's not going to be much breathing room, of course it's going to be a bloodbath on Aggressive AI and the Normal AI are sitting ducks to you, while you conquer your entire world very early, conveniently made up of only one continent.

But, if you play the way the game was meant to be, with the default number of civs on each map size, it's a different story. At most I add but one extra Civ, just two balance out the 2 continents that I always play on.

18 Civs on a Huge map is even a bit much... I think the default is 11 (12 if you add the extra one to balance the continents). You're playing with 150% of the intended civs.

I'm usually playing standard maps with 8 civs. On standard, you need 6 types of buildings to construct things like Oxford, Forbidden Palace, Wall Street. 6 is the magic number... so you should at least try and get 6 cities. Using default numbers, if you try it out in World Builder, you'll be able to place at least 6 cities yourself, (while still being choosey too and looking for good spots) without having to conquer others lands and invade.

It also makes it much more challenging to rush when playing with the default number of civs rather than with a crowded map. Also with 2 continents, even if you warmonger and obliterate your neighbor civs, you'll still have the other half of the civs to deal with once you (or they) discover Astronomy.

 

[Lurking Liu]

So nobody EVER attacks Friendly/Pleased Civs? I'll be diplomatic to them if they're somewhere near my power level... allies are always good to have when wars wage out among my custom, little Civ world that I created.

But...

What good are weak allies? (unless you've become their "master")

If my friendly/pleased little friend is backwards and weak... I'll continue to act nice to him as long as it's not too troublesome, but it's only a matter of time before I conquer his/her lands for my own, because I'm playing to WIN. The only factor is that I'm waiting for when it's most convenient and beneficial for me to do so, while still handling the other AI civs - or I'm still massing troops while I'm smiling and waving over to him/her.

Why can't the computer do the same if it's pleased with you but believes it can take you out? Why not Friendly even? Yeah, the bloodthirsty AI's will attack you no question, but if it's to their advantage, the more "peaceful" AI's should attack too - just as the player would do. Nothing wrong with that.

Let's throw espionage out the window as well because that's naughty and dishonorable as well. Shame, shame... ::slaps wrist:: (I'm just kidding)

All in all, diplomacy is alive and well... but so should your military, because war is a reality in Civ and in the world (in the past especially). Don't try and do business with Lions when you're a little mouse.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."... fine, be courteous and friendly to your rival civs if you so please, but back up your diplomacy with military force or your words don't mean squat and you'll soon pay the price.

Read my post again. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If I want to play Diplomacy and wave with one hand while loading my gun with the other, then I'll play Diplomacy with real people and have fun. Pulling one over on an AI isn't exactly a rewarding experience. Wow, I outsmarted a machine that's programmed to have certain responses to certain stimuli. Spiffy. Give me a minute while I load up my blog so I can treasure this moment forever.

No. I play Civ because it's not Total War. If I want to play Total War, I will play Total War. I want to play Civ. Is that so wrong? I have much better wargames in my collection (10 years after it came out, I'm *still* playing Talonsoft's Battleground 2: Gettysburg) and will happily play those.

Similarly, if I need a hammer, I'm going to go out and get a hammer. I'm not going to grab a screwdriver and smack the nail with the butt of the tool.

 

[DrJambo]

Blake stated unequivacobly that the AI will never declare war at friendly. What happens sometimes is the AI chooses to war at pleased (as some can do, notebly alex, monty and the like) and your relations go to friendly after the AI has already decided to DoW on you (or any civ this relates to for that matter), in this case, and only this case the AI will DoW at friendly.

As to the Agg doing anything other then unthrottling unit production, I'm not entirly sure. But based on experience, and reading some quotes from Blake, I don't think it does. I think Agg only unthrottles unit production, I don't think there is any other effect. Though there very well may be. I haven't looked into the AI code to be sure.

Actually I just got a DoW from Augustus when at Friendly (on Agg AI). I've no idea how long we'd been friendly for, so the decision could have been made under different relations. Still, he did it anyhow. It could have been an Apostolic Palace thing, since Augustus was the owner and Sitting Bull, another Christian, also declared at the same time.

I looked at the game files and he shouldn't declare at Pleased or Friendly.

 

[Grimus]

Read my post again. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If I want to play Diplomacy and wave with one hand while loading my gun with the other, then I'll play Diplomacy with real people and have fun. Pulling one over on an AI isn't exactly a rewarding experience. Wow, I outsmarted a machine that's programmed to have certain responses to certain stimuli. Spiffy. Give me a minute while I load up my blog so I can treasure this moment forever.

No. I play Civ because it's not Total War. If I want to play Total War, I will play Total War. I want to play Civ. Is that so wrong? I have much better wargames in my collection (10 years after it came out, I'm *still* playing Talonsoft's Battleground 2: Gettysburg) and will happily play those.

Similarly, if I need a hammer, I'm going to go out and get a hammer. I'm not going to grab a screwdriver and smack the nail with the butt of the tool.

Yes, you may think you need a hammer, and you'll surely go out and get it as apposed to a screwdriver. But, perhaps what you really needed, and that you may soon find out, is that you actually needed a sledgehammer.

Okay, so you'll remain friendly to your weak, backward civs... because you're roleplaying more and feel it's the right thing to do - you want a peaceful game. Well, it seems like you're the one who is acting more like the programmed computer software is made up of "real" world leaders that you wish to befriend. Nothing wrong with that... it's a game, it's an escape from reality for a little while to entertain ourselves.

But then again, the world leaders are not "real people" and they "are" programmed computer software in actuality. They're calculating and cold, though only to the limit that they're allowed to be. If they see and advantage, (even more so on Aggressive AI) they will surely take it.

Again, if you want a "more" peaceful game, then do so... but back up your diplomatic relations with military force - which becomes even more important and difficult on Aggressive AI. You won't be bothered unless there are psychos like Monty marching around (which would happen in Normal AI as well). Otherwise, don't be bewildered when you're invaded, even by a so-called "friend".

But again... I'm trying not to stray from the topic - I'm guessing you'd rather play Normal AI is what you're saying. Why should you have to defend all your cities with large sums of units when you can get by with less on Normal AI.

Nothing wrong with that, it's your personal preference, because like you said, you favor a less war-oriented game without the tons of units - and that makes it easier to do so. At the same time, your AI opponents are doing the same (which is good!), and teching away giving you quite a challenge. If you're not going to take advantage of weak civs and crush them, then you'd expect the AI not to do it to you as well - and they likely won't on Normal AI, unless they're one of the less noble leader personalities in the game.

BUT...

If you are going to conquer the weak that you feel don't deserve to live (haha, seems I roleplay a bit too!) because your only concern is winning... then you should play on Aggressive AI where you'll get a taste of your own medicine. Also, when you do play on it and start complaining about how diplomacy is worthless on Aggressive AI - again, ask yourself if you had the military force to backup your diplomacy, otherwise don't act surprised and don't discredit or mock it.

That's what I was saying, because it's a different style of play - of which some may certainly not favor. I've actually started to like the massive amounts of units in Aggressive AI, and I feel more "on my toes" the whole game while I struggle to be both militaristic and diplomatic. It feels more epic to me I guess. More units also make it so that wars are less (if only slighty less) won on lucky "randomly generated numbers" during battle. Those are just my opinions of course.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Agreed. Aggressive AI doesn't turn the AI into psychotic killing machines. They, just as they should, are EXTREMELY tempted by the prospect of nice, barely defended cities. If you have proper military force, then only psychotic AIs (shaka) or really pissed off AIs will go at you.

 

[Lurking Liu]

Well that certainly wasn't condescending, and didn't totally miss the point of my post in any way, nor did it leap to unfounded conclusions based on assumed premises that weren't there...

Nevermind. This thread is already full enough of pointless bickering and smug self-superiority to waste any more perfectly good irony. I'm going to do something more constructive, like sniffing glue.

 

[Grimus]

Well that certainly wasn't condescending, and didn't totally miss the point of my post in any way, nor did it leap to unfounded conclusions based on assumed premises that weren't there...

Nevermind. This thread is already full enough of pointless bickering and smug self-superiority to waste any more perfectly good irony. I'm going to do something more constructive, like sniffing glue.

Well, what was your point then? I'm sorry, friend.

But you surely won the debate with your final, sarcastic message - darn. Please, go easy on the glue.

I didn't think I was condescending or missed the point. I also didn't really say diplomacy was "more" important in Aggressive AI either, which you were arguing about.

But you WERE saying in earlier posts (among others) that being attacked while Pleased isn't Civ - and you were referring to play within Aggressive AI and diplomatic relations pertaining to it.

1. Players were ridiculing the diplomacy in Aggressive AI.

2. I offered my opinion and reasoning to the debate.

3. You quoted me and said:

(I'll summarize) "If I wanted to play [that] way, I would [insert snide remark] instead."

Here are some highlights:

"... I'll play Diplomacy with real people and have fun."

"Wow, I outsmarted a machine that's programmed to have certain responses to certain stimuli."

"Give me a minute while I load up my blog so I can treasure this moment forever."

4. I responded to your direct quote:

(I'll summarize) "Umm, Fine, play however you like, nobody is telling you to do otherwise. But if you're going to play Aggressive AI, don't say diplomacy is dead when it may very well be that you lack military power."

As well as my own personal opinion:

"Don't war with (backstab?) Friendly/Pleased Civs when you expect them not to do it to you"

5. You quoted me and said:

... [hissy fit] [runs away]

 

[PieceOfMind]

A few points:

I'm not convinced that turning on aggressive girlyman AI means it will go for no victories other than domination or conquest. Anyone who is making that claim I would like you to prove it. Is it true, for example, that culture victories are completely out of the question for aggressive girlyman AIs?

Lars, of course neither AI is more cunning than the other. The cunningness was more part of my specific analogy. Anyway, even if it gives a perception of being more cunning that's what matters to my game experience. I should mention that there are no real disappointments I have with sandbox AI over aggressive girlyman AI. It just happens I enjoy the dynamics of the aggressive girlyman AI a bit more and so I will now play that more often than I do sandbox AI.
And Lars you're definitely right neither is the real civ. Still, there's nothing wrong with throwing in some personal opinion.

Spearthrower, it appears to me you have the impression sandbox AI is there for a balanced game for most players whereas aggressive girlyman AI is there solely for the players who exclusively use rushing since it hinders their optimal strategy more. Do you really think those are the only circumstances under which one should choose the aggressive girlyman AI (as I'm getting used to calling it now )?


I would just like to repeat my statement that I have seen an AI on aggressive (girlyman) AI (it was a Marathon game too) who underdefended a couple of wonder heavy cities. That is to say he had no more than about 6 units defending his VERY important cities. He was not actively seeking to replace them either because he continued to try for more wonders. He had nothing like the 50 unit stacks people have experienced. The 50 unit stacks I suspect are the dagger stacks which are just as likely to appear on sandbox AI as far as I know (but perhaps not quite as big). I may be completely wrong there however.

Spearthrower you said yourself you dislike hearing people imply your game settings are somehow inferior to others, but if you suggest that sandbox AI gives a more balanced game than aggressive girlyman AI when you do not do an early rush, you're almost doing the same. I'm suggesting that playing with aggressive girlyman AI and not going for an early rush can also provide for a challenging, interesting game. Again, that may mean adjusting the difficulty level up by one. It seems to me like you're implying aggressive girlyman AIs will not challenge you in other aspects of the game other than warfare. That is what I'm disagreeing with.

EDIT
Actually since my post I've gotten the impression that the gilgamesh underdefending his wonder cities problem is actually a BUG. The reason I think it's a bug is because he also happened to have left completely unimproved several grassland tiles and was instead working coast tiles. Something was amiss I think.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

We can never get the AI to play like the human player, because "the human player" means "the human playerS", and all humans play differently. But there can only be 1 AI.

I do believe that making the AI build more military units and conquering more often does make it play more human. They don't even have to attack someone with the armies, just prevent themselves from being attacked. Besides, as I've said earlier, most nations did keep armies, and not just city garrisons. Armies, as in, a focused, large group of men for the sole purpose of fighting or being ready to face off in a fight. The size of your non-city-garrison standing army is proportional, but not in locksteps, to how warlike your empire is.

 

[Thalatta]

Hehe, that IS often one of the major differences between MP and SP games - the humans are more militaristic. Otherwise they lose.

PieceOfMind, I'm pretty sure that aggressive AI still goes for the full set of victories, but seeing as the only real way to win domination/conquest is by plenty of warring, that type of victory becomes more likely. Oh, and I agree heartily on aggressive AI challenging the player in areas other than warfare. It can be quite fun, for example, to try to set the constraint on oneself to refuse to declare war and instead win a true diplomatic victory (not backdoor domination, which, I admit, are my usual form of diplomatic victories, but I've had some exceptions) on a big, crowded map.

 

[Arlborn]

Sarcasm is in the air...But no, my post below is not sarcasm.

Just for some people here:
.
People actually have different ways of having fun. Yes, some people like to roleplay to have fun, in a way that a) Reflects their own personality, so they can see how this goes and b) with a different personality than in RL.
So why can they not have a ethic model in which they won't attack their friends in game? If they are having fun, uh, why not? Why can't they want a mostly pacific game? Only because you want a wargame, the rest is for sissies?(that went for the AI guy too )
And the diplomacy part of the game wouldn't be there if it was not to be used. Which, by the way, if I am not wrong in my assumptions from the Succession Games forum, even the AI guy uses diplomacy.
Of course, if you play high levels, diplomacy gets even more important in a weird kind of way. Because, if the AI with most power actually attacks you while other is attacking you(or you are attacking other), then it is a game restart for you.
How can diplomacy not be important then?

 

[aelf]

@Grimus:

Although, I dislike the OP, your latest posts have been entirely reasonable, and I find them interesting to read. They are stimulating enough that I would like to break my relative silence and offer you an alternate perspective.

As I can see from what you said, you don't dispute the fact that playing Aggressive AI means you almost always have to spam units like the AI, do you? Only then can you be sure that you're safe, no matter what the diplomatic relations with your neighbours are like. While that is certainly realistic in a way, Civ4 doesn't have a very good system of unit maintenance in that you can afford inordinately large armies. This then often leads to a sort of arms race with the AI, who can easily build more units than you on the higher levels. Building and managing a lot of units is something that I do not like to do and is what I would say is the flaw of the diplomatic system under Aggressive AI (in that it leaves you no choice but to go through this tedium).

I prefer games where you can compete more with the AI in the economic department, employing various long and short term strategies, instead of just building a large number of units and waiting for the AI to fall behind due to the arms race. And when I employ a diplomatic strategy as part of my plans, I expect to see it work as long as I've planned and executed it well. If I really invest in a relationship with a neighbour, I'm almost guaranteed to not be interested in attacking him/her. I have even managed to coexist with Napoleon peacefully on the same continent when he's my only neighbour left (I took out the other one). And I just didn't see the point of attacking him even though he was a smaller and less advanced power. I had diplomatic victory in my sights (which, if you want to talk about effeciency of winning, can often better domination or conquest through an early victory date).

That doesn't mean I'm shy of doing a rush or of taking out neighbours, though. Sometimes it is necessary for the economy. However, when I do go to war, I'm aware that war doesn't win me the game by itself. In fact, it can even be counter-productive, especially when it saddles me with extra upkeep and lots of WW. War also has the sticky side of building upon itself like a tumour - once you capture some cities you want or need to keep, you might have to capture the cities surrounding those to keep them, and you might have to finish off a neighbour who might now be permanently pissed. I stand to lose a lot by falling behind the rest of the world. Note that I play on higher difficulties (Emperor or Immortal), where this is more likely to happen and where the normal AI isn't so defenseless anyway.

I have my reasons for prefering the normal AI, which I find challenging enough. It's not that I'm dumb or that my ego needs to be stoked by defeating a bunch of weak defenseless AI, as many people like to say about players like me.