Aggressive AI

I'm not complaining about AI aggressiveness at lower difficulty.

Some advice:

Read, think then post.
 
Randomsheep said:
It seems to me that this comes up repeatedly because many want to play the game in a role playing sense.

What I think many players really want is the AI to play an expansionist game without paying attention to the player.

Of course, it would be impossible at this stage to separate the AI algorithms, but I can understand the frustation for players who want a casual experience.
Click to expand...
I mean there's certainly room to further improve the AI, and I think my proposal has merit.
 
I have to agree that now that happiness is cleared (though we still need to adjust it), the AI aggressivity is the most frequent issues from new players.

Two things seems to be frequent complains:
A) The AI is aggressive. Why? (1) Because it tries to win the game. (2) Because new players are not used to actually have to care about diplomaty to win the game.
B) Suicidal wars. Which are immersion breaking for some players.

For (A), I think it might be a good idea to have a parameter that influence AI's aggressivity (at the cost of winning efficiency). This parameter should only be non-zero for Settler difficulty (maybe chieftain?) by default. So that pacifist players would be able to adjust the AI aggressivity to their taste. Another possibility would be a "chill AI" option (like "chill barbarians")

For (B), some of them are by-design. But from their frequent reports, it makes me think they may be a bug somewhere. Unfortunately, we don't have any AI logs to study to actually find why those suicidal war happens. @Gazebo Is there any trade log that record how much the AI is paid for making brokered wars?

(By the way, I've not found the function where the AI evaluate if it wants to accept the war brokering. If anybody can point it to me, thank you in advance.)
 
Last edited:
Moi Magnus said:
For (B), some of them are by-design. But from their frequent reports, it makes me think they may be a bug somewhere. Unfortunately, we don't have any AI logs to study to actually find why those suicidal war happens. @Gazebo Is there any trade log that record how much the AI is paid for making brokered wars?

(By the way, I've not found the function where the AI evaluate if it wants to accept the war brokering. If anybody can point it to me, thank you in advance.)
Click to expand...
@Gazebo Is it feasible to have an information that a war is brokered?
 
CppMaster said:
@Gazebo Is it feasible to have an information that a war is brokered?
Click to expand...
For me, at least, I do get that notification sometimes...probably has to do with putting spies in the right places (?) and I think that this sort of thing should involve spycraft anyway, since making war deals is always gonna be a secret (remember WW2), although I guess one could argue for some sort of historical info 50 turns later (in the sense of: "after many years, our historians have discovered that X's declaration of war in the year YYYY had been brokered by A").

ElliotS said:
I mean there's certainly room to further improve the AI, and I think my proposal has merit.
Click to expand...
Yeah I really like that one, actually! Tying AI estimation of enemy strengh to enemy kill ratio in past wars should cut down on the number of hopeless wars started by AI.
There should probably be some sort of weight to factor in unit value so that losing 10 swordsmen is worse than losing 10 warriors or archers and also older wars should be valued less in this regard than more recent ones.
 
Moi Magnus said:
I have to agree that now that happiness is cleared (though we still need to adjust it), the AI aggressivity is the most frequent issues from new players.

Two things seems to be frequent complains:
A) The AI is aggressive. Why? (1) Because it tries to win the game. (2) Because new players are not used to actually have to care about diplomaty to win the game.
B) Suicidal wars. Which are immersion breaking for some players.

For (A), I think it might be a good idea to have a parameter that influence AI's aggressivity (at the cost of winning efficiency). This parameter should only be non-zero for Settler difficulty (maybe chieftain?) by default. So that pacifist players would be able to adjust the AI aggressivity to their taste. Another possibility would be a "chill AI" option (like "chill barbarians")

For (B), some of them are by-design. But from their frequent reports, it makes me think they may be a bug somewhere. Unfortunately, we don't have any AI logs to study to actually find why those suicidal war happens. @Gazebo Is there any trade log that record how much the AI is paid for making brokered wars?

(By the way, I've not found the function where the AI evaluate if it wants to accept the war brokering. If anybody can point it to me, thank you in advance.)
Click to expand...
We could stick some of the options together to reduce the giant amount of available options in the starting menue.

Something like "Peaceful play":
AI aggressivness greatly reduced + No barbarians + No bad events

Something like "friendly play":
AI aggressivness slightly reduced +chilled barbarians

Something like "brutal play":
AI aggressivness increased + raging barbarian
 
I played a game with Gandhi (Emperor Pangaea) last night where by turn 65 I had a total of 4 cities (none within 8 tiles of another capital though I was nearby Byzantines) and an archer a horseman and 3 spears.

Simultaneously Byzantines and Aztecs declare war and go after me hard.

How do I judge how much military strength I need to ward off early war like this? Would an extra spear or two have made the difference?
 
Last edited:
Well, I usually approach my games by preparing for an early attack. That means I settle my cities fairly close and definitely in very defendable positions, and start soon on building my army to count at least 6-7 units.

So perhaps we might be able to help you if you posted a separate thread and included a few screenshots of your cities.

Oh, and regarding Aztecs: They're homicidal maniacs. If you have them in your age early on, expect an attack. In the vast majority of cases, it'll come!
 
Aztecs = aggressiv
Civilization with their UU = more aggressiv
Aztecs which have their UU at start = more aggressiv aggressiv
 
Gazebo said:
99% of the time the problem is that players ignore their military. I have zero interest in catering to that style of play. Civ has builder elements to it but don't expect the AI to just ignore you if you're weak and wonder-spamming.

G
Click to expand...
Let me confirm, the solution for a player who is constantly being attacked by AI who are then crushed repeatedly by the player's existing military is for that player to build more military?
 
Rekk said:
Let me confirm, the solution for a player who is constantly being attacked by AI who are then crushed repeatedly by the player's existing military is for that player to build more military?
Click to expand...
Yes, AI understimate experienced player. Also you could have better relations with the AI by giving them gifts.
 
Rekk said:
Let me confirm, the solution for a player who is constantly being attacked by AI who are then crushed repeatedly by the player's existing military is for that player to build more military?
Click to expand...

Your response has nothing to do with the statement you quoted.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
The forever war problem
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
msw1
M
R
How to make it in America
Replies
11
Views
2K
Remito
R
Aquila SPQR
Settler scaling cost
Replies
5
Views
2K
phantom22
P
S
AI Discussion: Mid Game Expansion
Replies
2
Views
898
Stalker0
S
Recursive
Vox Populi Congress: Call for New MAGI
Replies
3
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Back
Top Bottom