AI has an end-game prevention strategy?

[ChrTh]

Playing as the Persians on Regent on a Tiny World. Random terrain, ends up being a Pangaea with one island.
3 Opponents: Indians, Romans, Zulu (all Random).

So the Romans decide to declare war on me pretty early--right after I get Immortals ... so they were easily dispatched.

The Zulu were annoying; kept declaring War for no good reason, and I was able to get India to side with me, and eventually, after many many years and wars, we conquer them (more or less splitting up his cities).

So it's down to me and India. Now India and I have been on Polite relations for almost the entire game, including Gracious every now and then. But it's the early 1900s, and I have a huge tech lead. I'm building the Space Ship (half done). All of a sudden, India attacks! Out of nowhere! He only has Calvary and War Elephants, while I have Modern Armor. It doesn't take long for me to conquer enough of his cities to earn a Domination Victory (if I had wanted to, I probably could've won a Domination Victory about 20 turns earlier, but I'm usually a Pacifist and don't like to attack if I see other ways to victory).

Now, my questions is, is the AI programmed to try to prevent a victory by the player? In other words, if the AI forsees a victory by non-military means in the next several turns, it will attack in the hopes of disrupting it? Have other people seen this?

I guess on the one hand it's a good thing; one of the major annoyances of Axis and Allies is that the AI didn't realize it was about to lose, so if he was American, he wouldn't try to retake Western US, for example. On the other hand, it seems weird that a civ that I have had good relations with to suddenly turn on me. What do y'all think?

 

[eyrei]

The AI is programmed to try to win. This includes trying not to lose. Plus, it pisses the AI off when you have a huge lead. If there had been more civs left, they probably would have all declared war on you. Play at a higher level. You should not be countering cavalry with modern armor.

 

[Marzipan]

No doubt the AI tries to win, but I'm guessing that the logic that drives what their next move will be is the same whether it is 1848 or 2048 or 2148. I scored a diplomatic victory in the mod game I'm testing out (the 'three new governments' deal), and Lincoln, the big power, didn't launch an attack at the last minute to try and take away the UN or anything. I also finished the space ship a few turns later anyway, way ahead of the others. War mongering Lincoln couldn't keep his hands off of England and started another war, nuking Warwick, which incited Russia and Germany to nuke 4 or 5 of his cities (first time I've seen the AI start a nuclear war without me hehe, although I got my licks in later). The point is though that Lincoln prolly could have at least tried some last ditch effort but didn't. As Catherine said, it was my "stunning display of tact and strategy" that won hehe.

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by eyrei
The AI is programmed to try to win. This includes trying not to lose. Plus, it pisses the AI off when you have a huge lead. If there had been more civs left, they probably would have all declared war on you. Play at a higher level. You should not be countering cavalry with modern armor.

Ummm...that was my first Regent game

To be honest, I was lucky to get a favorable starting position, and that Rome, who had the second most favorable starting position, decided to become easy prey for immortals.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by ChrTh


Ummm...that was my first Regent game

To be honest, I was lucky to get a favorable starting position, and that Rome, who had the second most favorable starting position, decided to become easy prey for immortals.

I actually only played one game on regent. I played 1 chieftan and two warlord to get the hang of the mechanics, and then kicked the crap out of the AI in my regent game. I have been playing monarch since, with a few forays into emperor (only one of which was successful other than merely surviving). Regardless of your starting position, if you are countering cavalry with modern armor, you need to move up a level. Monarch is a challenge, but I think it is actually the best balanced level. The bonuses the AI get perfectly make up for its stupidity in some areas, without making it ridiculously hard.

 

[Scientia]

Originally posted by ChrTh
Now, my questions is, is the AI programmed to try to prevent a victory by the player? In other words, if the AI forsees a victory by non-military means in the next several turns, it will attack in the hopes of disrupting it? Have other people seen this?

I suspect this may be part of the AI "strategy". In a recent game, I had just finished the U.N. and when the first round of votes came up the count was evenly split down the middle between myself and the Americans. Not long after the vote, the Americans declared WAR on the weakest civ that had voted for me, hoping to upset the balance by wiping them out it seemed.

When I saw that they were quickly razing the cities of this civ, I did what any pork-bellied politician would do in such a crisis . . .
I gave them a city away from the Americans on my shores, and ordered my own units to form a wall around it

Of course, the Americans countered by bringing the Germans (who were close by) into the fray, but they had to cross my territory to get to the one-city civ, and I kept insisting that they leave . . .well that actually became a little too repetitious for the next 20 turns or so.

I was actually lucky that they didn't declare WAR on me, which would have activated several MPPs and ruined a chance for diplomatic victory.

In the end I won by continuously pumping gifts of gold and resources to the English, who finally switched teams just in the nick of time . . .diplomatic victory in the year 2049.

Seemed like a good year to retire to me.

 

[Moulton]

I sounds like an AI strategy to prevent your win, not just to keep that particular win from happening. I would possibly do the same thing to them, launch an attack or something to disrupt what appeared to be a sure win. So if I see his space ship almost finished, and I can disrupt his build in a few key cities... may give me a chance to finish mine first.
Some times the AI shows some smarts

 

[john heidle]

In my last Regent game I saw the smallest civ left in the game attack the largest civ in the game when the largest civ was an AI. Why these small civs start wars or refuse to end wars is hard to understand, but their only chance of winning may be to expand via war or keep a war going to get a tech advance from someone else.

During this same game as regent the AI Greeks were highest on score, approximately at my cultural level, and probably had the biggest army (even if it was hopolites). Late in the game all the remaining AIs attacked Greece and ignored me. I had a defensible continental land mass and had beaten off several attacks. During the late game wars against Greece, I got Cure for Cancer built and got a spacerace victory while everyone else just fought wars against Greece.

So I would conclude that the AIs will try to win and will try to prevent another player from winning (whether it's me or an AI), but given the various ways that one can win, the AIs probably can not create a strategy to prevent other Civs from a non-Score win. I am not sure what would happen if you limit the winning options to score or domination only. Maybe the AIs would do better at figuring out who could win the game and going after them with fewer victory options.

John Heidle

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by john heidle
In my last Regent game I saw the smallest civ left in the game attack the largest civ in the game when the largest civ was an AI. Why these small civs start wars or refuse to end wars is hard to understand, but their only chance of winning may be to expand via war or keep a war going to get a tech advance from someone else.

That is my experience also. They aren't ganging up on the human, they are ganging up on the greatest threat, which is often the hegemonic human.

Following are specific examples of why one would want to join in the fun. The first example is a Persian attack on the Aztecs. Playing as China (light pink), I didn't want the Persians (blue-green) to get too big. When they attacked the Aztecs (dark red), I attacked also, hoping to slow the Persian expansion. Later in the same game, I joined in the dismemberment of the Russias, for much the same reason.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/BeachHead.htm

 

[Dutchman]

Zachriel I think your right because in my regent game, I was attacked by the Japanese the weakest civ and I am the strongest, so I crushed them and got a Great Leader

 

[Mapache]

I think its's random and there is no strategy behind. Usually the more peaceful civs will start war more likely maybe because they don't have to fear war weariness.