AI having friends....

[T-Money]

In my last game as the Indians, I had been best freinds with the Iriquois fromt the beginning, We made many deals and passed a lot of time fighting with others and splitting the spoils of war. After some time, the Iriqous came on some trouble with old enemies out to destroy them. I came to the rescue, capturing my old friend's cities and gifting them to him. He was, needless to say, gracious. However, I was devastated when three turns after the liberation of his last city, he signed an MA with Greece against me! WTH?? This is not right, says I to myself. Why would he do this?

I realize that there are locked alliances and everything, but I really hate how the AI will turn on you in a second's notice. That your longtime friends can be bought so cheaply is, in my opinion, a blight to the diplomatic side of the game. I think it would be a good idea if, in Civ 4, the AIs would recognize over time who their friends were, ie THE PEOPLE WHO GOT THEIR CITIES BACK and WHO HELPED THEM WHEN THEY WERE DEFENSELESS. I think this would add a new dynamic to the gameplay and make it more difficult to get the AIs on board the MA bandwagon.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

This is really bothering... but history shows, nationleaders are busy on their own interest, grabbing sometimes disgusting opportunities.
I think a kind of "people's voice" should be installed in Civ4 to make it more difficult to commit such offenses.

 

[Gelion]

I agree with T-Money Civ should have more thought out diplomacy that doesn't shift from year to year.
P.S. Did you destroy them?

 

[Sirian]

I agree that the Civ AI has always been too Macchiavellian. Would be nice if there was another side to their behavior.

- Sirian

 

[Dreadnought]

That always happens to me. Its as if they were faking it all along! C'mon, this isn't Diplomacy, you can backstab in that game! Why, horrible AI, why?

 

[dh_epic]

The AI is macchiavelian because the player is. And the player is Macchiavellian because there is very little reward for cooperation, loyalty, or altruism. Show me someone who is absolutely loyal in a multiplayer game of Civ and I'll show you a loser. Because of that, the AI NEEDS to play like a psychopath with no friends or respect for human life, because that's how the player plays.

Not to say this is the way it has to be, but I'm trying to show how this is a deeper philosophical issue about what constitutes good AI.

My answer to the AI dilemma:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2100214&postcount=127

An earlier post about the dilemma itself (for those who are curious):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2090680&postcount=91

Check out that thread. It's got some good stuff in there.

 

[T-Money]

@dhepic- I get your point. Having long-term friends does lead to weakness and occassionally failure, so I can understand if the AI wants to play aggressively. But it seems a bit irrational for the AI to attack a player who helped them, protected them and who is about 5 times as powerful and advanced as they are.

I read your article, though, and I liked your ideas for the "strong AI" and the "flavor AI". It would make for interesting variants and allow you to recognize who your enemies would be on a more long-term basis instead of from turn to turn or from deal to deal.

@Gelion- Did I destroy them? Hell yeah. But then I pulled and Indian Summer, cracked and killed everyone else too, so I guess it doesn't matter so much.

@K.F Huszar- I like your idea. But that was kind of annoying in civ II how if you wanted to declare war the Senate would override your actions on occassion, so I don't know how this would sit with other players.

 

[Diogenes183]

I think it would be fun if it were possible to develop a game spanning friendship with one AI civ, provided friendly behavior on the human side. The rest of the AIs would behave selfishly as now.