AI, what AI?

[moredrowsy]

How come the AIs in civ5 are so ridiculously stupid/erratic?

A number of senseless AI situations:

1. Gandhi is being invaded by Spain. I am also at war with Spain. We are both friends. I ask for open borders for both of us so I can help him defend against Spain. He is ABOUT TO BE WIPED OUT. He declines. Even worst, he denounces me the next 2 turns.

2. England and I have no territories near each other for miles away. In fact, we are separated by 2 continents. For some reason, she declares war on me and loses all her invading army. 20 turns later, she sue for peace. Next turn after peace agreement, she denounces me. WTH? Do these AIs even know the concept of diplomacy?

3. On one city challenge and at the beginning of the game, Ghandi expands his second city right next to my border. He asks that I do not settle on "his land." WTH? I'm on a one city challenge. How do I settle on his land when he comes to expand 3 tiles from my border for his second city!

4. I'm about to finish Gandhi's last capital because of war. I'm not on a domination victory. I sue for peace because for this particular game I want to be a pacifist. He says "are you kidding me?" WTH. You rather get wiped out?

5. I'm expanding next to France. France wages war on me first. I am friendly with about every other civ. But after France wages war on me, every friendly nations I previously had good relations denounce me. After a few turn when I'm about to wipe out France, all the other civs wage war on me? DO THESE AI only care about harassing human players more than other potentially dangerous opponents?

tl;dr Why are these AI so ********? They only care about harassing human players than other AIs even when I'm not a threat. In fact, they harass me more than I do them with their constant denouncing! AND, (30% of the time) they rather get wiped out than sue for peace/ask for help. AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE ABOUT THIS GAME?!

Edit: grammer, formatting

 

[gozpel]

To make a long story short, I settled a town near Suleiman. I haven't even seen his borders yet, but he complains? Then turns later, he sends an unescorted settler into my middle.

I found Sully's borders and I agree, I settled somewhat close, but I didn't know that!

His settler is on a run to pinch my 4th city-placement, I block it with 2 warriors. His settler is frozen in place and won't move.

Meanwhile Monty denounces Sully, I do that too.
Monty wants to be friends, why not.
Monty wants a research agreement, why not.

Then Monty DOW's me? 2 turns after the RA, he changed his mind?

I don't need frigging schizophrenic AI's as the AI is stupid anyways.

But, seriously, how could this happen?

 

[vonbach]

Its monty he does what he wants. Thats his charm.

 

[gozpel]

Still doesn't make sense, why would he throw away 200g on a RA, and not fulfill it?

 

[vonbach]

Because he's monty he doesn't have to make sense. He acts like a perfect
lunatic. When he's nearby just expect things like this.

 

[gozpel]

It's not a good excuse, it's a seriously wounded AI here.

 

[Moriboe]

I think the AI is overeager to backstab. I have the impression that getting any deal with an annoyed AI increases the chance it will declare on you. Especially open borders and research agreements.

 

[joncnunn]

What you haven't mentioned is the layout.

Was Monty your other neighbor, or was he on the far side of Sully with no common border with you?

If Monty was also your neighbor, it may have been because Sully had more military units than you did. This is classic "pretend friendship" as well, only its unusual for Monty to do so, he usually comes right out and says he hates you when you start too close to him.

 

[PhilBowles]

Still doesn't make sense, why would he throw away 200g on a RA, and not fulfill it?

I had Oda do the same. But AIs tend to be strong economically (although not in my current game, where I always seem to have more gold), so perhaps costing you 200 gold is worth 200 gold to them.

However I don't have any evidence the AI works that way - it seems not to value gold especially highly.

As far as I can tell, 'you settled land we want' is a bigger negative than most - it's the main reason civs will tend to attack me except perhaps conflict over city-state allegiances. And most civs will declare war if they sense your military isn't strong enough.

One thing you do get less of in Civ V than earlier games, though, is "pointless" war decs - i.e. declarations of war from civs who aren't in any position to attack you anyway (unless it's a 'diplomatic war' aimed at stopping you from securing alliances with the aggressor's CS allies. In my current game Arabia never attacked me directly, although did attack my allies. And now I'm in a similar position, being unwilling to declare peace even though I'm no longer actively fighting them and am in fact moving most of my forces against Japan - and in any case they seem a little annoyed that I took Mecca from them - since as soon as I do they can start buying my CS allies).

 

[nokmirt]

Still doesn't make sense, why would he throw away 200g on a RA, and not fulfill it?

I see they still have not fixed the game. Will they ever? Very doubtful.

What is really weird is that people think Monty was programmed that way. HAHAHAHA LOL!!!

 

[Duuk]

I see they still have not fixed the game. Will they ever? Very doubtful.

What is really weird is that people think Monty was programmed that way. HAHAHAHA LOL!!!

You've never played any Civ games ever, have you?

If Gandhi did the above, I'd agree. But in every Civ game ever, Montezuma is batpoo insane. He's a hyper-aggressive warmonger that will eat your face at the drop of a hat.

Which doesn't mean the AI doesn't suck, just that this isn't an instance of it being bad.

 

[snarzberry]

Look on the bright side, you've just learned that Montezuma as a neighbour is never a good candidate for a research agreement.

 

[eris]

Montezuma is doing exactly what I would do if I figured it hurt you more than it hurt me. Given your reaction, I would randomly do it anyway just for the chance of throwing you off your game. It seems to me that Montezuma is actually doing something very effective. It's by accident more than design, yes, but still....

 

[NotSure]

You have to be in a superior position (better empire with stronger military) before you get stability with most AI. You can watch their moods change as your military ranking climbs from last or near last to somewhere near the top. If you're careful not to take too many capitals, don't wipe out any civilizations (including city states), and don't wind up being the target of too many denouncements then you can have fairly stable relationships through the mid and late game.

I'm not defending the diplomacy design, but it isn't very complicated. Relationships are very unstable early in the game (which is one of a couple of reasons RAs may not be a wise investment early on) and then settle down as the game goes along. I agree it's annoying, but it is what it is. The designers thought the AI back-stab was cute and would make for a challenging and fun game. That's not my opinion, they said it themselves. Once you've seen it a few times it's easy to avoid those annoyances. I think it crosses the line from annoying to unacceptable when an AI pulls a late game suicide declaration or back-stab attempt when it is clearly at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, this is not as rare as it should be either.

 

[The_J]

How come the AIs in civ5 are so ridiculously stupid/erratic?

I don't need frigging schizophrenic AI's as the AI is stupid anyways.

But, seriously, how could this happen?

Moderator Action: Similar threads merged.

 

[nokmirt]

You've never played any Civ games ever, have you?

If Gandhi did the above, I'd agree. But in every Civ game ever, Montezuma is batpoo insane. He's a hyper-aggressive warmonger that will eat your face at the drop of a hat.

Which doesn't mean the AI doesn't suck, just that this isn't an instance of it being bad.

I am afraid so! And the AI does not suck in CiV? Can you please send me a copy of your version then?

 

[Derpy Hooves]

How come the AIs in civ5 are so ridiculously stupid/erratic?

Because Firaxis are horrible, exploitative people that lost any interest in the integrity of the crap they release, hence the 5 dollar DLC civ's when they're not even close to the original number of civ's in their previous game. At this point I'm ok with assuming they are beyond redemption and never play another Civ game that gets released unless the reviews say it poops gold.
And even then I'll have to try it for myself before spending anything on it because reviewers said eerily similar things about CiV.

And J, did these really need to get merged? One is a guy asking why AI's are doing something specific (backstab in this case) and the other is just a rant on the AI. I find it amusing how you guys generally only merge threads that give negative opinions about this game, keeping up appearances?

 

[PhilBowles]

I am afraid so! And the AI does not suck in CiV? Can you please send me a copy of your version then?

He's saying "it's not to say the AI doesn't suck", simply that he considers there's a difference between the bad diplomatic AI and the leader personality AI, which seems a reasonable comment.

 

[headcase]

About the RA problem:

What happens is the AI enters "backstab mode". Here, it is friendly with you as it prepares to go to war with you. This means you can usually get good deals with them as if they were actually friendly.

Fair enough so far...

Thing is, while it is acting friendly, it will always propose deals as if they were actually friendly with you, even in the case of RAs that it knows its going to break. Is it really worth losing all that gold just so your opponent will do the same? Usually not, but the AI's train of thought is "I am going to act exactly as if I was actually friendly with you".

As far as the borders are concerned:

If the shoe was on the other foot, most humans would not be happy to see an AI at their doorstep, whether or not the AI has seen their borders. Many human players wouldn't bother to even keep track of what the other civs have seen. That said it's really annoying when they complain about settlements nowhere near their cultural borders.

Edit: turns out the new NiGHTS mod released today is said to improve on the close borders problem

 

[Shurdus]

How come the AIs in civ5 are so ridiculously stupid/erratic?

A number of senseless AI situations:

1. Gandhi is being invaded by Spain. I am also at war with Spain. We are both friends. I ask for open borders for both of us so I can help him defend against Spain. He is ABOUT TO BE WIPED OUT. He declines. Even worst, he denounces me the next 2 turns.

2. England and I have no territories near each other for miles away. In fact, we are separated by 2 continents. For some reason, she declares war on me and loses all her invading army. 20 turns later, she sue for peace. Next turn after peace agreement, she denounces me. WTH? Do these AIs even know the concept of diplomacy?

3. On one city challenge and at the beginning of the game, Ghandi expands his second city right next to my border. He asks that I do not settle on "his land." WTH? I'm on a one city challenge. How do I settle on his land when he comes to expand 3 tiles from my border for his second city!

4. I'm about to finish Gandhi's last capital because of war. I'm not on a domination victory. I sue for peace because for this particular game I want to be a pacifist. He says "are you kidding me?" WTH. You rather get wiped out?

5. I'm expanding next to France. France wages war on me first. I am friendly with about every other civ. But after France wages war on me, every friendly nations I previously had good relations denounce me. After a few turn when I'm about to wipe out France, all the other civs wage war on me? DO THESE AI only care about harassing human players more than other potentially dangerous opponents?

tl;dr Why are these AI so ********? They only care about harassing human players than other AIs even when I'm not a threat. In fact, they harass me more than I do them with their constant denouncing! AND, (30% of the time) they rather get wiped out than sue for peace/ask for help. AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE ABOUT THIS GAME?!

Edit: grammer, formatting

Ad 1
No idea, that is wonky AI I guess.

Ad 2
What is wrong with that? Maybe she thought she could take you on and she tried it. Europeans in the age of colonization needed little reason other than 'Oooh, shinies!' or 'look, we can push these natives around!' to start wars and claim land. Why would you expect the AI to act any different?

After that, she took peace but she was clearly utterly disappointed and not content with how the war went. She publicly announced that you are not to be trusted. Is this really out of the way of how you expect some spoiled rules to act? If this was a board game, I can totally understand her move. In fact, that is how me and my friends play the civ board game. We denouce at will.

Ad 3
the AI clearly has no idea if you play one city challenge or not, apparently the AI considers all games as equal. In that game - that as far as the AI knows is a normal game - the AI would prefer it if you would not settle next to it. It matters little who settled next to whom, what matters in the eyes of the Ai is that you do not do to it what it just did to you. Again, is this so far fetched? Again, in the civ board game, we do this all the time.

Ad 4
How is this not understandable? There is a recent real life example of a certain ruler of a country in north Africa who reacted just the same. In the 20th century, there are several exemples of nations doing just that in a war. Why would you expect the AI to react differently?

Sometimes people do not take the time to consider all alternative outcomes and pick the best one. Sometimes people act emotionally, and blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. This can very well be a primal reaction, rather than a higher cognitive one. The AI does just that. Goodjob methinks!

Edit: Yesterday I played a game where Cathy was at war with me, and she pretty much begged me not to wipe her out. Of course I still did it. So basically what you can see from the AI is any range of behaviors, from 'please do not kill me' to 'I will never surrender'. Pretty impressive, huh?

Ad 5
After the Ai wipes out a nation, most players think 'hmmm, I will have to do something about that AI somewhere in this game.' When you wipe out a nation, other nations consider you a war target. Why is this odd?

I don't know why the other leaders denounced you. There are any number of things that can trigger that. On this info, we cannot be certain. I know that AI leaders have a tendency to have moodswings, and that relations can shift quickly. This is pretty much like in real life. Also, this is like a board game would be played.