AI, what AI?

[apocalypse105]

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.

DOWS you for the kicks

 

[apocalypse105]

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.

IN a bord game not everyone backstab eachother only certain persons but not all of them.

And As foar the warmonger penalty goes it breaks diplomacy appart

 

[Derpy Hooves]

In a game, gameplay should always come before realism, especially a game like Civ that has a much stronger emphasis on gameplay then realism, we know that if you where to look at history a single country would get itself into some form of war every couple of decades, this does not however make this fun to emulate as even on Marathon it would mean getting a DoW every turn until like 1600AD and countries changing drastically at the same pace.
Genghis Khans and Alexanders conquests would last a single turn and would collapse 2 turns later.

That being said, what kind of pace of diplomacy IS enjoyable for the player?
I suspect inbetween this and CIV's speed, with the latter being a bit too slow and the current going too fast.
For real enjoyment you need to be able to get allies you really trust, with real benefits for getting to that state, if you expect a backstab the moment you DoF alot of the immersion get's lost and you start treating the AI like a wild animal or an angry child.

 

[apocalypse105]

In a game, gameplay should always come before realism, especially a game like Civ that has a much stronger emphasis on gameplay then realism, we know that if you where to look at history a single country would get itself into some form of war every couple of decades, this does not however make this fun to emulate as even on Marathon it would mean getting a DoW every turn until like 1600AD and countries changing drastically at the same pace.
Genghis Khans and Alexanders conquests would last a single turn and would collapse 2 turns later.

That being said, what kind of pace of diplomacy IS enjoyable for the player?
I suspect inbetween this and CIV's speed, with the latter being a bit too slow and the current going too fast.
For real enjoyment you need to be able to get allies you really trust, with real benefits for getting to that state, if you expect a backstab the moment you DoF alot of the immersion get's lost and you start treating the AI like a wild animal or an angry child.

History has a lot of wars but olso alot of time of peace.


This game is just favored to war instead of diplomacy

 

[bhavv]

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

The AI sucks terribly in Civ V, the guy you replied actually said it does but you misinterperated.

However it is completely normal for Monty to act in the following manner:

1) Meet Monty for the first time, he is cautious.

2) Very soon Monty wants to be friends. He asks for open borders first, and declarations of friendships later.

3) After that, he starts asking for a research agreement if you and him have enough gold.

4) While your open borders are up, and you are at friendly relations, a horde of Jaguar warriors start marching through your territory.

5) A few turns later, he declares war on you. Shimmy cackle, shimmy cackle, SHIMMY CACKLE!

6) After the War is over and both sides are at peace, Monty is immediately friendly again and asks for open borders first, and declarations of friendship.

7) And then the whole cycle repeats itself endlessly.

Its actually very funny, and throws you off guard when it first happens. If you have Monty as a neighbour, you CANNOT focus on peaceful expansion without enough defense to wipe out a large invasive force which will keep on coming your way throughout the whole game, or until you conquer him.

 

[NotSure]

A few turns later, he declares war on you. Shimmy cackle, shimmy cackle, SHIMMY CACKLE!

Very nice, thanks. There are a few that follow patterns like this, though Monty may be the worst. Oda, Bismarck, and Harald come to mind. Totally predictable back-stab after back-stab after back-stab.

 

[trueblue]

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

so simple, so true. and i like the irony.
















i need to stop replying to these threads. its just the same old tired arguements going round and round.

 

[PhilBowles]

Very nice, thanks. There are a few that follow patterns like this, though Monty may be the worst. Oda, Bismarck, and Harald come to mind. Totally predictable back-stab after back-stab after back-stab.

I usually find Harald reliable. With Oda it's so predictable I wouldn't even call it backstabbing - you know if you're next to him he's going to declare war whenever he gets the chance. He even has the decency not to go straight from "Hostile, At War" to "Friendly" the moment you sign a peace treaty a lot of the time, letting you know he holds a grudge (if you hadn't already guessed).

I usually get backstabbed by al-Rashid, but I think that's less to do with his personality and more to do with the fact that he always goes for diplomatic victories, and so he and I invariably come into conflict over city-state control.

 

[kaltorak]

WTH? Do these AIs even know the concept of diplomacy?

Clearly not. My biggest gripe since release.

 

[wannabewarlord]

There is probably a dozen threads that need merging. The "AI cheat" thread is about the exact same subject. In fact, every thread stating "why is the AI so stupid" ends up being the same discussion about how hard/easy it is to programm certain aspects of the AI. It's getting very repretitive...

As for the RA, whether programmed or not, I look at it this way: the AI has usually tons of gold on the higher difficulties, meaning sucking you out of 200g is definitely gonna hurt you more than it does hurt the AI. In fact, if it were programmed (I can't say), it would be not the worst move: I suck you out of money so you cannot upgrade/buy new units and attack you a few turns later, not really caring about the RA in the first place (since I, as an AI, also have bonuses to my research tree).

 

[wannabewarlord]

i need to stop replying to these threads. its just the same old tired arguements going round and round.

Amen. In fact, why not merge them all in one big AI programming gripe thread, so those actually finding joy in replying on AI programming techniques (certain ponies come to mind), can do so in their own bubble. No need to reiterate in a new thread every 5 hours...

 

[Shurdus]

Amen. In fact, why not merge them all in one big AI programming gripe thread, so those actually finding joy in replying on AI programming techniques (certain ponies come to mind), can do so in their own bubble. No need to reiterate in a new thread every 5 hours...

Give the man the respect he deserves. Call him an eloquent pony at the very least.

 

[nokmirt]

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.

With bad AI and broken diplomacy whats the difference?

 

[chazzycat]

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.

In their efforts to make the AI humanlike, they went a bit overboard, so much so that the AI are very poor losers. When they are getting destroyed they try to make everyone else miserable too. Like a kid flipping a game board when they realize they are losing. Well that's my take on this at least. I do agree they tend to make odd decisions in their final moments.

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?

England is very touchy about city states, I venture to bet that you stole one of hers?? After defeat, she does have a sense of diplomacy. She is trying to persuade other AI that you are a warmongering menace, to turn them against you. That makes perfect since given you just kicked her ass...why should she like you??

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!

Playing OCC doesn't really change the game at all other than preventing you from expanding. That message is a little silly, sure, but honestly not that big of a deal. What's the downside to just saying "ok, sure, friend". You can't expand anyway, might as well take the diplo bonus.

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?

You're about to finish his capital but you're a pacifist? Huh? In this case I would say your actions make less sense than the AI. "you can take my capital from my cold, dead hands" is a perfectly reasonable position.

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?

I think you just failed at diplomacy. You should have been working to get the other AI on your side, but France beat you to it. It has nothing to do with AI vs human. You say you were "friendly" but did you have any DOFs? Have you ever denounced France? That is how you get AIs on your side.

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?!

AI attack each other all the time. They will only attack the human player if you are the most vulnerable! Try keeping a larger defense army, then bribe the AIs to attack each other instead.

Also remember your actions have consequences. Your statement that you were "a pacifist in this game" while at the same time admitting you were conquering another nation, leads me to believe you aren't quite sure on what that means. If you want to play a diplomatic game where everyone doesn't hate you, you can't go around killing them all.