AIs almost never fight each other

[lou]

I agree with most of the complaints about AI behavior and wars. Ideally, I want the AI to act like another human (I realize it's difficult to translate human behavior to computer code). On the other hand, I wonder how that would change the game - would we find it unbalanced in another way?

I've recently used the better AI mod for the first time. I noticed that Egypt was destroyed by Greece before I ever found them. Also, as I approach the end of the game, 2 civs are very close to a cultural victory - forcing me to declare war as a preventative measure. Unfortunately, though, all other inter-AI wars have been "normal" with some pillaging and a city taken here or there. I'll have to try another game with more aggressive leaders (like Monty).

 

[largedarryl]

If the ai acted more "human" alot more people would complain that the ai doesn't "role play"

I have found that monty with the better ai mod will make him more aggressive, but this will cause him to overexpand and become a large, but backward nation.

 

[gallego]

I made a post related to this in the general discussion forum (non-aggressive AI: exploit?). I agree that without aggressive AI (which I assume you are not using), there is not enough action. With aggressive AI, there is a lot more conflict, and I even had one game in which--on the same turn--6 declarations of war were made by AIs against each other (and it wasn't because they all had vassals). It was crazy hearing the war trumpet sound that many times in a row.

 

[Arkatakor]

I have been banging on this point since I started playing this game and have created several threads accordingly. Here is one of them:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5101157

As you mentioned, its not the fact that the AI's declare war on YOU that is the problem, its the fact that they dont declare war on EACH OTHER. Instead, they just sit around, like mindless drones and watch the most technically advanced AI Civ thrive and do absolutely nothing about it. As you said, they are not dynamic.

I could not agree with you more on this and as I have mentioned, the previous Civ games did NOT have this problem.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Remember that the AIs need to have a reason to go to war. It will never be "just because". They need to get mad enough to do it and they need an advantage. If your games have AIs that enjoy each others company then chalk it up to the RNG and move on.

In almost every game, I see AI with advantages over a neighbouring AI. Most of the time, they don't use this advantage. How come Napoleon could survive for 1500 years with 1 city (Orleans, it had a great location) deeply buried into Ramses's zone of influence, without having to fight for his life? Napoleon was Christian and Ramses a Jew. I've seen these kind of things too often. Even the less agressive AI should see such opportunities to amass more power... It's a shame that they don't.

It isn't broken.

As soon as you compare the way the AIs deal with war on eachother in Civ 4 with Civ 2 and 3, you know something changed and not necessarily for the better.

If you out-tech them and out-military them then you'll need to really work hard to get them to declare on you. Despite what you might think, the AIs aren't stupid and won't commit suicide by attacking a vastly more powerful foe unless they're backed into a corner.

Oh and as Sjaramei pointed out - if you want wars be sure Ragnar and Monty are in the game.

I repeat. I don't necessarily want them to declare war to me. I want them to fight eachother, in order to compete. I want them to try *something* when someone is heading for a clear victory (unless they are friendly with the leader). As soon as I got a comfortable lead. The AIs seem to be paralyzed. In such cases, I don't want them to commit suicide by attacking me. I want the stronger one to feed on the weaker in order to become powerful enough to ally AND then compete with me.
I don't see why this should be reserved for higher levels and for the most agressive civs. this is simple strategy any leader should use in order to survive.

In Civ 2 and 3, AIs tried to amass power by crushing eachother on regular basis. Civ4 shouldn't be different.

 

[T.A JONES]

No point banging on this point Arkatakor. If the player hasn't seen the differance by playing one of the other 3 Civ games then they won't hear where your coming from at all.

A large percentage here(4ums) are new to the Civ Series and don't see that AI vs AI makes for great games. What sucks also is no auto focus for even watch'n the battles if they did happen!. You ever notice that? Its like why program proper visualization of commencemnet! if they didn't plan on any battles between AI to begiin with!

 

[Hold The Onion]

I wasn't paying attention too much in a recent game because I was on the very end of the continent with only 1 direct neighbor and was finishing up a space victory. I was aware that Toku and Stalin were ganged up on Wang. I decided to get some extra cash I would demand some from Wang because he was at war and would have to say yes. When I looked in the bottom right corner to click his name I realized that while I wasn't paying attention they had completely removed Wang from the planet. WTH? I've seen plenty of AI wars but never a complete finish without vassalizing or treaty. I was very happy to see that this can happen.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

And prince is a walk in the park if you have won at emperor. It's supposed to be that way. Do more emperor games, when you get comfortable there you'll find AI's are not as pushover as you thought. I often have to keep warring to keep up with another "superpower" in my games. (last game of mine Mehmed vassalized Mao and was score leader most of the game. I had to bribe other AI's into war with him to wear him down so i could finish him.)

I know all that. I knew it would be easy. I purposely played a "warmup" game. However, as I said just above, I don't see why the AI didn't try something. Even on prince, they should have tried to enhance their powers. Why do lower and mid level games have to be "eventless". I KNOW they will be less challenging. But less challenging doesn't have to mean boring. AI should be causing events.
Even on lower level, it's a race! AIs should play accordingly. I know nothing about programing AI. However, it should be pretty clear for the AI that they won't win space race if another player has a significative tech lead. This should then lead them to try something. To try to catch up with me. An expansion war on a weaker AI is a solution if you have to catch up.

For instance, AI should try to use their UU for expansion. They rarely do it.

BTW, I started a game with Shaka, Montezuma, Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Tokugawa and Stalin. I'm Ragnar. With Aggressive leaders option turned on... Still on prince, as I'm experimenting and I still need to re-learn a few things before I move back to monarch. Marathon (maybe more turns increases the probability of more wars)

1100 AD: Two wars between AI were fought. (I expected more than that). All very short. A single city was taken. Alexander took Saint-Petersbourg early on.
Stalin has been the lame duck fever since (He's got three cities, on a large map. None are connected to one another: an easy prey if I ever say one).
Montezuma and Alexander are right next to his cities. Montezuma could control the peninsula if he attacks. It'd be pretty easy to do. Nothing's happening. Oh Sorry! Montezuma decided to join Kublai into a distance war against Tokugawa. No city taken.
Alexander, on the other hand, attacked me and is now regretting it miserably. He could have taken Moscow and he attacked me instead.
for 1000 years: Stalin has had a big red sign which said: "if you want to expand, please take me". Montezuma wastes his troops in a stupid which will benefit nothing to him. And Alexander recklessly attacks the most powerful player in the game (me).

I repeat. Something's wrong with the way AIs handle war.

 

[Arkatakor]

No point banging on this point Arkatakor. If the player hasn't seen the differance by playing one of the other 3 Civ games then they won't hear where your coming from at all.

Perhaps you should read some of the other posts, including those of the thread creator who has also said that the predecessors of this game did not have this issue.

DANG its hard to get simple points across here... The AI is too pacifist with regard to each other in Civ4. End of story. Period.

 

[Naismith]

Exactly - that's what I miss most in Civ4, as compared to Civ3. In Civ3, there would often be furious, meaningful wars between AI's. One AI being completely destroyed by another was common. Even attempting to play as a builder, you might very easily be forced into war just to curb the out of control growth of a warmonger. That whole dynamic is completely missing from Civ4.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Civ4. But they blew it big time in regards to AI vs. AI wars, and they don't seem very interested in fixing the problem.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

So, really, although a lot of games seem to be rather dull, there comes an occasional game where there is all-out warfare. The example that I provided was on Warlord difficulty, and I did not have aggressive AI turned on. Given that, I am sure that a game with an increased difficulty and with the aggressive AI turned on would generate quite a bit of warfare. Every so often you come across a game that really shines - and although other matches might be a bore, there is always those few that, in the end, really do a nice job of standing out.

The thing is that I don't want all-out war on rare occasion. Such all-out war should be the norm. Or at least should happen quite often. I've played many, many games and I have never seen an all-out war between AIs. I've never seen a civ destroyed by another except very early on in the game (Which, to me, doesn't count).

I love Civ4, but I can't help but have a nostalgia feeling toward Civ3 on this. I remember games where most AIs were begging me to intervene and save their Civ from the Iroquois or the Aztecs. I've seen so many epic battles between AIs. I've seen the Romans destroy the Greeks, claim all of Greeks land, only to be destroyed a few turns later by the Germans. A surprising turn of event which prompted me to intervene because the Germans were becoming too much of a threat...
In Civ4, I never had to counter a challenger civ that is becoming too powerful by intervening in favor of the weaker ones. I really liked to save backward civ from their "oppressors". It was fun and made for great epic battles.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

If the ai acted more "human" alot more people would complain that the ai doesn't "role play"

I'm not sure about that. Strategic thinking is part of a leader's role. For instance, an AI should be able to become a traitor to a friendly civ, if it is beneficial for his own interests.

In the civ games, strategy sometimes mean that you have to betray your AIs friends... This happened throughout history and it should happen (sometimes, on rare occasions) in civ. To make it work, there should be a level of friendship above "friendly relationship"

 

[Stolen Rutters]

The AI seem to war alot more when I let them take most of the religions (the early science path is a good one for this as I tend to research Confucianism and Taoism, and leave the rest for the AI to discover). Religious factions are at war alot! A peaceful continent is a single-religion continent.

 

[Vizzini]

DANG its hard to get simple points across here... The AI is too pacifist with regard to each other in Civ4. End of story. Period.

Said it before - you ignored it. You got your point across and it got contested. That's what happens on discussion boards BTW.

Your experiences have been peaceful AIs or lackluster warmongering, where-as mine and many others have experienced the polar opposite. My last completed game the AIs were warring with each other, and me, virtually non-stop. (And no, I did not choose Aggressive AI) I've seen the AIs wipe out other AIs... and I've also seen games where an entire continent with 5 AIs lived in peace for 6000 years because they were all the same religion. Every game is different. If you're not seeing the AIs going after each others throats then chalk it up to THAT GAME and get ready to play the next one... which might be totally different than every game you've played to that date. Alternatively do something to tailor the game to what you want. Enable Perm Alliances, check the Aggressive AI box, and then see what happens.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Your experiences have been peaceful AIs or lackluster warmongering, where-as mine and many others have experienced the polar opposite

Contrary to what you observed, I didn't see too "many others" who have CONSISTENTLY experienced AI vs. AI wars. Once in a long while, yes there is a war or even a world war, but you have to be lucky. It's not the norm on mid levels. Most people here seem to agree on that (it should be the norm). Yes, I read a few "Once upon a time" reports, where someone said that, in a very particular game, a civ got destroyed! *WOW* A CIV GOT DESTROYED!!!
First, most of the time, this war is pretty early. I haven't heard of many civ destroyed during the medieval or industrial age. I don't think I've ever seen it on mid levels actually! (And I used to play a lot!!!)
Secondly, It's so rare that people's messages about it sound like they are surprised that such a thing happened. Civs getting destroyed by others should be common and should be possible even in the more recent periods!!!! That's the thing. It is not common.

Also, I'm curious as to what level you're playing. My complaint is mainly aimed at mid and mid-high levels.
Of course, if you play on higher levels there'll be more AI vs. AI wars. But, it shouldn't be necessary to move to higher levels in order to get AIs war. It's not normal. Sometimes, I want to enjoy an easy game. Sometimes I want challenging games. I want AI wars in both. And I want them to be frequent. Almost systematic. Not a once in a while thing, as it seems to be for mid levels.
It's supposed to mimic history after all. A peaceful game should be the oddity, not the other way around!

I'd also like to know if you played Civ2 and Civ3. If you didn't, then you should because it would probably change your perspective on the issue...
If you did, can you honestly say that, in your Civ4 games, there are as many AI wars in Civ4 as in the previous two instalments?

BTW. I'm not even a warmonger. I rarely wage more than a war (if I can) in a single game! I'm a builder. Isn't it ironic that a builder is requesting more wars!

 

[T.A JONES]

Perhaps you should read some of the other posts, including those of the thread creator who has also said that the predecessors of this game did not have this issue.

DANG its hard to get simple points across here... The AI is too pacifist with regard to each other in Civ4. End of story. Period.

"Calm down now boy!. Im on your side", Well when it comes to this topic I am, so mybe you need to read a lil better yourself.
I stated without seein the differnce, these people who havn't tried both varriants won't know how much AI vs AI was a factor to great gameplay in CIv3, 2 and 1

Right now they see one AI vs AI war and are quick to sayin " WHat are you talkin bout Arky, I had a AI war in almost every game!"

So ya I never challenged anything you said. Why would I? Ive been saying it long before you. I offerd explantion to why others do. I like you condensed version ' AI is to pacifist with regard to each other' WHat IM sayin is you have to have played the other chapters to know that.

 

[ripple01]

I believe some of the problem (though I could be wrong) is that AI's do not incur some of the same diplomatic penalties against each other that they do against the Player.

For instance, I believe I read that the AI's do not suffer a diplomatic penalty against each other if they refuse to help another AI in a war. (-1 You refused to help us).Similarly I believe that the AI's do not suffer a diplomatic penalty against each other if one asks for tribute from another. (-1 You refused to give us tribute).

If this is true (and it would be great if someone could verify it), then it is a logical explanation why the AI's do not war so much against each other as they do with the Player.

Sidenote, again if this is true, could it be modded in that the AI's do suffer those diplomatic penalties? IMO, the AI's should interact with each other identically to how they interact with the Player in this regard.

Cheers,
ripple01

 

[azaris]

It also doesn't help when they do this:

Pleased towards an AI at -1, cautious towards a human at +5.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

I stated without seein the differnce, these people who havn't tried both varriants won't know how much AI vs AI was a factor to great gameplay in CIv3, 2 and 1

EXACTLY!!!! I love Civ4. I usually like it better than Civ3. It's better on almost every aspects. Except for diplomatic relations and warfare, which are not realistic and often seem a bit too biased against humans. On mid levels, it can create very boring games, without any events. If I want eventfull games, I've got to go to monarch or higher. It shouldn't be so. Every level should see its shares of wars, even if the human player is dominating the game.

For me, peaceful civ3 games meant not more than 2 or 3 AI wars. Civ4 peaceful games means 0 wars.
Civ3's most violent games could easily go beyond 7 or 8 AI wars. I've seen more than 10 wars on many occasions. (That is at the normal level of agressiveness)
Civ4's violent games rarely go beyond 2 to 3 wars... (and that is with agressive leaders turned on!!!).

Want something funny: in my current game (aggressive leader turned on with Montezuma, Isabela, Tokugawa, Shaka, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Stalin, Alexander, etc.), I am everyone's worst ennemy!!!! Everytime I want to try to trade something. The excuse is "we're not going to trade with our worst ennemy".
I know these Leaders are not much for trade. That's fine, but how come I became everyone's "worst ennemy" if there is no bias against humans? Shaka is of the same religion as I am and I'm still his worst ennemy!!!

I don't know how "worst ennemy" functions for the AI, but it is clear that if such a tag goes most of the time to the human player, it won't help in creating AI vs. AI wars!!!

Again, something needs to be fixed.

 

[Arkatakor]

My last completed game the AIs were warring with each other, and me, virtually non-stop.

This has never happened in ANY of my games. Never. And I have played many hundreds of Civ4 games (Vanilla + Warlords).

Seems that people yell out "WTH are you talking about, wars between AI's get declared in Civ4 now and again...". With regard to this, its all a matter of scale. There are wars, but simply not enough. Just play Civ3 and you will feel like its a lot more action packed, a lot more dynamic and strategies must be changed constantly as AI's keep swallowing up each other and you have to intervene by getting into epic battles to stay ahead.

Some other ppl argue: "choose monty, toku and alex... Choose more aggressive AI" or finally "play with Blakes better AI". I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO ANY OF THESE just to see some action in my games. No offense to Blake and his mod here, from what I heard he did a great job. I am just saying that a better AI vs AI system should be part of Firaxis' AI and ppl should not have to depend on a mod just to correct this.

If you're not seeing the AIs going after each others throats then chalk it up to THAT GAME and get ready to play the next one... which might be totally different than every game you've played to that date.

Sorry, dude. I have chalked up too many games in vain, hoping to see some action and have been disappointed one too many times.

Some people are mentioning that AI's dont demand tribute or scream at each other to help them when being raped by another civ. If thats the case, then we already have the answer as to why they are so passive towards each other and why there is all this friggin anti human bias. This is the first game in over 10 years that I have played that has so much anti human bias.