AIs almost never fight each other

[magicalsushi]

It also doesn't help when they do this:

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

This is true, but you'd also find Montezuma would be annoyed with Gandhi at +5. It works both ways. It's based on hidden diplomatic modifiers that only apply between AI civs; they're not applied for a human. I'm not a huge fan of this feature, however. It's a bit dull knowing that Ragnar, Monty and Tokugawa are always going to hate Gandhi, Hatshepsut and Frederick (and vice versa), even before they have a proper reason to.

 

[Arkatakor]

"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

True true. One needs to have played the previous Civs to understand where we are coming from. Those were far less boring games... I think its high time to put up a vote to increase inter AI aggression, with a prerequisite that one must have played Civ3 to vote

 

[gettingfat]

The problems right now, to sum up, are:

• Some ridiculous hidden dip. modifiers, esp.between the aggressive leaders
• Human players are penalized for those "refuse to help", "refuse to join war" stupid requests. I don't see these penalties between AIs.
• The power rating issue: at higher levels, the higher productivity bonus of the AIs give them good power ratings which are hard to catch up. Every time a human player catch up the AIs' ratings suddenly jump up again from the ridiculous cheap upgrade (those archers turn long-bow in one round trick). As a result the human players are regularly the prey of AIs.
• Much more efficient religious spreading. I don't know if that's true, but my 3-religion cities can still be converted by the AIs so quickly while I have a hard time to convert their 2-religion cities.

 

[Arkatakor]

Another factor to consider is that sharing the same religion gives a bit too much diplomatic bonus, greatly contributing to neighbors (esp AI's) always being at peace with each other (since the founder of a religion is likely to spread it to his pagan neighbor).

Thats mainly why if you happen see about 3-4 AI's clustered on the same continent, all belonging to same religion, there will not be ONE war between ANY of them in the ENTIRE game (6100 years). Totally unrealistic not to mention boring. Look at the Germans / British / French with WWI and WWII. Technically they are all "Christians" yet that did not stop them from butchering each other in 2 wars over a span of 25 years.

 

[Naismith]

The problems right now, to sum up, are:

• Some ridiculous hidden dip. modifiers, esp.between the aggressive leaders
• Human players are penalized for those "refuse to help", "refuse to join war" stupid requests. I don't see these penalties between AIs.
• The power rating issue: at higher levels, the higher productivity bonus of the AIs give them good power ratings which are hard to catch up. Every time a human player catch up the AIs' ratings suddenly jump up again from the ridiculous cheap upgrade (those archers turn long-bow in one round trick). As a result the human players are regularly the prey of AIs.
• Much more efficient religious spreading. I don't know if that's true, but my 3-religion cities can still be converted by the AIs so quickly while I have a hard time to convert their 2-religion cities.

I would add:

1) The more complex economic model of Civ4 (vs. Civ3) makes it harder for AI's to grow effectively through conquest. How many threads have you seen about human players destroying their economy trying to expand too quickly? Managing expansion through war is something the AI isn't very good at.

2) The introduction of cultural defense in Civ4, coupled with the AI's inability to use seige properly, makes it very difficult for the AI to take cities.

3) The standard city defense units (e.g. longbowmen) are very powerful compared to attacking units of the same era. Humans compensate with seige. The AI doesn't. Taking a city on a hill with a City garrison II longbowman defender, 50% cultural defense is something the AI cannot cope with.

4) This is not new to Civ4, but: The AI often engages in pointless, long distance wars. Again, if you want AI conquest of other AI's to be a factor, it would be better for AI's to have a stronger inclination to make war on their neighbors.

Ironically, the more complex economic and cultural model of Civ4 made the game more interesting. Unfortunately, the AI can't truly cope with it.

 

[T.A JONES]

4) This is not new to Civ4, but: The AI often engages in pointless, long distance wars. Again, if you want AI conquest of other AI's to be a factor, it would be better for AI's to have a stronger inclination to make war on their neighbors.

Overseas, or far off invasion deals are a broken or bad bit of business sometimes for the AI in both games. Heres the thing, most other times they greatly expand their borders or stop opponents cheap culture victorys by switching the civs focus, or mybe they blow up a space ship ready to launch. Best of all mybe they team up and kill a massive power and thorn in your side, saving you a huge bill while their at it.

The great oportunitys that lie in store for you when Civs go on the warpath with each other is practically endless. It sure overrides a few pointless wars anyway.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Ironically, the more complex economic and cultural model of Civ4 made the game more interesting. Unfortunately, the AI can't truly cope with it.

That's exactly what I've been thinking after I had played the game for a few months. Firaxis created a great (mostly) and complex game system (economy, culture, religion, war, etc.). However, the AI is not smart enough to use the system effectively, which leads to all kind of aberrations in terms of diplomacy relations and war.

My advice to Firaxis would be to stop adding new features to the system (vassal anyone?) and make sure the AI can use the actual features efficently!!!! Stop making the game more complex, because the AI can't cope with it.

At the very very very least, they should make sure the AI is able to conquer cities with ease. That is a minimum requirements. I don't think I will buy BTS unless this particular problem is completely fixed and unless the AI overhaul they're promising really delivers.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

I also agree with the comment about how the impact of religion on Diplomacy and war is too important.

At the start, diplo relations should be mainly a function of religion, refusal to open borders, lack of territory for expansion and lacking ressources. For instance: -2 you've got a strategic ressource that would be very usefull for our civ; -1 you've got an happiness resource that would be useful...; -2 or -4 our civilization can't expand due to your presence (or something like that)

BTW, the open border feature needs a few changes. At least a gradation: open border for trade/missionary/scouts shouldn't be the sameand an enhanced open border for troups. Personnally I find it very weird that missionary can't enter another civs due to closed borders. Historically, it doesn't make sense and I don't see how it would unbalance the game.

Once most civics are unlocked, Diplo relation should also be conditionned by all the civics choice in the game and religion on equal terms.
Adepts of free market should hate state property, AIs with universal suffrage should hate those with police state, etc. AIs with Theocracy should hate other religions more than those without it (They should also hate free religion, but to a lesser degree). No one should hate pacifism. They could even have small bonuses. Some should be diplo modifiers free. (I don't see how Environmentalism or Bureaucracy can lead to bad diplomatic relations and wars. Environmentalism could, maybe, give a bonus...). Either way, the diplomatical weight of each (or most) civic should be closely examined. This would lessen the influence of religion, which creates weird situation where most neighbour love each other, while they should be at war. Most war occur between neighbours.

I know that some of the factors mentionned here are accounted for by the game, but not enough compared to religion. Making these other factors more relevant (and more dynamic: civic change could sometimes lead to redrawal of past alliance and friendship) would mitigate religion's influence as new civics are discovered and as new resources appear on the map. Firaxis wouldn't even have to decrease religion's modifiers, just enhance the other ones a bit.

 

[CivCorpse]

It's really simple to explain. Civ is not simply a war game. It is a game about growing a civilization. But if you really want more wars in your game there are a few things you can do.
A. pack the map with AI. 18 civs on a standard size map means lots of close borders creating tensions. This also means the strategic resources aren't available to everyone. Some civs will attack to get them. Other civs without them will get attacked for being weaker.
Get an aggressive civ like monty or alex ...or even better Izzy to be friendly with you. Then when you have the tech lead gift them advanced military techs. Be prepared to be dragged into their wars.
C. Download Better AI. I did and now my diplomatic score suffers from refusing to get into wars I do not feel like waging. And the AI fighjts better wars with Better AI. They build big fat stacks and and actually take cities from each other. You still get useless pilliage wars. Especially late game when a friendly civ jumps in your war with an AI and pilliages the TOWNS next to the city you were about to take out. Stupid AI, why do you think I wanted the city with 6 fully developed towns? I actually declared war on a friendly AI that did that to me. He owed me some towns so I took his.

 

[rabidveggie]

I agree that the AI will rarely war with each other. I've never personally seen the AI finish each other most of the time I just see them capitulate. However whenever the AI wars me I'm constantly attacked and they refuse to make peace until I'm dead or they are, mostly the latter. I can almost never intervene in a war either because most of the time it is across the map, the person asking me is annoyed, or cautious toward me, or if I do three turns later my former ally will get a ceasefire or capitulate which is annoying as hell. I would love to see this problem fixed somehow in the next expansion so that I can occasionally see some close battles that aren't two sides walking around destroying tile improvements.

 

[TopDog]

Totally agree here. I loved the massive modern age wars in civ3, although im told these ruined the game for those playing on higher levels. What i usually do is just played big map, 18 civs on aggressive ai and hope monty and genghis make it fun.

But your right, it should hopefully be fixed in BTS

 

[occam]

A few people on this thread have posted that they have experienced what they consider to be a "high" amount of AI vs. AI wars.

I have some concerns that the evidence they present might make one quesion whether they have a very thoughtful or rigorous definition of a "high" amount of intraAI wars.... but bracketing that issue aside -- it is an empirical question -- and until someone starts running simulations and counting up intraAI wars -- feels low to me, too. (And I use BetterAI, and I am factoring for when I face aggressive opponents.)

I think that the power index is fundamentally broken, and game mechanics which depend on it will reflect that. In fact, I would hazard that the decision whom to fight is TOO dependent on power index. Try this little expiriment... deliberately maintain too few troops on a low difficulty level so you can have a mfg and tech lead... count how many times Monty or Alexander will attack you and lose when you whip an advanced army and sue for peace - lather rinse repeat. Why don't we have an AI that learns? The AI needs a tag for each civ which says "I am not a good judge of when I can attack this particular nation" and needs to set that flag to 'true' and stop attacking them. Please.

Finally, many posters have described an asymmetry in diplomacy which is very annoying to them. I have yet to read any good defense of this, even from the apologists who see lots of intraAI wars.

- O

 

[largedarryl]

Well there are definately cases where there should be more AI-AI wars, but I am a little apprehensive because way more AI-AI wars would make the game too easy. Since the AI is not capable of only going a to war a "little bit". When the AI declares war they ussually switch to the military civics, devote most of there cities to military unit production and will start spending money on upgrading all of its units (money that should be spent on research). Basically if the AI could learn to go into a strategic war (I doubt this will happen in bts) then what would the point of the diplomatic modifiers.

Some thought needs to be put into what you want out of the game, a more aggressive ai or a more intelligent ai. The first one would make the game easier and the latter isn't possible without a great deal of work, imho.

 

[Ceritoglu]

In Civ III, after the discovery of mutual protection pacts, did anyone else find that the world was plunged into perpetual war allowing you to take the lead?

 

[BARBEERIAN]

It might be how you setup your map for the game. I find the problem with default settings is there's no 'elbow rubbing' between countries for a long time. Crank up the number of civs and/or lower the size and you'll get more wars. I like to do tiny/small maps with 18 civs. There's usually enough room for 3/4 cities per player so the wars start quickly.

I still wish the AI would be more intelligently aggressive regardless of map settings, but until it is we have to just deal with it.

 

[Arkatakor]

4) This is not new to Civ4, but: The AI often engages in pointless, long distance wars. Again, if you want AI conquest of other AI's to be a factor, it would be better for AI's to have a stronger inclination to make war on their neighbors.

Yeah thats another problem I have with the idiotic Firaxis AI. Not only do they huddle together on the same continent for millenia without even so much as spitting at each other, they will go way out of their way to declare war on you even when you are on the other side of the world. They cross oceans, sending a stack of ships carrying useless troops and make landfall (allways on the same spot, too). At best, they pillage your city squares while you take them down.

Yet, next to the invading AI in question, will reside a neighbor(s) whom he has been at peace with for 5000 years that happens to have fantastic resources which would greatly contribute to its economic development. Much easier to conquer. Much easier to deal with city maintenance upon conquest. The benefits of reaping the rewards upon such a conquest are abundantly clear: Expansion. Something they cannot do if they wage war with a civ (usually human) on the other end of the world. "Naah... we wanna attack the human player instead! He refused to stop trading with our enemy, or give in to one of our ridiculous demands! Our neighbor shares the same faith, we could never attack our close friend!" Pathetic.

This whole issue has made the game dumb, and outright unrealistic. Greed takes precedance over religion in the real world when it comes to politics. I have grown so bored with the lack of inter AI action, coupled with the insane anti human bias in my games, that I have since uninstalled it. Civ4 is a great game, but the AI messed it up completely.

Firaxis, focus your attention on making the AI less human biased, reduce the diplomatic bonuses that same religions give, and for Pete's sake step up the aggression levels between AI's, esp when they are neighbors. More inter AI wars make the game interesting! Once again, refer to Civ3 to see where we are coming from.

 

[Infantry#14]

In Civ III, after the discovery of mutual protection pacts, did anyone else find that the world was plunged into perpetual war allowing you to take the lead?

yea, once i play 31 civ on huge map and the whole world was in warfare. It was something like 3 vs 3 vs 4. My ally actually declares war on me because I attack someone he has an MP with. Very frustrating, confusing and entertaining.

 

[boarder]

Agree with the OP, I remember in civ3 often the other continent would end up being one huge civ and youd have to plan well to get a foothold etc.

In civ4 they rarely attack each other and when they do they may take one or two cities at most, I have never seen one take over a continent with at least two other civs on it.

 

[ccccc]

"Naah... we wanna attack the human player instead! He refused to stop trading with our enemy, or give in to one of our ridiculous demands! Our neighbor shares the same faith, we could never attack our close friend!"

Great work.

Anyway, lack of AI-AI wars is probably due to the fact that the AI's aren't trying to win... they are going for space race and it's almost as though they think 3rd place is better than 4th. Attention AI: if you aren't either #1 or #2 in one of Technology, Production, or GNP, then you should probably give up on the space race.

 

[Arkatakor]

Anyway, lack of AI-AI wars is probably due to the fact that the AI's aren't trying to win...

In my experience, I have found that religion is the main contributer to peace. I played a game with AI's Mao and Washington (I was UK); there was peace for millenia as we all shared the same faith, and as soon as Mao switched to free religion, he proceeded to attack Washington, coz the faith modifier was removed. One of the very few games with inter AI wars that I played, but at least I could trace WHY the war happened in the first place.