Anti-human bias

[r_rolo1]

@ Handel

Just a question:

Isabella and hannibal were in war ?

 

[Handel]

the AI was in a suicide mood

Handel, since you are so sure there is a hardcoded anti-human bias for this situation, why don't you show it ?

I am not a programmer so I just show examples. As for the barbarians hugging AI cities and going for the human cities on the other end of the map etc etc etc...
On the same game I never declared war to anyone. Nevertheless I am the worst evemy of amost every civ long before I got the privateers. As I play with "aggressive AI" turned on, the AI civs are often in war with each other. But nevertheless I still am their worst enemy although I never 1. Declared a war myself either to them or to their friends 2. Was non-stop trading resourses to them 3. Had non-stop open borders with them (besides the times of war of course and the coupel of turns afterwards)

 

[Handel]

@ Handel

Just a question:

Isabella and hannibal were in war ?

Yes, Isabella declared a war 2 turns earlier and I guess she disembarked a lot of units already because the galeons were empty; at the same time the Hannibals frigates were hurring to catch them.

that has nothing to do with so called anti-human bias. AI simply attacks privateers on sight, regardless they're human or not. that's it. I suggest you play some more to improve your general understanding of the game, or better enter a social club or something to improve your manners.

This is exactly what I meaned when said "fanboys". When they obviously nothing to say on the topic they juist blandly repeat their position and they go personal.

 

[fizsh]

So, let's just get rid of the diplomacy system. Diplomacy was always more important than wars, but it's not true in game. I could explain better if my english wasn't so poor, but diplomacy system could be much better. For example, human or AI player Dow on friendly should get a huge negative modifier from ALL players. Can you imagine USA DoW on UK while the world thinks that's the same as USA DoW on Iraq ? Chile Dow on Brasil because they didnt give advanced flight to them ? Anyways, I could live with that in game if AI just did the same with each other.

Saying there should be a bigger penalty for declaring war on someone who is freindly with you won't work, because the AI does not know how you feel about them. In a recent game, Gandhi was Friendly with me, but I was angry with him because his culture was swallowing up my land. I had to declare war on him, else he would have won a culture victory. (I did close borders a turn first. That is my signal to the AI that war is close. That is something I would like to see implemented in the game. You cannot declare war on a turn where you had open borders)

For that matter, I have seen AI's with different attitude towards each other. One is Cautious and the other is Pleased for example.

I have no problem with the so-call bias in the game, because I am trying to beat the game. I don't see anything outrageous. I have seen barbarian cities that had names of cities from other AIs, which tells me the barbs attacked the other AIs. As for the privateers problem, perhaps the AI just goes after all privateers, I wouldn't know because I rarely see the AI build one. Is that to say the diplomacy is perfect? No. But I wouldn't scrap it, and feel it is very good as is right now.

Note: I am not a good player and do not play at high levels, so my observations may differ. I just recently moved up to Prince, and don't forsee myself moving up higher any time soon (read next year or so).

 

[r_rolo1]

The privateers stuff is easy to understand: 3 privateers, no matter what promos they have, are a better target that 6 frigates or 15 galleons.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Don't forget WarmongerRespect. Sometimes it can work in human's favour, through.

 

[Handel]

The privateers stuff is easy to understand: 3 privateers, no matter what promos they have, are a better target that 6 frigates or 15 galleons.

Of course - but only there wasn't matter of privateers but of survival. In this case killing some measly privateers (which are not even in the its home water so they are harmless for the moment) means all the Isabella fleet dies because of then enemy frigates which were 1 tile away (after the optics all the units incl the ships see 2 tiles in the ocean so the Isabella fleet definetely saw the enemy frigates.


And something else - it seems the whole "AI" diplomacy thing - if starting a war is a part of the diplomacy - is just too random. In the above scenario I reloaded the game - not because of the lost privateers but because the french I vassalized quickly build a new town just 2 tiles from my town. So I reloaded and decided to keep the war 2-3 more turns so my town can expand its borders... And guess what - this time Isabella declared war on Gilgamesh instead on Hannibal. So instead of some meaningful diplomacy it seems there is just a rolling of a die.
"...so it is time for the diplomacy today... what to do... what to do... let me see what I roll... 4... hmmm... let me check what 4 means... ah, yes... 4 means I declare war on Hannibal... or was it on Gilgamesh... after 3000 years I am starting to forget... "

 

[r_rolo1]

Handel, if you have time for a big read try this , especially DanF posts. In fact, the AI dow has a random component, but it is heavily restricted by the diplo stance.

 

[afa2000]

BTS patch 3.17

Just started a new game, small pangaea map 18 civs, emperor difficulty. In a few turns, Stalin, Charlemagne, Ramesses and Roosevelt Dow on me at same time. Now check foreign advisor. Justinian, Bismarck, Darius and Willem are pleased with me, but I could bribe only Genghis (giving him 2 techs) and Bismarck (one tech) into war. I already gave Genghis and De Gaulle one fur each and also gave one tech to Darius, Washington, and Willem, also cancelled deals with Frederick because Genghis asked for it.

Although Darius, Justinian, Bismarck and Willem are pleased with me, Stalin, Charlemagne, Ramesses and Roosevelt didnt get any penalties for Dowing on their friend (me). Check how 90 % of them are pleased with each other ! The only negative penalty is due to different religions. AI's get no penalties for close borders, Dowing on someone, nothing. I hope you understand now what's called anti-human bias.

 

[Dresden]

Although Darius, Justinian, Bismarck and Willem are pleased with me, Stalin, Charlemagne, Ramesses and Roosevelt didnt get any penalties for Dowing on their friend (me).

Here are Darius' attitudes towards the 4 who declared on you (all extracted from the Glance screen). Note how every single one has a "you declared war on our friend" minus.

Check how 90 % of them are pleased with each other ! The only negative penalty is due to different religions. AI's get no penalties for close borders, Dowing on someone, nothing. I hope you understand now what's called anti-human bias.

I've shown penalties for DoW above. Here's close borders:


And a war alliance:


While the AI doesn't make "demands" of other AIs, it has plenty of potential negative modifiers towards other AIs, including hidden modifiers like peaceweight that only apply to AI-AI relations. Stick Alexander next to Gandhi and watch as peaceweight gives them a permanent -6 (on average as there's some randomness to it) towards each other; where does that fit into the claim of anti-human bias?

 

[Dryhad]

This is exactly what I meaned when said "fanboys". When they obviously nothing to say on the topic they juist blandly repeat their position and they go personal.

How was that "obviously nothing to say on the topic"? The poster, if a little rude, made the point that this was a case of the AI favouring privateers over other targets and not (as you suggested) favouring humans over other targets. If you don't think this is true then explain why you think so (possibly give an example of the AI favouring a non-privateer human target over an AI privateer), don't just call people who disagree with you "fanboys".

 

[JujuLautre]

One point on which I could agree is that the human player does not know when an AI has bribed another against him, while the AI knows it. But for me, this is missing information, definitely not an "anti-human bias".

-- edit: answer to the previous post

No, I dont like giving anything because it lets other AIs become more advanced ("i fear you become too advanced"), so they'll become more powerful, which means I'll be the target anyways in the future. I cant demand anything higher than 300 beakers at marathon speed (they wont give it to me even if I'm 10000 times stronger than them), but they keep demanding everything from me every turn, even if it costs 21000 beakers, that's ridiculous.

You don't like giving anything, though you know it will piss the AI off, and then you complain they don't like you. Pardon me, but I think you should know what you are doing.
As for the AI demand, perhaps you don't know that very often, the AI asks for a tech they have almost finished researching themselves. So instead of giving them 21000 beakers, you are only giving them 1000 or 3000.
Try asking the AI for money. They don't like giving techs away, but gold is not a big problem.

Yes, there are more of them and yes, someone will DoW on on me, i have no problem with that. The whole point you miss is that they dont ask anything from each other, so they'll stay easily pleased with everyone, but not me. So, I'm always the main target, instead of just part of the world.

And at the same time the AI cannot get +1 modifiers for giving into demands. You can get + and -, they can't. It is just different, not biased.

Problem is they can ask for help when I'm already at war, but I can't if they are. They also don't ask for other AIs to help in their wars if that AIs are already at war. I'll take a screenshot next time, so you'll see what I'm talking about.

You got a point here. I agree this is bad design.

So, let's just get rid of the diplomacy system. Diplomacy was always more important than wars, but it's not true in game. I could explain better if my english wasn't so poor, but diplomacy system could be much better. For example, human or AI player Dow on friendly should get a huge negative modifier from ALL players. Can you imagine USA DoW on UK while the world thinks that's the same as USA DoW on Iraq ? Chile Dow on Brasil because they didnt give advanced flight to them ? Anyways, I could live with that in game if AI just did the same with each other.

Way too exploitable, unfortunately. Such a penalty existed in the past incarnations of civ, but they did not get in the way of one player if he could DOW on a friend and gain enough so that he would never have any problem again. I agree that a revamp of the diplomatic system could be done, but not in the way you propose it.
Your english is fine as it is, do not worry about that

 

[Yzman]

The AI is Alpha Centauri reacted better I feel. Its hard to keep any friends in this game when they constantly want you to help them in war, but I can't even ask them. Then I refuse, and lose hits. All sides ask too. And the negative modifiers last a long time.

 

[afa2000]

While the AI doesn't make "demands" of other AIs, it has plenty of potential negative modifiers towards other AIs, including hidden modifiers like peaceweight that only apply to AI-AI relations. Stick Alexander next to Gandhi and watch as peaceweight gives them a permanent -6 (on average as there's some randomness to it) towards each other; where does that fit into the claim of anti-human bias?

Thanks for your clarifications, I've missed it. Where can I see that information about peaceweight ? I've seen also financial civs like Mansa Musa, Elizabeth and Darius are not very popular among other AIs.

 

[Dresden]

Peaceweight is one of the personality components in the leader XML data; Gandhi has the highest (10) and Alexander is one of several with the lowest (0). It is mentioned in ori's AI Attitude Explained posting and you can see the various values by looking through the XML or using one of the reference charts in the downloads section.

 

[Joshua368]

Not really on the topic, just something hilarious that happened to me a few hours ago in a game. I declared war on my friendly neighbor Darius (happy with good tech trades and shared free religion) and after capturing some cities and taking peace, he offered not only open borders but signing a defensive pact on the exact same turn our war ended. Ha ha, I took it, whatever helps him sleep at night. (he was at pleased after the war)

So yeah, I'd say the diplomacy system could use some work.

 

[afa2000]

You don't like giving anything, though you know it will piss the AI off, and then you complain they don't like you. Pardon me, but I think you should know what you are doing.

I dont like, but I usually do it if I stand no chance against that AI. In that game for example, I gave almost everything they asked, but Mehmed, Stalin and Charlemagne Dow on me at same time anyways. I wasn't the last in power graph and had enough defenders. So, they put their troops in the forest with fur and the marble doing nothing but halting my production/research while other AIs could develop in peace. A few turns later Roosevelt and Ramesses joined the war against me. Later I could counter-attack because i got access to iron and AI was dumb enough to let me do it. I took the 2 cities from Roosevelt, which costed me almost all my troops. I only had a chance because I got cats before them and they also didnt cut my access to iron. But I'm sure Justinian is ready to stab me.

As for the AI demand, perhaps you don't know that very often, the AI asks for a tech they have almost finished researching themselves. So instead of giving them 21000 beakers, you are only giving them 1000 or 3000.
Try asking the AI for money. They don't like giving techs away, but gold is not a big problem.

Are you sure about the beakers ? I've seen very weak civs asking for powerfull techs often. I know about the money, I always ask for it when I have a chance. But they usually dont give me more than 400 gold (even if they are going to die), although they can ask 2000 or more.

And at the same time the AI cannot get +1 modifiers for giving into demands. You can get + and -, they can't. It is just different, not biased.

+1 is almost nothing once their demands are often contraditory. You give him that tech for +1, but 1 turn later they ask you stop trading with that civ is pleased with you. A few turns later they ask for help at war.

Way too exploitable, unfortunately. Such a penalty existed in the past incarnations of civ, but they did not get in the way of one player if he could DOW on a friend and gain enough so that he would never have any problem again. I agree that a revamp of the diplomatic system could be done, but not in the way you propose it.
Your english is fine as it is, do not worry about that

Which version are you talking about ? I've been playing since civ II and I really dont remember about it. I agree about exploiting. They could put it as a option called "roleplay mode", where the diplomacy is more effective. I know it's not possible at Civ IV BTS, that's why I asked for a mod. I tried that mods GatlingGun suggested, but it didnt solve the issue.

 

[JujuLautre]

I dont like, but I usually do it if I stand no chance against that AI. In that game for example, *loads of bad stuffs*

Well, I must say that either you have bad luck, or there is a problem in your way of playing, or the diplomatic models show weaknesses. But it does not show anything about an anti-human bias.
Also, I looked at your save, and saw tons of DOWs between everyone. How can you say, in the middle of so many DOWs, that the DOWs on you have more chances of happening because you are not an AI ?

Are you sure about the beakers ? I've seen very weak civs asking for powerfull techs often. I know about the money, I always ask for it when I have a chance. But they usually dont give me more than 400 gold (even if they are going to die), although they can ask 2000 or more.

I am sure of it. If you use espionage, you can see that for yourself in your games. It also explains why sometimes the AI does not want to give you more than drama when you offer feudalism.

+1 is almost nothing once their demands are often contraditory. You give him that tech for +1, but 1 turn later they ask you stop trading with that civ is pleased with you. A few turns later they ask for help at war.

I must say here that since we don't play the same game, I cannot really comment on that... 18 civ, I usually play with 7

Which version are you talking about ? I've been playing since civ II and I really dont remember about it. I agree about exploiting.

I never played it a lot, but I saw very often that that was the case in Civ3. I cannot confirm for myself, sorry...

 

[andersw]

I agree to a lot of issues in here.
My most important solutions to this have been:
1. No Tech Brokering.
This will make AI more inclined to keep a tech for themselves and also therefor does a lot to prevent the "all AI group hug".
Woot, the game now works as I thought it'd do when I got it.
Finally it ofcourse prevents your tech from beeing retraded all around the world faster than you can spell out AI.
2. Make sure you pick the correct religion, beeing on the wrong side of for example "the Isabella stick" is not so wise.
Don't found a religion yourself, unless maybe if you're isolated.
3. Don't trade with someone that is a worst enemy.

 

[Handel]

How was that "obviously nothing to say on the topic"? The poster, if a little rude, made the point that this was a case of the AI favouring privateers over other targets and not (as you suggested) favouring humans over other targets. If you don't think this is true then explain why you think so (possibly give an example of the AI favouring a non-privateer human target over an AI privateer), don't just call people who disagree with you "fanboys".

Maybe you should read the original post? Because obviously you didn't read it as the quoted poster didn't read it.
Because the post is not about attacking privateers - everyone attacks priveteers - but for ignoring the deadly threat from its AI enemy and instead going for the human privateers (which didn't pose a threat at the moment) this causing the AI to lose its whole fleet to the enemy AI

So basicly the AI ignores the other AI troops and goes chooses always to go for the human if possible no matter what in reality is more important and urgent and dangerous for him (it?)