Anyone else always get the same AI opponents? (poll)

[Shadowchao121]

Cause i always get this Issue.

I noticed when starting any game with the basic settings "Random AI Civs" unless it's just bad luck for me i almost always get the same Civs as opponents.

For size i usually pick standard (Because if it was a very large map size of course you would see the same leaders.)

For me:

. Macedon
. Aztec
. Norway
. Georgia
. Rome
. Indonesia
. Mongolia

And for the record my past played as civs (Kongo, Greece (Pericles), Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Aztec, Germany, India (Chandragupta), Mongolia)

The Civilizations listed above show up in 90% of games i start with randomized AI. Is anyone else having a similar issue?

I NEVER and i mean NEVER see America. I've only seen France and Scotland once. Haven't seen Scythia or Spain since R&F.
And to be more specific about how often i've easily done over 20 games in the past 2 weeks and specifically Norway and Georgia were in EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (aside from the game where i played as Norway)

I also constantly change who i play as.

Feel free to list Civs you always see or Rarely/Never see.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I always see Teddy and he always attacks first. Attacking him is a pain because of the +5 crap.

And then he always comes with Environmentalist which means we'll never get a long.

 

[3 EMS]

I do but I thought that was because I always play as the same CIV. I've countered that by manually selecting my opponents. I wish I could choose who not to play against. It would make game setup quicker and still allow some randomness.

 

[Disgustipated]

I see Rome a lot. the others are hit and miss.

 

[Shadowchao121]

I think that would be a good option. Set random but disable some options from the pool.

 

[WorldWarIV]

I just never see Pericles.

 

[kryat]

There have definitely been times where my nearest neighbors were the same leaders two game generations in a row. I usually restart.

 

[SirWill90]

It seems to be in streaks, I will have like the same 3 or 4 opponents for several games, with some others that aren’t repeats. I.E. I had Tamar there for several games, first Civ I met. Eventually it seems to clear up or reset or whatever. Maybe just a random thing, idk.

 

[Zaarin]

The only games I've played without Alexander showing up since I added that DLC have been the ones where I've selected the opponents manually. It's awful. Germany, France, Georgia, Cree, Poland, Sparta, Japan, Mapuche, and Zulu show up frequently as well. Conversely I rarely see Athens and England, and good riddance to both of them (England was in my last game, but Alex squashed her long before I met her--I only knew she was in the game because Alex had a city called London--I almost thanked him).

 

[Rotomagus]

the game seems to select Civs, which best counteract the playstyle obvious for the Civ the player chooses. Eg when I play Russia, I almost only get the culturally strong civs like kongo or gorgo.

 

[sixty4half]

the game seems to select Civs, which best counteract the playstyle obvious for the Civ the player chooses. Eg when I play Russia, I almost only get the culturally strong civs like kongo or gorgo.

Every time I go for a RV with Peter, I run into Spain as the last Civ I meet. I just wanted to a peaceful RV and now I'm going to have to go to war just to keep my Apostles from getting Condemned. What's worse? Spains Conquistador's are the same as a Cossak. I can't even get a military advantage.

 

[Kinestic]

I remember a particularly annoying period where I seemed to get Spain in nearly every game for a period of about 4 or 5 months

 

[blackcatatonic]

Since R&F I almost always see Chandi but never Gandhi.

 

[NukeAJS]

Anyone familiar with the randomness and the psychology of randomness would immediately notice what's going on here:

People are really good at seeing patterns (even when they don't exist) and really terrible at conceptualizing the difference between randomness and chaos. This is a perfect example of the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy simple states that if something happens once, it's less likely to happen again (and alternatives would therefore be more likely). An example would be: I roll a die and it comes up as a 6. If I roll again, and asked people what are my chances of rolling another six, some would believe that another six showing up is less likely because I had already rolled a six previously.

In psychological terms, people are falsely linking two separate events (rolling a die) as a single event (getting two sixes). While it is less likely to get two sixes back-to-back (~3% -- a single event), my chances of getting a six on the second roll haven't changed one bit (It's still ~17% -- the second attempt).

I tried finding a neat news article (I think it was NYT or BBC) about how Spotify or Pandora were getting complaints about the randomness of their playlists. People were insisting that their random feature was broken because the same songs would occasionally play one after the other. Apparently, many people believe that patterns and randomness cannot happen at the same time. In fact, there's nothing inherent about the nature of randomness that says that patterns will never form. In fact, any random set will always (eventually) start making some kind of pattern -- either as a whole or in small segments. The article used the simplified example of a three song playlist.

ABBBACCABBBBCCACBACCACCBACABBAAABCABCABBAABACC is random but there are clearly segments that have some kind of pattern or just straight-up repetition.

What people want random to feel like looks something like:

ABCACBCACBCABCBABCACBABABACABCABCBACBAB

Notice that no letter ever repeats itself -- when song A is played there's a 50% chance of B or C coming next but never A twice -- ditto for B and C. Well, I did my best to write it out in that manner anyways (and, yes, I know this is a pattern as well).

Main conclusion -- randomness is exists, but it doesn't meet people's expectations of randomness because random doesn't mean pandemonium or chaos. When people think of random, they're expecting chaos but the set isn't infinite. If it's not infinite, patterns will emerge and fade over time. The larger the set the longer it takes for patterns to emerge but they will always emerge 100% of the time only for them to fade away and new patterns to emerge and fade ad infinitum.

TL;DR -- Flipping a coin and having it come up heads three times in a row doesn't mean there's a bias for heads or against tails. You simply need to flip the coin more times and look at the big picture to see there are (is?) no shenanigans going on.

 

[sixty4half]

Anyone familiar with the randomness and the psychology of randomness would immediately notice what's going on here:

Spoiler :

People are really good at seeing patterns (even when they don't exist) and really terrible at conceptualizing the difference between randomness and chaos. This is a perfect example of the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy simple states that if something happens once, it's less likely to happen again (and alternatives would therefore be more likely). An example would be: I roll a die and it comes up as a 6. If I roll again, and asked people what are my chances of rolling another six, some would believe that another six showing up is less likely because I had already rolled a six previously.

In psychological terms, people are falsely linking two separate events (rolling a die) as a single event (getting two sixes). While it is less likely to get two sixes back-to-back (~3% -- a single event), my chances of getting a six on the second roll haven't changed one bit (It's still ~17% -- the second attempt).

I tried finding a neat news article (I think it was NYT or BBC) about how Spotify or Pandora were getting complaints about the randomness of their playlists. People were insisting that their random feature was broken because the same songs would occasionally play one after the other. Apparently, many people believe that patterns and randomness cannot happen at the same time. In fact, there's nothing inherent about the nature of randomness that says that patterns will never form. In fact, any random set will always (eventually) start making some kind of pattern -- either as a whole or in small segments. The article used the simplified example of a three song playlist.

ABBBACCABBBBCCACBACCACCBACABBAAABCABCABBAABACC is random but there are clearly segments that have some kind of pattern or just straight-up repetition.

What people want random to feel like looks something like:

ABCACBCACBCABCBABCACBABABACABCABCBACBAB

Notice that no letter ever repeats itself -- when song A is played there's a 50% chance of B or C coming next but never A twice -- ditto for B and C. Well, I did my best to write it out in that manner anyways (and, yes, I know this is a pattern as well).

Main conclusion -- randomness is exists, but it doesn't meet people's expectations of randomness because random doesn't mean pandemonium or chaos. When people think of random, they're expecting chaos but the set isn't infinite. If it's not infinite, patterns will emerge and fade over time. The larger the set the longer it takes for patterns to emerge but they will always emerge 100% of the time only for them to fade away and new patterns to emerge and fade ad infinitum.

TL;DR -- Flipping a coin and having it come up heads three times in a row doesn't mean there's a bias for heads or against tails. You simply need to flip the coin more times and look at the big picture to see there are (is?) no shenanigans going on.

Every time. Any time anyone anywhere on the internet starts a discussion about randomness in video games this guy (or someone like him) pops up to give us a lengthy explanation about confirmation bias.

We know dude. We know. It's okay. We're just having a fun conversation about situations or challenges that we run into and cause us to laugh or cry each time it happens. But thanks for the explination Capt. Obvious. It was well worded and fun to read.

btw; "ABBBACCABBBBCCACBACCACCBACABBAAABCABCABBAABACC" is not random. That string was created due to causal determination

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Every time. Any time anyone anywhere on the internet starts a discussion about randomness in video games this guy (or someone like him) pops up to give us a lengthy explanation about confirmation bias.

We know dude. We know. It's okay. We're just having a fun conversation about situations or challenges that we run into and cause us to laugh or cry each time it happens. But thanks for the explination Capt. Obvious. It was well worded and fun to read.

btw; "ABBBACCABBBBCCACBACCACCBACABBAAABCABCABBAABACC" is not random. That string was created due to causal determination

NukeAJS was sharing useful information in a polite manner. I'm glad he/she posted it and I hope he continues to do so in the future when he has something valuable to contribute to the conversation.

 

[eleven11]

Yeah I see Poundmaker, Monty, Teddy, Pedro, Victoria, Mvemba and Tomyris a ton. I particularly hate Mvemba. It seems every Deity game he forward settles me and attacks by turn 20. Teddy is an Ancient era jerk too.

 

[Timothy001]

Some games I'll see some of the same leaders. Then I get my current game, where its 5 civs I haven't seen in awhile. America (not seen in about 8 games). Zulu (at least 10 games since seen), Dutch (4 games), Australia (was in last game as well, but before at least 5 or 6 games), and England ( 4 games), i'm using Kongo. I've seen a lot of Macedon, Greek Gorgo, and China. I've seen very little of India (both leaders), but for awhile they were nearly every game. I once had 1 game where I was America, had both Greece, both India, and Macedon.

 

[JaceTwice]

I almost want to say it comes down to however the random generator deals with your computer. I would commonly see a few civs in civ V shiw up time and time again. And then there were a few that camw up very rarely.

In VI i’m always encountering Australia, Sumera, Spain, and Russia. Scotland has been a common sight to since Rise and Fall came out as well. I’ve never seen Poundmaker come up and Pedro maybe a half dozen times.

 

[Villager720]

I get Brazil and Kongo every game.
And I hate their musical scores.