Are AI civs programmed to expand directly AT you?

[Louis XXIV]

I hope so...I expand directly at THEM, so why not?

Provided they expand directly at other Civs, I agree. However, if they expand directly at you, that's a problem.

That being said, I think it's a perception bias. We notice it because it affects us. If they expanded towards another AI player, we wouldn't even grasp the significance of it.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Provided they expand directly at other Civs, I agree. However, if they expand directly at you, that's a problem.

That being said, I think it's a perception bias. We notice it because it affects us. If they expanded towards another AI player, we wouldn't even grasp the significance of it.

I have seen the AI directly expand at other AI when they've got no human to pick on on a particular continent.

Having said that my response to the stock standard and flimsy "Firaxis just programmed the AI to be more unpredictably human, you're just not understanding the rationale" rationalisation that the fanboi's here seem to repeat adnauseam as a blind justification is much the same as it is in response to Tactical, Strategic and Diplomatic AI issues.... that being "No, they didn't, they simply designed all AI entities with a 'Mass-Face-Rape-the-Human' bias that was a feature of simple AI design approximately fifteen to twenty years ago when I was playing Civ 2, caused by a lack of resources during game development, resultant in a half-finished game."

The Civ franchise is supposed to be representative (and has always been marketed and conceptualised as representative) of a simulated history, thus a finely balanced equation between gameplay/fun and realism. The current AI as a result of the design decisions behind CiV essentially represents a departure from this long-standing concept, taking the game from a "realism/history strategy/simulation" to "turn based wargame".

As much as some detractors argue that the AI issues in CiV are irreconciliable, and that CiV is a sub-standard game (Which is a gross and ingenuous exaggeration), the fanboi's on here will likewise make an equally gross and ingenuous exaggeration that the game is now fine as is, and that disenfranchised fans are just butthurt because CiV isn't Civ 4.

Neither argument is accurate, and indeed misses the point that the reason why there has been so much controversy is not simply because of the differences between CiV and Civ4, but indeed because of the difference in approach and design of CiV compared to the gradual direction undertaken by every Civ iteration before that. Whilst there are plenty of Gen Y'ers kicking around who might not have hit puberty when Civ 2 was released, there are plenty here who have the breadth of experience and should know better.

TL;DR - OP, yes, the AI is Sh!t.

 

[dexters]

Provided they expand directly at other Civs, I agree. However, if they expand directly at you, that's a problem.

That being said, I think it's a perception bias. We notice it because it affects us. If they expanded towards another AI player, we wouldn't even grasp the significance of it.

This is the neat thing about Civ5's AI - they actually have discernible grand strategies. Some AI players in Some games clearly do expand directly at the human.

I was cut off at 2 cities once when Siam blocked off my patch of expansion by settling right next to my capital. That lead to an early war naturally.

Though I think instead of saying 'gee why is the AI doing it to the human' the pertinent realization is ' ah, so that is Siam's grand strategy'.

 

[cccv]

This is the neat thing about Civ5's AI - they actually have discernible grand strategies. Some AI players in Some games clearly do expand directly at the human.

I was cut off at 2 cities once when Siam blocked off my patch of expansion by settling right next to my capital. That lead to an early war naturally.

Though I think instead of saying 'gee why is the AI doing it to the human' the pertinent realization is ' ah, so that is Siam's grand strategy'.

I have to disagree. We can see the AI's flavors in the XML files, we can see how likely they are to do certain things. Backstab, build nukes, go for culture, etc. None of those values say "target human." If that were part of a "grand strategy" that Some AI could go for in Some games, we'd know it.

I think it's just what Louis said-- it only seems that way to some people because we really only notice it happening to us. But in any given game you'll probably have two or three civs surrounding you, so odds are going to be pretty good that one or more will end up expanding in your direction each time. And tbh, I still haven't even noticed anything that would make me assume they're programmed to expand toward me. I've been expanded towards and away from, without the ratio being so lopsided in either direction for me to take notice.

 

[dexters]

^ We actually agree. My point actually is that the AI is human blind.

But expanding directly at a neighbour is part of their strategy toolkit.

In other words, some AI will sometimes also use it against another opponent (regardless of who is playing). And we've all seen the 3 City civ that's been boxed in. You can sort of guess at the settlement patterns from the city names you see after you explore the map.

 

[cccv]

^ We actually agree. My point actually is that the AI is human blind.

But expanding directly at a neighbour is part of their strategy toolkit.

In other words, some AI will sometimes also use it against another opponent (regardless of who is playing). And we've all seen the 3 City civ that's been boxed in. You can sort of guess at the settlement patterns from the city names you see after you explore the map.

Ah, I see. When you said "Some AI players in Some games clearly do expand directly at the human," it sounded like you meant the human specifically. Yes, the AI does have a flavor for expansionist behavior, and it's nearly impossible to expand without it being is /someone's/ direction, so the AI will expand as part of its strategy and someone will be boxed in or cut off because of it.