Does the AI know the difference between other AIs and a human player?

[sa1vy]

Will the AI treat a human player any differently than it would other AIs? Examples such as trading, or denouncing, or willingness to forward settle, or plans to declare war. Anything really. Any ideas?

I'm not talking about difficulty-related bonuses, such as increased combat strength, or extra units. Those factor into *other* considerations. Those would just boil down to military comparison, or like-dislike scale. Nothing to do with it being a human player.

 

[Infixo]

Nothing in the .xml or .sql files suggests so, imho. If something like this happpens, then it’s hidden in the dll.

 

[Abaxial]

The odd thing is I had exactly the same question, and was going to post something very similar. For instance, do AI civs count up the grievances against other AI civs for the same things that causes the human to rack up grievances? I'm guessing that they do. It would be interesting to be able to peer behind the scenes and get your delegate to find out, for instance, what Norway thinks about Persia. It should be increasingly easy to find out this sort of information, as in, read the newspapers (after printing comes online).

 

[japanesesamurai]

I think yhey are programmed to settle towards the human player?

Yesterday I blocked the path of an AI settler and he wouldn’t move for 10+ turns until I freed his path. Next turn he went forward and settled just next to me. On emperor+, in the early game, AI settlers always focus on land nearby

 

[Cedbird77]

Ha ha the age old question. The answer to this question IMO and to many others has been yes. I remember in Civ 4 when the whole world it seemed used to DOW you all together. It certainly seemed as if the AI had it in for the human player. It has always seemed that way in certain things.

Maybe it changed. Or just maybe it is that we always think that we are the center of the Solar System. Until we find out better.

 

[Victoria]

@Infixo I do see stuff in xml about human players, that distinguish between the two.
It is good to know the decision trees have no bias but I am unconvinced re bias.
For a start we cannot ask the AI to move their troops from our borders but they can ask us. I have always struggled with this.

 

[japanesesamurai]

As for joint wars, they buckle up and fight each other too though

 

[Bibor]

Generally I see no discernible human bias, also in the most important thing - early opportunity DOW on weaker (forward settling) opponents, altho AI power ratings are similar at start so human victim is preferred for that reason

 

[Naeshar]

I dont think there is any differentiation. The AI behaves strictly based on numbers - military, area, advancement ... The only difference on higher difficulty levels are the numbers - human player does not have the output and is certainly falling behind and being considered weak civilization.

 

[Infixo]

@Infixo I do see stuff in xml about human players, that distinguish between the two.

Can you please provide an example (different than difficulty levels ofc) of a setting that would make AI behave differently towards humans?

 

[Victoria]

Can you please provide an example (different than difficulty levels ofc) of a setting that would make AI behave differently towards humans?

Sure, war declarations can either be initiator=human or initiator=AI
Leaders.xml defines wether a player is human or AI.
Deals are differentiated between human and AI

 

[Infixo]

Sure, war declarations can either be initiator=human or initiator=AI
Leaders.xml defines wether a player is human or AI.

These parameters don't change AI behavior.
It is a coding used to select a statement displayed on screen (a reason, etc.). Each AI has a different text, like Cleopatra will say something different than Harald, etc. And in this case you need to differentiate from a human, because humans have their own reasons and communicate in a different way.

Deals are differentiated between human and AI

I don't know to what parameters in .xml or .sql you are referring here.

 

[TomKQT]

Ha ha the age old question. The answer to this question IMO and to many others has been yes. I remember in Civ 4 when the whole world it seemed used to DOW you all together. It certainly seemed as if the AI had it in for the human player. It has always seemed that way in certain things.

That doesn't proove anything. The human player typically plays in a different way than the AI ("different" usually means "much better"). So it's natural that, even when the AI is using exactly the same algorithms for reactions to other AI and to you, the result will be different, because you are different. If you are the biggest threat, why shouldn't the whole world DOW on you together?

 

[Abaxial]

But does it ever happen that the whole world goes to war together on an AI civ that is running away with things?

 

[Medopu]

But does it ever happen that the whole world goes to war together on an AI civ that is running away with things?

the way i understand AI is that AI simply measures the parameters such as military strength in numbers compared to their own when calculating the oppurtunity cost of the attack. And when this difference in military size reaches a certain treshold, that triggers a DoW regardless if the target is AI or human.

The fact that all AI attacked seemingly as a collective to me signals that the each AI leader uses the same script when considering an attack along with having a similar amount of military units themselves compared to other AI PLAYERS predefined by how the build order is scripted for AI in civ4. It just so happens that AI plays similar to each other AI player which means that you seldom see AI ganging up on one AI player because they will always have similar stats most of the time. Player OTOH is a completely different beast in terms of game parameters which is why they more often trigger these chains of events from the AI.

Using occams razor, i would assume this to be a much more likely scenario than having AI behave differently against AI and against human.

 

[Tyroq]

...
For a start we cannot ask the AI to move their troops from our borders but they can ask us. I have always struggled with this.

Agreed! Or ask them to make peace with an ally or city-state you're suz of. That option was available back in Alpha Centauri! Why not now?

 

[Aristos]

I remember in Civ 4 when the whole world it seemed used to DOW you all together. It certainly seemed as if the AI had it in for the human player.

Incorrect. That was civ 1. We hated it, so they never did something like that again. Not in civ 4, for sure. From the dll source code in civ 5, there is NOTHING that differentiates local player from AI as far as I remember. I don't expect them to have gone back to such mediocre coding habits in civ 6, but until we see (IF we see) the dll source code, we cannot know.

Not being able to ask for removal of troops as the AI can, etc, those are asymmetries, unwanted, but not the same as coding differences aiming at the local player.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Does the AI know

Nope.

But in all seriousness, they seem to treat everyone equally. If you read the gossip, they will constantly warn/praise other ais based on their agenda.

 

[Tyroq]

Incorrect. That was civ 1. We hated it, so they never did something like that again. Not in civ 4, for sure...

Although I once had an awesome world war unfold in 4 when Persia (who had 5 vassals) DOW'd me, and his whol friggin alliance of puppets came after me together. Individually I was stronger than he was, but that whole group together made a helluva challenge. Giant earth map, true start locations. Probably my favorite 4 game I ever played.

 

[Aristos]

Although I once had an awesome world war unfold in 4 when Persia (who had 5 vassals) DOW'd me, and his whol friggin alliance of puppets came after me together. Individually I was stronger than he was, but that whole group together made a helluva challenge. Giant earth map, true start locations. Probably my favorite 4 game I ever played.

Granted, the AI would sometimes do that, but as a result of environmental conditions and good analysis resulting from good coding, not from some IF human AND human_is_winning THEN DoW simplistic condition (as it literally was in civ 1).