Does the AI really try to win the game?

[georgjorge]

I've played some games (regular Civ 4 without any expansion) over the last weeks, starting with Warlord and now playing on Monarch. Over the time, I've noticed some things about AI behaviour that seem make the game less challenging than it could be.

1. Basically, in the last few games I had, it seemed like the AI was content to build some cities, wonders, and units, and just enjoy their civilization growing, as opposed to actively trying to be the most powerful actor in the game, like any human player would. Those games were very peaceful except for the wars that I started myself, with almost no fighting between the AI even though there clearly wasn't enough land around for them to compete with me or the second most powerful AI leader. This behaviour makes some sense when they all share a religion or have otherwise close ties (though I think even then that should only delay, but not prevent them from grabbing their neighbours land), but I just played a game on a Pangea map where almost everyone founded their own religion, so they were Cautious towards each other for a long time, but no-one cared enough to take on another player and grab their land to have a long-term shot at winning (leaders were Bismarck, Cesar, Kyrus, Hathseput, and Ashoka). The only time it seems that the AI really goes for the win is the space race.

2. Predictable research patterns. After the ancient stage, when I look at the technologies two opponents with equal research output possess, they are all the same. It seems that the script stating what the AI will research is equal for all of them, as if they didn't take their specific strategies and situations into account. Is that just an anomaly, or have others noticed that too? In any case, it gave me too much of an edge by researching techs that no-one else had researched yet, and making a profit in trading them to everyone.

3. Does anyone know what determines whether an opponent will build the UN if he can? In one game, I decided to go for the Diplo win, but needed a specific opponent to compete against me since the opponent after me was too well-liked. So I went for mass media long before anyone else did, and gifted it to that opponent so he would have a big head start. A hundred turns later, there still was no UN anywhere. As he was fourth in power ranking, it would at least have given him the possibility of gaining some influence. I still won that game the usual way (domination), but I'm curious why he didn't do as I thought (he built several other non-crucial wonders during that time, like Hollywood).


I wonder if other people have had those experiences as well, or did it come down to specific game situations? I've heard that the AI is more aggressive on Deity or Immortal, but it shouldn't be that unrealistic on the lower levels...

 

[NwabudikeMorgan]

1) The AI, at least in Warlords/Vanilla ( i dont know about BTS) was only told to focus on winning a space race victory, if people got really mad they might have wars, but AI vs. AI wars were seen as less beneficial then sitting there teching.
2)The Technologies are in the XML assigned "flavors" these being Military, Growth, Science, Culture, etc.... Each leader had slightly different leaning on what are important flavors to them, however each tech is also defined with an "asset" value, higher being better, so if two techs of the same asset are available to research, the tech that corresponds better to the leader's flavor likings will research it first over the non-flavor tech. however the AI will tend to run along the path of highest flavor, backtracking when it needs a prerequisite.

3) Buildings are also assigned flavors, for example Pentagon has Flavor_military, and 3 gorges dam has flavor_production the UN does not have a flavor, so almost any leader will build almost ANYTHING other than the UN until it has nothing better to do.

roughly.

 

[georgjorge]

Thanks, that's some great info. I would definitely have played differently had I known that no-one except me was interested in building the UN. Is there any way to give an AI a city with the UN already in it? I don't know how it gets determined which cities I can trade away and which not (red text - "we are not interested in this offer" or something).

AI vs. AI wars were seen as less beneficial then sitting there teching

Why did they think that? It might be true in some situations, but when you can either play the rest of the game with four (real) cities and little land, or double your ressources by rushing your weaker opponent, even the AI should come to the right conclusions. Also, not only did they keep peace with each other, but also with myself, despite some of them being Cautious and me not always having many units around. But from what other members report, that's rather uncommon, so maybe I was just lucky.

 

[Orzio]

Pre noble you wont see the AI win to often noble-monarch they might do some decent trys sometimes but mostly just end up in really late space wins for the ai. At empeor+ the AI will really start posing a threat in actully winning the game.

 

[Aeiouv]

the AI seems to be improved with BTS

 

[phungus420]

In BtS the AI can actively work toward Space Race, Culture, and Domination wins. Cultural victory however is the only victory type that has a coherent strategy; the AI wining Space Race or Domination is more due to weighted decisions in certain situations driving it toward these victory types. The AI winning by any other means would be purely from randomly stumbling into it.

Pre BtS the AI only goes for Space Race, and again it doesn't have a coherent strategy to do so, it just has some weighted decisions built into it that can push it toward that win.

 

[Orzio]

It can sort of go diplo to even if not intended. The AI will go to war the AI will take vassals and the AI will call for a diplomatic vote who should win the game. And with enouth vassals voting for the AI it will win. Even if most of it isnt intended.

 

[BibiTref]

If you've ever had a space victory where the whole world just sat back and watched then you know the answer is certainly not. I'm still undecided on the RPG elements to the AI. It's cute and gives the game some character, but really hurts it from a strategic perspective. I'm certainly not role playing and as I recall Civ has always been marketed as strategy, not RPG.

 

[Cjreynol]

I'm still undecided on the RPG elements to the AI. It's cute and gives the game some character, but really hurts it from a strategic perspective. I'm certainly not role playing and as I recall Civ has always been marketed as strategy, not RPG.

I understand what you mean, but I guess the design just came down to whether they thought the majority of people would enjoy playing against all of these AI's that acted like ancient leaders or AI's that just went for wins. I think it would be fun to have a setting where you could play against AI's that played the game as strategy with no RP, but I thoroughly enjoy how it is and I think Civ will go that route for a while to come.

 

[gnome]

I think there's enough people that enjoy both kinds of play that it's a viable choice for a user option.

 

[Peteusmax]

Thanks, that's some great info. I would definitely have played differently had I known that no-one except me was interested in building the UN. Is there any way to give an AI a city with the UN already in it? I don't know how it gets determined which cities I can trade away and which not (red text - "we are not interested in this offer" or something).

"Not interested" most likely means the AI feels the city would be a drain on his empire - Probably too far away from his capital to be profitable.

 

[BibiTref]

I think there's enough people that enjoy both kinds of play that it's a viable choice for a user option.

I for one was expecting this game to have an option to disable AI personalities, uniques, starting techs, etc. so that all players are on completely equal footing other than start location. I was disappointed it doesn't, but on the other hand still enjoy how receiving a random leader inspires flexible strategies.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I understand what you mean, but I guess the design just came down to whether they thought the majority of people would enjoy playing against all of these AI's that acted like ancient leaders or AI's that just went for wins. I think it would be fun to have a setting where you could play against AI's that played the game as strategy with no RP, but I thoroughly enjoy how it is and I think Civ will go that route for a while to come.

See TMIT's Runaway AI, BTW.

 

[georgjorge]

Pre noble you wont see the AI win to often noble-monarch they might do some decent trys sometimes but mostly just end up in really late space wins for the ai. At empeor+ the AI will really start posing a threat in actully winning the game.

So pre-Emperor you get relatively balanced settings (production and teching rate) and harmless AIs, while after you get unfair settings AND clever AIs? That would suck, as I'd like to play against clever AIs while not getting such large handicaps as well. Or do the AI only pose a threat after Emperor because of those handicaps?


Also, is there a patch for vanilla Civ that lets you play against AIs as clever/threatening as in BtS, or at least better than it is now?

 

[Orzio]

So pre-Emperor you get relatively balanced settings (production and teching rate) and harmless AIs, while after you get unfair settings AND clever AIs? That would suck, as I'd like to play against clever AIs while not getting such large handicaps as well. Or do the AI only pose a threat after Emperor because of those handicaps?


Also, is there a patch for vanilla Civ that lets you play against AIs as clever/threatening as in BtS, or at least better than it is now?

The bonuses does help the AI being abel to win space race. Not sure if they get better aswell but in all my monarch games I really never seen the AI go for culture vicotrys while they do so allot more empeor +

 

[Lone Wolf]

So pre-Emperor you get relatively balanced settings (production and teching rate) and harmless AIs, while after you get unfair settings AND clever AIs?

No. The AI is of equal smartness on any level. However, these bonuses can give the impression that AI is indeed becoming smarter.

Also, is there a patch for vanilla Civ that lets you play against AIs as clever/threatening as in BtS, or at least better than it is now?

Search the BetterAI subforum.

 

[Orzio]

If you look at monarch description it says the the AI is just plain smarter not sure if its actully true however.

 

[phungus420]

The AI's logic is the same at all levels. Because of the differences in bonuses the AI will obviously make different decisions at different levels using the same logic though, but there is no difference is "smartness" of the AI. Also the AI can't be "smart" or be able to compete with a competent and experienced player without massive bonuses; a human mind is just so much more complex and capable of high level strategies then pre defined AI logic algorithms can be on a PC. Even high level R&D robotic firms struggle to produce artificial cognitive abilities comparable to insects. It's simply not realistic to expect a software firm interested in producing an entertainment product to produce an AI capable of strategic "thinking" anywhere near a human in a civ4 game; it's impossible at our current level of technology. And in all fairness to Firaxis, the AI in BtS is the most robust I have seen in comparable PC strategy games.

 

[Badtz Maru]

My biggest complaint with the AI is that it will try to win, but it fails to recognize when the player is about to win and will do nothing to stop it. Launch a spaceship? The AI needs to put a very high priority on taking your capital. Nearing a cultural victory? AI needs to try and raze one of your legendary or near-legendary cities. About to win by domination? The AI should come to the aid of civilizations you declare on, even if they are not normally friendly with them.

 

[Tarkhan]

Yeah, in the real world, if you're chewing apart civs with your army, the remaining civs should notice what youre doing and declare heh.

When germany smacked down Poland and moved into France, the rest of us kinda took offense and declared on them. (England, Canada, and eventually the US, three turns later) as an example.