Hiawatha, you crazy dude.

[Simplicity4]

In my latest game, I'm playing Augustus and the AI is controlling Hiawatha. We alternate between two states: (1) A war in which I slaughter him, and (2) peace treaty. He's attacked me like 5 times now. And each time I take about three cities and then give him a peace treaty because I really don't want to keep fighting him. (Although I did attack him once just to be sure that I got his capital, because I got tired of it). He's nothing more than an annoyance, really.

Now I've razed about six of his cities. I've nuked one of them. I have taken his capital. And what is his state with me? "Friendly".

WHAT?

So I check it.

+ We've been at war in the past, but he doesn't seem to hold a grudge.
- You've nuked his cities!
- You control his capital.

Dude. I think maybe you're repressing things a little bit, Hiawatha. It's okay to let it out.

Kind of weird behavior. Lots of AIs are really angry at me because of Denouncing and settling close to them. But incinerate half of a guy's population and it's aright. We can work something out... ???

 

[crawf0rd]

He's trying to trick you. He wants to attack you again, because he loves attacking I guess.

 

[Heerlo]

Lol

 

[apocalypse105]

This is the problem with civ 5 a lot of people say the leaders have personallities and flavors but they don't they all have a high deceptive rating as result the game becomes predictable every single AI acts like friendly when they are don't except a few leaders who act friendly and then atack that would suprise you more


Olso the AI needs to know when he is defeated the AI only counts the military might you can kill one unit per turn and he would still thinx he does great because he has a massive army near his capital. The AI needs to know when to stop wars

 

[smallfish]

This is the problem with civ 5 a lot of people say the leaders have personallities and flavors but they don't they all have a high deceptive rating as result the game becomes predictable every single AI acts like friendly when they are don't except a few leaders who act friendly and then atack that would suprise you more


Olso the AI needs to know when he is defeated the AI only counts the military might you can kill one unit per turn and he would still thinx he does great because he has a massive army near his capital. The AI needs to know when to stop wars

They do. But only when its far too late, and by the time it reaches that stage, the player isn't willing to talk peace at all.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Oh I hate that. Oda is usually the culprit in my games, though I can imagine Hiawatha doing it as well.

 

[smallfish]

They do. But only when its far too late, and by the time it reaches that stage, the player isn't willing to talk peace at all.

"I'm sorry, I don't remember any of it. For you, the day smallfish turned your runaway empire into a nuclear inferno was the most important day of your life.

But for me... it was Tuesday."

 

[Shmike]

I want this guy out of my game.

 

[The_Quasar]

I want this guy out of my game.

That's easy, either replace or delete him when he comes up initially.

 

[Priah77]

I kind of agree, I really liked Civ IV where each civ really had a particular flavor. Now it just seems like pretty much every civ just attacks you randomly whenever they are feeling bored.

I guess there is some flavor left... just not as much.

 

[apocalypse105]

I kind of agree, I really liked Civ IV where each civ really had a particular flavor. Now it just seems like pretty much every civ just attacks you randomly whenever they are feeling bored.

I guess there is some flavor left... just not as much.

i'm pretty sure this will not change because ed beach did the flavor of the AI in vanilla

 

[smallfish]

I kind of agree, I really liked Civ IV where each civ really had a particular flavor. Now it just seems like pretty much every civ just attacks you randomly whenever they are feeling bored.

I guess there is some flavor left... just not as much.

They don't attack you "randomly"

ie. Ed Beach sounded pretty genuine when he said he wanted to improve the AI, and I'll give him the chance.

 

[Shmike]

That's easy, either replace or delete him when he comes up initially.

I don't choose what Civ's to play with, I leave it at random. Is it possible to remove him in the XML? Just deleting the files or do I have to edit some files?

 

[smallfish]

Alright, enough is enough. Informing everyone else of your misdeeds is long overdue, Hiawatha.

You became friends with me for a long time. You hammered my ancient enemy the French and then the Songhay. You asked me to war with them both when it wasn't in my best interests, and then when I was distracted by runaway Arabia to my immediate south, you jumped the gun and declared war on me and Napoleon.

And the best part: you went for a science victory double quick while at it.

 

[PhilBowles]

This is the problem with civ 5 a lot of people say the leaders have personallities and flavors but they don't they all have a high deceptive rating as result the game becomes predictable every single AI acts like friendly when they are don't except a few leaders who act friendly and then atack that would suprise you more

Surely that's the essence of differences in personality?

Checking modifiers, there are clear differences in personality that work much the way they did in Civ 4 - i.e. the effects of different types of interaction/modifier. Washington's America really isn't a fan of warmongers, while some civs will let it slide. With some civs you'll get 'fought against a common foe' just for being at war with the same enemy; others like Spain and Russia only count that as a bonus if you actively kill enemy units in their territory. That modifier also wears off quickly in these cases; if you get it with Harald Bluetooth, he's likely to be your unshakeable ally for life. Isabella likes asking you to help in her wars the moment you have a DoF; Sejong, not so much. And so on and so forth.

As with Civ IV the personality differences are most apparent once you've learned what each leader likes/dislikes and play accordingly - if I neglect diplomacy in Civ IV and make the same kinds of diplomatic decision and deals with all AIs regardless of who they are, I also don't get any sense of personality from them, except for Montezuma's tendency to declare war when friendly.

Olso the AI needs to know when he is defeated the AI only counts the military might you can kill one unit per turn and he would still thinx he does great because he has a massive army near his capital. The AI needs to know when to stop wars

And when not to start them... In my current game Hiawatha really doesn't know when to quit. I took his capital right at the start of the game, and he declared war a few more times since - in one case suing for peace and giving me a city (which he took back in the next war with help from India, Siam and Rio de Janeiro, all of which brought units to the party). He's suffered technologically from having only two cities, and those production cities - and he won't stop producing Mohawks and Crossbowmen. It's now the 20th Century and I have artillery stationed outside his main surviving city - but he declared war anyway. So far this game, I've lost and recaptured a city from Monaco, lost a city to Dublin that was razed (and captured both city-states in reprisal). Tyre has infantry attacking Taghaza. All of these city-states are/were bigger threats than Hiawatha, who I just ignore since I have artillery stationed in his former capital. The only reason I haven't wiped him out is that I have better uses for my units than sending them to his corner of the world.

 

[TyBoy]

The Civ 4 AI were definitely a lot more distinguishable. A lot of that worked out to certain AIs pretty reliably being pushovers and other ones consistently doing well though, which was a shame. I don't think I ever saw a game where Catherine was bad, in spite of having nothing special for traits or UA/UB. Her 'flavor' was to play in a style that was strictly superior to a lot of the other AIs.

There were a whole set of AIs who for varying reasons were reliably pushovers in diplomacy too, which was kind of lame. Mostly because they heavily weighted something that didn't have anything to do with the gameplay, like loving you unconditionally because you were the same religion or for using wonders/civics that were the best ones anyway.

Some of the things in Civ5 really dampen the flavors hard. I don't think it's because there was a design decision to make all the AIs play more similarly so much as the design just dampens the effects of the flavors. Science being stricly a function of population until pretty far into the game means that the warmongers don't pay a price scientifically. The way the AIs slug into each other with 1upt means it takes a massive advantage before there's any chance of making forward progress in an AI v AI war, so the warmongering doesn't really lead to snowballing as much either.

I haven't really seen this rampant backstabbing that is so famous here in a long time. It makes me wonder if a lot of it isn't people misunderstanding the diplomacy system or playing it like it's the giveaway diplomacy from 4. That's not to say the occasional backstab doesn't happen, but if you don't leave yourself super weak and commit yourself to some allies it's fairly uncommon.

I'd love to see them hardcode in some more specific, viable strategies that suit themselves to particular personality or civ types and have the game sometimes assign those to be played out by the civs for which they were appropriate.

 

[Pisskop]

The games ai is dirt... Tossing a coin would produce better (and more random since I am here) results. Run them over. Attack them, take what you can, scorch what you cannot. Trade off the extra resources for whatever pittence you can get (since they all hate you... you warmonger). why are you trying to roleplay? Maybe i am simply too jaded after becoming so disenchanted w/itall.

 

[apocalypse105]

The games ai is dirt... Tossing a coin would produce better (and more random since I am here) results. Run them over. Attack them, take what you can, scorch what you cannot. Trade off the extra resources for whatever pittence you can get (since they all hate you... you warmonger). why are you trying to roleplay? Maybe i am simply too jaded after becoming so disenchanted w/itall.

This comments is again one of many to indicate that there is no dpilomacy in civ 5

 

[joncnunn]

Actually quite easy to predict the AI once you apply the following rules:

The neighboring civ(s) always develop land envy and hate you.

Any civ that has declared war on you in the past will do so again as soon as they rebuild their army. (Can only be prevented if you knock out enough of their good cities to prevent them from ever rebuilding their army)

If you DOF someone, their neighbors will now hate you as well.

While some reasons for red text goes away; others are there for the rest of the game and when gone it only means the AI has decided to do the "pretend friendship" thing. You can sometimes exploit that by selling surplus stuff to them in a cash now deal getting close to full price knowing you'll get the items you traded back early instead of the lower price they'd have given you if they weren't pretending.

 

[Pisskop]

I would say however, that of the original 'cast' Watha is the most consistently run-away... along with cathy and ocassionally alex or napoleon... most dlc characters flounder...