How does the AI perform the best?

[<Nexus>]

In this thread I'd like to discuss how to have the best AI in game. The main goal of this thread to see what settings the players should chose to have the best AI experience. Maybe it can also help the devs to improve the AI itself.

I have 2 questions:
1) What settings help / set back the AI to make good decisions?
2) What features is the AI good / bad at?
(Bellow I want to collect useful information)
____________________________________________________

Aggressive AI is said to make the AI focus too much it's military but neglecting it's infrastructure.
Ruthless AI is known to make the AI "crazy" - making insane demands that makes diplomacy useless.
Sorrund&Destroy is an other option that the AI is sort of clueless.

It is clear that the AI has no idea of Python effects but what about XML tags? Does the AI properly value them all?

What are your experiences?

 

[aggri1]

I make sure to disable Great Commanders. I've never seen the AI make good use of them, whereas I certainly can (e.g. un-killable horses). It's a shame, because they're fun, but ah well..

 

[RyoHazuki]

I make sure to disable Great Commanders. I've never seen the AI make good use of them

Same for Soround and destroy.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

What the AI is worst at, in my experience, is making peace with each other.

Far too often, I see civs achieve an overwhelming military advantage, take one small border city... and peace out. They don't have significant war weariness and they have three or four times the military power - sometimes more. Their enemies have only three or four cities left and almost no defenders. The attackers have a large force at most three turns from the next defending city. Nonetheless, they stop the war, getting no tech (because they were ahead), no additional cities (because the AI never seems to offer to cede cities) and at most token monetary concessions. If they accepted concession and got a vassal out of it that would be one thing, but they're not.

As a result, the "defeated" civ's remaining cities exert so much cultural pressure that the border city is useless, if it doesn't outright revolt back to its original owner. They build back up to their original military strength, which is insufficient unless they get a tech slingshot or a powerful alliance, and the process repeats. Even to the point where the defender has just one or two cities left, even when they're culturally pressured into uselessness, the AI will only nibble them in tiny wars.

This continues even into the modern era, when the conquering civ is a democracy or police state and would easily deal with any revolution problems that resulted.

The upshot is that a bunch of weak civs survive, and the strong military civs that could actually challenge the player don't leverage their strength into grabbing territory.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

Also, V's the Human, they have an obstinate mind set, they won't make peace, if winning or superior, which is how it should be, when losing, you virtually have to reduce them down to nothing, before they consider peace, but then, its better to suck it up and wipe them out, "All of them".

I was in a war with Roosevelt, I took away 4/5 cities of a 2nd cultural empire of his, completely separate from the home empire. I then took 2 cities from the home empire, stopped, as they were both mine originally taken from Dutch, but flipped to him at 30% culture. My automated Air force, had bombed his garrison troops to NOTHING, not 1 defender in entire empire, only then would he concede to making peace. I could have walked 1 tank through his empire, taking it all out, or taken 3/4 via sea as on coast, with only 1 internal city.

AI V'S AI wars, they only take 1/2 cities, make peace, etc. They should have an over ride, of "if power offense army > enemy defense by 20%, continue war" or something. Too many times, you see the AI throw away 10+ units at >5 % odds trying to wear down defenses.

It needs a 'suicide fodder' limit of say 20% of attacking forces.

 

[<Nexus>]

@ MoogleEmpMog and IPEX:
Are you playing with Agressive AI and/or Ruthless AI? I wonder if the behavior you mentioned is related to those options in any sense.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

@ MoogleEmpMog and IPEX:
Are you playing with Agressive AI and/or Ruthless AI? I wonder if the behavior you mentioned is related to those options in any sense.

I don't use either, because it seems like the AI is supposed to be worse overall with them.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I was under impression that AI never attacks without aggressive AI. Am I wrong? Do you have any experience of AI attacking you when you play without Aggressive AI?

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

it will attack without aggressive AI, but it needs a power ratio of 80% to attack you I recall.

Meaning your 80% of the AI's power. Then again, it can be influence by the individual AI flavours. I've been below 50% and haven't been attacked, and over 120% and have been attacked.

I think it was just looking at grabbing 1 city, making peace as the AI v's AI wars tend to do, but It's total war with me!!!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I was under impression that AI never attacks without aggressive AI. Am I wrong? Do you have any experience of AI attacking you when you play without Aggressive AI?

Absolutely!

In fact, two of my last three games ended in defeat. I trusted being an era ahead to protect me and didn't pay enough attention to power ratio/troop numbers, and a previously friendly AI saw me pulling ahead in tech and culture (and provoking them with spies >_> <_< ) and rolled in with, in the first case, more Grenadiers than my Infantry had bullets, and in the second, enough Bombards to drown my Musketmen in lead shot.

They started earlier wars that either went badly for the attacking AIs or ended indecisively, as well.

The last one, after I'd adjusted to AI who were capable of fighting back to at least some degree, ended in me running an economy that could afford to outpace them in numbers as well as keep a tech advantage, rather than relying solely on the latter, and that ended up being an easy (Culture) victory, but they did still attack me in earlier eras before I predominated.

 

[Rezca]

I was under impression that AI never attacks without aggressive AI. Am I wrong? Do you have any experience of AI attacking you when you play without Aggressive AI?

I've gotten no less than six declarations from Alexander in my current game, and we only just now hit the Medieval. Why I still tolerate his empire's presence I do not know. Probably because I'm busy beating up Russia or something :B

Previous game I got two declarations from Ethopia at Pleased and a third at Cautious, around four declarations from Roosevelt (No, he wasn't Friendly. I don't think... He was at one point, but not sure if he declared at Friendly or started planning at Pleased, or what), at least three from Giglamesh (Twice because of that damn border city revolting to my ownership then him wanting it gone), once from Genghis Khan, twice from the Czech, and uh... I think that was about it. Most of these cases we were roughly equal in power, give or take a bit.

 

[Evs]

I'm playing with agressive AI turned on.

GC / Revolutions / vassals / surround and destroy all turned off.

The AI does very good in all areas even on Monarch. The point where it seems to change is if an AI is steamrolling others and has 35+ cities by the time it adopts Republic (which in my current game the Khmer did), the massive amount of city maintenance it gets from adopting Republic just kills its military. Presumably he had to dispand most of his military due to the upkeep. They lost about 75% of its power the turn it adopted Republic which allows me to then steamroll him. Not sure if the AI can be tweaked to not adopt Republic if it has X amount of cities ?

 

[Pongui]

Yeah, the irony of great bullies is only after imposing grudges and intense border tensions with everybody on their continent, do they suddenly disband to pursue a peaceful victory. So the AI does best having conquered its own landmass. Then Republic is safe, and smart. It would certainly benefit from some code giving it awareness of its continent or "manifest destiny" domain. In that case it should push on to reduce its land borders with other civs, and reduce the number of civs it borders, not increase them. Alternately, it could hesitate to capture a city if that means also capturing culture of a friendly civ. In other words: the AI should rather not make itself a target.

They do best in a geographically secure position. So I like maps with long impassible mountain chains. Hey, next time I'll try "Realistic Culture", as it claims to reduce culture spread across mountains... I'm thinking civs on either side of a mountain range must share less border tension.


Ruthless, as others said, adds no "cunning" that I can see. Just randomness.

Aggressive, I dunno if the AI performs better. They spend a lot of gold and hammers pummeling each other. It's more entertaining for me. And tense.

Surround&Destroy, Commanders, I'd love to play with these, but it's like cheating. On that topic, I've never seen AI use the Piracy promotion. Last game I worked hard to earn a fleet of Pirates... when I learned I could upgrade these Pirates all the way to Battleship, I disbanded them. AI Privateers seem to have a lifespan of a dozen turns.

AI lives with Revolutions better than the human of course, because it gets a hefty modifier. It may be that the rebel demands are more often smart suggestions?

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

To me, the meaning of the 'Ruthless' modifier is that the AIs dispense with the sappy love and free beer you get just for not ticking them off, especially at the start of the game. Ruthless AIs know that only one player can win the game and the friendliest disposition they therefore take toward other players is "pity".