I have some SERIOUS issues with the AI

[TheRaven476]

So I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I tried to accept their explanation of AI behaviour and thought "Oh well it can't be perfect, this stuff is hard" but I cam across some behaviour that was just ridiculous.

I'm on King difficulty, I'm waiting for my space victory and wanted to have some fun. My buddy Rome was at war with Spain so I thought as Japan I'd do the bro thing and send my Carrier fleet to help them. I figured I'd use my air power to steer wars on the mainland in my direction and the other nation's infantry can take cities since I was too lazy to send in my own ground forces. (Am I playing Japan or America?? hahahhaaha Bazinga).

So anyways Rome has tons of troops around Spain's cities, I bomb them to 0 health and defence. And what does Rome do? NOTHING. Not a single thing. They don't attack their cities AT ALL. They just sit there. Or walk right by. I kept this up for over 10 turns. Rome refused to attack completely weakened Spanish cities. I looked around at other wars and everyone's cities were at full health even though there were troops around them. NO ONE WAS ATTACKING.

I tried to think of the last time I saw a later era country get destroyed and I couldn't think of it. Maybe this is just what happens and I didn't have eyes to see what was going on.

Also I want to add that it's ridiculous that aircraft can't scout anymore. It was so painful having a ton of carriers and "Sorry that city is a couple tiles in land, we literally have no way to bomb through this weird brownish fog of war. No way at all. We know there are cities there but we can't do anything without the fog of war gone.". Whatever, I'm sure that'll get patched or expansioned in.

Anyways that crossed the line for me. When civilisations that are at war refuse to attack cities at all, even after they got reduced to 0 health/defence, this is an insane no excuses ridiculous issue. I thought it might have been some weird AI for low tech units, but Rome had anti tank infantry in it's army.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG That was going to be a fun late game, now it's completely ruined.

 

[Menzies]

Maybe they didn't want the warmonger penalties.

 

[Dearmad]

Maybe they didn't want the warmonger penalties.

OMZG

 

[Acken]

AI sucks we know.

 

[Menzies]

OMZG

To be fair, I get this version sometimes of the AI players looking at the human player:

So I just lost another game thanks to the human. Things were going pretty well for us both, and we'd been friends the whole game, allies for much of it. Phil had been causing all kinds of problems on my home continent, so I figured a punitive war to just slow them down for a bit would be the way to go. The human had decided the same thing, and we declared a joint war. It was a formal war, no specific casus belli.

I'm doing my own thing in the war, just showing Phil to not mess with us, then the human just turns into something out of a horror movie. Went right ahead and started conquering cities left right and centre. Still notionally friends, it seemed that the human thought this is what I wanted, and they went right ahead and took down the defences of some of Phil's remaining cities, complete scorched Earth stuff; I believe they thought I should take the cities. I felt like I'd walked in on a cannibal feasting and they were offering me some.

Humans are weird man.

 

[Takfloyd]

Yup, the AI is as broken as it could possibly get.

Aircraft can scout though, don't know what you mean when you say they can't. Maybe you only built bombers? Not only can fighters scout, they can move further away from their base every turn and stay hovering above the map, and apparently never actually need to land anywhere. Parts of air combat seems to be really weird. You can rebase to any city too, so why do only cities near the plane light up when you click rebase? Why is there no documentation about how air combat is supposed to work? Bleh.

 

[pietro1990]

Its because of the awefull warmonger penalties. The AI doesn't want to declare war or takes cities in later era's because they don't want massive penalties..

This is why i don't like these ne warmonger penalties mechanics. Just bring back the civ 4 diplomacy where you get a negative modifier for "you atacked our friend/ally"..

this causes the AI to be more agressive and take cities and diplomacy modifiers actually matters because the AI Will declare war. now they rarelly do even if they are mad

 

[Menzies]

Its because of the awefull warmonger penalties. The AI doesn't want to declare war or takes cities in later era's because they don't want massive penalties..

This is why i don't like these ne warmonger penalties mechanics. Just bring back the civ 4 diplomacy where you get a negative modifier for "you atacked our friend/ally"..

this causes the AI to be more agressive and take cities and diplomacy modifiers actually matters because the AI Will declare war. now they rarelly do even if they are mad

Civ IV's diplomacy was one of the most superficial in the whole series, would rather its diplomacy remained consigned to sepia tone nostalgia reels.

Some tweaks might be needed, particularly in the casus belli system. The way they've done it feels very non-committal. It's too linked to later Civics, and lacks any real power to shape the game. They should drastically reduce the penalties of taking cities, and a way of at least convincing your allies that your wars were just. Right now it comes across as a superficial excuse to ramp up the war monger penalties even further. There's a lot of good machinery there, but it comes across as using a laptop to weight down stacks of paper; it's all there, and it certainly serves a purpose, but I'm not convinced it's the right one.

 

[pietro1990]

Civ IV's diplomacy was one of the most superficial in the whole series, would rather its diplomacy remained consigned to sepia tone nostalgia reels.

Some tweaks might be needed, particularly in the casus belli system. The way they've done it feels very non-committal. It's too linked to later Civics, and lacks any real power to shape the game. They should drastically reduce the penalties of taking cities, and a way of at least convincing your allies that your wars were just. Right now it comes across as a superficial excuse to ramp up the war monger penalties even further. There's a lot of good machinery there, but it comes across as using a laptop to weight down stacks of paper; it's all there, and it certainly serves a purpose, but I'm not convinced it's the right one.

The warmonger penalty doesn't work lets be honest here it ruins diplomacy leaders are angry at eachother and hate eachother.. it doesn't only ruin player diplomacy.

you are saying that civ 4 diplomacy is superficial maybe it is but at least it worked. right now civ 6 diplomacy doesn't work just like civ 5 vanilla diplomacy. AI gets angry at little things for no reasons .

Warmonger penalties prevent leaders to act diplomaticlly because they denounce eachother constantlly of warmonger just because they declared war once.

Yet in civ 4 youre actions did matter if you did something wrong you get declared on certain leaders are backstabbers some are not..

 

[Plus Ultra]

I'm having no trouble whatsoever handling the AI through diplomacy. Yes, some backstabbing here and there, but I'm always able to keep 1-3 allies throught the game when going for any victory besides domination.

Regarding the combat AI, I'll say... meh, more or less as bad as it always has been. Hey, at least they can move AND shoot... they also build districts and wonders even if the new systems require more complex decisions.

Just sharing my honest experience. Reading this thread it seems I am being extremely lucky, hope it continues that way.

 

[pietro1990]

I'm having no trouble whatsoever handling the AI through diplomacy. Yes, some backstabbing here and there, but I'm always able to keep 1-3 allies throught the game when going for any victory besides domination.

Regarding the combat AI, I'll say... meh, more or less as bad as it always has been. Hey, at least they can move AND shoot... they also build districts and wonders even if the new systems require more complex decisions.

Just sharing my honest experience. Reading this thread it seems I am being extremely lucky, hope it continues that way.

i like the idea of causic belli's however it comes really to late and the warmonger penalties at medievel era are to high.

Tis results in :

you can't prevent AI from capturing a city state you are ally with. There is no defensive war causic belli(its at renaissance).
There is no liberation causic belli for city states.

Holy war causic belli comes to late its usally at the medieval era when the AI spams missionaries.


sollution give zero penalty for declaring war at ancient ,classical and medievel era or let the causic belli come earlier.

I've modded the warmonger penalties and i noticed that the game works far better if i reduced al decleration of war penalties at ancient classical and medieval. its only in the renaissance era people get angry if you declare war randomlly the time you get causic belli games works perfect

 

[Menzies]

The warmonger penalty doesn't work lets be honest here it ruins diplomacy leaders are angry at eachother and hate eachother.. it doesn't only ruin player diplomacy.

you are saying that civ 4 diplomacy is superficial maybe it is but at least it worked. right now civ 6 diplomacy doesn't work just like civ 5 vanilla diplomacy. AI gets angry at little things for no reasons .

Warmonger penalties prevent leaders to act diplomaticlly because they denounce eachother constantlly of warmonger just because they declared war once.

Yet in civ 4 youre actions did matter if you did something wrong you get declared on certain leaders are backstabbers some are not..

Civ IV's diplomacy worked insomuch as it was Civ IV's diplomacy. It wasn't just superficial, it was boring and repetitive, which is why the series has taken a sharp turn since in that regard. It was in fact one of the largest complaints about the series at the time.

What you're talking about here is a balance issue with knockon effects, not a system that is fundamentally flawed as Civ IV's was. I'd think they need to rebalance a few things, particularly around agendas (where most of the denouncements come from), but the system underneath appears robust enough to be workable long term. What you are essentially spruiking is the mid-90s answer to board game diplomacy.

 

[Mambo668]

I've modded the warmonger penalties and i noticed that the game works far better if i reduced al decleration of war penalties at ancient classical and medieval. its only in the renaissance era people get angry if you declare war randomlly the time you get causic belli games works perfect

Works perfect? So did U seen AI can atually take cities from other AI or from human player and fighting and atacking cities not just shuffling/dancing units?

 

[Takfloyd]

Civ IV's diplomacy worked insomuch as it was Civ IV's diplomacy. It wasn't just superficial, it was boring and repetitive, which is why the series has taken a sharp turn since in that regard. It was in fact one of the largest complaints about the series at the time.

What you're talking about here is a balance issue with knockon effects, not a system that is fundamentally flawed as Civ IV's was. I'd think they need to rebalance a few things, particularly around agendas (where most of the denouncements come from), but the system underneath appears robust enough to be workable long term. What you are essentially spruiking is the mid-90s answer to board game diplomacy.

Civ IV's diplomacy was near perfect. Have you even played that game? The AIs all felt rational and believable, and diplomacy really felt like complex international politics, with different blocs of countries sharing alliances, often leading to climactic world wars that made sense from each perspective. The AIs may not have had a ton of individuality, but looking at VI, that's a good thing. At least in IV, I felt like my longtime allies were actually my friends, and not just a cold machine waiting for the moment to randomly backstab me. And the options you had for trade were wide as an ocean compared to 6's meager selection. You could trade maps, units or techs, ask them to change government or religion, ask them to stop trading with another player, hire them to attack someone, or even make them your servant. And the AI could correctly evaluate all of this stuff depending on the situation so the deals usually felt fair.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Works perfect? So did U seen AI can atually take cities from other AI or from human player and fighting and atacking cities not just shuffling/dancing units?

The AI in my games (again, it seems I am the luckiest man alive) takes cities without any problem whatsoever, with no need for a mod.

Civ IV's diplomacy was near perfect.

Without wishing to enter an offtopic debate about Civ IV's diplomacy, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[darko82]

Enjoy the game now And remember to be optimist when Civ VII is released.

 

[skyclad]

Why do they insist on this ridiculous warmonger penalty? It makes it a complete waste of time to try to build relations when you cant even take a couple of cities without even your friends Starting to hate you.
In civ4 at least i never felt like giving up on diplo because i had burnt all my Bridges after one or two wars.

 

[esoba]

Why do they insist on this ridiculous warmonger penalty? It makes it a complete waste of time to try to build relations when you cant even take a couple of cities without even your friends Starting to hate you.
In civ4 at least i never felt like giving up on diplo because i had burnt all my Bridges after one or two wars.

There really needs to be more attention being paid to the way what you do effects how the AI has relationships with other AIs. You shouldn't get a warmongering penalty from Russia by going to War with England if Russia is denouncing them or already at war with them. It should actually raise your diplomatic view in Russia's eyes. I mean I just shake my head. It'd be like Japan denouncing Germany during WW2.

 

[Menzies]

Civ IV's diplomacy was near perfect.

I'm not sure we're talking about Civ IV anymore. It was balanced by the end for what it was, but it was in no way close to perfect, and arguably one of it's weaknesses.

Have you even played that game?

Only several thousand hours.

The AIs all felt rational and believable, and diplomacy really felt like complex international politics, with different blocs of countries sharing alliances, often leading to climactic world wars that made sense from each perspective.

Maybe in the fan fiction written after a game, but in the game it was illogical, on the rails, and until the final Beyond the Sword patch (or with mods) deeply exploitable on most levels.

The AIs may not have had a ton of individuality, but looking at VI, that's a good thing. At least in IV, I felt like my longtime allies were actually my friends, and not just a cold machine waiting for the moment to randomly backstab me. And the options you had for trade were wide as an ocean compared to 6's meager selection. You could trade maps, units or techs, ask them to change government or religion, ask them to stop trading with another player, hire them to attack someone, or even make them your servant. And the AI could correctly evaluate all of this stuff depending on the situation so the deals usually felt fair.

Are we talking about IV at the end of it's release cycle, or beginning now? I don't think many people would disagree with the statement that the AI are a little bit too denunciation happy right now, there are tweaks needed.

Map, tech and such trading went because of the balance issues involved, converting religion by trade was one of the most useless ones as they'd flip back fairly quickly, as with government. Most of the trade options you talk of still fell into the same trap that Civ IV always had, it was samey and predictable. Relations were always dominated by the same few things, and the AI was largely reactionary to the player, rather than trying to be an active player within the game.

Most complaints you've raised fall into the concept of "they should react as I want" and generally into the idea of war. To some it always end up about war, something that shouldn't be the only staple of the series.

At this point there is plenty to work with in Civ VI and if they get the balance right, there's a chance for some really good diplomacy. I don't think some oddities and exploits now (something that has characterised the early releases of the series for several versions now) should put people off that idea.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Enjoy the game now And remember to be optimist when Civ VII is released.

Thanks!