I laughed at this

[filorux]

I had a game where I was completely peaceful as India and never left my three city island. Then one day England rings me and tells me they are concerned about how I am massing my troops on their border. I am on an island of my own and my borders do not reach England anywhere!? Very odd.

I think there is something going on with water tiles and AI determination of settling near / troops on border.

Yesterday I was on a continent shaped basically like a backwards 'C'. I was at the upper extreme (eastern coast), Persia the lower extreme (east coast), and two civs between us. I put my second city on the west coast, which made it about 8 tiles (by water) from Persia's Capitol. He told me I was settling too close to him. Given the terrain, it would have been 10 or more turns to reach him by land - but as it happened there was a strip of coastline tiles that went between our cities (with ocean in the middle of the 'C'). That would only be 2-3 turns embarked. I wonder if that had anything to do with it?

 

[acm2033]

Maybe, but I think the pathfinding over water is broken... it says "23 turns" and such when it's only a short 3-4 turn trip (for instance).

Maybe there's a different mechanic for pathfinding and for determining border "closeness"... ??

 

[duxup]

Maybe, but I think the pathfinding over water is broken... it says "23 turns" and such when it's only a short 3-4 turn trip (for instance).

Maybe there's a different mechanic for pathfinding and for determining border "closeness"... ??

It seems like it treats fog of war (or at least fog of war areas over water) as if they're totally undiscovered (thus you wouldn't don't know the real number of turns until you uncovered them).

 

[CaptainJewbeard]

I've had that experience as well. It tends to say "23 turns" until you've uncovered a clear path.

Do you folks generally let the comp set the path, or do you like to shepherd units yourselves?

 

[filorux]

Maybe, but I think the pathfinding over water is broken... it says "23 turns" and such when it's only a short 3-4 turn trip (for instance).

Maybe there's a different mechanic for pathfinding and for determining border "closeness"... ??

If you are going from land to water, it seems like it wants to calculate the cost of embarking for each step of the trip - meaning 1 tile per turn. It seems to do better once you get embarked, although I've seen the 1 tile per turn for fog of war tiles, too.

 

[r_rolo1]

@OP

Sometimes I wish I was less right about some stuff...

If you build your city next to an AI's capital, in previous games they would be like, "Oh whatever." But now we've added additional logic that lets the AI evaulate what's going on in the game as a whole in the same manner as a human would do. So if you build a city next to someone's capital, that's actually going to annoy them. They'll realise that you're settling very aggressively, and that will have an adverse relationship on them. They'll call you up and will say, hey, you're expanding there, don't do this. If you continue doing it, they'll notice that as well, and if they might actually ask that you make concessions, like give them money or something in exchange for keeping their friendship. Otherwise you could have a cold war situation.

Dear Mr Civ V Lead designer, just a question: do the AI apreciates that doing the same to a human player might piss them ? Civ IV AI already cared a little if you plucked cities on top of their land ( the close borders modifier ) , but they were completely oblivious to the fact that the human might plan their demise far swifter if they started spamming cities on top of their borders , partly because humans in Civ IV are defined as always cautious to the AI eyes, no matter what they do to the human. Hopefully this will not have a rehash in Civ V ...

It looks that it indeed has a rehash in pretty much half or more of the games posted so far

 

[Zomgmeister]

Adding some hilarity. This happened just right now, about five minutes ago.

I played as dominating Chinese military juggernaught, and basically "won" the game long time ago, having Mechanized Infantry and Destroyers versus Musketmen and Caravels. Usually I tend to drop game long before gap becomes *that* wide (and yes, need to move difficulty up), but this time I just decided to play to victory, no matter how trivial that would be.

My huge, 5-civilization continent (Standard Continents map) was filled only by China, ex-capitals and allied city-states. There were three civilizations beside me: Egypt, America and Aztecs. Egypt was irrelevant: Ramesess decided he has the right to speak to me rudely, well I captured Thebes and razed three of his major cities, Memphis and Alexandria included. His spirit was completely broken and he basically was my "vassal" at this point. Aztecs and Americans dwelled on shaky continent, roughly reminding of the New World. At least Americans were at north, and Aztecs were at south.

When I got bored of skipping turns, I decided to capture their capitals and finish the game. My attacking force was very small: two Destroyers, two Mech Inf to Tenochtitlan and just one blitz-promoted Mech Inf (that was my starting Warrior, heh) to Washington. I thought about synchronizing attacks on capitals, but then decided that I just don't want to. "Conquistadors" got to Tenochtitlan first. And, well, they captured it.

I skipped some turns, moving embarked elite Mech Inf to American shore. Conquistador party destroyed weak Aztec defenders around Tenochtitlan, and captured some other city just because they could.

Then SUDDENLY I won. Because Monty the Mad decided it is a good idea to capture Washington, making my China the only one civilization which didn't lose its' capital. Basically, his kindness (and insanity) saved me three-four turns of travel.

Don't know about you, but it doesn't seem to me that AI "tried to win" at that point. He basically suicided himself in gameplay terms. Of course, being Montezuma and all, it actually made some kind of wicked sense, but... this is still wrong if concept of "AI playing for victory" is true. While in that particular case AI had no chance of winning at all, this situation may be repeated in other environment, where victor hadn't been so clearly decided yet.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think people judge the AI too harshly or misjudge its actions. Earlier I had a game where Japan was being friendly and yet attacked a friendly (to me) neighbouring city state. I really did not want war to ravage said city state's territory, so I went over to Japan and asked what would it take to stop the attack. They wanted nothing, so I asked them to stop it and they complied. They even apologized a few turns later. Looking back, I think it makes sense. Would you really shatter a good relationship with a burgeoning empire on your borders over the mere territory of a city state?

I think this is the case. The AI does also look for a pretext (which I think the Japan example was). They also don't like Civs near them getting too powerful. This includes if they asked for your help in a war, but it's not unreasonable. I don't like it when I ask the AI for help and they're actually successful in taking cities I wanted. Now I don't usually attack them because it often means they're a credible threat, but I'd consider it.

Now I haven't always had a big civ agree to not fight the city-state, I have had big civs who hated me attack my allies (one time seemed to be in retaliation of me attacking their ally) and then try and taunt me with a message. I have only found a couple of cases where the AI's behavior seemed unexplained and didn't make sense from a geopolitical standpoint.

Now from a strategic standpoint of actually winning, that's entirely different. Maybe they should be more careful with how they act just because they don't want to get wiped out.

 

[Buccaneer]

@OP

Sometimes I wish I was less right about some stuff...


It looks that it indeed has a rehash in pretty much half or more of the games posted so far

rolo, do you also want to find the one about cheesing the capture of capitals? With the weak AI defenses and units, one basically have to house rule not going in taking coastal capitals....just as some feared would happen.

 

[r_rolo1]

rolo, do you also want to find the one about cheesing the capture of capitals? With the weak AI defenses and units, one basically have to house rule not going in taking coastal capitals....just as some feared would happen.

This?

If they allow even a mild form of RoP rape ( and there are clues that RoP rape will be possible in Civ V ), no line of units or other cities will save the game of being exactly a beeline to the enemy caps. Even worse if they are coastal...

God, I didn't even remembered that I had said that ... True enough, I was concerned with the rumours of RoP rape in civ V ( well, we had it in the first week of the game ), but it is true: coastal caps make conquest so much easier ....

 

[Buccaneer]

Nice find. I think we can play this game for a while, huh?

 

[r_rolo1]

Maybe OFC there are others that could play it too Not everyone bought all the hype about the game ...

 

[Numi]

As long as you say you won't declare war and subsequently don't declare war, nothing happens.

If you say you won't declare war and you do declare war... prepare for a load of DOW's or broken deals with other players.

This is one of my least favorite parts of the AI. As an example, I had just lost a game to India the previous day so I am very weary of him. Ive got a lone city next to him and hes got about 10 units right at the border and even in my territory since we had open borders. Im starting to get nervous so I move my army right there too in my OWN borders and he does the whole are you going to declare on me or not? I hadn't brought enough troops to kill him yet so I said no then did like 20 turns later. And now im the 'dishonorable one', it sucks.

I guess there are two possible solutions to this. Keep your army a lil away and then all at once move forward to make sure you are ready. Or put a time frame where his questioning matters. Like 25 turns or whatever after he asks you can safely attack.

 

[MeowTau]

There's nothing you can do about the stupid border warning. I sent one trireme through Nebuchadnezzar's waters with an open border agreement and he chucked a fit. Its too sensitive.

And so is the city closeness agro. Seriously, not every country in the world sharing a border is at war with each other. Its also ridiculous they settle right next to me, and then relations take a hit. That should be my choice as to whether they take a hit as they infringed on my territory.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I hadn't brought enough troops to kill him yet so I said no then did like 20 turns later. And now im the 'dishonorable one', it sucks.

Nobody wants to make deals with a liar.

And so is the city closeness agro. Seriously, not every country in the world sharing a border is at war with each other. Its also ridiculous they settle right next to me, and then relations take a hit. That should be my choice as to whether they take a hit as they infringed on my territory.

It can be toned down, though you have to think from their point of view (especially the aggressive, warmonger civs). Don't humans also do that sort of thing to the AI? We would wipe out entire empires if they stood in the way of our expansion.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Nobody wants to make deals with a liar.



It can be toned down, though you have to think from their point of view (especially the aggressive, warmonger civs). Don't humans also do that sort of thing to the AI? We would wipe out entire empires if they stood in the way of our expansion.

The AI priorities in this game as shipped are hyper-aggressive and obnoxious. I think I know how they are programmed: you need an army above a certain size and they're programmed to jump on you if you are easy pickings (e.g. have too few units.) They hate it when you raze cities. And, of course, other game mechanics reward razing cities. So you can get around this unexplained, arbitrary, and sloppy set of rules. Why should you have to?

It's not some deep, subtle, rich system. It's programmed for constant war and it stinks if that isn't the sort of game you like to play. You can see it most clearly in how games tend to have one monster AI who has beaten all of their neighbors down. The system is hostile to the concepts of balance of power or co-operation.

Many aspects of the AI are also just broken. It makes sense to ding a player who settles "too close". It's garbage to have exactly the same outcome when an aggressor AI does the same thing. They want you to join them in declaring war - and then penalize you as a warmonger. Even if you liberate them. The entire system stinks of bad programming and poor game logic.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The AI priorities in this game as shipped are hyper-aggressive and obnoxious. I think I know how they are programmed: you need an army above a certain size and they're programmed to jump on you if you are easy pickings (e.g. have too few units.)

If it's Gandhi doing this, then there is a deep problem. Otherwise, I expect this from people like Nobunaga and Askia. You are right that some AI are needlessly obnoxious. I have no explanation for why Wu Zetian (was she a historical warmonger?) would settle a city near me on a continent I conquered and then taunt me, even when I am perfectly capable of launching an amphibious invasion of her continent with advanced weaponry.

They hate it when you raze cities. And, of course, other game mechanics reward razing cities.

Someone razing cities is a nice neighbor to have, I agree. And god forbid that actions that have benefits also have drawbacks.

It's programmed for constant war and it stinks if that isn't the sort of game you like to play. You can see it most clearly in how games tend to have one monster AI who has beaten all of their neighbors down. The system is hostile to the concepts of balance of power or co-operation.

I'll comment on this when I have logged more gametime. Exams and schoolwork are anathema to playtime. That does seem to be what I'm hearing so far though.

It's garbage to have exactly the same outcome when an aggressor AI does the same thing. They want you to join them in declaring war - and then penalize you as a warmonger. Even if you liberate them. The entire system stinks of bad programming and poor game logic.

Other AI should recognize when you are just responding to aggression, yes. Nobody begrudges the guy who punches an assailant in self-defense.

 

[d4everman]

The problem is this game punishes the human player just for playing.

• Expand your civ? Need lux resources. You'll need them anyway since your happiness goes down by every pop. point in any city. Need to build a happiness building? Well, that takes some time, at least in my games. IMO thats not a lot of fun.
• AI rival giving you grief? Crush them. There are no such things as allies in this version of civ. They'll turn on you no matter what you do. Wu hated me in one game, wouldn't trade (unless I gave her all of my gold and 3 lux resources for her one) and then asked me for a research agreement. I accepted thinking maybe our relationship had turned for the better. A turn or so later I ask for an even trade and she's hostile again.
• Did I say crush them? Thats a problem....because your happiness will plummet making your civ unproductive. Basically if you want to destroy a civ you HAVE to raze the cities, since keeping them will cripple you. For some reason your people will become unhappy if you're winning a war. It makes no sense, its stupid and it definitely isn't a lot of fun. Especially when faced with an aggressive civ. It doesn't matter if you start the war or not, either.
• Remember, I said no allies....case in point....Askia attacks China. China was weak and had asked me before to join them in a war with Askia but I declined.(different game from the one I mentioned above) Now they were being destroyed, and rather easily. Not wanting Askia (who was hostile to me) to get to powerful I DOW on him, and basically reduce his 6 city empire to his capitol and thats it. Then China calls me a warmonger and pretty much won't trade with me unless I offer up my first born in the deal. (which crippled me since I lost the happiness resources they provided.) I quit that game in disgust since my only other option was to attack China...who you would think would be grateful for my help in a war THEY WERE LOSING and asked me to get involved in the first place.
• I'm convinced that even at mid level the AI can see future resources. Why else would they try to build cities in the middle of your territory? And with impunity. I have not once seen an AI take a warining of "don't build near me" seriously. Even if they give the canned response of "ok, but you're a jerk of a neighbor" they'll still send the settler on. I've seen this even when I have a vastly superior army...which I'm then forced to use to enforce my request. Even though I don't want to go to war.....
• I don't want to go to war? No, not all of the time....because I like to build my civ, and because even winning a war cripples your civ. Unhappiness again. Now I get the concept of it....but its not War Weariness...its "how dare you win this battle and take those cities!" . Even if you raze them....plus, annexing them cause unhappiness problems that can only be solved by a courthouse...the one building you can't rush buy. WTH?
• Considering how badly the AI is at vs human wars, I have to assume its cheating. I once saw Persia take over a HUGE continent. They had units all over the place and the trade window showed them with about 6 g in gold and making 5 or so hundred a turn! There was no way they could be trading stuff for that kind of gold. They had wiped out everyone on the continent except for Germany, Hiawatha and Askia. And they had five cities between them, having been pretty much steamrolled. Plus, the unhappiness that I would imagine would cripple them didn't seem to bother them in the least. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but that seemed strange to me.
• You can't peacefully coexist with the AI. In most games thery start rattling sabers at me before 3000bc! ("Your army is puny. Better watch your back!") Its like the are goading you into war...not because they can beat you (more often than not, you'll have a better army than they do, despite the smack talk) but to make you hobble yourself by conquering them. Worse, they smack talk when they really shouldn't later in the game. Last game I crushed the ottomans but left them the capitol and two size 2 cities...mainly because the unhappiness was stopping all of my production. A few turns laters Rome DOWs on the ottomans and takes their two cities before a peace treaty stops them. Then for no reason Sulieman calls me up to sday "Its you...I thought it was the barbarians I'm forced to swat from time to time". Huh? (Funny only because not only has he lost every engagement with eeryone, he literally could be conquered in about 3 turns by me)He has one city, a spearman or two and I have an army of knights and crossbowmen and longswordsmen. I'd take delight in whopping on him, but then I'd be punished for it and I can't raze his capitol.

I realize YMMV on this, but to me, the game is dumbed down and doesn't make much sense. Its not really that fun, and I only play it now to get something out of my money spent. I hold out hope that it will be patched into something better, but I'm disappointed to the point of anger.

 

[Pantastic]

The AI priorities in this game as shipped are hyper-aggressive and obnoxious. I think I know how they are programmed: you need an army above a certain size and they're programmed to jump on you if you are easy pickings (e.g. have too few units.)

The AI looks at the ratio of his troops to yours, and if your army is too small it decides that you're an easy target. This works great on the lower levels, where your production numbers are similar, and forces you to maintain a defensive force. Where it completely breaks down is on the higher levels, where the AI bonuses mean it will always have a much larger army than on lower levels. This ends up being a hidden increase in the garrison needed to stay at peace at higher levels, even though a higher level player is either better with his army (so will make up the production ratio with tactics) or is going to lose anyway.

I've seen this before in a number of 4X games, I really wish developers would remember the easy solutions to problems that are 10-15 years old. I call it the 'a sufficient defense is a good offense' problem, instead of being able to build a decent defensive army (which the game should force you to do to stay at peace), you have to build an army strong enough to conquer the AI, and if you're going to build that strong of an army, you may as well go a conquering. The AI army ratios should increase your army by the same factor as the AI production advantage when considering if you're a weak target, that would solve this pretty simply.

 

[edcrane]

[*]Remember, I said no allies....case in point....Askia attacks China. China was weak and had asked me before to join them in a war with Askia but I declined.(different game from the one I mentioned above) Now they were being destroyed, and rather easily. Not wanting Askia (who was hostile to me) to get to powerful I DOW on him, and basically reduce his 6 city empire to his capitol and thats it. Then China calls me a warmonger and pretty much won't trade with me unless I offer up my first born in the deal. (which crippled me since I lost the happiness resources they provided.) I quit that game in disgust since my only other option was to attack China...who you would think would be grateful for my help in a war THEY WERE LOSING and asked me to get involved in the first place.

I find this irksome as well. It's like the AI doesn't understand context. Yesterday ghandi DOWed me and tried to take a city; I repelled his initial attack, but he refused peace on equitable terms; I took two of his five cities to get peace and suddenly I'm a warmonger. Absurd.

At his point, it seems like the warmonger/bloodthirsty modifier is entirely independent of the identity of the aggressor (as described in the case above) and whether the player has helped the AI (i.e., gone to war at its request and weakened an enemy that would have otherwise consumed it). This is a bit frustrating, especially given the opacity of diplomacy.