I'm really dissapointed!

[vilemerchant]

We've probably all had the odd entertaining game like that where there WERE a lot of wars and fun, but unfortunately it's like one game in a hundred. The AI need to be taught not only how to start wars, but how to fight them and bring decent numbers of troops into battle. Right now about all it does when at war is put 20 units into its capital and other important cities to sit there and do nothing. Civ4 there are at least less stupid exploits for the player, but the AI is as dumb as ever.

 

[Nivel]

The AI's don't demand any of the "red" items from each other, so they never get enough negative modifiers and don't declare war on each other enough. I wish "Aggressive AI" also modified AI vs AI behavior -- maybe this can at least be done in a mod.
Also, vilemerchant is right, even when the AI civs are at war, they don't have enough troops and rarely seem to take any cities from each other, just slow down their own economies for a while. I guess that's the other reason they don't like war...

 

[Sohan]

Ya, the AI's don't make demands of each other, and so the negative diplomacy points that humans suffer when they refuse demands never appear between AI's, because they never ask in the first place. They treat the human player differently.

 

[uncarved block]

A couple points to add from someone who always has this option enabled:

--The Ring map really worked against what you wanted. Unless you overload the map, each AI will have its own dedicated area, meaning a land-hungry civ will only feel pressure to expand in the mid to late game. I saw plenty of wars on a Ring once, but it was only when the contest began to be for the center of the map, and not a moment before.

--Many of the AIs won't attack unless each city has a certain number of defenders on average. In the early game, when the AI is snagging every patch of land that might conceivably hold a city, this number keeps going down, because the number of cities keeps going up.

--Have you finished the game and watched the replay? In my last successful game, Peter kept declaring war on Hatty. Only afterward did I discover that the first war I'd heard about was actually the third time he'd declared. I find that there's often one early war I miss hearing about because I don't know one of the two parties are on the map yet.

--If you really want AI war, always put Monty or Isabella in the game (your'e already at the custom game screen, right?) Sure, there's a chance they'll end up next to you, but you'll get AI vs AI action in those games where they aren't . . .

 

[Zombie69]

I am really disapsapointed! I started a game earlier today, Ring map, Standard size as Washington of America. I awitched on Aggresive AI hoping to see lots of wars and death and bloodshed and pillaging for no sane reason. And I'm dissapointed to find in my foreign advisers office that all of my rivals are best friends with each other, but a lot don't like me. I am currently in a war with 2 civs, but no-one else joins the chaos! There are a few annoyeds but overall I'm dissapinted. I want more wars between AI civs!

Moderator Action: Trolling and flaming. No-one likes the spelling police - consider yourself warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mr. Do]

Huh? I'm seeing ai's with the negative bonus in every single game. Rarely, there will be one civ that just loves another one with no negative modifiers, but this is maybe one civ, at one moment in time, in one game out of 5. Otherwise they always seem to have some issue with each other, even if it is only "close borders spark tensions."

Sorry, I mis-typed what I meant, in that the AI doesn't get the negative modifiers from refusing to trade/ give tribute, like it does with the human player. I'm not sure if any other negative modifiers are absent from AI mindsets...

 

[AndreasS]

It seems to me the troubble is in some players setup. Lots of players choose too few opposing civs in their games. With less place to expand, and pressing cultural boarders, the AI turns wild. Here is my recomandations:

Duel map: 2-4 players
Tiny map: 5-8 players
small map: 8-12 players
standard: 12-18 players
large map: 18+ players(*)
huge map: 18+ players(*)

*After the expansion pack we can hopefully play 24 civs om the largest maps.... In my opinion the huge map is to large for 18 civs.... 24 would be more like it.

Use this setup, combine it with aggressive AI, and raging barbarians, and you will have cool games. Choosing fractal maps is also recommended..... If you choose less then 18 opponents, make sure the ones you're dealing with have aggressive personalities: Montezuma, Alexander, Caesar, Isabella, Huyana, Napoleon etc

NB! 18 players standard maps are my favorite so far. Cant wait to play 24 civs on large or huge........

 

[Zebra 9]

I agree that there are to few AI vs. AI wars, but I don't need any more wars vs. me, I get my self in enough trouble as is.
I set the map to have 18 players every time because I refuse to play on anything smaller than a huge, the reason is because it makes for more interesting wars, but there are to few players in the game.
I also think that the AI should be more random and know less stuff when making trade deals with another AI.

 

[RogerBacon]

always war just means war with the human though doesnt it?

Yes, that's why I wrote a mod to change that. In my "Always War" mod everyone is at war with everyone else from the moment they meet each other.

Roger Bacon

 

[jimbob27]

I've a feeling the only thing agressive AI does, is make them more prone to building huge armies. They will be incredibly agressive against each other given the right situations, but they need a suitable target to fight against. If somebody is weak from the beginning, or gets a bad starting position.. they'll attack without mercy till they're dead.

I think their agression against the human player is comes from the fact it's harder to keep up with them in power, so they're more likely to see you as an easy target.

 

[ShaLouZa]

Something I've noticed too : when AIs met and have different religions, they'll have +1 "peace for years" and -2 to -4 "different religions" and still will be pleased to each other (except religious psychos like Isabelle), when with the same modifiers at the same time they will be worried with the human player. So they all attack you, and don't attack each other.

Sometimes you can see some hard wars between AIs : on a large continents map I've had the message "the Egyptians have been crushed" before I ever see any AI of another continent, and in my last game Hapsy ate Alex alive in twenty turns around 1500 AD. But she had an insane military : I've been pumping units for 300 years with state police and never been able to catch up, even with a tech advantage (infantry for riflemen). She was totally broken in this game, I don't know what happened.

I'd like to see the diplo fixed, the human player has too much of a disadvantage right now. And to make bad things worst, you can see patent cheating like your allies or closest neighbours switching religions to another one who comes from the other side of the world, even if there is less than 1% chances : it feels like if the game is predetermined, with some "this one won't like you whatever you do" settings. It spoils the fun IMHO.