Incredible Diplo Idiocy

[ColinTH]

Playing as Arabia in a 1CC verses seven random opponents, and only four City States, I was doomed until the UN was built, the following then ensued.

1 - Out bidding each other for hundreds of turns.

2 - All at war with each other.

3 - I sneak through the back door for a culture victory.

The irony ofcourse is the fact that there never was a Diplo victory available!

It seems to me the latest patch is an over correction of the previous AI reluctance to compete for a Diplo victory.

Just as a side note - I seemed to have the two big powers eating out of my hands due to returning captured settlers respectively.

 

[shanodin]

Did you have diplo victory disabled? If so, epic fail on the AI's part >.<

 

[ColinTH]

Did you have diplo victory disabled? If so, epic fail on the AI's part >.<

I had all victory types enabled. With only 4CS and 8civs, I think seven votes were needed for a Diplo victory! So yes! Big fail.

The normal setup for this type of map (tiny) is 4Civs and 8cs which seems to have confused the AI!

 

[GoodSarmatian]

What's the problem ? The AI players all went for a victory.

 

[Kerosene31]

Sounds like a bug. Technically the diplo victory is possible but highly unlikely without a bunch of liberations.

Why not just uncheck the diplo victory when setting that game up?

 

[ColinTH]

Sounds like a bug. Technically the diplo victory is possible but highly unlikely without a bunch of liberations.

I don't know if the number of votes would have lessened if some of the AI civs had been wiped out? As you say it needs correcting.

Why not just uncheck the diplo victory when setting that game up?

If I had known it took seven votes for a Diplo victory, then I would have disabled the Diplo, that would make sense.

I was thinking it may take 4 votes, which would nicely incorporate the 4CS. My pc can't handle too much action so I was trying to find a way of playing with as many opponents as possible, hence the tiny map and only 4City States.

I don't use mods but I do like to use advanced options, to me they are part of the game as sold. If we find something that doesn't seem right, where better to give it air than on this forum!

 

[Aristos]

I think it always needs Half +1 votes... and yes, changing the original CS setup messes the AI completely, I have been doing that to make Diplo victory more challenging, but what was "more challenging" for me became "impossible" for the AI...

 

[roguepro92]

I think it always needs Half +1 votes... and yes, changing the original CS setup messes the AI completely, I have been doing that to make Diplo victory more challenging, but what was "more challenging" for me became "impossible" for the AI...

+1.
the AI needs to learn to adapt with changing number of CS even before the game starts.
it seems to fall flat if you touch the CS count by down 2 or more.

 

[Kerosene31]

I don't know if the number of votes would have lessened if some of the AI civs had been wiped out? As you say it needs correcting.

If a civ was conquered and liberated, that civ would vote for the liberating civ, so technically a diplo victory was possible (though highly unlikely).

 

[snarzberry]

You played with cooked settings in an irregular game so I don't take anything that happened in this game as evidence of anything. It's the standard/standard diplomacy that we should be analyzing and discussing. It's hard enough to program an AI that works under limited settings let alone for all of the untold numbers of ways you could set up a game.

I don't criticize anyone for playing civ under any settings you like, but the game is designed to work under standard settings so anomalies or what you consider strange AI behaviour when playing highly irregular games means nothing.

 

[ColinTH]

You played with cooked settings in an irregular game so I don't take anything that happened in this game as evidence of anything.

Cooked settings - Give me a break. All I did was change four City States for four AI Civs. I sure as hell didn't realise what the consequences would be, now I do know, and maybe a few others are aware.

When I opened this thread I never tried to hide what I did, I stated exactly how I had set up.

Pre patch alot of top players were disenabling the Diplo victory condition. With valid reasons -
1 - They were forced into going for a Diplo victory once the UN was built, sometimes spoiling other victory types they wanted to achieve.
2 - The AI civs were diabolical when competing for a DV.

I enjoy reading your posts and respect most of what you have to say.

Thanks, Point taken.

 

[Aristos]

You played with cooked settings in an irregular game so I don't take anything that happened in this game as evidence of anything. It's the standard/standard diplomacy that we should be analyzing and discussing. It's hard enough to program an AI that works under limited settings let alone for all of the untold numbers of ways you could set up a game.

I don't criticize anyone for playing civ under any settings you like, but the game is designed to work under standard settings so anomalies or what you consider strange AI behaviour when playing highly irregular games means nothing.

Nonsense. A "true AI" (within the limits of current technologies) should be able to adapt to some degree of changing circumstances... especially if those changing circumstances are an optional setup... If the AI is not able to adapt, then eliminate the CS slider in the setup page, and replace it with what it really is: a fixed number.

Heck, the 5 years old civ4 AI is able to adapt to some (extended) degree even to Afforess' monster, RoM AND, and man, you should look at that MOD... 300+ techs, buildings that produce strategic resources (which again are needed to build some special units), 100+ different civics, revolutions.... and the AI handles it all.

No excuse for this AI... then again, you look at its "Creator", and you understand...

 

[snarzberry]

Cooked settings - Give me a break. All I did was change four City States for four AI Civs. I sure as hell didn't realise what the consequences would be, now I do know, and maybe a few others are aware.

When I opened this thread I never tried to hide what I did, I stated exactly how I had set up.

Pre patch alot of top players were disenabling the Diplo victory condition. With valid reasons -
1 - They were forced into going for a Diplo victory once the UN was built, sometimes spoiling other victory types they wanted to achieve.
2 - The AI civs were diabolical when competing for a DV.

I enjoy reading your posts and respect most of what you have to say.

Thanks, Point taken.

Ok I think my post came across a little harsher than I intended. The gist of what I was trying to say was that I'd prefer it if the AI behaviour in the standard game was the main focus of work right now. I totally agree that if the AI is shooting for a diplo win when it is impossible that this is obviously a symptom of an inept system - how could I not? But I feel that if people play games like huge maps with four civs and no city-states etc then the data from those type of games is much less important to improving civ 5 right now than standard everything games.

But I don't know nearly as much about programming AI as others on this site so my comment is probably out of order, apologies.

I agree with your other points about the diplo victory ColinTH as I too find it highly unsatisfying the way it is now.

 

[ColinTH]

Ok I think my post came across a little harsher than I intended. The gist of what I was trying to say was that I'd prefer it if the AI behaviour in the standard game was the main focus of work right now. I totally agree that if the AI is shooting for a diplo win when it is impossible that this is obviously a symptom of an inept system - how could I not? But I feel that if people play games like huge maps with four civs and no city-states etc then the data from those type of games is much less important to improving civ 5 right now than standard everything games..

Every point you have made is valid, and as you say the emphasis for future improvements should be for the standard game, then look at tweeking other areas.

But I don't know nearly as much about programming AI as others on this site so my comment is probably out of order, apologies...

Thanks - much apreciated.

I agree with your other points about the diplo victory ColinTH as I too find it highly unsatisfying the way it is now.

Explanation for the screen shots.

1 - Irrespective of my setup with 4 CS and 8 civs (mistake). Why didn't either Japan or USA wipe me out when my victory was imminent?

2 - Showing that I was playing Deity level, I thought this would deter mundane/ stupid responses.

I have just completed my second attempt playing as Arabia with 8 CS and 8 civs on deity and accomplished the same victory type in the year 1857. So it seems post patch my pc can handle the action! I am not sending the screen shot unless asked, there is no point because nothing irrelevent happened!

Once again thanks.

 

[BobDole]

1 - Irrespective of my setup with 4 CS and 8 civs (mistake). Why didn't either Japan or USA wipe me out when my victory was imminent?

It's sort a fine line the devs have to walk. Would it be entertaining if every time you were close to victory, everyone dogpiled you? It probably wouldn't be much fun. Yet, people complained that the AI wasn't aggressive enough when you were close to victory, which is understandable. Right now, the AI tends to be more likely to DoW you as you get closer, but if you maintain good relations, they tend to stay out of the way (usually). I don't know how your relations were with the US and Japan, but if they were decent, then it makes sense.

As for the competition for CS scenario you had, it's quirky but oh well.