1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Just another example of AI idiocy

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Lord Parkin, Oct 8, 2010.

  1. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Heh, that story of yours Lord Parkin is such a common sight in my games that I don't bother with "diplomacy"-instigated wars. Did you know that when you'll join in and declare you get diplo hit for aggressive behaviour from all the AI, including the very AI that asked you to go to war? :lol:

    And don't even get me started with the crappy territory issues - "oh noes, I'm a city state and I'm calling you to help with a terrrrible barbarian threat I'm having! Oh yess, you have like +5 influence with us for killing that barb NOW GTFO CAUSE YOU'RE TRESPASSING :scan::borg:"


    Please fix this :badcomp:
     
  2. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Couldn't have put it better myself. Civ5 AI is actually boring, because they act the same way all the time: demand stuff, get pissed off whether or not you accept, then backstab you. It's not even a surprise any more, it's just what you expect from EVERY AI in EVERY game. That's the problem.

    (Incidentally, love the username. Presume you're an Eddings fan.)

    No, I didn't know that, but it sounds about right. The number of times I've been called "bloodthirsty" by the hypocritical, lying, backstabbing AI is insane. It doesn't matter how many wars the AI has got into with other AI's and city states, it still thinks you're "bloodthirsty" the moment you get involved even in a defensive war. Heck, the last message Liz ever said to me before I declared war in the game I mentioned in the OP was that I was "bloodthirsty". No Liz, I'm only fighting YOUR war FOR you. But since you mention it, I may as well declare on you because you're being a complete and utter dick. :p

    Damn, didn't realise they did that either. Very stupid.
     
  3. d4everman

    d4everman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    I agree. Wu did the same thing to me last night....and we'd been friends for 2000 years, game time.

    However Lizzie is a bit bonkers. Earlier in my game I demolished her, mostly because she kept smack-talking about how pathetic I was. Even though I had an empire twice the size of hers, and a more advanced and larger army. (took me about ten turns to kill her without really trying). Doesn't the AI calculate relative strength? I guess not or she would have kept her trap shut.
     
  4. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    I'm starting to think that i should follow the example of another poster and compare myself to cassandra ... because i predicted this and no one listened to me :D

    IMHO this AI is the direct descendant of a XML setting TMIT devised for BtS AI, that was informally called "Ruthless AI " ... that was pretty much a copy cat ( in what was possible inside the XML frame of Civ IV ) of the human behaviour that worked against stock BtS AI. And it definitely did trounced BtS stock AI if it was the only "ruthless AI" in the game . I said at the time ( and no one listened to me ) that this kind of AI would look good against the normally cooperative and good faithed BtS AI, but , when in flock they would kill eachother mercilessly until only or 2 super AI appeard ... a thing that in fact was worse AI in average ( better for the living without doubt, but surely worse for the dead :D ).

    Now port a AI made on this molds, take tech trading out, join a lot of them together, add a obscure diplo system and bugs in the AI city placement and enemy troop detection while retaining the chicken memory of civ IV AI ... does it sound familiar ? :D

    That is why I said a lot of times that firaxian coders showed so far a completely lack of knowledge of game theory ( no, not game design theory :D ) : when I see the solutions they impletmented in here ( and in some areas of BtS ), I sometimes see a complete disregard for the obvious fact that solutions that look well on 1:1 might be subpar or even flat out stupid in a enviroment with a plurality of active players ( like civ games always have been ). I would even recommend them to read some stuff on evolutionary biology ( they could start with Dawkins Blind Watchmaker and his chapter on how cooperative behavior in most of times is actually a competitive strategy in darwinian terms vs self-centered short-term-gain centered strategy ( his pigeon example is quite instructive ) for a light start :D ) because the evolutionary biologists were forced ages ago to explain why cooperative behavior existed at all in a darwinian framework and how those guys that cooperate even prospered in general , something that game designers seem to have failed to grasp so far :D
     
  5. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    You give too much credit to firaxis. i bet you its not the case. whats happening is that the AI is programmed to get hostile towards you if you war monger, and irrespective of the fact that you actually went to war at their request the stupid brain dead AI turns hostile, after you've done them a favour.
     
  6. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    amen to that. when it happened to me i was like WTF have the developers been :smoke: ???

    seriously nobody pointed this out during the testing?
     
  7. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Unfortunately a lot of players are seeing the erratic and hard to explain AI behaviour and , instead of going the simplest path and assuming that the AI is not working as its best, chant the "playing to win" mantra and think that the AI is following some kind of Madman strategy, Occam razor be damned :p
     
  8. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    problem is i end up going the same path every game cos of this, horsemen + spears = :hammer: time :)

    its not much fun after a while, i dont feel like playing peacefully cos the AI is psycopathic.

    somebody please help ....
     
  9. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    I find the AI frequently dogpiling me in wars, choosing to declare war on me while I'm at war with another AI. This is incredibly obnoxious and would be more so if they were competent. Yea, it's a way for them to "win". But in a multi-player game, and with decent tactical AI (which we currently lack), then the computer players could win at any time by just ganging up on you and beating you down. It's artificial in the same way that Deity games are: the AI has to be programmed to ignore how much stronger it is than you are.

    You have no choice but a military one. It's a terrible, cramped vision of how the game should be played; a game with no alliances and no peaceful borders. Mad Max is not a Utopia.
     
  10. Venereus

    Venereus This Is Streamlined!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,026
    Earlier today, the Romans asked me to help them pwn Japan. I took and razed their only city other than the Capital, and then waited for the romans to be the first wave against it. Suddenly, I realize the whole roman army is engaged and my whole army is at it's rear. Golden backstabbing opportunity. I took it, wiped the romans and then took the japanese capital. That was fun, but then I went and steamrolled the whole roman empire. Now the only reasonable thing to do is do the same thing with everyone else and win Domination. Boring.

    My point is even if diplomacy made sense, if the combat AI isn't fix into a challenge, then I will be the warmongering sociopath, it's just too easy to pass but so boring to execute.
     
  11. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Here's another story of weird AI mentality, or whatever one should call it. Wu of China became annoyed at me because I built too many Wonders that she wanted to build. So she cancelled our Open Borders agreement, our Co-operation agreement and our Mutual Defence pact. Well and good. But then Montezuma attacked her and exterminated her, only keeping Beijing and a couple of her other cities for his own use. Some 2,000 years after that, I demolished Montezuma, and when I had captured Beijing, I decided to liberate it. Was Wu grateful? No, she was still pissed off because I had built those Wonders 2,000 years ago. She refused Open Borders, Co-operation, everything. So I decided to say "Yes" to the question: "Do you want to declare war on her?" Well, she had no units, for obvious reasons, so capturing Beijing once more and killing her again wasn't exactly a chore. Her adieu to me went: "Perhaps my curses from the the other side of the grave will put a jinx on on you", or words to that effect. The grave I had pulled her out of and was now kicking her back down into. I mean, honestly. What were the game designers thinking?

    Allso, the AI civs are so predictable. Even if you've been buddies for millennia, they start to hate your guts the moment you become neighbours. They also have an interesting tendency to line up a huge army on the very edge of their side of the border and then complain that they feel threatened by the defence units you keep three or four tiles back on your side.

    Know what I'll do in the future? Exterminate them all after they have enslaved enough city states, then win diplomatic with the votes from those eternally grateful city states. Might even be fun. I agree with those who say that Civ V has great potential but is rather flawed right now. And the way no surplus hammers or beakers are carried over from finished building projects or research projects is a huge step backwards.
     
  12. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    So when are we going to commence bombing on the Brits?
     
  13. eviltypeguy

    eviltypeguy Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    234
    The city state trespassing thing is the most annoying bit of AI idiocy to me right now.

    Most of the time I play as Alexander, so that's not a problem because of his city-state friendship trait that allows him to freely move through city-state territories.

    I've come to dread playing as any other leader because of the constant annoying popups I get as my automated exploration units keep dropping into city-state territory.
     
  14. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    All the 'Play to win' stuff hides the fact a player likes making informed decisions in a game. If there are no players decisions in diplomacy, i.e the AI just decides if it likes you or not and you have to live with it, then it is worse gameplay than CIV4. As far as I can tell this is what happens; one of the AI nations decides it will like you and the others decide they won't and that's it. All your diplomatic efforts have little impact and you have to deal with the one who's chosen to deal with you.
     
  15. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    I believe us Brits have to DOW on them first, old chap. Then we are allowed to have a nice cup of tea for a year before they bomb us. There have to be some rules - playing fields of Eton and all that...
     
  16. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    If the AI Diplomacy were the only problem, i would not be here. Thats just one part. AI Diplomacy never were that great in previous CIV's. No, the worst part is the fighting. Period. If the whole idea of Fireaxis was to let the player wage war, they should have made that part much better then it is now.

    Just for "fun" i tried the horseman "steamroll", *kuch* , can hardly get it out of my mouth.. "strategy". Now we all here know that the Horsemen is way overpowered, and, boy it shows. Taking over town by town, with four Horseman "regiments" is a piece of cake. Taking out every unit he brings up to you, also. Yes even spears or pikes.

    The only "skill" you must have as a player, is to now how to position your horsemen and when to attack. Which is pretty straightforward, when you understand the mechanics. Assemble them 3 hex away from their town, fully healed. Pick of any enemy unit you encounter, heal, assemble 3x away again and when there's no unit left to charge into to, attack with, again healed , all four horsemen the enemies town. Victory ensured, mostly finished of by the third charge. Heal, and do the process again to take a other town.

    But it gets worse. While enemy troop behavior is a nightmare. He could fire with his archers to me, sitting in his town; he didn't. From the neraby town he send a horce archer, just parked it right next to his city, afcourse, a sitting duck; a horsemen took it out with one strike. Same thing would have happened with a cat, if he put it there.

    And that is in my mind showing why 1 UPT is bad. It's not so bad for the player (aldo i disklike it very much), but it's devastating for the AI. That we have trouble to defend those weaker units is one thing; we use over human brain to overcome that. No, that the AI can't cope with it is pretty obvious and that's the main reason i dislike 1 UPT so much in CIV5.

    Because besides all the AI shortcomings, he does not even have enough units to make up for his stupidity. Take those"ranged" or whatever units out with your "superiour skills" of warfare and your done; Victory is yours. That's why 1 upt is wrong; it makes it sure; that you never can defend your weakers stuff properly, besides a sturdy defence. In offence, or underway, they are just sitting ducks; ready to be finished off.

    That's why SOD is better to me; atleast the AI's arty or other weak stuff was not THAT easy to kill. Atleast, you never knew with how many forces he defended his town; so you didn't knew how many forces you needed to take it. With 50 Chivalry, yeah that should work. But you first needed to make sure to get those 50, right ?

    Anyway, a evoluted SOD system and balanced gameplay would have been so much beter then the 1UPT we have now. The only good thing about CIV5 are the hex tiles. For the rest, i could not care less. 1 UPT will never work, i think, while the AI is stupid (al always) and i honestly don't see how they are gonna fix that; they never could with previous CIV's. We and are speaking of AI for ages now and look how far we got. Right: more of the same "short cuts" . To make up for the AI's stupidity; the only answer i see is: give the AI more bonusses. How "harder" you play, how more gold the AI gets, units, faster production etc.

    That is situation now just as it was with CIV 1. Nothing have changed. Only now, they have crippled the AI even more....

    When you look at computer Chess, you get a grip of what i mean. A Chess AI cannot think, there is no intelligence. All intelligence there is put in there, is coming from people, people who have coded every possible move into the "CHESS brain" , every sidestep, and 9 steps beyond the first move (or more). All options they can think of, are all written in the code. Look how long it took to make the ComputerChess player as good as the beste chess players around . And that's only with 32 pieces, 6 different types of ""units" and a playground of only 64 tiles.

    See where i am getting at ?
     
  17. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Thing is though, the AI doesn't have to be programmed to win. It just has to be programmed to put up more of a challenge. Fixing a few small things would go a long way - for instance, making the AI keep and use ranged units in all its cities, making the AI concentrate its ranged attacks on weak units rather than strong ones, removing (or nerfing) the Horseman's ability to retreat, removing the 33% defence penalty on plains, making the AI go on the defence if it starts losing a war, and making the AI analyse one move ahead when attacking (i.e. if I move into this tile and lose a few HP's, will I die next turn?).

    I agree that there's probably some limit on how intelligent the AI can be made with limited time and resources, but hopefully some tweaks can make it at least slightly challenging. I certainly wouldn't be averse to increasing the unit limit per tile though, so that for instance you can have 1 ranged and 1 melee unit per tile. That would at least allow limited protection of ranged units, which might fix some of the AI idiocy to a certain extent.
     
  18. 501st Legion

    501st Legion Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Here's an instance of AI stupidity in my game:

    I was playing as Russia. My neighbors were Persia and Rome, who were at war between themselves. For some reason, the Persians managed to gain the upper hand. Rome was slowly being eaten by the "Red Menace." When the Romans were down to one city, I enter into diplomacy to save them. I make an offer to Augustus to declare war on Darius. Since I have riflemen, cossacks, and cannons while they were still in the medieval era, I was expecting that they'll be more than happy to agree. Guess what? He refuses military aid! WTF. A few turns later they were conquered... all because of reasons I can't comprehend (refusing help from a far more technologically advanced civ).
     
  19. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Exactly. 1 UPT will never make it challenging for warmongers (with skill, afcource). That's what i try to explain to people in favor of 1 UPT. Maybe it "works" from them, but that has more to do with conviniance (i gues) then anything else.
     
  20. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Mate, now you're entering the issue of AI trade table. Where regardless of the resources the AI have they'll always trade for them (even when they're angry as hell at you and say no just try to take 5:gold:/turn from them, click "propose" and they'll go for that), and don't even get me started on war/city issue! In one of my games I sold two freshly conquered cities to some faraway AI for 50:gold:/turn and 600:gold: each. And they were 6-tiles grassland cities at size 2, in rebellion. Exploit much? Naw, it's yet another "strategy"... :rolleyes:

    So whatever bananas are happening on the trade table I'm not surprised anymore. "Would you like to enter Cooperation Pact?" you ask, "No, it's not to our liking". Turn later they go "would you like to sign Cooperation Pact?" :crazyeye:
    It's all complete and utter mess, even the simple stuff like when I click on resources (and btw I don't see reason for separate tabs with strategic and luxury resources, most likely it's to cater to newbies who could be surprised that iron does not give +5:) while gems do :rolleyes:) I have to click on mine, on his, then if I want to withdraw something I have to click again, and again and ohmygoodness how useless it is. And it's a simple thing, with big shining example of Civ4 in the background. I mean wtf?
     

Share This Page