Just another example of AI idiocy

[Tylerryan79]

I've had some good luck with the AI lately. Like Vsoma said, next time sell her some of the cities(if she can afford to buy them) if not all. I've had games where I destroyed a barb camp another civ was working on, or taken a ruins another civs scout was next to, and the AI seemed to get mad. If you try to think"how would I feel about this", to a degree, it really helps with diplomacy. Or atleast with why the AI is getting Mae. Granted this doesn't help 100% of the time, and maybe 50% of the time I'm just imagining things that just seem to fit. All in all though, my games have been better when asking "how would I feel". I know I get mad when another civ takes a ruin, or a camp, that I'm right next to.

This can only get you so far though, and more work needs to be done of course. The worst thing is when a civ wipes out another, and every other time you talk to them they ask, "What are we going to do about so and so" when "so and so" was destroyed 100 turns ago!

 

[Lord Parkin]

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/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/turn and 600 each. And they were 6-tiles grassland cities at size 2, in rebellion. Exploit much? Naw, it's yet another "strategy"...

Wow, that's definitely a big issue.

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?"

Yeah. For that matter, I don't think I've ever managed to get an AI to agree to a pact by asking them. I have to wait for them to come to me. Anyone else experienced this? It seems backwards... the power should be in the hands of the human, not the random AI.

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 ) 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 WTH?

Tell me about it. I'm so sick of multiple clicks back and forth to get what I want on the trade screen (and then the occasional bug that will cause me to give the wrong amount). Not to mention the hideously laid-out city build queue, where it takes a whole lot of clicks to get what you want. And all the while, Civ4 managed to get it right pretty much from the start with easy hotkeys and smart layouts. I just don't get it.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I've had some good luck with the AI lately. Like Vsoma said, next time sell her some of the cities(if she can afford to buy them) if not all. I've had games where I destroyed a barb camp another civ was working on, or taken a ruins another civs scout was next to, and the AI seemed to get mad. If you try to think"how would I feel about this", to a degree, it really helps with diplomacy. Or atleast with why the AI is getting Mae. Granted this doesn't help 100% of the time, and maybe 50% of the time I'm just imagining things that just seem to fit. All in all though, my games have been better when asking "how would I feel". I know I get mad when another civ takes a ruin, or a camp, that I'm right next to.

Really? The problem is exactly the opposite, at least on the higher levels. You try to think "how would I feel about this if it were me", and your brain can't understand because there is literally no logic or rationale whatsoever in many cases. The AI settles a city right next to you and starts getting angry that you have close borders. (That's your fault, dude.) The AI scouts your territory and gets annoyed when it sees your military. (Not at all threatening to you, so why are you getting upset?) The AI asks for your help in a war, then when you accept it starts getting angry at your "bloodlust". (It was your idea, moron.) You finish a cooperative war together with the AI and it immediately gets angry that you are a "warmonger", then turns hostile on you shortly after. (Aren't you supposed to be a little more appreciative of my help?) You liberate a civ which had previously been eliminated from the game, and they hate your guts for it. (I just brought you back from the dead, and you're not the slightest bit grateful? Why did I bother?)

So yeah, a lot of things need a lot of work in the AI diplomacy.

 

[SuperJay]

For the purpose of diplomacy, the AI behaves like an autistic sociopath.

About sums it up, sadly.

The AI asks for your help in a war, then when you accept it starts getting angry at your "bloodlust". (It was your idea, moron.) You finish a cooperative war together with the AI and it immediately gets angry that you are a "warmonger", then turns hostile on you shortly after. (Aren't you supposed to be a little more appreciative of my help?) You liberate a civ which had previously been eliminated from the game, and they hate your guts for it. (I just brought you back from the dead, and you're not the slightest bit grateful?)

See, I could handle the AI doing things that didn't make sense on an emotional level, like refusing to be grateful for helping them. That would be mildly odd but could be filed under "personality quirks" or somesuch. But the problem for me is the lack of any real logic or realistic sense of consequences in the lunacy of their barking mad declarations. They routinely make decisions that violate their own self-interest, like being ridiculously aggressive when their military is outnumbered 3-to-1 by the player's AND they have a significant tech deficiency in comparison.

In your above example, if Liz had had a much larger civ and military than you did, it might have been viable for her to turn around and declare war on you immediately after you finished off the other civ. Treacherous and deceiving, yes (and those things happen in int'l relations!) but not completely illogical. In fact, it might have been a cunning and effective way to lure you into taking military losses so she could attack you while your army was weak.

Go ahead and behave irrationally, but at least have some sensible purpose toward self-interest behind it.

 

[r_rolo1]

See, I could handle the AI doing things that didn't make sense on an emotional level, like refusing to be grateful for helping them. That would be mildly odd but could be filed under "personality quirks" or somesuch. But the problem for me is the lack of any real logic or realistic sense of consequences in the lunacy of their barking mad declarations. They routinely make decisions that violate their own self-interest, like being ridiculously aggressive when their military is outnumbered 3-to-1 by the player's AND they have a significant tech deficiency in comparison.

In your above example, if Liz had had a much larger civ and military than you did, it might have been viable for her to turn around and declare war on you immediately after you finished off the other civ. Treacherous and deceiving, yes (and those things happen in int'l relations!) but not completely illogical. In fact, it might have been a cunning and effective way to lure you into taking military losses so she could attack you while your army was weak.

Go ahead and behave irrationally, but at least have some sensible purpose toward self-interest behind it.

Yup, signed over. It is pretty much what I've been saying: the suposed "play to win" philosophy that Firaxis putted behind Civ V AI ( aka , like other poster putted, being a dumb Eric Cartman ( which is funny, since Cartman actually appears in one strategy game from Firaxis screaming "Get off of my planet !!!" to other South park caracther ... very fitting to this discussion IMHO ) ) is probably making that more AI civs lose the game than the sheepish and dull civ IV AI

Firaxis, take notes: if you want to design a playing to win AI , please start by making the AI care more for their survival and their long term plans than with who settled/grabbed cities near or who has been warring ( up to a degree OFC ). You can't win if you are dead and you can't win if you don't have a plan to win....