Paranoïa

[Naokaukodem]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Let's reformulate: because the AI doesn't play to win, is that it does not declare war during the X first turns. (pointed in the code or not) It simply does not attack. Because of this dullness, the AI is coded to build a lot of defensive troops early, to prevent the player to win too easily, not to prevent other AIs to conquer them too easily. (because anyway they do not declare war early) That, is a human centered behavior. In the same logic, AIs get "prices" on upgrades, or go for the techs that allow better defenders, in order to brake the player's conquests. (however, I believe that the better troops are attacking ones, even for (optimum) defense purpose)

The general problem is that the AI in civ4, just does not have plan, period. It plays on basis of a turn by turn heuristic. (With some small exceptions, for so general overall modes it can enter.)

This is why IMO a lot of aspects of the AIs are human centered.

This is supposed to be fixed in civ5, with long term strategy layers for the AI.

And this is a good thing.

This is actually true. (You will never see two AI players have a "You refused to help!" penalty against each other.) This however is the result of an information mismatch. Since all the AIs respond deterministically to diplomatic request, an AI player always knows how another AI will respond to a request, and will never place a request that will be denied by the other AI.

But they act as if they know by advance the answer. In fact, they know the answer. They don't act as if they were refering to a matrix, knowing or ignoring things independantly of the program. They could as well demand for something they "wouldn't know" and be refused, thus the diplomatic penalties. In the present case, it hinders AIs to hate each other, which is an unfair disadvantage for the human player.

very silly (and annoying) requests.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The game from your example sounds like it had a religious lovefest going on. (With all player having the same religion.)

No. AIs had different religions overall.

There must have been some other factor (or combination of factors) that lead the AI to decide that you were the most attractive war target. For example, how were your relationships with the AI players?

Probably neutral as no one asked any demand, for a change.

 

[tom2050]

There really is no argument though, to the fact that AI has never been programmed in Civ series to 'win'. Or in almost any game for that matter. Civ 5 may be different, but I believe the improved AI will be a way of making the AI react more intelligently; but I don't think it will be playing uber-aggressively to win (with all else even on the playing field).

It really comes down to the fact that AI is tough to develop, and in order to make such a thing would require many years and millions of dollars to develop.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, I really have to treat these claims with a major pinch of salt. One of the special abilities of scouts (human or AI) is that they *never* pop barbarians. So these stories about AI scouts avoiding huts containing barbs simply don't ring true. What might be more likely is that you've popped a hut using a warrior-which explains why you got barbs.
For the record, though, I've seen plenty of AI warriors popping huts & unleashing barbs upon themselves. The Schaudenfreud (sp?) involved there is awesome !

 

[Naokaukodem]

There really is no argument though, to the fact that AI has never been programmed in Civ series to 'win'.

There are and it's even a common admitted thing. (see all the topics about it)

AI civs vote for the U.N. That also, is a human centered behavior because it is made for make the player lose or have a challenge of some sort (i guess). True civs that have to win would never vote for anyone. Beside, diplomatic victory can't exist in multiplayer.

AI civs have diplomatic bonuses. It is a proof they are not programmed to win, because otherwise they would have only "strategic" mood bonuses. What does that do if another civ is not the same religion, strategically speaking? Absolutely nothing. Etc... Therefore, the AI is aimed towards the player, because AI diplomatic bonuses are there only to give him a challenge or on contrary a chance, a flavor or whatnot. It will then soon or later transform into a paranoïd fest. In this case: the other AIs don't suffer from insane demands and subsequential rep hits.

 

[Shiggs713]

The AI will usually gang up on me at some point, anywhere from half to all of them will DoW me simultaneously if I'm winning late game, on emperor or immortal difficulty. So yes that brings some paranoia, especially if Genghis brings his doomstack. I really never try to make friends with the AI's though, usually only conquering or creating vassals.

I have noticed if I put my scouts on auto-explore they find goody huts more frequently than I do, but its nonsense about the barbarian popping and AI scouts avoiding huts, I've viewed the code.

 

[frenzyfol]

AI really played to win then you would get invaded by a huge army each and every time you were close to culture, or no AI would ever vote for you in the UN. Seems not that fun to me.

Ive always liked the idea of an allied victory. And AI that could realize that by teaming up with you or someone else they could win. Then you wouldn't "always" get invaded by the AI, or not voted for.