Point of view of AI players

[swmaniac]

Something to think about. In Civ V, are the AI, as characters, supposed to be players or characters? For the purposes of the game's universe, do the AI characters act like they're playing a game or running an actual empire. In case I've massively failed to make the difference clear, think of the AI's response to you razing a city.

If the AI, as characters are players, they think you've destroyed a city and that's that.
If the AI, as characters are supposed to be "leaders," they think you've slaughtered a city of innocent people, burned their homes to the ground and generally committed crimes against humanity.

In an actual game, the difference would be that if the AI are players, they make their diplomatic stance depending on how your actions effect their ability to win the game. If the AI are characters, they make their diplomatic stance depending on the "morality" of your actions as well as how your actions effect their empire.

The difference in how diplomacy would work in between these systems would be huge, for semi-obvious reasons.

 

[Scios]

Shoot. If the leader of Arabia was a player I pwned him. If he was a character I lead a campaign of suffering and death against his people, refusing his cries for mercy and leaving burning cities and clouds of fallout in my wake, while turning the world against him. This brings up an interesting point, especially with nukes and city razing. Are those genocide/mass murder? One characteristic of being a player is the willingness to sell cities. Could you see any modern leader selling their cities?

 

[swmaniac]

One characteristic f being a player is the willingness to sell cities. Could you see any modern leader selling their cities?

Not sure what you consider modern, but there have been historical cases of countries selling territory; as I remember the AI aren't very willing to sell cities.

 

[Scios]

I got a city for wine and 200 gold. This wasn't even a peace settlement. My advisors were unhappy about me getting rid of the wine though. The military advisor actually had to think. Before he was telling me I needed to build an army even though I had 172 modern/ future units. XD

 

[dexters]

Civ is ultimately about numbers. A city dropping from Size 20 to Size 8 is literally hundreds of thousands just going poof, but for obvious reasons, it's difficult to code morality into the AI, and even if you could do it, you'd have to incentivize players to care. As even most players who don't set out to kill people treat changes in pop sizes of cities they conquer very casually.

They only ever care if one of their high production cities is starving or something.

 

[Morningcalm]

They seem more like players, which to me is upsetting. If I wanted inconsistent mass murdering AI then I'd pick Montezuma, but he's actually more consistent in this game than the majority of the other AI (which I find truly scary).

Once, Gandhi declared war on me four times over a few decades on King difficulty. I was pretty bemused.

 

[Samuil]

well, first of all, you do not even get a notification if you are nuked, if you lost units or citizens in a nuclear attack, or if someone else is being nuked, so I do not think morality was even thought of while programming, and is not embedded in the AI

Personally, I think moral would add a lot of flavor to the game, and I would like to see the AI act as leaders condemning the use of nuclear attacks, or the razing of cities...

Regarding the question in the topic, - they act as players

 

[Scios]

There should be diplomatic hits if the nuking/razing was done by a civ/player who delclared war for no reason. However, if two civs/players are nuking it out and razing each others cities all the other civs should do is try to negotiate a peace.

 

[KungCheops]

I play civ because I like the idea of creating history and building an actual nation. If I wanted to play against people I would play against people.

The AI is definitely programmed to act like a human trying to win a board game.

 

[mlund]

There should definitely be a toggle that switches A.I. emphasis from "player" to "character" in terms of its outlook / weight. "Character" weighting could be more random, but likely less competitive since it is deprived knowledge of how to win the game ...

- Marty Lund

 

[roguepro92]

lol i have never seen a Civ give me for peace or sell me their city...
in the real world, maybe parting with territory or valuable resource but i doubt any "modern" leader would ask for a city to stop a war...

 

[gdr10]

Hi, long time lurker, first post.
I've played a few games, and I've seen the AI act as a mixture of both. They've actively tried to stop me from winning the game, but the only time they've sold me cities is in a peace treaty.

 

[Scios]

Hi, long time lurker, first post.
I've played a few games, and I've seen the AI act as a mixture of both. They've actively tried to stop me from winning the game, but the only time they've sold me cities is in a peace treaty.

Lol. I guess I am just a scary person. I got a city just for demanding one.

 

[dexters]

Lol. I guess I am just a scary person. I got a city just for demanding one.

Game settings?

 

[gdr10]

Lol. I guess I am just a scary person. I got a city just for demanding one.

Course, it should be noted I haven't demanded a city yet.

 

[Psyringe]

The Civ5 AI was definitely designed as a player rather than a character. Actually that was a key point in the advertising of the AI.

A good example is the AI's response to being treated friendly. Let's say you gift an AI player resources or even a city. If the AI plays as a character, then it should remember that and treat you friendly too (mostly, of course characterization leaves room for ungrateful or backstabbing characters as well ). Later on, when this AI has an opportunity to backstab you, it should be much more reluctant to do so if you have been friends for a long time.

If an AI is coded to act like a player, then all the above is moot. A player knows that everyone in the game is just trying to win. If you gift it resources, don't expect anything in return. If it suits its interests, the AI will backstab you without a second thought, if it increases the AI's chances to emerge as the winner of the game.

Both approaches have their advantages. An AI that is coded as a player can be a much more challenging opponent, while an AI that is coded as a character can be much more immersive in terms of creating a believable alternate world history. Civ5 obviously concentrated on the first approach (much to the dismay of players like me who prefer the second one), but its AI is so weak that it can't even capitalize on the advantages that this approach offers. So in the end, it unfortunately ends up with the worst of both worlds - a non-challenging, non-immersive AI.

 

[Scios]

Game settings?

Huge, small continents, Immortal. I was in the modern era, the biggest civ, I had whooped the civ In question In 2 wars, and the city was a single tile island far away from him. Under the diplomacy overview it said he was afraid.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Huge, small continents, Immortal. I was in the modern era, the biggest civ, I had whooped the civ In question In 2 wars, and the city was a single tile island far away from him. Under the diplomacy overview it said he was afraid.

I've had another civ be afraid me only once. Other than that, after the March patch they have been idiotically steadfast and brave, which somehow makes the game interesting in its own way.

 

[Lyoncet]

I'm firmly of the opinion that a game is much more fun when your opponents actively try to win. I know most everybody would agree with that (right?) but I also believe that that should include trying not to lose, which is where things get pricklier between forum-goers.

When you get down to it, the argument almost always boils down to personal preference, which Psyringe summarized nicely in terms of immersion vs. challenge. Since CiV is a strategy game and I don't feel like I should be the only one doing the strategizing. To me, it makes the game a lot more fun, since I don't feel like I will necessarily be permitted to waltz into victory without someone getting in my way. Also, I don't see that as diminishing immersion. If Alexander's trying to get elected Supreme Leader of Everything, and he sees that I'm also trying to be elected Supreme Leader of Everything, I would expect him to get pissed. If Bismarck is trying to bring the whole world under his sway, and he sees that I control the half of the world that he doesn't, why shouldn't he bring all his blood and iron to bear?

Where this loses some of its immersiveness is when Ramkhamhaeng tries to murder you and subjugate your people because he wants to build a spaceship before you build a spaceship. However, this isn't a huge problem for me, since in my experience I've never been DoWed solely because I'm pursuing a similar victory condition. (The closest I ever came was when I got victory competitiveness with the other two civs on my continent and ReXed like a fiend since I was Isabella and first to Great Barrier Reef and two other natural wonders; the other two did declarations of friendship and both denounced me as a response to the number of cities and victory competitiveness, which then led to a war. [I blew them away. ]) I know that different leaders have different victory competitiveness values, and that they are slightly randomized, and I know that my experience may be different from others', but that's what I've seen. And frankly, if Ramkhamhaeng sees me building his spaceship, and he thinks I'm a warmongering menace to the world, and I culture bombed his only aluminum, it makes a lot more sense that he'd take up arms against me.

The one time that this really breaks down is when every civ assumes you're pursuing culture for the first 100 turns because you popped a culture hut or because you have a monument in your only city. That really has to be fixed; something like waiting until you have at least 5 policies or something before deciding that would be fine in my opinion. I'm torn on how I feel about Alex getting ants in his pants about all your your City-State allies 3000 years before anyone will build UN.

 

[Scios]

Maybe only allowing worries about going for the same victory once you reach the Renaissance?