Poll:Is the AI capable of defending itself properly/Should Defensive Pacts be more common?

[ashendashin]

In the interest of the State of the Union thread started by Gazebo, I've decided to see how the AIs defensive capabilities are viewed by everyone.

My argument is that the AI is still incapable of properly defending itself against a capable force under the player and has too much trouble attacking the top civs. There are many options beyond further improvements to its tactics. Above all, defensive pacts have been the largest deterrent for me to attack, due to a substantial increase in capability on the AI side. Military sizes are usually higher and their offensives are much better than their defense, mostly due to a lack of fortification. An increase in coalitions could also help to bring down the top civs.

My thoughts are to increase willingness to broker Pacts and possibly make them available earlier in the tech tree. GGs seem a bit too unwilling to steal my land as well.

I'm sure there are many alternatives to a simple increase in alliances, and my experience certainly doesn't count for much, so please debate any other points you may have on this thread.

 

[Enginseer]

They already make a lot of defensive pacts when they share a common enemy or harbor a neighbor threat to their own victories.

The AI does fine against the human player. It's only because the AI can't be expected to anticipate every human attack. Just as humans can no longer anticipate the AI attacks now (Wow a secret naval attack on the eastern front of my civilization when I'm dedicating all my troops to the western front!)

 

[ashendashin]

They already make a lot of defensive pacts when they share a common enemy or harbor a neighbor threat to their own victories.

The AI does fine against the human player. It's only because the AI can't be expected to anticipate every human attack. Just as humans can no longer anticipate the AI attacks now (Wow a secret naval attack on the eastern front of my civilization when I'm dedicating all my troops to the western front!)

The idea is that there isn't enough incentive to bring down runaways and to make Pacts even when there isn't an obvious threat nearby. For example, friendly neighbors that haven't had any conflicts of interest making a Pact to deter future attackers or just to make their offensives more likely to succeed.

 

[void_genesis]

I would agree that civs that are falling behind in overall score or military capability should be more open to defensive pacts, especially when nearby to larger civs. It shouldn't require pre-existing aggression from the run away. Is it possible for the ai to recognise when it has no hope of victory and band together with other civs later in the game? It would be interesting to see two or three goners throw in the towel and become completely absorbed by a mid range civ to create some late game competition. Basically if you or another AI have had generally pleasant and peaceful relationships with each other they can unite with no puppeting or happiness penalties starting from industrial or modern era. It would be even more interesting for this offer to come up for the human player in the late game and act as an alternative strategy to constant expansion or aggression and make early/mid game turtling a more viable strategy.

 

[ElliotS]

The AI should be more willing to join together and attack more powerful civs, and more willing to make defensive packs. Anyone civ planning on not going to war should logically make defensive pacts with everyone they can that doesn't border them, and anyone that borders them but they're on good terms with. Defensive pacts are kinda a no-lose propesition, because the only downside is if the enemy can take multiple civs down at once you're getting pulled into the grinder. (But in that case you're probably screwed regardless, and they might not have gotten so big without defensive pacts.)

I've never once seen the AI offer or accept defensive pacts, even when it would be highly advantageous of them. I assume this is because I play on immortal or deity and therefore even when warmongering I'm unlikely to have the largest military until I've eaten 2 or 3 civs, so I look too weak to partner with, but this mechanic should probably be touched up a bit:

Can the player's military strength be multiplied based on higher difficulties?

Like, on Diety the AI can make TONS of extra units. That means that you're almost certainly going to be among the lowest solders in the world well into medieval even if you're running a successful domination strat.

This means that not only does the AI constantly underestimate you both as a partner and an enemy, but bullying city states is effectively impossible outside of corner cases.

I think it would make sense to make the player's military strength be counted as ~1.5 what you really have on deity and 1.25 on immortal for most/all non-combat related functions. (Because if you're playing on deity your units are undoubtedly going to be utilized at LEAST 1.5x at well as the AI's, so they should be able to plan around that.)

That would also be important for any solution to the AI's willingness to partner or coalition against the player, because if it's working at lower difficulties it really isn't at 7 or especially 8.

 

[tu_79]

Diplomacy is quite limited, and this may be a fault of vanilla. Perhaps too difficult to do it properly in a mod. For me, coalitions are not only defense pacts between two civs. Or the opportunistic civ that takes its chance when others are fighting. It's some nations rallying together for a common target. World Congress forces the will of the majority over the rest, but I'm talking about agreements in 'petit comité'.

In the Trading view, where I can trade for Declaring war to a civ, there could be a 'Join coalition against ...' option. Civs are willing to join a coalition if 1) the target is a big threat 2) the civ that proposes is not a bigger threat and 3) the target is a rival (competes for the same things). You can leave a coalition after 10 turns if you like (when conditions are no longer met), except when rallied to war. All civ in a coalition has an automatic defense pact against the target. Any civ in a coalition can declare war against the target once the combined military might is greater than the target and its supporters (vassals, defense pacts, CS allies).

This can work against civs that take the lead but aren't really aggressive (right now, AI don't work together against a runaway civ if it's not threatening with domination).

 

[mikes61293]

I think it would make sense to make the player's military strength be counted as ~1.5 what you really have on deity and 1.25 on immortal for most/all non-combat related functions. (Because if you're playing on deity your units are undoubtedly going to be utilized at LEAST 1.5x at well as the AI's, so they should be able to plan around that.)

I fully support this idea.

 

[ashendashin]

Diplomacy is quite limited, and this may be a fault of vanilla. Perhaps too difficult to do it properly in a mod. For me, coalitions are not only defense pacts between two civs. Or the opportunistic civ that takes its chance when others are fighting. It's some nations rallying together for a common target. World Congress forces the will of the majority over the rest, but I'm talking about agreements in 'petit comité'.

In the Trading view, where I can trade for Declaring war to a civ, there could be a 'Join coalition against ...' option. Civs are willing to join a coalition if 1) the target is a big threat 2) the civ that proposes is not a bigger threat and 3) the target is a rival (competes for the same things). You can leave a coalition after 10 turns if you like (when conditions are no longer met), except when rallied to war. All civ in a coalition has an automatic defense pact against the target. Any civ in a coalition can declare war against the target once the combined military might is greater than the target and its supporters (vassals, defense pacts, CS allies).

This can work against civs that take the lead but aren't really aggressive (right now, AI don't work together against a runaway civ if it's not threatening with domination).

Adding more diplomatic options could help to alleviate this, but seeing as how VP is for the most part finished and there's that one world congress events mod(I think it also dealt with the local area?) that may still be in progress, I decided to focus on what could work with how the game currently is.

 

[CrazyG]

I think it would make sense to make the player's military strength be counted as ~1.5 what you really have on deity and 1.25 on immortal for most/all non-combat related functions. (Because if you're playing on deity your units are undoubtedly going to be utilized at LEAST 1.5x at well as the AI's, so they should be able to plan around that.)

This. I've had the situation where I just took another capital, yet still cannot pledge to protect a city state?

For defensive pacts, I have a lot of situations where I think it would make sense to pact with me but they won't, I'd like to see that remedied. For defensive pacts against the really big threat, IDK. Like I can see why we should team up against the Huns, but by not signing that I potentially avoid a war with the huns (and I can likely slack on military production while that war is ongoing), so its not terrible logic.

 

[ElliotS]

This. I've had the situation where I just took another capital, yet still cannot pledge to protect a city state?

For defensive pacts, I have a lot of situations where I think it would make sense to pact with me but they won't, I'd like to see that remedied. For defensive pacts against the really big threat, IDK. Like I can see why we should team up against the Huns, but by not signing that I potentially avoid a war with the huns (and I can likely slack on military production while that war is ongoing), so its not terrible logic.

Yeah, but are you really going to have an easier time against the Huns AFTER they've eaten the person you chose not to defensive pact with?

If they're that puny just eat them yourself and take the land away from the Huns.

I'm not saying the AI should defensive pact with even the shittiest, smallest civs. But the AI should want at least 1 defensive pact with non-competetors, and more if there are real threats.

 

[Txurce]

The AI should be more willing to join together and attack more powerful civs, and more willing to make defensive packs. Anyone civ planning on not going to war should logically make defensive pacts with everyone they can that doesn't border them, and anyone that borders them but they're on good terms with. Defensive pacts are kinda a no-lose propesition, because the only downside is if the enemy can take multiple civs down at once you're getting pulled into the grinder. (But in that case you're probably screwed regardless, and they might not have gotten so big without defensive pacts.)

I've never once seen the AI offer or accept defensive pacts, even when it would be highly advantageous of them. I assume this is because I play on immortal or deity and therefore even when warmongering I'm unlikely to have the largest military until I've eaten 2 or 3 civs, so I look too weak to partner with, but this mechanic should probably be touched up a bit:

Can the player's military strength be multiplied based on higher difficulties?

Like, on Diety the AI can make TONS of extra units. That means that you're almost certainly going to be among the lowest solders in the world well into medieval even if you're running a successful domination strat.

This means that not only does the AI constantly underestimate you both as a partner and an enemy, but bullying city states is effectively impossible outside of corner cases.

I think it would make sense to make the player's military strength be counted as ~1.5 what you really have on deity and 1.25 on immortal for most/all non-combat related functions. (Because if you're playing on deity your units are undoubtedly going to be utilized at LEAST 1.5x at well as the AI's, so they should be able to plan around that.)

That would also be important for any solution to the AI's willingness to partner or coalition against the player, because if it's working at lower difficulties it really isn't at 7 or especially 8.

I disagree with everything you wrote here, Elliot.

By coincidence, I just finished a game where my 8th-ranked military was quickly invited to make DPs with India and then Austria (two other low-rankers). Were they about to get invaded? No... I was, by a borderline-runaway Ethiopia. The alliance worked out great for me.

That aside, I agree that the AI doesn't offer a lot of DP's to the human on higher difficulties. I could parrot frequent advice given here and say if you want to bully CS and join more DPs, drop down a couple of levels. Instead, I'll say that although I play on Immortal, I do not think the game should be handicapped in any way for it. That leads to a can of worms.

 

[tu_79]

I disagree with everything you wrote here, Elliot.

By coincidence, I just finished a game where my 8th-ranked military was quickly invited to make DPs with India and then Austria (two other low-rankers). Were they about to get invaded? No... I was, by a borderline-runaway Ethiopia. The alliance worked out great for me.

That aside, I agree that the AI doesn't offer a lot of DP's to the human on higher difficulties. I could parrot frequent advice given here and say if you want to bully CS and join more DPs, drop down a couple of levels. Instead, I'll say that although I play on Immortal, I do not think the game should be handicapped in any way for it. That leads to a can of worms.

Yep, against a military treath there is some understanding among the weaks, but not against cultural or scientific runaways.

 

[Txurce]

Yep, against a military treath there is some understanding among the weaks, but not against cultural or scientific runaways.

Is the WC presently the only counter vs cultural and scientific runaways? If so, adding or strengthening the WC counters would seem to be more appropriate.

 

[ElliotS]

I disagree with everything you wrote here, Elliot.

By coincidence, I just finished a game where my 8th-ranked military was quickly invited to make DPs with India and then Austria (two other low-rankers). Were they about to get invaded? No... I was, by a borderline-runaway Ethiopia. The alliance worked out great for me.

That aside, I agree that the AI doesn't offer a lot of DP's to the human on higher difficulties. I could parrot frequent advice given here and say if you want to bully CS and join more DPs, drop down a couple of levels. Instead, I'll say that although I play on Immortal, I do not think the game should be handicapped in any way for it. That leads to a can of worms.

I can't speak for everyone, only myself based on my observations. I've never once seen an AI offer or accept a defensive pact except when I've eaten multiple civs and am steamrolling my way to victory, and even then the only times I've seen it are offered TO me. I've played as 1st in military, I've played in last. I've only played once on every difficulty below immortal though. (for the achievements or to get the hang of this mod.)

On immortal I don't find the military power to be that off, as I can generally keep up with the AI's military numbers, but on Deity it's basically impossible to have more units than the AI. Wars that you win tend to be mostly spent grinding units into paste and minimizing losses, and if you're not last in military score it's because you've got vassals.

I've also lost track of the number of suicidal wars the AI has launched against me because they thought I was weak, and then got creamed because my units count for much more than their raw numbers.

The point of making your units seem bigger isn't some sort of 'handicap' as you imply. It's suggested as a way to make the AI play better. It's not a question of if your units are better than the AI's on immortal and deity. It's a fact that you'll fight better than them. So having the AI think you're weak and launch a suicidal war, or not approach with a defensive pact, because your numbers are too low in the eyes of the AI is a real problem.

 

[Txurce]

The point of making your units seem bigger isn't some sort of 'handicap' as you imply. It's suggested as a way to make the AI play better. It's not a question of if your units are better than the AI's on immortal and deity. It's a fact that you'll fight better than them. So having the AI think you're weak and launch a suicidal war, or not approach with a defensive pact, because your numbers are too low in the eyes of the AI is a real problem.

That's a problem for the AI on any level. For example:

I can hold off the AI militarily with a bare-bones military on Emperor, and go on to win some sort of victory. The AI attacks me fruitlessly because it thinks I'm weak. I'm sure the same miscalculation can be made all the way down the line to Prince. So should we encourage more human/AI DPs for all levels? I think that would just make the game easier for the human.

 

[ashendashin]

That's a problem for the AI on any level. For example:

I can hold off the AI militarily with a bare-bones military on Emperor, and go on to win some sort of victory. The AI attacks me fruitlessly because it thinks I'm weak. I'm sure the same miscalculation can be made all the way down the line to Prince. So should we encourage more human/AI DPs for all levels? I think that would just make the game easier for the human.

I was thinking of the human remaining a competitor at all levels. Having an easier time? Increase the difficulty. The AI already refuses to be friendly with threats, so increased DPs would mostly apply to those lower in the scoreboard, so players that are lagging behind would be able to bring down runaways, which have been a subject of complaint.

For players that remain competitive, this would only make things more difficult(that's the idea, anyways). I play with 22 civs and most of them become irrelevant and up for grabs as the game goes on, due to failed wars and runaways grabbing up everything important. An increase in DPs would hopefully improve the balance of powers, thus making it more difficult for a runaway of any sort to exploit everything.

Edit:
There seems to be a very low vote turnout. Could the options do with adjustments?

 

[ElliotS]

That's a problem for the AI on any level. For example:

I can hold off the AI militarily with a bare-bones military on Emperor, and go on to win some sort of victory. The AI attacks me fruitlessly because it thinks I'm weak. I'm sure the same miscalculation can be made all the way down the line to Prince. So should we encourage more human/AI DPs for all levels? I think that would just make the game easier for the human.

The assumption is that if you're playing on a lower difficulty it's for one of two reasons. 1- You make inefficient choices and mistakes consistently due to lack of skill, lack of experience or lack of effort and therefore would lose at a higher difficulty. or 2- You like to easily beat the AI.

We obviously shouldn't balance around #2, so the question is about #1. If someone plays poorly enough that prince is the hardest AI they can compete with, are we sure that their units are more valuable?

Additionally on lower difficulties you can easily keep up with the AI making units, because the way difficulties work means the AI should keep pace.

It's only on Deity (and to a tiny extent Immortal) that the player needs to be exploitative to win. You can't go for a peaceful science victory on Deity. You can't really do a peaceful ANYTHING on deity. The AI gets such massive bonuses that you need to screw with them to win.

This leads to the problem. The play CAN screw with the AI on deity, because their units fight so much better than the AI's due to lots of experience and practice. That's not reflected in their military scores at all.

There's no way a brand new player could compete on Deity. The only people who play it have practiced for a decent amount of time on this an similar games. That should be reflected in military scores, because it's relevant for the AI's decision making.

Unless you actually think the that the average player who plays on prince has the same military expertise as someone who plays deity. (Not talking about building units or anything, just pure skill in using them.) That's obviously not true.

 

[ElliotS]

Edit:
There seems to be a very low vote turnout. Could the options do with adjustments?

No offense, but the options are kinda crap. No one takes "explain below" choices, and "Up all defenses! Bring Pacts earlier and steal all of the land!" just sounds stupid. You've basically only given two choices, which also could have been worded better.

I voted for what it's worth, but I'll bet money that's why other people didn't.

 

[ashendashin]

No offense, but the options are kinda crap. No one takes "explain below" choices, and "Up all defenses! Bring Pacts earlier and steal all of the land!" just sounds stupid. You've basically only given two choices, which also could have been worded better.

I voted for what it's worth, but I'll bet money that's why other people didn't.

Thanks! I was worried about that, so I'll change things up. Feel free to make suggestions.

EDIT:
Can't actually change the current options...Should I just expand it?

 

[ashendashin]

Hmm. I think I have a better idea. I could simply change the title to something along the lines of "AI Warring, Runaways, and Defensive Pacts: Discuss" and make a separate poll based on the suggestions here.

Edit:
Perhaps even better, go back to the roots of the State of the Union thread and place this as a difficult to answer balancing question. This will remain a discussion on potential balancing, and the new poll will focus on the the largest problems noticed by players on runaways, weak civs, and exploitation by the player.