Possible solutions for AI Mafia-like behavior

[Kerosene31]

Something needs to be done for sure. I've defended the game in this regard but the latest patch is just worse at least for me. I used to be able to play for 2000 years or so in peace but now you are going to be at war no matter what.

I've guessed all along that the logic the AI uses is the same as we see in the military adviser screen. If they see that your army is smaller, they will almost always eventually attack. If this is the case they need to tone it way down. Just because they have a few extra units early on doesn't mean they have much advantage.

 

[RedRover57]

I understand the potential issue with continent-type maps regarding DoW limitations based on distance, but there needs to be some sort of additional modifiers implemented to the current state. For example, the propensity for an AI to DoW a player from across the map should be reduced based on whether or not there is another hostile civ in between. Also, the AI civ should take into account that it will need to keep a certain percentage of its troops at home for defense before it DoWs another civ across the map. So it shouldn't use all of its troops in the calculation of relative strength.

 

[Sonereal]

1. No DoW allowed unless the civs borders are within X tiles of each other (distance X to be determined).

Better yet, make it so that each war goal the AI will decide on has a limit. Minor damage would be far more limited than total conquest for instance. Otherwise, Archipelago maps are even easier.

2. Statute of limitations placed on DoW. Mandatory straight peace treaty if no troop interaction has occurred in 10 turns. This would work both ways, so if you the player declare on a civ and don't initiate fighting within 10 turns there will be an automatic peace.

Also make peace treaties scale to game speed.

3. Cap the amount of gold, gpt, resources, cities, etc. that can be offered up for peace. I would cap this at 25% or maybe even lower. Therefore, the "losing" civ would have some opportunity for recovery post-war and this would hopefully reduce the chance of a runaway by the aggressor.

I dislike this idea. I think the AI just needs to learn to assign more accurate values to its current military situation versus the worth of what it's giving away. Maybe even using something akin to the war scores from Paradox games.

Namely, the AI when making its war declarations should remove up to 25% of its military force from the equation to factor in homeland defense and should triple a player's worth.

 

[LostInTime]

Also I can't say as I have ever used a Defensive Pact. I just assumed that they don't work (like the rest of diplomacy).

I had consecutive DoF with a CiV, and a DP. He still declared on me (under the DP to boot). Diplomacy is seriously ******** in Civ5. Making friends for all through the game should be possible, atm it is not.

As it is now, I expect war from anyone, and focus my expansion on taking strategic locations in preparation for them. I rarely even settle non-hill cities anymore, because that's almost like gift-wrapping the city to the AI.

But I'm pretty sure this is mostly an AI problem. The insane unit spam in the early game screws diplomacy way up. A better AI so it wouldn't have to rely on that would help diplomacy as well. (and bad computers)

 

[Sonereal]

3. Cap the amount of gold, gpt, resources, cities, etc. that can be offered up for peace. I would cap this at 25% or maybe even lower. Therefore, the "losing" civ would have some opportunity for recovery post-war and this would hopefully reduce the chance of a runaway by the aggressor.

Actually, after thinking of it, they should just make it so that if white peace (just the normal peace treaty) is made, then it's a white peace like in Paradox games and therefore, cities go back to the original owners.

The AI should place a value on each of these relative to worth. Imagine if an AI has four cities, a size 4, 7, 3, and 2. Add that up and you have 16. If the enemy demands the size 7 city, that's worth about 44% (let's say 44 points for simplicity).

So, to get that city in a peace deal, the player needs to deal 59 "points of damage" against the AI. Pillaging tiles, taking cities, destroying units, etc. would add points while the opposite will take away points.

National Wonders and World Wonders would increase the flat points required. Each National Wonder would add another 10 points and each WW 20 points for instance. Strategic Resources would add say, two points per resource in the deposit (5 iron=10 points) and luxuries a flat 5 points However, you will only get 44 points for taking the size 7 city but if the city has a WW, it would cost 79 points to get in a peace treaty.

For simplicity sake, each point will also allow you to demand 10 gold from the AI so if you got the 79 points, you can demand the size 7 city. Strategic Luxuries, however, can't stack so if you demand 5 iron and the size-7 city, you would be demanded 89 points worth of stuff but only have 79 points.

Things that add points
-Each point of damage
-Pillaging (pillaging luxuries/strategics/great improvements worth more than normal improvements)
-Taking cities

Things that reduce points
-Each point of damage against you
-Pillaging
-Losing cities
-Each turn you're at war

If you go into the negatives and you're the attacker, the AI should also be able to demand things from you.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

I definitely agree with the need for a change. This latest patch has actually made the game kind of boring for me. Before I had many ways of trying to win on Deity. Now all my ways involve some sort of war as I have NEVER had the AIs not DoW me multiple times early on.

Indirectly I think part of the problem is the whole "you are a war monger - you have declared war twice" thing. It prevents forming peace treaties only to re-declare shortly after as you will (or the AI will as with the topic of the thread) just take another diplomacy hit. So the changes I would make are:

1) Change the war monger penalty to be a measure of the ratio of how many cities in your empire you actually founded versus how many you have captured or razed. Example: if you have 4 cities of your own but 2 captured, you are a minor warmonger and some civs (the peaceful ones) will start to hate you. If you have 4 cities and 4 captured, they really hate you... etc, etc.

2) Keep the existing 10 turn peace treaty (or call it a truce, cease fire, or whatever as others have suggested).

3) Make the AI's decision to offer you this 'cease fire' based on whether or not it believes it can inflict damage in the next 10 turns. If it does not, a cease fire should be relatively easy to obtain from them. They can always just re-declare war in 10 turns if they still intend on destroying you. This would also allow you to try to get on the AI's good side during this cease fire.

4) Create some sort of war-o-meter for each AI. It will not declare war the second it thinks it has a minor advantage or you annoyed it but it will instead increase or decrease each turn based on how much it wants to go to war with another civ. When full peace is restored, reset the war-o-meter so that a redeclaration doesn't happen instantly. Some civs, like the Aztecs, would have larger steps on this scale than others, like Ghandi.

Just some thoughts