isau
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,071
What happened in this situation actually doesn't involve whether the AI is conscious of being in a game. It can be explained completely within a role play context.
Here is what happened: the Shoshone and Ethiopia were friends. The Shoshone (more likely of the two) were building up an army. They were eyeing the lands where lots of world wonders were being built, possibly for a couple of additional reasons--we're not given any context for it or told what kind of relationship the player had with either of these civs but let's assume it was fair weather. The Shoshone proposed a war to Ethiopia, who complied because they didn't consider the target a threat and wanted to stay on good terms with the Shoshone.
At this point, the world is watching. They have to make a decision: pick the Ethiopia/Shoshone alliance, pick the unnamed civ the player was playing, or stay neutral? Well, either Ethiopia or the Shoshone or both were on good terms with them, so they picked them. Once one or two denouncements came in, it became clear that supporting the player's nation was a losing proposition.
As of BNW most of the game-y elements of the AI are gone. It doesn't as far as I can tell do the "you're pursuing the same victory as us" anymore. It may care about the spaceship (I haven't tried for that victory in a long time) but that's not impossible to explain within an RP context as a concept they simply oppose.
Long story short though, the AI is not really game-y. What it is is cynical. It approaches civilization management with an expectation of world conflict and betrayal, which within the scenario presented by the game makes a lot of sense. A "declaration of friendship" is as often as not a cynical ploy. It's an agreement made by two very Machiavellian characters to use each other. We could argue that not every one of the leaders in game had this outlook IRL, but also most of them only ruled for a short period of time. Here, your nation grows to be a modern USA or USSR, Colonial England or France, or ancient Rome or Egypt, with politics to match. And if yours doesn't, theirs does.
The upshot of all this is that often when players complain about ending up as the world scapegoat what they actually mean is they are frustrated that the AI doesn't do what they want. Players get upset when the Ai makes them the global punching bag but they still expect to be able to go to the AI at any time and manipulate it into performing favors that are blatantly against its interests. They are upset when other civs turn on them "for no reason" but still expect to be able to manipulate the AI into double crossing its other AI friends.
Anyway, the original statement from the OP is untrue: the AI does not cheat regarding relationships. It views the player exactly like another AI. If you are ending up as the world scapegoat it's because your strategy didn't work. It was up to you to outmaneuver the AI's politics, but they outmaneuvered you.
Here is what happened: the Shoshone and Ethiopia were friends. The Shoshone (more likely of the two) were building up an army. They were eyeing the lands where lots of world wonders were being built, possibly for a couple of additional reasons--we're not given any context for it or told what kind of relationship the player had with either of these civs but let's assume it was fair weather. The Shoshone proposed a war to Ethiopia, who complied because they didn't consider the target a threat and wanted to stay on good terms with the Shoshone.
At this point, the world is watching. They have to make a decision: pick the Ethiopia/Shoshone alliance, pick the unnamed civ the player was playing, or stay neutral? Well, either Ethiopia or the Shoshone or both were on good terms with them, so they picked them. Once one or two denouncements came in, it became clear that supporting the player's nation was a losing proposition.
As of BNW most of the game-y elements of the AI are gone. It doesn't as far as I can tell do the "you're pursuing the same victory as us" anymore. It may care about the spaceship (I haven't tried for that victory in a long time) but that's not impossible to explain within an RP context as a concept they simply oppose.
Long story short though, the AI is not really game-y. What it is is cynical. It approaches civilization management with an expectation of world conflict and betrayal, which within the scenario presented by the game makes a lot of sense. A "declaration of friendship" is as often as not a cynical ploy. It's an agreement made by two very Machiavellian characters to use each other. We could argue that not every one of the leaders in game had this outlook IRL, but also most of them only ruled for a short period of time. Here, your nation grows to be a modern USA or USSR, Colonial England or France, or ancient Rome or Egypt, with politics to match. And if yours doesn't, theirs does.
The upshot of all this is that often when players complain about ending up as the world scapegoat what they actually mean is they are frustrated that the AI doesn't do what they want. Players get upset when the Ai makes them the global punching bag but they still expect to be able to go to the AI at any time and manipulate it into performing favors that are blatantly against its interests. They are upset when other civs turn on them "for no reason" but still expect to be able to manipulate the AI into double crossing its other AI friends.
Anyway, the original statement from the OP is untrue: the AI does not cheat regarding relationships. It views the player exactly like another AI. If you are ending up as the world scapegoat it's because your strategy didn't work. It was up to you to outmaneuver the AI's politics, but they outmaneuvered you.
