The AI doesn't play to WIN

[insydr]

I was trying to figure out why, after a few games, I was losing interest in finishing a map once I got about halfway through it. Then it hit me: the AI isn't trying to win. Allow me to explain.

The AI seems to have one goal: attain the highest score possible. As a result, it will appear to be trying to win because it is building up its cities and military, researching technology, and preserving its existence.

However, a human player has one goal: to win. A human doesn't enter a game of Civ4 thinking "let me build a 3 city nation and ride it out into mediocrity." A human is trying to beat all the other players, period.

So why is this bad? Think of it this way: if you could watch a game with a bunch of AI playing each other, I guarantee they'll end up in a vast majority of space race wins, with a small minority of time or diplomacy wins. This happens because all of these victories are passive. They HAVE to happen to someone; the AI doesn't have to go out of its way to achieve them. Its no coincidence that these are also the least exciting ways to win a game of Civ.

This is where it gets boring to me. The human player is the only one that's treating it like a competition. The current AI isn't a threat to BEAT you, it's merely a roadblock on the way to you achieving victory.

Why can't the AI shoot for any of the victories like a human would? Why can't an agressive AI be a warmonger intent on winning by conquest or domination? Why can't a creative AI be maximizing its wonders and artists to attain 3 legendary cities? Sure, it may be more "realistic" for the AI to prefer stability and self preservation over satisfying the victory conditions, but let's face it, we're playing a video game, not a real life simulator. The AI shouldn't need a "reason" to try to win by whatever means necessary.

This is probably why playing a random map gets stale to me after a few games. The same thing happened in Civ3, and I circumvented it by playing scenarios that were tailored to provide competition. The simple fact remains that until the AI is given the goal of achieving a victory, a single player game of Civ will never live up to its potential.

 

[yendorII]

Unfortunatly the only way I know to solve this problem now is to play online where you will not find this issue.

 

[suspendinlight]

Interestingly, I was trying to trade for Rocketry with an AI today and it was red. The mouse over reason for it being red was "We're playing to win this, thank you very much" or something like that.

 

[Halberd]

Would there be any way to mod this in?

Would putting conquest as the only victory condition achieve this?

 

[Dida]

Would there be any way to mod this in?

Would putting conquest as the only victory condition achieve this?

no, the AIs are still passive if conquest is the only condition.

 

[Radres]

What difficulty level do you play at? Did you turn on Aggressive AI?

 

[wayninja]

I still find it a bit silly that there is even a checkbox for aggressive AI. Why would you ever not want the AI to be agressive?

 

[DrJambo]

Never in my whole life playing Civ have I seen the AI win by anything other than Diplomatic, Space Race or Points. Domination and Conquest just don't feature in their repetoire and never have done to be honest. Granted, an AI Civ in Civ 2 or 3 could get big, but never to the level of that needed for these victories.

I don't see how Civ 4 is any different in that matter, other than the fact that the AI Civs don't tend to get quite as big.

 

[warpstorm]

Part of this is that if they played to win they'd Jag rush you out the door. Game over by the time you get your third city built (I've done this to many an AI).

 

[Luv_Muffin]

As soon as Skynet goes online, you'll see an AI that plays to win.

 

[MeteorPunch]

This is a flaw that should be addressed. No more AI's sitting peacefully behind their culture-fortified cities. I kind of don't blame them though. The victory conditions are so unbalanced that its much easier to play that game that way. When will I see an AI Rome progressing its way to a domination victory? Never...

 

[insydr]

^^^ But wouldn't that be awesome?

Making the AI play like a human would be pretty much impossible. But it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to program the AI to value actually WINNING the game as opposed to just maintaining the status quo. This isn't a new problem in the Civ series, just a general comment on how singleplayer Civ games could be so much better.

Maybe I need to go play some multiplayer.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Of course they don't!
That exactly is what makes Civ so outstanding, and different from other games.
Indeed, the AI Civs are not trying to win. Even better, since Civ3 the AI Civs also don't try to prevent someone (the strongest Civ, usually the human) from winning.
The whole point of the addicting AI Civs is that they don't act gamey. They are programmed to grow strong, balanced nations. Like roleplayers.
Not like a human that completely overstretches to reach the last couple % of land. Or to raze the last AI city with horrible deficit spending.

Complaining about that ingenious AI nation design is like complaining about CIV being turn-based.


Like it or not. But that is Civilization...at least, SP Civ. But IMHO, MP isn't Civ anyway. Usually, that is. Ladder games .

Never in my whole life playing Civ have I seen the AI win by anything other than Diplomatic, Space Race or Points. Domination and Conquest just don't feature in their repetoire and never have done to be honest. Granted, an AI Civ in Civ 2 or 3 could get big, but never to the level of that needed for these victories.

Ever played above Monarch? Ever lost against the AI militarically?
Nonsense. In C3C, after the Forbidden Palace finally worked as intended, that AI was as likely to win by any condition.

 

[Kissamies]

Well, in one game where I disabled space an diplomatic victories, the AI did play a bit more agressively than usual, but it wasn't very good at invading my continent. I don't mind the AI "roleplaying" because I'm a bit of a roleplayer myself. Not every action I take is aimed for winning.

 

[doggiedaddy]

This is one of those topics that interests me, because it has me wondering how many games a person has played, and how many approaches they've taken.
I've always been a player who works the culture and diplomacy pretty heavily, and generally had my butt handed to me if/when I was attacked.

In Civ IV, I played a few early games where I traded anything to anyone. This P O'ed a lot of civs, and they wouldn't trade with me later. Now I pick a few favorites, and if I open my borders, it's much later, and only two a select number of civs. This creates more tension and more aggressive AI's.

I am certainly not as critical of some of these aspects as many people are. I think the game plays pretty well as it is, and the options let the player tailor it to their style.

There are a lot of aspects of this game that, to me, become more apparent as you spend time with it. Color me still impressed, for the most part.

 

[Apolex]

On the flip side, I don't think I would like playing against all humans who were single-mindedly trying to be the only winner. As soon as one player starts to get close to a victory, all the others would turn on him like pirhannas, regardless of how strong they are, alliances, etc. I like the fact that if I have a 2000 year old alliance with another civ, they're not all of the sudden going to declare all out war on me with every other civ just because I'm about to launch a space ship.

 

[Mrdarklight]

I'm not sure I want an AI to play like that. The AI scares me when it goes to war. They get some bonus or something, but AI's can build up massive armies. Sometimes I'm amazed at the crap that comes at me from the AI.

 

[SmartMuffin]

On the flip side, I don't think I would like playing against all humans who were single-mindedly trying to be the only winner. As soon as one player starts to get close to a victory, all the others would turn on him like pirhannas, regardless of how strong they are, alliances, etc. I like the fact that if I have a 2000 year old alliance with another civ, they're not all of the sudden going to declare all out war on me with every other civ just because I'm about to launch a space ship.

Exactly, it's like playing Risk with eight people. The only way to win is to be really mediocre throughout the entire game, because whoever seems to be the strongest is immediatley going to become the #1 target by everyone else.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Exactly, it's like playing Risk with eight people. The only way to win is to be really mediocre throughout the entire game, because whoever seems to be the strongest is immediatley going to become the #1 target by everyone else.

Risk is ******ed. The 3 dice attacker vs. the 2 dice defender have almost equal odds, so it becomes whoever attacks least or gets attacked least is the one who wins.[/rant]

 

[mhl30]

I think that if you had computers going for all out victory, then other parts of the game, such as diplomacy (I take it has no effect in the multiplayer), would not work. Also domination/conquering victories are probably seen less as people are likely just to start a new game when they are approaching a situation where one would occur.