1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The AI doesn't play to WIN

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by insydr, Nov 10, 2005.

  1. insydr

    insydr Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    124
    True it would also be bad to be on the other extreme, with everyone playing a cutthroat game for world domination, rendering alliances and friends useless (unless you like it that way :D).

    But it's no less maddening than having all the AI be docile.

    A good compromise would be to have each AI have a "favored" way of winning. So while an agressive civ might bully everyone and try to expand through conquest to go for the military win, a scientific civ would build alot of defense and research their way to a spaceship win. Meanwhile, a cultural civ would put alot of cash into their culture slider and flip lots of cities while going for the cultural win, daring you to try and stop them without going to war.

    The bottom line is, it would spice the gameplay up alot if the AI actually had some motive, some goal to reach by the endgame. They don't necessarily have to be cutthroat killers that always take down the top dog (for instance, a pacifist AI's goal might be to stop everyone from fighting and win through diplomacy!).

    I'm just disappointed that there are SO many great games that could result from goal-oriented AI behavior... it just seems like a lost opportunity that would give the SP game alot more personality. :)
     
  2. Picky1999

    Picky1999 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    The AI is playing to win if you're playing Space Race. On the high difficulties I almost always have a very competitive game if I set that as my prime Victory Condition. War actually means something if you're trying to defend your work. I still like the original win conditions from the first Civ best: World Conquest or Space Race and still play the game with these basic assumptions in mind. I never could get into the Cultural Victory, the U.N. or Domination, or any of these other political victories.
     
  3. Shynji

    Shynji Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Well, all I can say is I have seen the both the Mongols and the Japanese in one game wipe out two other civilizations. I find that more than passive. A reason that it won't win Conquest is because we play with it, using religion and diplomacy to keep it at bay. I know one of my early game startegies is to make one city and breeding ground for prophets so I can attempt to convert everyone to the same religion and thus love me. The AI's will still fight, but they'll never win a conquest victory.

    Civ4 has various options for you: Always War, Aggressive AI, and Harder Difficulty Level.
     
  4. Padma

    Padma the Inbond Administrator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    14,408
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebraska USA
    I'm with Doc on this one. In my experience, most MPers don't play Civ, they play a wargame *using* Civ. If I want to play a wargame, I will play a *real* wargame. If I want to play Civ, I won't play MP. ;)
     
  5. Undertaker798

    Undertaker798 I studied on killin' you!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Northampton, UK
    Yeah, they're too busy trying to wreck your game. :D
     
  6. Ravinhood

    Ravinhood Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Hrmmm, let's see the AI shoots to get a higher population per city than you.

    The AI shoots to build wonders before you do (and does in a lot of cases).

    The AI shoots to build more military units than you.

    The AI shoots to be the first in space.

    The AI shoots to make deals that benefit it in trade.

    The AI shoots to expand in a meaningful and organized way (doesn't settler rush).

    The AI shoots to build up it's culture faster than you.

    The AI shoots to gain new techs faster than you.

    The AI shoots to build up it's infrastructure early in the game vs settler rush

    The AI shoots for calculated wars, not just willy nilly or just to apease the player who's a warmonger.

    The AI shoots for stable diplomatic relations when it will benefit it and wars when it is to their advantage. (in most cases)

    The AI shoots for the high score, to WIN the game by obtaining the highest score over the space race, conquest, domination, diplomatic or curtural victory options. The high score is the easiest path to victory for the AI with the space race being 2nd, why should it play a conquest or domination or cultural or diplomatic game when it's first two options are the easiest one?

    Yes, I'd say the AI PLAYS TO WIN and plays well to win and if not "exploited" by the human player and will probably win 9 times out of 10 on Prince to Diety Difficulties, it makes no errors, it knows what to build in every tile, it knows how to build up power and advance through the techs with record speed (and advantages it gets from higher difficulties). IT PLAYS TO WIN. ;)

    It appears to me people want to "dictate" what the AI's victory goals are instead of letting the AI make it's own "sentient" decisions. :) It has "choices" yet the godlike human wants it to make the choices the godlike human wants it to make (hrmmmm sounds a bit like the bibical God doesn't it?) lol And if it doesn't play like the godlike human wants it to play, then the godlike human may "ignore" it, go do/play something else, complain about it, accuse it of not "conforming to the laws/rules/needs/wants of the godlike human". lol

    We rest our case Mr. Q, the humans have no care for any other lifeform save their own. They care for nothing, but, their own selfish needs, wants and desires. They will even goto war because of this atrocious behavior because they are not a satisfied race in "peace". ;) They believe they are some center of the universe and anything and everything must conform and bow to their whims. :) Back in 1948 we sent them technology for growth and fun and look at them, they are still complaining and wanting MORE MORE MORE! lol
    It's time that these humans be crushed like the ants that they are. ;)
     
  7. Arkalius

    Arkalius Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    For me, the satisfaction of playing a civ game comes not from the end where it says "You win" (or not), it's from what I do to get there. I'm not so worried about "winning" as in meeting a victory condition as I am about finding ways to challenge myself as I play. I set certain goals. I like to build up a productive and cultured civ and also fight a few wars. I turn off space race victories because I don't really care to win that way, and if it's on the AI will invariably try to build a spaceship which means I have to in order to avoid being beaten by it.
     
  8. Mujadaddy

    Mujadaddy Geheim Grammar Polizei

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,082
    You are obviously not a betting man ;)
     
  9. Atlantean

    Atlantean Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    74
    I like to turn off all victory conditions except score. It forces the AI to ignore the space race, ignore culture (to win), and ignore conques (to win). Wars still occur but it I find that the overall feel of the game improves, besides I like long epic games.
     
  10. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    Nope. :D

    @Ravinhood: please...Shooting for every victory condition at once is not trying to win. Trying to win would be focusing on the one or two victory conditions thatyou feel you have the best chance at.

    edit: clarification here. It's fine that some civs shoot for space and histograph, but the ones that have no chance at those should be going for culture or banding together to tear the strong civs down.
     
  11. insydr

    insydr Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    124
    Because that would make it INTERESTING. Varied. Unique. Fun. Challenging. Unpredictable. Replayable. Enjoyable. Get the idea? ;)
     
  12. THARN

    THARN Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    U.S.A. -Ohio
    I guess I'm playing this all wrong- I really don't play to win' I play to survive and make a strong civilization- If I end up winning in the end then thats good- I remember games of civ 3(when it was first released) where you barely got to the forefront of power and all the other Ai civs ganged up on you. Kind of makes the any route other than conquest to success impossible.

    I am currently being attacked by China/France and the Mongols and I dont have aggress Ai on- I declared war on France for attacking Egypt/ the mongols declared war on me just because they are mongols I guess and China shares a boarder with me.. pretty realistic if you ask me..
    And very cool to gameplay.
     
  13. EdCase

    EdCase Defender of the Faithless

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Location:
    A world of my own creation

    My thoughts exactly with one addition...winning in the end then thats good - but not essential

    I guess I enjoy the journey more than the destination:hatsoff:

    Thats why you'll never see me in MP..thats reserved for FPS and RTS in my gameplaying
     
  14. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    Well if you aren't playing to win then this game is perfect for you. The AI's aren't really playing to win either, so everyone will get along fine. :mischief:
     
  15. bigphesta

    bigphesta Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    I find that turning off everything but conquest doesn't change the game at all. Odd like that.
     
  16. DrJambo

    DrJambo Crash-test dummy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,027
    Location:
    Athens of the North (Edinburgh)
    By the time I stopped playing Civ 3 I was able to compete and win every now and then on Emperor level, so I think I'm more than justified to stand by my claim.

    Let's put it to the people - has anyone lost to the AI by Conquest or Domination?
     
  17. gpsguru

    gpsguru Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    Kansas City
    How many people stick around to let the AI win by conquest? If an AI is anywhere near winning via conquest, you must be loosing pretty badly, or you are the only 2 civs left. Most people I know start a new game if they are getting beat too badly.
     
  18. grahamiam

    grahamiam In debt to Mr. Geisel

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,108
    Location:
    Pennsyltukey, USA
    i have lost to the Civ3/C3C AI by domination at Diety and Sid. I have also been killed off by the Civ3/C3C AI at those levels + demigod and emperor (AI didn't win, but the game was over as I was out of it). I have not played enough CIV to weigh in on whether or not the AI here is too docile, but I thought there was an "aggressive" setting a la C3C?

    btw, @MP, the "... or banding together to tear the strong civs down" part of your statement is pretty much what the Civ2 AI did. Therefore, since the Human was usually the "strong civ", it basically meant AW after a certain point. Kinda eliminates a UN win and makes treaties useless (another gripe I read a lot in regards to the Civ3 AI).
     
  19. Rhandom

    Rhandom Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    146
    Actually, doing this should be OLD technology. Anyone who played Alpha Centauri saw a great mix of strategies from the AI, including the "we're going to kick your ass" philosophies of the Fundies, the Spartans and the Hive. They were always much more aggressive, and didn't hesitate to wipe you off the map if they thought it was the way to go. Meanwhile, the peacemakers usually tried for a political win, the capitalists went for cash or politics, etc.

    Its a real problem that game makers start skipping on SP gameplay once they decide they are making an MP game, and its seem pretty clear to me that they regarded civ IV as primarily a multiplayer game. This neat explains the runaway end game in SP, the memory hogging AI that still doesn't seem to function any better than Civ III's (and maybe worse), and the lack of concern about system crashing on large maps (since MP games usually are on smaller maps so they can end in a reasonable timeframe)
     
  20. Matte979

    Matte979 Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Chicago
    I think the AIs should play realistic and I thinkg they do. They dont go crazy and destroy game balance, we have humans for that. I love they way they act now.

    I just found out how important the religion is now. I founded christianity and though it would be great to have my own religion so I switched. Problem was that the big guys was confusim and had the idea that everybody that was not should die.. I got attacked again and again, 2 cites razed. I got the point so now I change to confusim, wars went away.

    To have fun you just need to step on their toes some more which I think is very good balance. I just did not want to be confusim but the Mongols and Chinese which was accross the world decided diffrently.

    You can play a very peaceful game if you keep you military up and keep the realtions good. Then the warmonger will go after other players but if you start stepping on the AI you will get attacked and they dont just stop becuase you want them to. You need to give them a city or change religion or a huge bribe, i dont see that as not playing to win.

    Up the difficulty and aggresive AI..
     

Share This Page