The AI doesn't play to WIN

[insydr]

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 ).

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.

 

[Picky1999]

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.

 

[Shynji]

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.

 

[Padma]

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.

 

[Undertaker798]

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.

Yeah, they're too busy trying to wreck your game.

 

[Ravinhood]

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.

 

[Arkalius]

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.

 

[Mujadaddy]

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]

You are obviously not a betting man

 

[Atlantean]

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.

 

[MeteorPunch]

You are obviously not a betting man

Nope.

@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.

 

[insydr]

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?

Because that would make it INTERESTING. Varied. Unique. Fun. Challenging. Unpredictable. Replayable. Enjoyable. Get the idea?

 

[THARN]

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.

 

[EdCase]

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-

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

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

 

[MeteorPunch]

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.

 

[bigphesta]

I find that turning off everything but conquest doesn't change the game at all. Odd like that.

 

[DrJambo]

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.

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?

 

[gpsguru]

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.

 

[grahamiam]

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).

 

[Rhandom]

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)

 

[Matte979]

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..