The AI doesn't play to WIN

[Exavier]

Can't be that strange... I usually only play on maps with the Conquest Victory as the only victory option... I honestly don't car about the others because sheer conquest is more fun IMO

 

[drjones]

I think they need to remove the cheats for the AI, ramp up their aggression a bit, and lengthen the 'game' to make it far longer so I can really enjoy the developments and different technologies. And cannons definitely come in far too late in the 'game'.

The thing is, once you learn the combat system a bit it is pretty easy to kill many AI units for each one you lose and in doing so your units gain many promotions. If your forces are properly mixed the defender gets a distinct advantage, add in even a slight tech advantage (who goes to war without one?) and the player can win vs. heavy odds a lot of the time. I play emperor and monarch in this game at the moment usualy with raging barbs to keep me in check at the beginning (and get some early promotions) and I find the difficulty occasionaly frustraiting but still quite 'fair'. Perhaps I am comparing it with all the bald-faced cheating in civ3, at least here it's more.. civilized.

As for the AI, it's kinda random because just as with a human player it is not enough to be aggressive, you also have to be lucky in your starting position, neighbors, religions etc. Try playing Rhys earth map, montezuma is ALLWAYS a threat because he is mean and has a great resource start. When he shows up in random maps half the time he is wimpy because he lacks that great position.

Religion also is a big effect in this game. Since it splits up the civs in teams you sometimes get a 'team' of a powerful civ friends with all of their neighbors so they will never attack anyone. A smart player quickly learns to adopt the religion that will benefit them the most in negotioations while the ai is less artful in this. Personally I think this adds a bit to the game in that 'teams' are more concrete and directly manipulable. On the other hand I have had huge games where EVERYONE was jewish, nothing against the jews of course but when all have the same religion they tend to just sit around and be nice to each other. Of course then the fun is to found islam (christianity allways seems to get nabbed by the AI) or capture a holy city for another faith and set about to spread it to the world and watch the sparks fly!

So yeah, before ya gripe turn up that difficulty and play a good number of games.

-drjones

 

[Coreymas]

Remember that the AI can only do what it is programmed to do.

Most AI's in SP games are programmed to use the following basic rules (in this specific order) to accomplish their mission:

1. Do whatever it takes to survive.
2. With whatever is left Grow.
3. Cannot grow no more -- try for a win (using preferences that are hard coded in some config file).

Humans don't always play this way as they are not bound by these rules. Thus it is easy for a human to exploit the obvious AI patterns above.

A better AI would re-evaluate its strategy every once and a while and adjust its strategy according to the situation (like a human does). Cannot win a space race cause technologically they are inferior... perhaps they should invade the most technologically advanced civ to stop them or steal their technology.

Oh but i am too small but i am well liked by others, maybe i should go for a UN style victory (hey buddy you look like you need a dime....)

To program these types of dynamic AI's are possible but very time consuming. That is why the are coming out with the AI editors etc.

Just my 2 cents.



Corey

 

[nigam]

For those who are convinced AI is docile, try this setting:

Panegea Normal size map, Prince difficulty, Normal speed, All default victory conditions, AI competitors - Napoleon, Alexander, Cathrine, Montzuma, Elizabeth, Saladin. My civ is Gandhi.

I wanted to play a peaceful game and try space ship victory at Prince. What I got was contant war and uphill struggle to survive

I had founded 2 religions and built pyramids, great library, parathon (great start ). Cathrine, Monty and Napoleon attacked me togather same turn GL was finished. They captured / razed all my cites except my capital. Paid all my money to get peace treaties.

These three then wiped out Elizabeth and Saladin. I managed to get 2 of Saladin's cities (including holy city Mecca). Few turns later Alexander decalared war and razed one of these cities. I pushed him back and captured Sparta when again Monty declared war. I now have 3 cities, two of which are holy cities and 5 times I have been in war.... none initiated by me. Meanwhile Cathrine has 1000 point lead. Game is still going on.

 

[King Flevance]

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

Luv_Muffin's avatar alone is the reason Canada should be a civ in the game an that pic as the leader head.

As far as AI is concerned, they have always been idiots. CIV 4 is no different. the difference in difficulty level is what advantages the AI gets in game. Like, super cheap units, upgrade, etc. Also what they start the game with. Playing on difficulty is still the AI being as dumb as it is on noble. Or as smart, however you want to say it.

 

[calyth]

I don't agree with the OP at all.
The AI seems to have a favoured way to win. The Malis, in my last game that I had time/space/diplo wins turned off, was fighting me with wonders. I was on a culture win, but I was high enough in tech so that it would make the AI think twice about attacking. I lost at least one wonder with less than 5 turns left to Mensa Musa.
If I remember correctly, the AI had gone to war at least once before I got them into a world war against the Japan AI. They (naturally) mopped him because no one liked Tokugawa. China and Greece seems to have an extreme military build up at the expense of tech or culture. Those two signed a defense pact, have enough troops to at least cause quite a bit of headache (I know cause I tried to grab oil form Mao, they both were very happy to go to war against me, got Musa on Greece, and then start seeing large stacks of units coming for my 2nd largest cultural center. In an alternative (I was wondering what would happen if I didn't trigger the war), Greece declared war on me.
Sure you could argue that Alexander was playing to prevent me from winning. But my opinion is that if the Greeks and Chinese decided to go for a domination victory, they could damn well try. One of them alone has a sizable army that could take my cultural centers pretty quickly (it also helps that I'm out of oil).
Alex seems to declare war immediately after I ask him if I could trade oil - maybe it was part of the not letting me win thing, but it could also be that he knows that I'm not going to have airplanes and modern armor if I don't have oil, so he could take over my cities.

They're not super agressive so that there is no trade possible. But the are not push overs, and they, at minimum, can pose serious roadblocks to your victory. It's probably not that hard to extend the AIs such that they'll try and win with certain types of victory.

 

[Eastian]

I've always lamented this "flaw" ever since Civ1...
Guess the only way around it is MP (multiplayer, not Military Police =)

 

[PurpleTurtle]

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 .


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.

I would argue exactly the opposite. They ONLY play to prevent the player from winning. They see themselves as a 17 member team out to destroy the human player at any cost. I have seen civs fling themselves onto the sword of my armies just to slow me down a few turns to help the team. AS not AI.

 

[jimkirk]

from civilization oddisey 2005

dave: hal are you trying to win?

hal9000: dave your human civ is very weak my superior intelligence can crush you

dave : hal i created you you are not superior since i the human made you

hal9000: dave you are human therefore you are flawed dave. are you still here? i am turning off the oxygen since a superior being like me doesnt need it

dave: hal you arent trying to win hard enough i am ahead of you in points and tech

hal9000: dave i can outthink you dave. can i win?i want to win


hehe imagine if teh civ ai can talk .i wonder if it would sound like hal9000

 

[Zavior]

AI has never been trying to win in CIV series. It has NO goal.
Thats why Sir Pleb, moonsinger and other great players have beaten sid and even harder foes in civ3..