The AI should not play to win

[snapple232]

My number one complaint with Civilization 5 is that leader attitudes are now hidden from the player. The reason this was done, it seems, is because the AI now evaulates its progress towards victory more than its attitude towards you. In other words, it's now playing to win, and is willing to backstab 'allies' to win the game, thus attitude is largely irrelevant. "That's more rational and realistic!" you may say. The thing is, this hurts the diplomatic side of the game.

AI that is purely playing to win gives the single player game just as much diplomatic depth as the multiplayer game. That is to say, none. You may trade gold or resources, but at the end of the day, building relations doesn't matter because they're just waiting to eliminate you and vice versa. It seems like the developers' idea here was "we'll make the leaders play the game like a deathmatch, and move the true diplomacy to city-states". The problem with that is, dealing with city-states is not true diplomacy. There's no political intrigue or maneuvering involved. You run errands or deposit gold to move a progress bar.

What's really lacking in diplomacy in Civilization 5 is what I had just referred to - politics. AI leaders that are predictable or able to be manipulated may not be 'human-like' or be acting in their best self interest (in terms of getting closer to a victory condition), but it gives the game an element of political intrigue that makes the single player distinct from multiplayer. Losing that, at least to me, takes something away from the Civilization experience.

 

[digitalcraft]

Civ 5 is a combat strategy game. You should always assume that you need to be ready at a moment's notice to be at war with any other civilization, especially Gandhi.

 

[snapple232]

Civ 5 is a combat strategy game. You should always assume that you need to be ready at a moment's notice to be at war with any other civilization, especially Gandhi.

I'm assuming this is a sarcastic post, in which case I agree with the sarcasm. I like the combat changes a lot, but as of now, it feels like I'm playing a free-for-all map in Starcraft or something, where each AI is nothing more than something to blow up with my army on the way to victory.

 

[Unionfield]

Like I have said in other threads, there is no reason for diplomacy to exist in Civilization V. The diplomatic victory requires only that you buy off the City-States, which means the only thing you need to have been good at throughout the course of the game is making gold. Add in the 25% bonus you get in the Patronage track (or one of the others, I can't remember off the top of my head) and you can just race to build the UN and then go one-by-one making them all allies via money.

 

[MkLh]

I mostly agree wit OP. Just to clarify: I think AI should play to win. Otherwise the game would be too easy (basically human would win every time). But the winning shouldn't be the one and only objective for AIs, like it seems to be now. Those win-bots fail to create any kind of feeling of simulated history.

 

[snapple232]

I mostly agree wit OP. Just to clarify: I think AI should play to win. Otherwise the play would be too easy (basically human would win every time). But the winning shouldn't be the one and only objective for AIs, like it seems to be now. Those win-bots fail to create any kind of feeling of simulated history.

Yes, I should've clarified that in the OP. The AI should certainly play to challenge. That is not necessarily the same thing as literally trying to reach its victory condition and end the game. I think Soren Johnson's often cited talk on AI applies here ("fun AI" vs "good AI").

 

[mrt144]

I mostly agree wit OP. Just to clarify: I think AI should play to win. Otherwise the game would be too easy (basically human would win every time). But the winning shouldn't be the one and only objective for AIs, like it seems to be now. Those win-bots fail to create any kind of feeling of simulated history.

I disagree; the AI should play to beat the human. Sure, it's a different dynamic when you have multiple civs in a game all trying to win, but I simply don't think a programmer is capable of programming an algorithm that will successfully evaluate the merits of long term mutual cooperation to win, rather than everyone clawing the other's eyes out while the human deftly creates alliances that let them float to the top of a selfish massacre.

 

[r_rolo1]

Like I have said in other threads, there is no reason for diplomacy to exist in Civilization V. The diplomatic victory requires only that you buy off the City-States, which means the only thing you need to have been good at throughout the course of the game is making gold. Add in the 25% bonus you get in the Patronage track (or one of the others, I can't remember off the top of my head) and you can just race to build the UN and then go one-by-one making them all allies via money.

That or beat the people out + liberation. Liberated civs are forced to vote for the liberator.

Funny to see that your only ways of winning via diplo are bribing the equivalent to Singapore or Hong Kong or beat out a lot of people then giving their freedom back

On "playing to win":

I do endorse the "playing to win" base thought : the AI should not be there to be a punching bag ... they should actually try to win the game. In what I diverge from a lot of the persons that defend the "AI playing to win" is that a lot of times the best for a particular AI to win passes by not being a agressive jerk, but actually use the other players as steps in their ascension ( you know, like humans do ). There is also the fact that a lot of the strategies that look fine in a 1:1 basis become bad as soon as you put more people ( for a example, if you are power #2 in the world, it might be better to ally with power #3 to take power #1 down than take power #3 down and then try to get power #1 down... but a greedy algorithym ( like Civ V one looks to be at first sight ) would never see that )

 

[snapple232]

I disagree; the AI should play to beat the human. Sure, it's a different dynamic when you have multiple civs in a game all trying to win, but I simply don't think a programmer is capable of programming an algorithm that will successfully evaluate the merits of long term mutual cooperation to win, rather than everyone clawing the other's eyes out while the human deftly creates alliances that let them float to the top of a selfish massacre.

It's a valid point of view, but that means you clearly don't care whether meaningful diplomacy exists or not. I just personally think it's an important part of the game, and shouldn't be thrown out like this. An AI that plays to beat the human means the single player game will play exactly like a multiplayer one, except with computer opponents instead of human. If that's the kind of single player experience you want, okay, but I would rather have an involved political/diplomatic aspect rather it just being a deathmatch.

 

[Niniux]

I disagree. Just because they play to win doesn't make them any less able to be buttered up. Why would someone heading for a culture or tech victory want to wage war on a valuable trading partner if their trading partner is not in position to steal their victory. The only time I could see ai dismissing all your diplomatic overtures is if you are the clear leader or an easy target. That still makes for an exciting diplo game in my mind.

 

[gunburned]

Of course the AI needs to play to win, here is one easy example.
Your playing an online game lets say 8 players total. After many hours of casual player a few players must leave, then the AI takes over. If another players comes on in to take the place their at a disadvantage because the AI who's civ you took just had giving up.
This would mean your at a severe handicap.

 

[mrt144]

It's a valid point of view, but that means you clearly don't care whether meaningful diplomacy exists or not. I just personally think it's an important part of the game, and shouldn't be thrown out like this. An AI that plays to beat the human means the single player game will play exactly like a multiplayer one, except with computer opponents instead of human. If that's the kind of single player experience you want, okay, but I would rather have an involved political/diplomatic aspect rather it just being a deathmatch.

On the contrary, I totally think you can have meaningful diplomacy between player and AI, AI and AI even if the objective is to smite the human or at least prevent human victory. I think it's harder to mete out a decent diplomacy if the only means to victory is through non diplomatic means.

 

[mrt144]

It's a valid point of view, but that means you clearly don't care whether meaningful diplomacy exists or not. I just personally think it's an important part of the game, and shouldn't be thrown out like this. An AI that plays to beat the human means the single player game will play exactly like a multiplayer one, except with computer opponents instead of human. If that's the kind of single player experience you want, okay, but I would rather have an involved political/diplomatic aspect rather it just being a deathmatch.

On the contrary, I totally think you can have meaningful diplomacy between player and AI, AI and AI even if the objective is to smite the human or at least prevent human victory. I think it's harder to mete out a decent diplomacy if the only means to victory is through non diplomatic means.

 

[Lightzy]

I dont understand what was wrong with civ4.

The AI doesn't 'play to win', but presents an entity which is basically a simulation of 'the will of the masses' for each AI civ. They like you or hate you by your choices in the game (religion, civics, history of conduct etc, your power relative to other nations). the end result is that you still cannot balance everyone and still always get in wars, but you can understand for the most part why an AI does something and, most importantly, feel that your actions and choices in the game mean something.

Now it's just an FFA where nothing means anything

 

[King Jason]

old school diplomacy simply shifted to city-states.

and Lightzy, I disagree with you, I was obscenely good at placating the A.I. in civ4 to the point that it was just upsetting ~ if I wanted to, I had near-complete control over how much of a threat my opponents are.

Also, things do "mean stuff" in civ5, it's just easier for the A.I. to change it's mind... just like I could be friends with a civ in civ4 for the entire game, to the point where they'd offer a permanent alliance with me and essentially never attack me... and then I declare war on them just cause I want to.

Personally, I love the separation.

Competitive players = Civs. Be careful how you deal with them.

Complacenet A.I. = City-states... befriend them for a bonus, or ingore them.

 

[Unionfield]

Competitive players = Civs. Be careful how you deal with them.

Complacenet A.I. = City-states... befriend them for a bonus, or ingore them.

I would agree that this is a decent game play mechanic if I actually felt that there were consequences to being "careful" about the Civs. The highest difficulty level I have played on is Prince or whatever it is now and the only nation that was ever a military threat was Montezuma, who had his empire bordering mine (aggressive AI + border tension = expect to fight a war, so nothing new there). Except for open border agreements and the occasional request for a research agreement, I dealt almost exclusively with the City-States, cruising to a diplomatic/commerce victory.

So I honestly don't feel like there is a "watch your back at all times" element to the game.

 

[Shackel]

I find this a lazy way out.

Complain about diplomacy, and instead of, you know, GETTING diplomacy fixes, you get NO diplomacy.

I mean, if we want useless diplmacy, we'd play Total War.

 

[AtriumComplex]

What's really lacking in diplomacy in Civilization 5 is what I had just referred to - politics. AI leaders that are predictable or able to be manipulated may not be 'human-like' or be acting in their best self interest (in terms of getting closer to a victory condition), but it gives the game an element of political intrigue that makes the single player distinct from multiplayer. Losing that, at least to me, takes something away from the Civilization experience.

Diplomacy in Civ IV wasn't politics, it was addition and subtraction. I don't understand how reverting to the Civ IV model would be an improvement.

 

[Dearmad]

I want the AI to try to win! Near completely disagree with OP. Enough Civ IV pansy play for me.

 

[ddd123]

My number one complaint with Civilization 5 is that leader attitudes are now hidden from the player. The reason this was done, it seems, is because the AI now evaulates its progress towards victory more than its attitude towards you. In other words, it's now playing to win, and is willing to backstab 'allies' to win the game, thus attitude is largely irrelevant. "That's more rational and realistic!" you may say. The thing is, this hurts the diplomatic side of the game.

the problem is diplomacy just doesnt make sense

if you are playing quake would it make sense to say "ehy i give you 2 bullets if you dont kill me for 30 seconds? "

diplomacy is just that, a set of nonsense rules that go against the gameplay

the basic idea was some sort of "simulation" but this is a game

in the real world you dont want a war cause there are real losses, in a game there arent losses there are just MOVES