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

They need to hotfix AI agression now

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by godman85, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. ww2commander

    ww2commander Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Just a quick bit of info...

    I did a winmerge analysis of AIMilitaryStrategies.xml between G&K and BNW and there was zero changes

    I also did the same with GlobalAIDefines.xml and all the changes relate to trade, culture, tourism and a few non-military defines.

    So this rules out any changes to the 'dice rolls' of the AI.
     
  2. darko82

    darko82 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,304
    Location:
    Poland
    You should do some gameplays to see that you're playing the same game.
     
  3. 0R4NG3

    0R4NG3 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    305
    Here are my impressions after 3 games: 1 Prince (cult win) and 2 Emperor (diplo loss and cult win).

    The prince game was a walk in the park so I won't talk about it much, except for mentioning that no one attacked me.

    The emperor diplo loss game I played with Russia on continents, standard settings except for new random seed. Started on a large continent with Poland, Turkey, Zulu, Assyria and Rome. It was a fun game with constant warfare (Assyria and Turkey got taken out by Zulus), but again I never got attacked, except for once indirectly by Zulus, when they attacked Suleiman, who had a defence pact with me. At first I thought that this is due to my starting location being at one end of the continent and separated from others by 2 CSs, but when I took over some Zulu and Polish cities I was in direct contact with Rome, the runaway tech leader. I had reports from spies saying that Rome is plotting against me but every time I was able to bribe him to attack somebody else for a small cost. In the end Augustus wiped out almost everyone from the map, but never attacked me, despite me having a city full of world wonders near his border and only having muskets and cannons by the time he had infantry.

    The 2nd emperor game I started with Morocco (same settings) on a small continent with Monty, Oda and Napi. Monti's capital was 10-12 tiles away from mine and he built his 2nd city in between. No one attacked me. Early game I had 1 warrior and 2 scouts when Monti had his jaguars, then I added 2 CBs, again no probs. I only had 2 cities, so maybe Monti did not consider me a threat, but that never stopped him from attacking in G&K. First Oda and Monti declared war on Napi, and then Oda declared twice on Monti, with little success. Then I took out Napi and Monti and that's it, no more warfare.

    So, in conclusion I think I agree with people who say that the AI is now much less aggressive towards the human player.

    1. What are the setup options for your game?
    - Map Size: Standard
    - Number of players: 8
    - Start Era: Ancient
    - Difficulty: Emperor
    - Level of resource placement: Standard
    - Random or chosen opponents: Random
    - Number of city states: Standard

    2. Victory conditions (which ones, only one selected or multiple?): All

    3. What other boxes have you ticked? (i.e. random personalities, raging barbarians): New random seed

    4 Base setup or using mods? Base

    5. Briefly describe you play style (keep it brief i.e. culture spammer, early attacker, loner, wide, tall): Tall with a max of 5 cities, tend to go for culture if I can, but don't mind attacking early if the opportunity is there.
     
  4. DemonMaster

    DemonMaster A.K.A. Fenhorn

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    Perhaps I should, I only have 1300 hours + (online) with Civ 5. I know that's not much, but I hanging in there and add an hour here and an hour there.
    I know that I shouldn't answer some posts, but sometimes it's hard not to. But one thing, I don't see ghosts where there are none, I don't see monsters under the bed where there are none. I lot of people here exaggerate. Yes perhaps they do got a bad experience and it is easy to exaggerate to enhance the point but if most people don't have this problem, then the problem perhaps is themselves, not the game.
     
  5. Boygor

    Boygor Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Well, I've started my Emperor game (Zulu, honour policies) and so far nothing.

    I'm dead last in score (not for want of trying) and now teching towards civil service. When I get there i'm going 100% war, one Civ at a time, and i'm going to raze everything in my path.

    Hopefully that will turn a few heads :)
     
  6. Poekel

    Poekel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    I yesterday changed the AI wonder building flavors to be less likely to build ancient wonders right away (wonder flavor 4, building ancient wonders 5) and got attacked right away in my first test game by a large hun army (turn 30 something on a quick game, King difficulty). In BnW the AI seems to be quite wonder addicted and there are enough wonders for every flavor in the early game. Maybe this adds to the peacefulness as well as pretty much every AI tries to get those early wonders instead of going out for conquest (and then end up with an army not large enough for them to decide to go on a conquering spree)?
     
  7. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Sounds to me like you effectively averted war on more than one occasion. I am a huge fan of bribing other civs into war with each other, especially if I can get everyone on my continent but me to go at it. I enjoy relative peace (unless I want war) and my most immediate neighbors are generally slowed down.

    But, in light of your post, I think the list of settings and play styles should be expanded to include:
    6. Non-military strategies and tactics used to avoid war, if any (e.g., spamming trade routes that are lucrative for the receiver, too, instigating wars involving would-be antagonists upon learning of their plots against you)
     
  8. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Interesting. Isabella was certainly wonder addicted in the early phases of my current game and she had almost 0 army when I finally decided I'd had enough of her religion spam.

    The other civs on my continent were not wonder addicted, and they engaged in some fairly early wars with one another (will have to check, but I'm pretty sure the first was underway by Classical at the latest) that have never really stopped completely.

    Egypt or Carthage on another continent also wiped out another civ by I believe Medieval.

    By the way, is it possible to ask the AI about troop build up? I tried to find it last night and couldn't. If it's not there, it should be. I have seen Rome engaging in the Border Build Up dance for the past 50 turns or so, and I have little doubt they'd pull the trigger if I asked them if I had cause for concern. But, I'm definitely powerful enough and deployed defensively enough that it's not surprising that they're holding back. I suspect if we could ask the AI about their military intentions we'd see more DoW's. I know I used to build up on borders for the express purpose of goading the AI.
     
  9. klail

    klail Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    99
    I hope it doesn't take them too long to patch this. The immortal games I've played have been really boring compared to what they used to be.

    I've even done obnoxious things like settle a couple cities only 4 hexes away from a civ's capital to try to goad them while having a minimal army. One game after I did this I got a DoF from them a few turns after doing that.
     
  10. Teholb

    Teholb Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    When I stopped turtling for the easy Science victory, the AI becamse much more agressive. First, I tried an interesting Religio-Cultural victory. NOPE. The AI didn't appreciate my proselytizing and declared war on me before I could pull off a religious coup. The situation quickly deteriorated as I had invested a lot into my religious growth.

    Another game, I tried to be slightly more expansionist. Shaka destroyed me for my insolence.


    I think we all need to play a little more. Statistically significant results aren't going to be around in the first week or so of play; we need more time to examine the different possibilities. BNW seems a lot less predictable than G&K, that's for sure.
     
  11. feralminded

    feralminded Obsessive Number Cruncher

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Hudson, MA
    It seems highly likely at this point that some very minor tweaks to the AI's behavior to account for the new mechanics had some unforeseen effects (not all bad, mind you, depending on what side of the fence you are on). So far the only extremely suspicious behavior I've witnessed is the same thing a few anecdotes here reflect:

    A neighbor who has everyone reason to hate me (I took their expansions, I don't have a strong defense, I am plaguing them with my religion) builds up a visible army that then shuffles around my border threateningly and never actually attacks.

    Everything else I've seen feels great but that one (and there are perhaps half a dozen anecdotes in this thread saying something similar) kind of smacked me in the face as "The AI hit some logical failure." Something made it's "check to attack this jackass neighbor with my superior forces" roll to consistently fail even though it obviously built up and wanted to. In the end this is at the crux of most of the negative anecdotes here, people expecting to be attacked when they are in a vulnerable position and the AI failing to go for it. Whether intentional (so that the AI won't "fall" for the human trap and inevitable counterattack), or unintentional, this is where I believe something has gone amiss.
     
  12. Resipsa

    Resipsa King

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    I think the AI is more passive aggressive and that makes the game more difficult. The AI if given the opportunity will settle so close to you and sit there waiting on you to declare war and when you do it labels you as a warmonger
     
  13. DemonMaster

    DemonMaster A.K.A. Fenhorn

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    So basically you say that the AI has become a troll. He annoys you, he mocks you, he want you to be so angry and deliver the first blow and when you do, he laughs.
     
  14. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Ha! Well played.
     
  15. Ryoga

    Ryoga King

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    993
    After a few more games I must say that the AI aggression has definitely decreased, and more than that the AI disposition at building huge armies has also drastically decreased.

    I played so far 6 games

    1) Arabia, Emperor, standard, inland sea
    2) Morocco, Emperor, small, Pangaea
    3) France, Emperor, standard, small continents
    4) Zulu, Emperor, standard, Hemisphere
    5) Zulu, Prince, small (raised to 8 civs), Hemisphere
    6) Poland, Prince, standard, small continents


    -The first game as Arabia didn't go well, I had heavy development issue and I got attacked by Assyria with a huge army supported by siege weapons, this was fairly early and I got killed out of the game.
    This didn't happen very frequently in my G&K but sometimes a bad start would lead to that.

    -The second game I was never attacked by anyone, However the Zulu went on an early conquest. They conquered a city state then they proceeded to erase Assyria from the map and they started a war with Poland. At that point I attacked them and that became an incredibly long war that lasted almost the whole game. The AI has been pretty clever at using those Impi. It usually came at me with three of them at a time. I only had regular cannons and so it wasn't easy.
    Late game Poland fought against the weakened Zulu and the Shoshone after it became a major power. The game was won by me with a diplomatic victory.
    I had prepared myself for a Poland invasion, but it never came.

    -The third game as France again I was never attacked by anyone. Assyria however started an early conquest against Brazil which was successful. I took that chance to DoW on them and I almost wiped them out of the map living them with just a small city that they founded when they were at war with me. Brazil has been ambivalent with me the whole game because I had liberated their capital but I kept one of their cities for me. They never attacked me but they never were friendly until we adopted the same ideology.
    As Assyria became a weakling everyone started to hate and denounce them. During the industrial era Brazil finally got its revenge and erased them from the map.
    Meanwhile I attacked Venice and conquered its capital. Again Venice became weak and not much later Morocco, Brazil and the Shoshone started a war against her.
    Portugal hated me with a passion and late game built a good army but mine was bigger, they never attacked me nor anyone the whole game.
    Late game Indonesia attacked and conquered a Brazilian colony in their own continent.
    The Shoshone then asked me to attack Gahja Mada and I accepted. I can't say if he would've attacked anyway. At any rate Indonesia and the Shoshone were fairly equal in military power and without my help it would have been a stall.
    The game ended with a cultural victory from me.

    -Fourth Game as the Zulu, this one didn't go as I expected. I tried to go for an early conquest which was initially successful. I conquered an Inca city and then I wiped Austria from the map. The Inca army was decent, Austria had basically nothing.
    After that I found myself struggling very badly with low happiness and the slow development took a toll on me while someone in the other continent got all the wonders I needed. Even in my own continent I was getting behind in tech.
    Span attacked me with a consistent army of conquistadors and Tercio. It managed to conquer one of my cities. I took it back and tried to retaliate but I was getting to many losses.
    Again the AI changes are pretty noticeable for me. The AI taking one my cities by land was a very rare occurrence even if it came at me with a huge army.
    Moreover a failed invasion always resulted in leaving the AI without defenses, making it an easy conquest for me, it is no longer the case.
    Seeing as how I was slow teching and seeing as how one of my cities pop plummeted from 12 to 3, I abandoned the game.

    -Fifth game, I decided to lower the difficulty but I made the map more crowded with 8 civs on a small map. In the beginning I struggled to get a foothold on the continent because somehow there were 5 of us there instead of the expected 4.
    Babylon Attacked me first, but that was about the time I got my Impi, right when I was building an army to start my first conquest.
    Perhaps because it was Prince difficulty, this time fending off the enemy and conquering its city was moderately easy.
    Then I attacked Portugal which was going for wonders and religion. Portugal had basically no army and went down incredibly easy.
    At that point everyone in the continent hated me, the Chinese and the Danes were on my left and right sides, however they never DoW on me.
    On the other continent Persia, Egypt and Arabia (funnily historically consistent neighbors) were all buddy buddy and lived and prospered together. Egypt particularly grew strong with tons of wonders and high tech (higher than mine). I invaded Egypt with Artillery and riflemen, surprisingly Egypt had basically no army and in spite of its superior technology it was conquered effortlessly.
    Persia, which has always been one my strongest opponents in my past game, not only had a weak army but also an undeveloped one. Arabia had a more decent army but was stuck with Camel archers.
    Well the only thing I had to fight against was my internal happiness, the rest was way too easy.
    The only other war that wasn't initiated by me was by the danes against Babylon which only had its capital and a few unremarkable colonies.
    The game ended with me conquering everyone.

    -Sixth game I played as Poland and nobody ever DoW on me.
    The first war in the planet was initiated by a very expansionist Inca against Carthago. This was around the late renaissance era for them. After the DoF with the Inca expired I attacked them and with a few help from Carthago and we removed them from the continent splitting the cities between us. The battle was only made difficult by very unfavorable terrain conditions, but otherwise it was easy and I was also quite above of them in technology.
    I had contested borders with the Dutch, but they never attacked me. In G&K they would have done that with 100% certainty.
    Again Portugal hated me and they were bordering with me, they never attacked me and only attacked Indonesia late game once they had but one city left.
    The Indonesian were wiped out by Brazil which asked my help to attack them. I helped them a bit with my navy.
    Even more late in the game The Dutch attacked Assyria which happened to found a colony in a small spot between me and the Dutch. Assyria fared pretty bad in that game. The Dutch conquered their colony a few turns before I won a space victory.


    Conclusions:
    -The AI tends to build less military units, being on par with them is a lot easier than I experienced in my past games. In my opinion this is due to lack of resources and a focus on other priorities.
    -Some AI tend to have a higher focus on wonders and development, but that causes them to neglect their military to ******** levels.
    -The AI shows the same aggression I was used to against weaklings but almost none against opponents that are as strong as them. This makes them smarter but at the same times makes DoW against the player extremely unlikely, especially once the player becomes the dominant power. When an AI attacks a player they usually have a pretty consistent army and they are more dangerous than before.


    Personal speculations:
    I remember how many times in G&K I found myself thinking: "DoW on me? Is this guy serious? He thinks he can defeat me when he has just a few more units? I'm going to wipe him out of the planet!"
    Now this doesn't happen anymore, the AI knows "better" than that. But somehow I miss it. I think that the reduced aggression is a good thing and the fact that the AI thinks twice before engaging in a war against an equally strong enemy is only objectively smart as it would just lead to a waste of resources. However I think the AI should act differently depending on the era. It should be more aggressive against bordering nations in early eras and then it should be more aggressive against other ideologies in later eras. Just a bit I guess.
     
  16. 3drawegroeg

    3drawegroeg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    77
    I've played three games. The first was large continents map on king difficulty with standard number of AI and CS. I was Austria and started close to Japan. I settled pretty close to Kyoto to claim a nice city spot with a silver and gold mine. They did attack with a pretty substantial force, but I was able to buy enough defense to fight him off since I had focused on building up the economy. Mongolia and Sweden were on the same continent with me and Mongolia took Sweden's capital and and another city sometime before 1AD. It seemed like a reasonable amount of agression. Aztecs and America were at war with each other on and off from the time I found the other continent. Ottomans and Ethipoia had a few wars with each other and Ottomans also joined up with Aztecs to fight America once. I stayed friends with Mongolia through the game and by the end game I had three times the military strength as the closest competitor so no one bothered me much. Domination win was pretty much in hand, but I retired to start a new game.

    Game two I played on emperor difficulty with large continents, 14 AI and standard CS. I wasted a lot of resources on building a religion and had a pretty poor starting location. Greece and India were the closest other civs. Greece started rolling people up very early and never stopped. I stayed semi-friends with them by trading and also giving in to demands. They eventually got annoyed at my tech stealing while they were runaway leader and attacked with a huge force. About the only decent thing about my start was that it was in a nice defensive spot, so I just holed up in the three mountain passes that led to my territory and took out as many units as possible. I was in a good enough position with forts and such that they couldn't really bring their superior force to bear, but after 20-30 turns of this I kind of got tired of it and knew I wouldn't win the game like this so I retired from a losing position. Hard to say there was lack of AI agression in this one.


    Game 3 is ongoing. I'm playing Byzantium on large continents with 12 AI and standard CS. I got lucky with finding religious CS and managed to start the second religion. I got ceremonial burial and tithing beliefs and holy warriors. I was also able to found my second city next to Lake Victoria so it was a pretty good start. The closest AI was Spain. She had no iron but a high production capital and went with wonderspam strategy. I sacked Madrid after China tipped me off that Spain were plotting against me, but I had built very little military prior to deciding to go to war. Celts and Greece were at the other end of my starting continent w/ China and Egypt central. Celts and Greece tag teamed Egypt and divided his two cities among themselves. Greece fought two wars with Egypt. They also attacked China eventually. I was mostly unchallenged. Spain were pissed, but couldn't do much about it. China were friends with me by virtue of trading and mutual animosity towards Greece. Celts were too far away with plenty of land to settle and Greece a bigger threat on their border. America was on an isolated island. Carthage and Aztecs were battling it out when I found the other continent. I haven't explored the interior of the other continent, but the Huns appear to have been blocked off from expansion or attacked by virtue of their score. Greece is leading on score, but it's not a runaway. They should be whittled down some as they're now facing China, Celts and me. I'm planning to contribute enough so my alliance with Celts and China makes headway, but mostly just want to give myself breathing room to focus on science or culture. Long story short: another game with a seemingly approrpriate amount of war. Spain were a pushover, but with cause. Everything else seems as it should be.
     
  17. Maxym

    Maxym King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Canada
    You hit the nail right on the head there. I have seen nice armies do the dance and not declaring. That is harmful nt just by wasting Resources and time but also giving a player time to build up defences. In my last game as Poland on deity, Harald came in with such overwhelming force, that if he declared as soon as he reached my borders I would have been toast. Instead he tried to sneak up to my cap and I let him, but by restricting the path to single tile it took him long time while I was popping archers every three turns, and when he finally Dowed He lost a numerically and technologically superior army (biggest on the planet) at a cost of a scout to me.
     
  18. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Killlbray, your game summaries seem to suggest exactly the opposite of your conclusions. It sounds to me like there was plenty of aggression and a number of large armies on the part of the AI, it just wasn't always focused on you.

    Which I guess brings me to a question:

    Do people feel the AI should always or at least often be aggressive towards:
    1) the human player at the expense of other AI players
    2) all players on the map
    3) towards whichever player (human or AI) that makes the most sense at any given time, given the AI's "goals," etc.

    In the case of the Border Build Up Dance, if there's a bug, that's one thing, but it seems there could also be good reasoning behind it. For instance, Rome has been doing this to me for about 50 turns in my current game, but it also has been warring off and on with its other two neighbors for hundreds of turns. The other neighbors are now fairly week, but invading me would decimate Rome's forces and leave them extremely vulnerable. Even if I were "defenseless," Rome would very likely loose troops assaulting any more than one of my cities. His army would be big enough to really hurt me if I had little to no defense, but it's not big enough to fight on three fronts.
     
  19. Ryoga

    Ryoga King

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    993
    The "wasn't always focused on you" is the problem.
    I've been objective here and I showed how the AI still declares war although they do it mainly on very weak enemies and some AI never do so. So we agree on that.
    But the point remains that I played several Emperor/King games and in two of them nobody DoW on me while on the rest there was only a single DoW.

    Compared to my games in G&K where I averaged at least 3 DoW from the AI per game that's a pretty noticeable change.
    I think we can agree that before it was ridiculous, but perhaps now the AI is a bit too cautious. I think a small adjustment in that sense would be better.
     
  20. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Right, so the question is, should the AI be expected to place an exceptionally high priority on attacking the human player or on winning by whatever route it deems to be most probable?

    I personally spend a lot of time trying to ensure war only ever happens on my terms. To me, one should be able to pull that off fairly reliably. I agree it can be taken too far, but I'm just trying to figure out what exactly people expect from the game and the AI logic.

    If we grant that the AI should be playing to win at all costs, and it calculates that warring with you will reduce its chances, how should it proceed?
     

Share This Page