Vulture and cowardly ways of the AI...

[Dr Zlu]

Well, it's not the first time I notice the AI behaves this way but it really struck me in the last game I played. It seems the AI was programmed to survive at any cost but it was programmed too well in this trend in my opinion. It sometimes makes it act weirdly.
An example from my last game:
Huge map - Regent Level
Two main continents :
Iroquois, India, Japanese and China (me) on one of them. There has been NO war amongst us during the entire game.
America, France, Russia, Aztecs, England and Persia on the other one. (The annoying aztecs have been destroyed early in the game by the Persians.)
Germany was stuck on a tiny and snowy nothern island. I was first to make contact with them and they were quite happy to learn Construction and Currency in 1300AD.
Finally, Egypt and Rome had to share a small isle in the south. No luck.
To the point. Obviously, Persia sought to destroy all its neighbours. They had begun with Aztecs and they eventually disposed of America in the 1200's. Their military was by far the strongest in the world (only mine and India's (yes, India) could have had a chance repelling an attack from them). What is really annoying is that each time they attacked another country, all their neighbours would join the bloodfest and declare war to Persia's victim. When Persia started its campaign against America; France, England, Russia and puny Germany declared war to Lincoln in the hope to grab some land. Later, Persia attacked France and as well did the other ones. It sounds like a vulture attitude to me. Civs in this game don't act like countries but like viruses!
If the real world had acted this way fifty years ago, my own country would have been split between Germany, Italy, England and the USA.
I know Civ3 is not meant to be realistic. But it would have been enjoyable if the AI had been programmed to act more proudly than that. Introduce some kind of real "friendship" concept based on the relation you have had with another civ for thousand years as well as the kind of government it mostly uses.
The way it acts now (and since multi is not possible), AI gives a real harsh and cold feeling to the game. It only acts in terms of numbers: I will attack this one because it has a feeble army (no matter what our relations have been since 4000BC); I will use this kind of gov because it suits my current needs (Communism or Rep with Suffrage for war, Democracy for science); etc...

Here you are. Sorry if my english is not very understandable at times.


(Edited for spelling and yes, there is probably more to correct )

 

[-proletarian-]

I understand perfectly what you mean. This disappointed me too, when they were bleating on about how the new diplomacy system would be so great, I was hoping that you would be able to actually form relationships in this game with rival civs. The way it is now, the AI functions on a purely numerical basis. It will only be your ally if it is in it's best interest. The second you become a liability, or even just have something that it wants, it will erase thousands of years of good relations and become your new enemy, just like that. Not very realistic.

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

I have to say that out of everything mentioned as far as problems within the game, this subject is at the top of my list. Sadly, diplomacy has become nothing more than a storefront. You use it to buy and sell techs.
Thousands of years of good faith trading means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that is a shame. The player ends up falling into the AI way of doing things, feeling that all rival civs are nothing more than a stack of units to be measured up against your own.
It is impossible to even attempt to 'role play' the idea that friendships are built.

 

[Troyens]

All true, unfortunately.

I can't stand how overnight a Polite civ you've had good relationships with for centuries suddenly declares war on you.
Worse, I've even seen Gracious go to war on occasion, and not just the crazy Zulus or Germans who are so nutty (not just "aggressive") they are not worth playing against.

 

[Quentin]

This really is not very nice because I think something was even written in the manual about how "warmongering" was no longer neccessary. If the AI acts in such a way, how can people not be forced to be warmongers?

 

[Captain Pugwash]

I also agree that relationships in this game mean nothing other than a temporary cease-fire while you plan the next atrocity. But this is only the start. The whole game is built on the decidedly unpleasant pursuit of genocide. In order to win you nearly always have to destroy weak and innocent neighbours and manufacture some excuse to do so.

When I am enjoying the game, I dont think about these things. I would actually prefer a sort of management game where to win you just had to outperform the others by making better decisions but that is not Civ.

 

[Mr Spice]

I am usually a dedicated fanboy but this time I agree. I have also thought about this hyena-behaviour and am not very happy with it. There would be more feeling to the game if there was a "friend concept" present.

It has it advantages though, since it makes the game more challenging. Btw, Civ 2 also had this hyena behaviour to a smaller degree. No "friends" there either.

 

[LordAzreal]

We all wish that there was a friend concept. But the question is, are computers capable of being your friend? No. They're programmed to do one thing. In this case, its to stop the human player from winning. In the case above, the Persians obviously needed to thrash its nearest neighbours to get big enough to stand a chance against the player. And since it had the strongest UU (Immortal) in the ancient era, the program chose them to ascend to challenge the human (a bit narrow-minded though, as the Russian Cossack is quite a good UU). It probably didn't want to fight Egypt, Rome, Germany, India or Japan as they are out of the way (unless the quickest route to the player was through one of the ones who shared the same continent as the player).

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dr Zlu
If the real world had acted this way fifty years ago, my own country would have been split between Germany, Italy, England and the USA.

Often, partition is the result. Examples include Germany after WWI, Poland in 1939, Africa and Asia during the Colonial Period, and yes, France after the Franco-Prussian War when various German states unified to carve up the French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, while Italy grabbed the French-controlled Papal states.

 

[Dr Zlu]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
We all wish that there was a friend concept. But the question is, are computers capable of being your friend? No. They're programmed to do one thing. In this case, its to stop the human player from winning.

Basically, computers are no more clever than an abacus. They are not even meant to be intelligent. Though, via the magic of programming, one can give the illusion they are all you want them to be : coward, bold, stupid, upset and, I am pretty sure; friendly... All this is a matter of code and numbers of course and though it is not really true, the most important thing is what the player believes. Call it the way you want, but I remain convinced that if Firaxis had wanted the AI in Civ3 to act in friendly ways, they could have done it.
I think this debate about what an AI can or should be is far more vast than the single case of Civ3. My opinion is that in general, AIs are poorly programmed or, on the design and development side, they don't get all the attention and care this part of a game deserves, especially in single player games. Understand me well : I really love Civ3 and its AI is not that bad at all; there are far worse ones around! All I wished to point at was a real design flaw. Well, it's just my opinion. Let's debate; that's what forums are for, aren't they?

 

[Dr Zlu]

Originally posted by Captain Pugwash
...a sort of management game where to win you just had to outperform the others by making better decisions...

Presisely, couldn't it be a definition of the Civ-like games? :crazyeyes

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Troyens
All true, unfortunately.

I can't stand how overnight a Polite civ you've had good relationships with for centuries suddenly declares war on you.

And no human player has ever betrayed another in Civ3 or in real life?

 

[Talar]

Originally posted by Zachriel


And no human player has ever betrayed another in Civ3 or in real life?

No, not in Civ3 at least, as we don't have multiplayer yet

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Talar
No, not in Civ3 at least, as we don't have multiplayer yet

Good point. Let me try that again. . . .
. . .
hmm
. . .
And no human player has ever betrayed the AI?
Or another human in real life?

 

[Special_O]

Humans are inherently bad and yes, they will turn on you as soon as it seems advantageous to do so. Nations are even worse.

 

[Mavfin]

As someone (can't remember who) said, hopefully somewhat close to this:

England has no eternal friends or enemies, just eternal interests....

 

[FrantzX]

Let me tell you a true story.

I started a game on Regent as the Babylonians. Normal sized map on continents. Expanding quickly, my continent became half Babylonian and half Chinese. The First Babylonian War of Manifest Destiny raged on for millennia. Waves of bowmen baptized the walls of Chinese cities with blood. Swordsmen followed this first attack after the Third Battle of the Plains, in which a vital iron deposit was taken. Knights took up the Holy Crusade and Babylonia became a world power with the forging of the empire. With the homeland secure, the motherland's influence was spread throughout the world.

In this new age of discovery, one such civilization we encountered the Germanic Republic. A smaller nation with only a ten city island to call it's own, the proud German people found a true friend in Babylonia. The Pact of Brothers was signed, and trade between the two cultures grew to great heights for a thousand years. Thus began Pax Babylonia.

Another empire the Motherland encounter was the Aztecs. A fierce, warlike race, they had subjugated their part of the world with fire and blood. The Ilyran Ocean, a vast body of water, separated the two giants of the world. Both sides were content with the Age of Peace, for now. Each passing day brought new technologies and marvels, and each day the world shunk a little. One day, it would now be large enough for both Babylonia and the Empire Aztec.

Pax Babylonia ended without notice. It was a battle without blood, as the homeland's industrial and scientific might were competing with the power of the UCAR, the United Communist Aztecan Regime. But the minds of the Babylonian people are the finest in the world, and we were first to discover the black gold. Oil could transform the Babylonian war machine into an unstoppable juggernaut of destruction. It must be secured at all costs. But oil was a precious and rare material and none was to be found in the homeland.

The United Germanic States was still a true ally. Now a quiet people, it never bothered to enter the world stage, preferring its isolation. Its only link to the world was Babylonia. But its peace was not to last. The only place in the world to find oil was the Germanic Isle. The UGS was unaware of its newfound importance. The Empire was faced with a problem. If the UGS were given the secrets of oil, it would gladly share with the homeland; an eon of history assured that. However, the other nations, most of all the UCAR, would soon unlock the secrets that would change the world. The Germanic Isle would be the greatest prize in the world. The UCAR would stop that nothing to deny the Empire of oil. If the UCAR could gain control of the world oil supply, it would gain control of the world.

The UGS would be unable to deny of the might of the UCAR for long. A blitz attack would give the UCAR total control of the country before Germany could resist or for Babylonia to send help. There was only one course of action: integration of the Germanic States into the Empire, whether they wanted it or not.

 

[LordAzreal]

A good story told well.

But what has it got to do with the subject of this thread? There is a forum specifically for these glorious tales. Maybe your story should be there, where a wider audience can appreciate it.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Zachriel: I`d like to have a US passport, it might make many things easier..... but I was not born in a state that was no more, was integrated and assimilated into the USA.....

 

[Dr Zlu]

Well, I don't agree with the definition of a "betrayal" that some of you seem to have, folks.
In my mind, a betrayal occurs when someone who has repeatedly given proofs of good will and faith suddenly backstabs you. But... Have you EVER had any reason to trust the AI in Civ3???
Well, yes, when a treaty of some kind is signed, you can suppose it will be reliable for 20 miserable turns... which is quite short compared to the whole length of a game.