Well, if you were beating them, in say, the space race, I wouldn't mind them getting pissed, since you are direct competition. "But, but Archon, what's the difference? You're splitting hairs!" It's because of the concept of a kingmaker. Forces that drive factions that have no chance of winning influence who wins. So let's say you can't win but you can take someone down and let someone win out of spite. That's just a basic example. More extreme examples is a player that can't win decide to practically gift everything to another player that they want to win. Now, if we're pretending this is a competitive board game, then I think someone that regularly does this out of being a poor sport isn't going to be invited much. But it's also possible that attacking the person that is "winning" is also a bad idea too. Consider if you're going for a space race, and you have 2 others that are leading in a culture victory. You probably can't take both of them, and neither of them will go for a joint war. Now these two are competing for the great people, and their domestic tourists also help obstruct each other's culture victory. In some cases it will be best to simply beat them before they win then try and disable one of them. But then put the AI in the same spot though. They may see that one side has just past 50%, and the other is a bit behind. Nonetheless, the AI goes. We must stop this guy at all costs. Stops deals, devotes resources to sabotoge, and might even go for war. It ends up taking out one of the AIs but before it can get to the 2nd, the 2nd place becomes the 1st quickly ramps up and wins before anyone else can do anything. So what has this player done? All it did was change the winner of the game, but they themselves didn't win. It might have even been to their determent. Now let's flip things around and pretend you were one of the culturer's. From your point of view, the AI has either decided to drag you down with it, or you were lucky that the AIs got tangled in something allowing you to get off easy. Either way, it's pretty stupid. I would accept it if said AI didn't like me to begin with though; that's a reason at least? So, You think this AI is capable of reading a situation like this? Because it really isn't that uncommon. Although, this might be why the current modifier doesn't seem to apply to culture victory. I am skeptical though. In Civ 4, sometimes the AI would say "No we'd rather win the game first", mostly in response to getting them to trade away space techs. Since that's their chosen form of victory, you wouldn't really fault them, would you? Finally, I'd like to ask a simple question. How does the game end? It ends in 2 ways. 1.) When you win 2.) When you are defeated. Note that the AI winning is only linked to no.2 It and of itself, doesn't really mean Then I'll ask you this. In games you lose, do you remember which AI won? Do you politely "one more turn" until the actual winner comes out? I know this game doesn't have a hall of fame, but why don't AIs get a spot in them in earlier versions? Oh, and do you let the AI reload after their lose a city? Single player is inherently player-centric. That being said, there certainly is an argument for when bots need to replace take over for humans in multiplayer games. But I guess that's asking a bit much from their AI team at this point, lol.