What do you expect from the AI in Civ 4

[GreatSquid]

I think it will definitely get better. They are learning more all the time.

 

[eaglefox]

If he beats you with culture or UN vote, he still outplayed you. You should have stopped it.

i actually don't like to victory conditions. i don't play with them.

 

[eaglefox]

the ai should also keep upgrading its armies from time to time. as we enter a new age, the ai should strive to get rid of all the old units that have become useless. this will reduce costs. the ai could use them up in a war, or upgrade them as it gets money. i don't really understand the fact that while the treasury of a human keeps growing through the ages, the ai never has too much money to show. where does it all go. i don't think it speeds projects up, otherwise its cities should show the improvement, it never keeps a vast army, nor does it believe in donations and loans, so where exactly is that money going. the ai should be programmed to keep some cash for backup, for any contingency, like a war for eg.

 

[eaglefox]

So after reading the posts in this thread, I have now made a list of all the expectations people have from CIV 4.

1) The AI has to be better at making War:
The AI in CIV III is, at best, bad with the art of war. It cannot handle tactical warfare very well, and has absolutely no sense of strategic warfare. I mean most of the times you can't even figure out why the AI attacked you. These suicidal tendencies have to go in Civ IV, or atleast if the AI has to attack, make it a better fighter. Naval Warfare needs to be revamped. We want to see better naval assaults conducted for a reason that could range from capturing a resource, getting a major production center, or even getting a good foot hold on the enemy territory. The AI should also be able to hold what it captures with decent defenses. Air and artillery should be used collectively with the rest of the army, and not just in random bombing that don't seem to do too much and also results in the AI losing a lot of aircrafts. The AI should be careful with its units in that it should not waste them for nothing. And it should never forget the bigger goal of winning the game, so should try to get other useful countries involved in the war on its side, and not a country that's thousands of miles away, unless that country is a superpower like the US.

2) Upgrading Units:
The AI can throw stacks of Modern Armour at you accompanied by warriors. This should be removed. The AI should upgrade its army whenever possible, and disband older troops, if they can't be upgraded.

3) The AI has to be better at diplomacy:
The CIV III AI is not good with diplomacy. It has to make the human player rely on the resources it has to offer. The human should not just be able to conquer all the necessary resources from the AI. The AI should not be paying hundreds of GPT just for one resource. This idea, IMO, comes in the bigger picture of the trade system. Civ trading is very loosely defined. There are no set prices for goods. You can trade oil with one AI for 100 GPT, and yet you can give another AI oil for 40 GPT. This is not how it should work. There should be a better trading system - like world market, where prices are decided by supply and demand. There should also be a World Bank that could hand out loans to countries depending on their credit history. There should be a lot more treaties available in the diplomacy than just the generic ones like Right of Passage, and MPTs. Researching new techs could open the doors to new treaties like Nuclear Power resulting in CTBT and NPT. We should also be able to place embargoes on the opponents for certain items, like sensitive techs, while still maintaining other trades and treaties. Moreover, the AI should know how to use these properly rather than doing something silly like in Civ III.
During peace negotiations, we should have more options to choose from like the loser never builds an airforce larger than a cetain number, or the loser cannot build heavy equipment, we should be able to force a govt change, or we should be able to force a treaty, things like that.

4) Try to keep its alliances and treaties even if its going through a rough time. The AI should just leave a war whenever it wants to. There should be something more at stake than just reputation, which by the way never seems to affect the AI - they always have MPTs and ROPs.

5) The AI should not know troop locations before hand. It should be just as knowledgeable as us. It should need to explore new areas to know them.

What do you guys think?

 

[Drakan]

I hope it does very good amphibious assaults. No more hiding in archipiélago maps sitting confidently.

I would love to see the AI establishing a beachhead with 100 units with armies, pillaging your key strategical resources and wreaking havoc. That would be so exciting, a real challenge.

I'd also like to see them nuking better. What's the point of hitting nine times with nukes a size-one city in-the-middle-of-nowhere ? Just a waste of the AIs shields.

I'd love the AI to betray me when I least expected it to. I'd like it to be cunning and have a big picture and not recalculating it's strategy every turn (i.e. has no strategy at all).

I'd like to make ironfist alliances with AIs which were unbreakable. I'd like my ally to actually help me out (send more than one crappy unit) and coordinate an attack on a city as in SMAC.

I guess it's too much to ask nowadays.

But I have my confidence on those top-players who are beta-testing and hopefully they will provide the programmers with good strategies that the AI can use against us.

 

[warpstorm]

I'd like it to be cunning and have a big picture and not recalculating it's strategy every turn (i.e. has no strategy at all).

I disagree (with part of your statement). If it doesn't reevaluate its strategy every turn it won't be able to exploit your mistakes. It should however remember what it was doing and see if it still makes sense.

I'd love the AI to betray me when I least expected it to.

I'd like to make ironfist alliances with AIs which were unbreakable.

Aren't these mutually exclusive?

 

[eaglefox]

We should have some AIs that are treacherous and some that stay loyal longer. I agree with Drakan that the AI needs to keep the bigger picture in mind. Yes recalculating strategies are good, but changes should be made only if they really help the AI in the long run, like destroying a huge stranded force (dunkirk), or getting to an important resource before carrying out the original plan. The AI as we know it has no strategies in a war. It just acts on impulse. There are to be a specific plan on action.
Nuking is usually the last resort in Civ III for AIs. Actually I don't remember the last time the AI nuked anyone before I did. So they don't go around nuking cities just for fun, which is good, but they do nuke really ridiculous targets at times. And when in does start nuking, it goes all out. It should nuke the major cities and use limited numbers, just to make the opponent submit. Not to eradicate it completely. Like in WWII with Japan. Some might say that the Cold War threatened the entire humanity, but then no nuke was actually fired, so the AI should prefer diplomacy or conventional warfare to nuclear warfare at any time.

 

[apatheist]

The AI should not be paying hundreds of GPT just for one resource.

Yes, it should, if that resource is worth it.

There are no set prices for goods. You can trade oil with one AI for 100 GPT, and yet you can give another AI oil for 40 GPT. This is not how it should work.

That is a feature, not a bug. Value is relative.

There should be a better trading system - like world market, where prices are decided by supply and demand.

Prices are already determined by supply and demand. Each party charges the most and pays the least they can.

There should also be a World Bank that could hand out loans to countries depending on their credit history.

Why? Humanitarian things don't matter in Civ. Nor is it in my best interest for some other civ to be better developed. In fact, it's usually against my best interest. If the trade model was more based on networks and quality of those networks, then it might be different. That is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of development loans. Also, there's no point in having a World Bank because there aren't going to be 200 civs in a game. The World Bank exists because there are numerous lenders and even more borrowers; wanting to channel that through a single organization (which isn't even the reality) is why the World Bank exists, but it's just a front for various Western governments' lending.

There should be a lot more treaties available in the diplomacy than just the generic ones like Right of Passage, and MPTs. Researching new techs could open the doors to new treaties like Nuclear Power resulting in CTBT and NPT. We should also be able to place embargoes on the opponents for certain items, like sensitive techs, while still maintaining other trades and treaties.

Agreed. You should be able to have per-city RoP; arms control treaties; embargoes on certain technologies, strategic resources, luxuries, etc.; trade monopolies; religious protectorships; the various components of vassaldom; promises of future tech sharing (Give me Replaceable Parts when you discover it); etc.

 

[warpstorm]

It should nuke the major cities and use limited numbers, just to make the opponent submit. Not to eradicate it completely. Like in WWII with Japan

Why? Would you submit? I wouldn't if I thought I could still win. In WW2, they didn't submit on the first one dropped. It wasn't until the second and the lie that more were on the way that Japan submitted. They were afraid of total destruction.

 

[eaglefox]

Why? Would you submit? I wouldn't if I thought I could still win. In WW2, they didn't submit on the first one dropped. It wasn't until the second and the lie that more were on the way that Japan submitted. They were afraid of total destruction.

this is exactly why I said limited number. I never said just one. limited number till the opponent submits. but you have to give the opponent a chance to submit. he can't surrender if he'd completely eradicated.

 

[eaglefox]

Yes, it should, if that resource is worth it.

all i am saying is that all the AI civs should be paying the same amt for the same resource. if they have plenty of it, they needn't buy it, or they can buy less of it, but the price per unit has to be the same.

That is a feature, not a bug. Value is relative.

again, this feature is what i want out. this is not how trade happens, atleast not in the real world. yes there are slight variations in prices depending on the supply, but every gallon of oil still costs 60 bucks whether it is in NA or Africa or Asia. same with other resources. in CIV, we don't have quantity of resources, so a civ paying 10 gpt for iron gets all the benefits as a civ that might be paying 50. the civ paying 10 should be getting a fifth of the amount the other civ is buying.

Prices are already determined by supply and demand. Each party charges the most and pays the least they can.

as i said before, i don't want any one civ deciding the price of a commodity. if they don't want it, then don't buy it, but if you wanna buy it, you have to buy it at the market price, which is the same for everyone.

Why? Humanitarian things don't matter in Civ. Nor is it in my best interest for some other civ to be better developed. In fact, it's usually against my best interest. If the trade model was more based on networks and quality of those networks, then it might be different. That is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of development loans. Also, there's no point in having a World Bank because there aren't going to be 200 civs in a game. The World Bank exists because there are numerous lenders and even more borrowers; wanting to channel that through a single organization (which isn't even the reality) is why the World Bank exists, but it's just a front for various Western governments' lending.

of course it isn't in you best interest for other civs to be better than yours. that is exactly where you have to employ your strategies and see how you do. moreover, i don't want civs living off of gold they get from the land. what about those who don't have a lot of gold in their land. countries may be huge, but still may not have too much gold (in the real world). its ok in the earlier ages, but by the industrial age, most countries should have a working economy that depends more on foreign trade than just resources from the homeland.

 

[warpstorm]

And I repeat, would you surrender? (Assuming that this means an immediate loss of the game) I wouldn't.

 

[eaglefox]

And I repeat, would you surrender? (Assuming that this means an immediate loss of the game) I wouldn't.

by submitting, i mean asking for peace - not necessarily unconditional. ok the japanese example was a bit extreme, but that is the only event where atom bombs were used.

 

[apatheist]

all i am saying is that all the AI civs should be paying the same amt for the same resource. if they have plenty of it, they needn't buy it, or they can buy less of it, but the price per unit has to be the same.

Again, they shouldn't. Maybe I want to give Greece oil for cheap so that they survive longer and distract Rome. Maybe I'm fearful of Egypt, but I need the cash, so I make them pay through the nose.

this is not how trade happens, atleast not in the real world. yes there are slight variations in prices depending on the supply, but every gallon of oil still costs 60 bucks whether it is in NA or Africa or Asia. same with other resources. in CIV, we don't have quantity of resources, so a civ paying 10 gpt for iron gets all the benefits as a civ that might be paying 50. the civ paying 10 should be getting a fifth of the amount the other civ is buying.

There are so many obstacles between the Civ trade system and the real world that need to be surmounted before it could implement something like you suggest in a fun way. For one, there would have to be actual economies. Two, resources would have to finite; supply and demand don't really work with a semi-infinite supply. Three, the government shouldn't be doing all the purchasing of resources. Four, the real world has much greater ability to substitute one commodity for another, if the cost/benefit equation works out right. Five, the real world has many orders of magnitude more commodities than Civ does, which makes the previous possible. Six, the real world has many more actors in it than a game of Civilization; to have a real, free-market economy of generic commodities, you need many buyers and sellers, not just a half a dozen. And many more. Taking just that one aspect of the real world economy without changing the rest of the system would make the system worse, not better. You have to eat the whole elephant.

Besides, that's only the modern world. Things were different in the age of imperialism. And your example isn't quite right either; there are many grades of oil and it needs to be transported, which affects the cost. Then there are export duties that apply to various commodities.

of course it isn't in you best interest for other civs to be better than yours.

Er... so why do you want a World Bank again?

that is exactly where you have to employ your strategies and see how you do. moreover, i don't want civs living off of gold they get from the land. what about those who don't have a lot of gold in their land. countries may be huge, but still may not have too much gold (in the real world). its ok in the earlier ages, but by the industrial age, most countries should have a working economy that depends more on foreign trade than just resources from the homeland.

I agree with that. I don't see how that connects with your previous point, though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry to go off topic, guys, but I think the point with WWII Japan was that they couldn't win -and they knew it. The civilian government of Japan knew this as far back as January of 1945 (and even tried to make peace with the US, behind the backs of the military government). All the two nukes did was put the matter beyond doubt for even most of the skeptics within the military government (some of whom still tried to prevent Hirohito from announcing the surrender). Plus, it was a good 'field test' of this new weapon for the US military, a good way of forcing a quick surrender before Russia could occupy Japan, and sent a strong message to Russia that the US had a new and deadly weapon-and were prepared to use it.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Back on topic now. The real world World Bank isn't there for humanitarian purposes either. I think that if there were a World Bank in Civ4, I would use it to give money to civs who had resources I wanted-but you can already sort of do that in diplomacy. The only thing a World Bank might represent is an ability to do such a deal multilaterally. So, for instance: England, Germany and Persia get together on the trading table to offer America 500 gold-each-in return for access to their Coal and around 30gpt (interest paymants ) for the next 20 turns. Now, America might accept such a deal-but only if they were totally in a bind (which could happen). The point is that none of those 3 countries are acting out of altruism, but keen self-interest. Another possibility might be that those 3 countries might give the money to America-no strings attached -because they need America to hold off an invading force (and America is all that stands between them and this invader).
I guess my major point here is that we don't need a World Bank-per se-all we need is the power to make multilateral agreements of the sorts which I described above-and have an AI which is intelligent enough to make good use of it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[eaglefox]

apatheist:
the point you make about favouring a certain civ and giving it resources for cheap can be addressed with a better diplomacy section. You could call that civ a favoured trading partner and thus give it resources at a discount, while making other civs pay the market price or something even higher. in either case, the trading system is overly simplistic in Civ III. These things have to bit somewhat more complicated than that. with quantitative resources, one more aspect comes into play:
In case of a war, let's say you need oil, you have a few wells but can't sustain the demand that the military is putting on the production. your reserves start dwindling, so you have to go out to buy oil. now come the problems like blockades, or other countries unwilling to sell you oil because they are friendly towards your enemy, or they don't wanna sell you oil because they want the war to stop and the status quo to be restored, or maybe there is too much demand for it. so you are in a fix (and perhaps also the opponent). so wars become more strategic and harder to fight. next time you'll think twice about entering a war, or atleast have more reserves. you see where i am going. the current system is too easy for the human player. and the ai just isn't smart enough to work around it. i am looking at the bigger picture, not just the warfare part, or just the trade system. its the whole game that should be affected by these changes.

 

[Sirian]

And I repeat, would you surrender? (Assuming that this means an immediate loss of the game) I wouldn't.

Actually, I've surrendered before. In Master of Orion, that is. When you lose the vote, you have the choice of accepting the outcome and joining the new Galactic Republic as a subject (member) people, or refusing and engaging in Final War against alliance of all other civs left in the game. The latter choice often amounts to civ-wide suicide, and is a "harder" form of loss than the first.

Winning and Losing don't have to be binary affairs. There can be degrees of either. This would better mimic real life, as well, and if implemented well, could be a lot of fun.

I could see surrendering under the right circumstances, and calling it good fun.


Will Civ4 have something like that? Well, none of the previous Civ games have, and I haven't read anything to indicate a change. Still, there's a difference between theoretically having a chance to win the game and realistically still having a chance. Well-implemented surrender options could make the game better on several fronts.

I bet it would be easier to come up with an AI that could spank me on the battlefield (given some bonuses, of course) than one that could engage high level diplomacy in a way that feels immersive.


- Sirian

 

[warpstorm]

Actually, I've surrendered before. In Master of Orion, that is. When you lose the vote, you have the choice of accepting the outcome and joining the new Galactic Republic as a subject (member) people, or refusing and engaging in Final War against alliance of all other civs left in the game.

Now that you mention it, I have done it is MOO also.

I bet it would be easier to come up with an AI that could spank me on the battlefield (given some bonuses, of course) than one that could engage high level diplomacy in a way that feels immersive.

Having done some AI recently, I would have to agree with you. The one is a math and logic problem that can be solved by analytic programming skill, the other is an evocation of feelings, which is more art than science.

 

[eaglefox]

Having done some AI recently, I would have to agree with you. The one is a math and logic problem that can be solved by analytic programming skill, the other is an evocation of feelings, which is more art than science.

Actually both could be as easy or as hard.
Wars aren't always fought logically and mathematically. There are always emotional reasons for fighting wars, like loss of land in an earlier war, or avenging defeat either militarily or diplomatically, or hatred for a certain sect.
And yet diplomatic agreements can be carved out with a logical analysis of the situation. Like for example the CTBT, the logic is that the nuclear powers stay stronger, but the other countries can never get in a position to really challenge them, cause they can always nuke them.
I really don't expect the AI to be as good as the real world leaders in politics or the real world generals. The problem is that the AI is only one mind, which is really weak in doing anything, while in the real world there are always advisors. But atleast the AI shouldn't do the obvious stupidities, like making war for no apparent or logical reason and ending up getting beaten badly.