What Would Gandhi Do? - AI Rebalancing Mod

Yes, but I'm more interested in balance between friends (with whom you have a DOF), neutral (no dof and few negatives) and enemies. I'd like it better if there was a way to keep DoF in the mix to keep things interesting rather than being forced not to DoF because being denounced as a friend gives such a huge penalty.

Incidentally, is the goal of this mod to have an AI which is less aggressive or only peaceful games with no war? I agree that having a "saner" AI would be good, but going too far would give games where everybody is friend the whole time seems a bit dull..
 
Yes, but I'm more interested in balance between friends (with whom you have a DOF), neutral (no dof and few negatives) and enemies. I'd like it better if there was a way to keep DoF in the mix to keep things interesting rather than being forced not to DoF because being denounced as a friend gives such a huge penalty.

Incidentally, is the goal of this mod to have an AI which is less aggressive or only peaceful games with no war? I agree that having a "saner" AI would be good, but going too far would give games where everybody is friend the whole time seems a bit dull..

I agree on the first point. What I'm stressing is that the present dynamic encourages no DoF's.

My sense of this mod's purpose is a less irrational AI (with regard to diplomacy) and one that has to take happiness into account more (with regard to its happiness bonus).
 
I would like to make DoF better but cannot just yet. Once we get full access I want to change research agreements to scale much better between allies.
 
Another game with v3 and Thal's dev v18. I was France on a five-civ continent. I sealed off about 25% with border cities, and built seven cities total while going for a science victory. In a game where I ranked last in everything but literacy, I had no wars, and no cross words spoken to me other than one Roman complaint about a tile purchase. This was with no DoF's. I signed one very late game with leading power Siam, and noticed no improvement to our trade relations.

Of note is that on my continent Rome was aggressive, and all the wars involved Caesar. As a result he was dogpiled twice by almost every civ in both continents. The other three civs never fought each other. On the other continent Persia and Arabia were generally allied against Spain after Arabia backstabbed Isabella, but the situation remained stable.
 
Here is why. Why do people find this game less fun at the moment than CiV? Because at some goddamn point, no matter what point you're at or how well you managed your relations, when you trip a certain threshold with the AI... BAM... Borg collectivity engages and they all want you dead or removed from the game. With humans this is a lot more subtle. There will be more open relations, more wars, more everything in a big game vs humans. But the AI in the way it turns on you is so blatently contrived and childish that you can't help but laugh and facepalm.

All of a sudden you're not playing a Civ game. You're not making clever deals in order to trick the AI or embargoing third parties so you can make head-way. Hell, why not just get rid of the Diplomacy menu and just have everyone at war with you
if that's the way CiV is going to treat you. Because frankly that's how things are at the moment.

I'm sorry but I am not accepting (- Your friends found reason to denounce you) as a legitimate feature of this game. It is contrived, unfair and it creates a pointless articifical handicap that no player would enjoy except for those who prefer
'Always War'. Why the hell should the other AI's care that I'm stomping all over CSes that they're not even involved with? In fact, THEY declared on ME! So as soon as I get some sort of upper hand, the AI immediately calls me out for it? How is that even fun?

It's not clever, it's not fun, in fact, it's a backwards step in the AI. It's reminiscient of Skirmish AI that you'd find in old RTS games.

Let's give an example. Anyone here played C&C Red Alert? If you played skirmishes in that you'd know that most games were free for alls. In an 8 player game for example, you could attack everyone and anyone, and the AI did the same, they attacked everyone and never allied...

Which is a lie by the way. The AI in Red Alert didn't start out as allies. However, once a computer player or two was eliminated from the game, THEN they would form what I can only assume was an ad-hoc NATO and then went for you and you alone, creating
bizzare situations where you were holding off 6 enemy armies at once.

The threshold I obviously tripped here was the 'Killing more than a few CSes threshold. So, hang on a minute, Russia has killed two. Yes admittedly I've killed off the most (3), but it's just ridiculous that I get flak for it when I was just getting rid of the thorns in my side. And the message of all things comes from my longest term trade partner, Nobunaga, which is just a slap in the face.

This isn't the only game I've had something like this happen before. I had a game recently (without this mod) where I played as Alexander and monopolised all the CSes and was pretty close to culture. There was peace all game and then suddenly they all declare on me. This was legitimate, I have to admit the AI knew I was going for culture and rightly wanted me gone. However, there's just something about the way ( - Your friends found reason to denounce you) is worded that pisses me off. Why not just say (We would rather win the game thanks). The AI used to use those exact words in Civ4 when they were holding off a tech from you so you couldn't get an advantage in the space race, but it didn't necessarily mean that all embassies were closed to you (other AIs were still willing to trade), nor did it mean the enemy AI that was withholding the tech from you hated you (indeed they were still willing to trade other things such as gold).

But this is not good. Why? I'm going to use that word again, that word that you see often chucked around threads in general discussion. It is the immersion factor. In a game where you're partly making deals with the world, they should have more reasonable and logical approaches to you.

Now don't get me wrong, if I were playing a CiV terminator edition where all my opponents were sentient AI and I was to roleplay the only human alive that had to get an advantage before Skynet came online, unified them all and got them to invade me and seek my elimination from their perfect AI world, that would make sense for this current version of the game.

But this is not a Terminator movie gone huge. This is not AI War: Fleet Command . This is meant to be Civilisation. Fans to a certain extent should be allowed to roleplay. Victory is the icing on the cake, it is the journey that matters.

In conclusion, the diplomacy is too much of 'Do nothing and you'll be screwed. Do something consistently and you'll be screwed' This does not maketh a good game. I would be able to accept it IF I actually went out of my way to declare war on Mongolia. That would be a good reason for the AI to be afraid of me. But no. Alas, rather than Mongolia alone being vilified, I am thrown into the same camp. Without any prior warning from who I assumed to be my closest Ally all bloody game.

- With that off my chests, I have a few suggestions:

1. There needs to be more incentive to form agreements with the AI. It shouldn't be a case of the AI wanting to turn the tap of friendship on and off repeatedly for the sake of it, and growing timid just because their friend of one billion years suddenly cherry tapped a tiny nation that they actually don't give a crap about. I don't want AIs with 'cold war' personalities, sure, throwing some into the mix who have 'backstabbing slut' or 'impossible and immovable in diplomacy' personalities is fine, just don't have all of them adopt the same crazy paranoid demenour every time the human player so much as breathes.

1a. On top of this it you should be capable of forming relationships as well as souring them. For example, let the AIs see positivity in things such as having open borders with the player, having research agreements, trading resources, giving tribute and gifting the AI with something it needs at that time. And let the player SEE these things in the diplomacy screen, so it gives them more incentive to stay allied. At the moment there's too many things you can do to annoy an AI; this needs to be balanced out with more friendly options.

1b: With this in mind, the logical progression of a pact of friendship should be one due to the benevolent actions one civ has taken towards another, rather than it being the other way round. At the moment, the AI are like children in a nursery saying 'I like you, let's be friends' at the drop of a hat, rather than befriending someone on a mutual basis. AIs should earn each other's trust as well as you being able to earn theirs and vice versa.

Without this idea, the game literally becomes Civilisation 5: Everyone is Montezuma edition

If you manage to do this Sneaks (or if anyone else manages to figure out the AI) I will chisle a statue of marble of your likeness using my teeth and my manly soul and place it somewhere on Stonehenge as a testament to your genius.

For the meantime I will continue to play test your mod.


Good sir, I know this is late but this is EXACTLY what I feel. Pretty much every single game of mine (I play King) has been like this:

START
-I start making cities
-I piss someone off
-They denounce me. My friends don't like it for some reason.
-They DoW me.
-I take half their cities
-I jump to the top of the chart. AI doesn't like it.
-3 more AI denounce and DoW me.
-I destroy all 3 due to their horrible tactical sense. I am top.
-Everyone hates me. Diplomacy is completely pointless and I am isolated for the rest of the game. But I've pretty much won the game from the amount of cities I've taken (and since there are no penalties for have many cities).
-I restart because there literally is no one to talk to.

This (and the ICS thing) is completely ******** and annoying me greatly. I just had a Russian pangaea game where the AI I've already defeated declared war on me again because the 3 AI I didn't discover found me and denounced me, leading the others to go over their threshold. I'm greatly inclined to abandon that game now, because it is just idiotic. The only deals I get late game are with newly discovered civs who don't have bad modifiers against me yet, and even then they'll denounce me a couple of turns later.

EDIT: Sneaks, do you have a new release coming out soon? I'd like to start a new game but this time I'd like it with sensible AI :). So if you're releasing a new version I won't DL your mod and start a new game just yet
 
This version will probably be it for the next week or more, as I will be out of state for a wedding until then.
 
Sneaks, do you have a new release coming out soon? I'd like to start a new game but this time I'd like it with sensible AI :). So if you're releasing a new version I won't DL your mod and start a new game just yet

You don't need a new version. It's easy to stay friends with most if not all of the AI with the current version. If anything, the AI is a little too tame. It's Mission Accomplished with better things to come for this mod.
 
Txurce is right. I will probably give the AI back some fangs in the next version. My current approach probably did pacify the AI a bit much, and there are several things I will try to do to find the sweet spot balance.
 
Hi Sneaks,

thanks a lot for your mod. Anyway I wanted you to know there may be a bug or strange behavior with the AI.

On Friday I played a game with Greece. I wanted to test the combination of WWGD 0.3, Playwithme 0.5 and Citystate Diplomacy Mod 2.9 in an diplo win. Pangaea Map, Normal size on Prince. My direct neighbors were Katharina and Napoleon. Every civ I met was friendly an I made the first DoF about 50th round. After some time everybody except Napoleon was my buddy while he hated me. He declared three wars against me and while every attempt was stopped he remained hostile. I was the only one he attacked though.

Then I tested the AI behavior in signing a defensive pact with every other civ. About 10 rounds later he declared war against me :). Although he had the largest or second largest army he lost three cities. Anyway after that every civ denounced him and 15 rounds before completing the UN all civs asked me for support their war against him. Ten rounds later everybody except me attacked him.

I just wondered if this is intended by you that one AI tries to offend literally the whole world or if this is just a mere bug in behavior?
 
Hi Sneaks,

thanks a lot for your mod. Anyway I wanted you to know there may be a bug or strange behavior with the AI.

On Friday I played a game with Greece. I wanted to test the combination of WWGD 0.3, Playwithme 0.5 and Citystate Diplomacy Mod 2.9 in an diplo win. Pangaea Map, Normal size on Prince. My direct neighbors were Katharina and Napoleon. Every civ I met was friendly an I made the first DoF about 50th round. After some time everybody except Napoleon was my buddy while he hated me. He declared three wars against me and while every attempt was stopped he remained hostile. I was the only one he attacked though.

Then I tested the AI behavior in signing a defensive pact with every other civ. About 10 rounds later he declared war against me :). Although he had the largest or second largest army he lost three cities. Anyway after that every civ denounced him and 15 rounds before completing the UN all civs asked me for support their war against him. Ten rounds later everybody except me attacked him.

I just wondered if this is intended by you that one AI tries to offend literally the whole world or if this is just a mere bug in behavior?

This is close to what happened in my last game on my continent (except no one hated me)... but not in any other. With a more "reasonable" AI, it's possible that the most aggressive civ that game may be singled out early for being unduly aggressive, and from then on the focus stays on him.
 
You know I tend to be in the "make a fun game better" camp instead of "look at all that's wrong"... but diplomacy is one case where I do feel a design error was made. The diplomacy system in IV had a natural way of forming warring factions in a game, primarily as a result of spreading religions. It's something that's very difficult to fix with current tools.

Still, what if the benefits of friendship were buffed... while at the same time other leaders became suspicious of the team?

Basically treat DoFs as an alliance with a huge positive diplomatic gain (and gameplay benefits), and if an AI is adjacent to someone in an alliance they're not a part of, a diplomatic hit occurs towards the alliance members.
 
Still, what if the benefits of friendship were buffed... while at the same time other leaders became suspicious of the team?

Basically treat DoFs as an alliance with a huge positive diplomatic gain (and gameplay benefits), and if an AI is adjacent to someone in an alliance they're not a part of, a diplomatic hit occurs towards the alliance members.

Here is how I am seeing one possible end result based what you're saying:

1. I DoF a civ. Benefits are slightly improved trade status.
2. Another civ feels threatened enough by this DoF
3. This civ declares war on me.
4. The civ I DoF'd doesn't help, because it's not programmed to... or it dislikes The Civ That Attacked His Friend so much that he quite likely joins in along with me.

Do we have the tools to steer it more toward the latter than the former?
 
The civ I DoF'd doesn't help, because it's not programmed to... or it dislikes The Civ That Attacked His Friend so much that he quite likely joins in along with me.

Do we have the tools to steer it more toward the latter than the former?

I agree. This would be nice to see. An AI civ actually helping you by sending units in some positions that would make the civ you are at war with to retreat or think twice before opposing you. But I don't know if it's possible yet... :sad:
 
1. I DoF a civ. Benefits are slightly improved trade status.

I meant something different, let me change the punctuation and highlight: :)
Thalassicus said:
Basically treat DoFs as an alliance with a huge positive diplomatic gain and gameplay benefits, and if an AI is adjacent to someone in an alliance they're not a part of, a diplomatic hit occurs towards the alliance members.

What I'm saying is increase both the diplomatic and gameplay benefits of a DoF. They'd be like a watered-down version of Civ IV's permanent alliances... somehow tied in with research agreements or a trade bonus. Maybe at the very least signing a DoF could give your friend a 100% chance of agreeing to defensive pacts, if we can change that threshold?

If I recall, didn't Civ IV have a diplomacy option of "let's attack city X together"? There's really a lot missing...

Of course, little or none of this might be possible with current tools, but it doesn't hurt to brainstorm.
 
I meant something different, let me change the punctuation and highlight: :)


What I'm saying is increase both the diplomatic and gameplay benefits of a DoF. They'd be like a watered-down version of Civ IV's permanent alliances... somehow tied in with research agreements or a trade bonus. Maybe at the very least signing a DoF could give your friend a 100% chance of agreeing to defensive pacts, if we can change that threshold?

If I recall, didn't Civ IV have a diplomacy option of "let's attack city X together"? There's really a lot missing...

Of course, little or none of this might be possible with current tools, but it doesn't hurt to brainstorm.

I see - you're saying let's make Diplomacy exponentially better! If there were trade benefits, not to mention defensive pacts, the game would be transformed...although I recall Sneaks saying there wasn't much that could be done at this point.

With a buffed DoF at the edge of the spectrum, then stuff like "coveting" could quite possibly be kept as is, to create nuance within and without an alliance.

I wonder if the "gift request" mechanism can be limited to reasonable requests? If so, then this could also have a major impact on a DoF relationship.
 
I wonder if the "gift request" mechanism can be limited to reasonable requests? If so, then this could also have a major impact on a DoF relationship.

I've noticed the AI no longer makes hostile demands of you in Civ 5. Granted, I haven't played a Civ game extensively since 2, but it's a bit curious that hostile AIs don't ask for tribute while friendly AIs do ask for handouts.

If you ask me, I'd suggest removing the AI asking for handouts from the game altogether. It's not fun and there's no benefit in agreeing to it, and I suspect that's the reason why tribute requests aren't present to begin with.
 
I meant something different, let me change the punctuation and highlight: :)


What I'm saying is increase both the diplomatic and gameplay benefits of a DoF. They'd be like a watered-down version of Civ IV's permanent alliances... somehow tied in with research agreements or a trade bonus. Maybe at the very least signing a DoF could give your friend a 100% chance of agreeing to defensive pacts, if we can change that threshold?

Since we're dreaming, maybe give a discount to RAs with a DoF. Or go so far as to make RAs only possible with one..

If I recall, didn't Civ IV have a diplomacy option of "let's attack city X together"? There's really a lot missing...

Of course, little or none of this might be possible with current tools, but it doesn't hurt to brainstorm.

The thing I miss most about the options in Civ4 diplo was the simple "What do you think about civ X?" query. As it is there's only the "Will you go to war against x" which is pretty lacking. Info Addict and other mods help, but require a fair amount of research and it's not really possible to be sure unless there's a DoF or Denouncement.
 
If you ask me, I'd suggest removing the AI asking for handouts from the game altogether. It's not fun and there's no benefit in agreeing to it, and I suspect that's the reason why tribute requests aren't present to begin with.

For that matter, what bizzare reason did they have to add the random AI insults in a recent patch? They should have been asking themselves, "Is this fun?"

If they wanted the AIs to act more alive, what they should have added is random compliments instead. It'd boost player morale... and if no one's complimenting your military you can take the hint. :lol:
 
For that matter, what bizzare reason did they have to add the random AI insults in a recent patch? They should have been asking themselves, "Is this fun?"

If they wanted the AIs to act more alive, what they should have added is random compliments instead. It'd boost player morale... and if no one's complimenting your military you can take the hint. :lol:

They have been in since 1.0

As for diplomacy, the basic design is bad. What diplomacy needs is two values: trust and reputation. Trust would be a measure of deals you made with the civ, if you refrained from settling close to them, etc. Basically, if you're a good boy and never break your deals with a civ, it should gain trust. Reputation would represent bad actions or good actions from you. If you take cities, you lose some, if you liberate CS you gain some. Rep would be a global variable while trust would be inter-faction.

When determining whether to sign any kind of agreement with you, the AI should take trust into account. You want a loan? Fine, but only if I trust you 100 points. You want a luxury for luxury trade? Well I guess we can do that even if I don't trust you much if it benefits me, although not if you have a bad reputation. Bad reputation should be possible to counter-act somewhat with trust so a civ with a high trust would still agree to your deals even if you're a warmonger while a civ with a low trust wouldn't even agree if you have a good reputation (for example because you backstabbed them before) unless the deal is skewed. High trust should be required for all deals where the AI has to trust you to do the right thing, such as loans, luxury for flat sum, real alliances (where they agree to help even if you're the aggressor), and so on.

Along with this should go a number of official diplomatic agreements. DoF is nice but we should also have (unlimited) defensive pacts, alliances, guarantees of independence (one-sided defensive pact that builds trust over time), free trade agreements, nuclear non-aggression treaty, border treaties, and so on.

Most importantly, the same trust&reputation system should extend to city states to make them more meaningful.
 
That'd be too human-like and make too much sense though! :lol:

It's like how my computer-science college used pen/paper/filing cabinets for admissions. Using computers at a computer school would be too logical.
 
Back
Top Bottom