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

Why doesn't AI sabotage our diplomatic victories?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by player1 fanatic, Oct 17, 2010.

  1. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    In my last game, I got unique opportunity to go for diplomatic victory.

    It was a game with single runaway AI that had whole continent for himself (after destroying other 2 civs there).

    At one point he invaded my continent, where he destroyed second best AI. After that, he got in war with me, which ended after I took all his territories on my continent. Another weird AI behavior here was that all his cities on my continent were puppets, which prevented him from purchasing any reinforcements (but this isn't point of the thread).

    This also lead to me liberating 3 city state and one civ, which gave me 4 guaranteed UN votes.

    Due to that, I aimed for diplomatic victory (and started working a bit for space ship victory as backup). With 2 of my votes from UN, 4 guaranteed and 4 additional from other allied city states, it was enough votes for me to win the game.

    I needed a lot of gold for this, to keep 4 city states happy until voting, which was tough for me (spent around 3.000gp total), considering that influence was dropping -2 per turn.

    Now, what bothers me, is that AI never tried to sabotage my diplomatic efforts. He earned around 300-400gp per turn, and had gold reserve almost 10.000gp big. So why he didn't buy out my CS allies, one turn before vote? It just doesn't make sense, and made my victory too easy.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. dmieluk

    dmieluk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    With all that gold, the AI should be able to easily achieve the diplo win. I think they didn't let the AI go for the AI win because if the AI paid any attention whatsoever, there would be no way for a human to outspend an AI player. There's no strategy, just number of coins, and with the crazy way the AI get bonuses to money, the victory condition would be broken if the AI took any action to prevent it.

    Imagine how simple the code would be:

    If Diplo vote in 1 turn then, if human will win then, keep dropping gold on 1 city state owned by human until either it changes allies or money runs out. If it changes allies then recheck this test...

    If this code was in place, it would essentially be impossible for a human to win diplo (especially considering you'd have to have more gold than all the AI's put together...). The core problem is the city state model, which ends up being just a coins race.

    By the way, you don't need to keep the city states happy for the whole game, just buy them off on the turn before the vote...
     
  3. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    I don't think there where enough city states left for him to achieve victory. He had 3 trusted allies, and if he took 4 of mine (non-liberated), it would be total of 8 votes, not enough for 10 needed.

    Still, he should've been able to "veto" my victory with gold, and I'm surprised he didn't do it.
     
  4. dmieluk

    dmieluk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    If I had to guess, I'd say that in development, the AI did stop players winning diplo. But when they tested it, they would have found that it would be impossible for a human to ever win diplo unless they had locked in every vote needed with a liberation. So I'm guessing that they took out the AI's response, just so it wasn't impossible for a human to win diplo.

    A better outcome would've been to either make city state politics about more than how many coins you give them, or to have better AI, so that the AI doesn't need such ridiculous balancing that it has much much more money than a human. Obviously, neither of those options are a quick fix...

    You say you would have liked the AI to obstruct you from a diplo victory in some way.... But what would you have the AI do? Just buy off 1 city state during the last turn before each vote, ensuring that you cannot get a diplo win? I imagine you'd be quite disappointed in that case too. I'm unable to imagine what a good solution might look like here, short of significantly remodeling the game.
     
  5. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    The diplo victory is fubar, if the AI actively went for it the game would be unplayable. At the very least the cost for bribing city states should scale with time. As it is you can get them all to allied using just 10-20 turns of late game income. It's so obviously broken it's hard to fathom how it was not picked up in playtesting (assuming there was any at all).
     
  6. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    Yet somehow they didn't stop to think that perhaps something was horribly wrong with that way of winning the game?


    The best fix in my opinion would have been to not be able to bribe the city states at all. Friendly and allied status should only be accomplished by doing missions for the city states. That would certainly make the diplo victory a lot harder instead of the cheap bribes. I don't think it would make it too hard either. It would at least make it a contest with the AI instead of a cheesy if-all-else-fails-victory it is right now.
     
  7. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Well, if really idea was to "dumb down" AI for player enjoyment, it should have been done on lower difficulty levels, not on King or higher.

    I mean, I had contingencies in place. I was reading for space race too. And was able to try to liberate a few other city states or nations that other civ held, if it was necessary.

    And one of those city states that was allied with me was on their continent. Taking out that city would've been another way to spoil my diplo win too.

    So many options for AI, and none taken.



    P.S.
    From those 4 other allies, 2 were my allies for almost whole game. So maybe there should be some mechanic in place that would prevent other nations from allying them over easily, if it poses big balance risk.
     
  8. dmieluk

    dmieluk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    I'm pretty sure they know how badly it sucks, but that doesn't mean they have a bigger budget.

    I agree that they should at least deemphasize the capacity to bribe city states... maybe only 250 once per turn? and emphasize city state missions... obviously you couldn't keep many happy for long since they eventually ask for you to kill another city state... And after the barbs go, that's the most common mission... So in order to get your idea to work, they would need to think up and implement a whole bunch more missions... I think that your idea is good, but i reckon it is pretty clear that they ran out of time and money, and couldn't afford to do something like that. The victory condition is but one example of what appear to be budget constraints on the game.
     
  9. Daniel D

    Daniel D Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    North America
    The AI doesn't seem to value CS relationships as highly as it values gold, although this seems to vary a bit depending on leader. I've been in a few games where an AI player was sitting on thousands of gold for no apparent reason when it could have been buying up CS influence instead. I'm hoping that this will get some attention as patches start to roll out.
     
  10. dmieluk

    dmieluk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    Since my first ciV victory was a diplo, i can honestly say i can sympathize with your disappointment... The difference is that in my game, I wasn't even in a position to get a space race victory... I had been going for a cultural win but got the economy quite badly wrong. I figured I might as well have a punt at diplo... no one stopped me. They could have just attacked me, at least. There wasn't even that 'player nears victory anger' that you can usually expect in civ games. Just silence and the crickets chirping. Then win.
     
  11. Arksa

    Arksa Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    298
    In my game Persia was a huge empire and he was on future era just after I researched a few techs from modern. Yet he didn't even build Apollo Program. He decided to go for domination, but oh wait, they are afraid of water. Won cultural victory without problems.
     
  12. BubbaYeti

    BubbaYeti Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    The AI doesn't seem to notice when a player is about to win. This seems to apply not just to diplo, but all victory conditions. Never has an AI made any attempt to stop me from winning in the late game and I've won all ways besides points.

    This is sad, because most victory conditions give warnings...the other civs are warned when you build the UN, for example, or when you complete the Apollo program.
     
  13. Strategy Master

    Strategy Master Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    An AI liberating cities to attempt a diplomatic victory rather than annexing/pupetting everything would be a welcome improvement.
     
  14. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    You're right of course, but that shouldn't be too hard to do I would think. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the kill-another-city-state missions altogether, as you say they're very common and are rarely accomplished because the player have no real interest in destroying his source of food/culture. It would be more fun if the city states asked you to attack a competing civ (even if it wasn't at war)

    I don't think they made it like this to "dumb down" anything. I can't see how Civ5 is any dumber than Civ4 (although I'm told the buttons and icons in particular are very dumb). It's just not very well balanced at all. There are so many strange balance issues that just seem so incredibly obvious. Like who's idea was it to make bonus resource tiles worse than normal tiles? What kind of thinking leads to a decision like that? It blows my mind.
     
  15. Superluminal

    Superluminal Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    USA
    The AI took pity on you. He could have won, in fact, you actually lost. The AI does have feelings, prove me wrong.
     
  16. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    He could not win. There was not enough CS for him to get needed votes.
     
  17. Becephalus

    Becephalus King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    725
    Because people would whine if the AI stopped them. Very few games in this genre have the AI attempt to win. I don't see it attempt to do so in Civ 4 or Gal Civ 2 either.
     
  18. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Well, I "whine" that he didn't stopped me. :D
     
  19. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Diplo victory as it is right now is too easy. It does encourage cheap wins.

    One suggestion that's gained some favour is weighting their votes based on how long they've been allied with you, and or limited how much gold you can put into them, so there can't be last minute buys for an easy victory.

    Once they fix that, they can look at how the AI should approach it.

    I'm sure they can make an AI that ruthlessly goes after our CS, but it may be too frustrating to some. there needs to be 'fun' competition.
     
  20. Becephalus

    Becephalus King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    725
    I would prefer the AI attempt to win as well.
     

Share This Page