When will the AI eliminate fellow AI civs? Advice appreciated

[Hayek]

I'm wondering what settings are needed to create a situation where the AI will eliminate other AI civs, and take over a large amount of cities, and if there exist alternatives to the obvious solution of 'agressive AI'.

Here's my problem: In my experience, the AI may wage war, but seldom finishes the job. A consequence of this is that the relative differences (in terms of land, cities) between AI civs are not that large; maybe a few border towns have changed hands. On huge maps that doesnt matter much. Now invariably I'll try to eliminate at least one or two of my neighbours, taking over their production and research [I play on Noble, and with proper planning, large empires are still economically viable if you found a few religions] which makes me way too powerful compared to the rest. A lot more cities will give me a research advantage, and the production is enough to make several units for each unit a single AI civ can produce. In other words: the most difficult choice in this type of games is deciding for which victory you're going, as you could pick any thats enabled. Nice a few times, but it gets boring after a while.

What I'd want to see is one or 2 AI civs emerging that could rival my strength even after I've eliminated one or 2 other civs. This basically requires them to eleminate other AI civs themselves, as they should be able to withstand some losses (in cities) from my initial surprise attack. If a civ has only 10 or 12 serious cities and I peel off 3 in the inital strike chances are they're doomed anyway, as they've already lost a quarter of their production. So I'm looking for the AI to create civs with 30 cities. And it has to be by conquest, cause simply reducing the amount of AI civs will scale the problem: they may have 20 larger cities instead of 10, but so will every other civ, and if I've overrun one or 2 I'll still have too much of an advantage.

So far I've been unable to work out a satisfactory solution. I've considered the following:
- enable aggressive AI. I havnt done this in civ 4, but in previous versions that often meant the AI would declare war on you early and often (which I dont like; I like modern and renaissance warfare a lot, but don't care much for the ancient variety), and obtain still mixed results on eliminating other AIs.
- reduce the number of AI civs. failed, see above.
- wait for defensive pacts to emerge. Tried this in my last game, but by the time they did it I was so far ahead that I could take on both civs simultaneously.
- up the difficulty level. I've done this as far as Noble, but I'm reluctant to go further, as it means the AI will get a few advantages over me - I'm afraid that all I'll get for my troubles is a longer and riskier struggle to get on top but at the end the same will apply: I conquer 2 other civs and become unbeatable, or I get a beating early onand loose. Civ time is a bit scarse for me, so I'd rather not try without some assurances it will do the trick.

Any suggestions/thoughs on what could work would be most welcome.... I realise that with the sort of game I like (particularly interesting later warfare without too much of a struggle early on) the possibilities are likely to be limited. Which is why I'd like to call in some help

[couerdelion]

More up a level of two and you’ll find the AI being a lot more aggressive. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any solution to AI incompetence. It doesn’t really plan properly for war so the human player can usually defeat it with a cheaper army. So when they are fighting each other, it can often be the case that both side simply throw units into the fray and little is gained either way. It is only where one AI finds itself in a markedly stronger position (perhaps with a UU) that large scale city transfers will take place.

Often I find that wars can take place a lot without my knowledge. I recently discovered a rather backward Elizabeth and wondered if this was due to serious barbarian troubles (I had seen barbarians nearby on my voyages). After circumnavigating, I found Mao on the same island and his cities included those ancient Chinese cities of Hastings, Nottingham and York.

Perhaps the AI bonuses at the higher levels allow them to gain stronger relative leads which they can use against another AI civilisation. Also, if you play at a slower speed (Epic or Marathon), tech leads last longer and AIs will use these.

[Blake]

On Monarch difficulty certain leaders will certianly go on conquering rampages. The like of Caesar and Mao can conquer large empires for themselves under the right conditions.

The all land maps like Great Plains and Highlands are good for this, since AI's have many possible neighbours to invade.

While I have seen AI's almost single-handidly take out another entire AI, it usually happens with a dogpile, and 3-4 civs will each take a slice from the victim. A leader like Isabella who ends up isolated by her religion is particullary likely to end up devoured by the other AI's.

Unfortunately a fairly fundamental flaw of the Civ4 AI is that it isn't particullary objective-driven when it comes to war, and this doesn't change with difficulty level or settings. An AI just wont decide to go conquer some more territory, it only happens by chance.

If you do want more AI wars, try a mix of aggressive and weak AI leaders.
Mao, Caesar, Saladin and the likes are strong leaders who are willing to go to war, but they only do so when they are in a position of strength.
Leaders like Isabella and Tokugawa are just plain weak, they make good food for other AI's.
Leaders like Monty just war non-stop, not achieving anything. They'll probably eventually alienate everyone and get mass dogpiled, or get locked into game-long wars with their neighbours. The problem is their wars don't go anywhere, they lose their military as quickly as they build it. That's why the leaders who only occasionally go to war (and build up large armies during the peacetimes) are more successful.
The likes of Mansa and Asoka (peaceful, diplomatic builders) aren't too helpful, they tend to be diplomatic enough to not get attacked, and all too happy to just turtle away. The fact that they have good tech and don't constantly wage war means they build up adequate defensive armies, and will usually easily repel an attack from the low tech loonies.

Basically, both the very aggressive and the very peaceful leaders will lead to indecisive AI wars. However AI's will always be less decisive than an aggressive human.

[SandMonkey]

I rarely see the AI wage a war of extermination, and I've tried playing with aggressive AI. It seems to me that they just declared war more frequently, and more irrationally (Genghis had 3 cities and a "normal" AI army, and he attacked my massive army that was sitting on his border - ), so I'm not sure if setting the AI to aggressive would fix your problem, Hayek.

In my latest game I was invaded by an army that outnumbered me at least 10 to 1, and yet the AI was still unable to hold even one of my cities in the long run. I think most of us would enjoy a more intelligent AI, and I agree with Blake that the AI fails to set objectives for its wars. Would this be difficult to program?

I think the one intelligent thing I have seen the computer do during war is sit within another civs borders with whom I don't have open borders, preventing me from attacking their units. I'm not sure if this is a programmed tactic, or if the AI just gets lucky every so often.

[smeacham]

This might work, though I haven't tried it. My games go like yours, where I get so far ahead on Nobel that actually meeting victory conditions seems like just a technicality, so I start a new game.

What do you think of doing some or all of these things?

1. make friends with an agressive civ;
2. provide that civ with better technology;
3. encourage them to conquer others while helping to provide the means with gifted units;
4. assist them directly in their conquests, if necessary, and gift cities that you capture to them, if possible;
5. once they're the big, powerful, and advanced civ that you want to fight, pick the fight!

Steve

[gdgrimm]

Primarily, I'd suggest upping the level you play you at. It should be very difficult to completely wipe out 2 civs.

Another way to see the AI take out another AI is to NOT take out any AI's yourself.

For one AI to completely take out another AI, the second AI needs to be smaller/weaker than the first. Of course, if you (the player) are one of the top Civs in the game, then that second AI is also much smaller/weaker than you. Which means that you'll be taking them out yourself.

Basically, your taking out all the smaller/weaker civs before the AI can do it.

[greenday_234]

One thing I did notice that is sort of on topic is that I always play with Permanent Alliance, just mostly so I can borrow gold from them to improve my army, but every once in a while I'll go to war and want their help, I love watching this because they'll send 3 modern armor and 10 artillery and then spread it all out ultimately resulting in them just getting swallowed. Even stacked that kind of offensive stack is almost worthless unless the defending army is sadly weak. Noting this I would love to know whats going on that good ol' fog o' war. I suspect the worst war strategy ever
On topic of permanent alliances however the AI can be somewhat sucessful if you direct their army. i.e. Why don't you attack... Unfortunately you will always be the driving force.

[make]

In my current game (emperor) I just say Monty get wiped out completely be Victoria and Asoka. Victoria is vastly superior in military strenght and tech to all. Asoka joined in the war when Monty was already slapped back to the stoneage by Victoria.

In my experience, when 2 AI's battle out a war, and they are about equal in military strenght and tech, they get nowhere. If one is vastly more advanced and have lots more units (much higher on the powergraph F9), the underdog has a good chance of being destroyed.

[Dis]

see my thread about how to win this game/advice on scoring. The AI's wiped out the Indians, Romans, and the English.

Playing on land maps seems to cause this the most. Perhaps the lack of coastal cities also played a part, as they built more land units this way.

The Indians and English getting wiped out didn't surprise me too much. They were peaceful. But the Romans were a surprise. I actually pushed a couple of them into war with the romans when the romans attacked me. Once 2 ai's start warring, they don't seem to stop. It's an on again, off again affair for a long time.

[Jvstin]

Originally posted by Dis
see my thread about how to win this game/advice on scoring. The AI's wiped out the Indians, Romans, and the English.

Playing on land maps seems to cause this the most. Perhaps the lack of coastal cities also played a part, as they built more land units this way.

The Indians and English getting wiped out didn't surprise me too much. They were peaceful. But the Romans were a surprise. I actually pushed a couple of them into war with the romans when the romans attacked me. Once 2 ai's start warring, they don't seem to stop. It's an on again, off again affair for a long time.

That's definitely what I've noticed. On the maps like Highlands and Great Plains, I've noticed more total kills by the AI than on even Pangaea (although it's happened to me there once: Saladin got a tech lead on his rivals and destroyed both Monty and Tokugawa before he ran into my buzzsaw (I had myself beaten Mao, who had been in second place at one point before I decided I wanted the luxuries he had within his borders).

[Hayek]

Thanks for the tips guys.

As I feared, there's no way to make the AI smarter, but some suggestions might make for a more interesting game.

Judging from your comments I'll try the following:
- move up one level. Was necessary anyway
- pick the leaders of the AI instead of making it random

By the sound of it pangea or a pure land map would help too (it would at least prevent the situation you often have on continents, that one AI sits all alone on a piece of land it cant get off for millenia). But on the other hand I like a good repetition of Normandy, Inchon etc...

If I;ve something interesting to report from it as a result i'll let you know.

[spammurabi]

In my current Monarch game, I came across Alexander with a caravel just as he was finishing off Caesar. Seems Caesar never got Iron hooked up, and Alexander wanted a continent all to himself. Normal settings, unless you count a large map size and Epic speed as abnormal.

[samspock]

My current game I am playing as elizabeth on a small island to my self. I would not have bothered playing it except the starting position had three gold hills. I had met up with Gahndi and Cyrus who were on their own small continents nearby. With optics I got a caravel to where the rest were. I found Washington and two turns later he was gone, conqured by Saladin. That's the first time I have seen that happen. I did no encouraging since I had just met them.

The game is standard/continents/prince. I don't think I will finish it since I made the mistake of turning off space race and find that I have no good options for victory. It's too late for culture, and I doubt anyone would vote me in a diplomatic victory. My miltary is tiny even though I was first to tanks! Oh well. London was cranking something like 200 beakers at 500bc.

[Shaka II]

When you're on Pangea. If you want a fun game with lots of action, play pangea, not a water map. The AI doesn't know how to play water maps well, but it does know how to play pangea well. For example, most civs will not even know you're there for thousands of years if you're playing small continents, while on a standard pangea, you'll typically meet all six other civs on a standard map within the first 40 or 50 moves. And, the cultural borders move in fast to spark some intense border disputes.

Pangea allows anyone to reach anyone else from the very beginning, making diplomacy much more important.

Continents are great for the builder, giving him plenty of time to get set, plant cities, etc. Not so for pangea. You have to hit the ground running, or walking if you only get a warrior to start.

Aside from that, you have to really influence the AI diplomatically to make sure the top civs aren't too friendly toward one another. If you have Caesar or Alexander in the game, it's a great gift, because they like to fight. So, make friends with them, ally with them to take the others down. It works.

On edit: I forgot to include Ghengis. He's another warmonger civ to ally with. If you prove yourself in battle, he might even gift you some Mongolian horse archers (Keshiks).

There are civs that will clear the map, Mao being one of them. Washington can upon occasion, any organized civ can, with the exception of Tokugawa. He's is too isolationist, so his AI script defeats him, even though he has the two best traits in the game. Alex is aggressive, and does pretty well on pangea. He's almost always up for a war. Financial is the other trait that allows big empires, not as good as organized though, while aggressive makes it easier to conquer them. So, civs that have one or two of these traits are apt to be good conquerors, unless their AI personality works against them.

The worst is when Frederick and Mansa get together as best friends and tech trade like crazy. That has to be stopped early. Same with Catherine, and a few other science types who are a threat to achieving domination, if they have superior tech, and have been building peacefully.

So, as early as is possible, diplomacy has to be used to bring them down. And then assimilate each, one by one.

[Generaldoktor]

In a recent SP game, believe on Chieftain, but maybe Noble, (I don't like AI "cheats" so rarely play higher,) I got a message Tokugawa got eliminated. This was very early and had to be a "rush" by somebody while Toku was still at one or two cities. I like lots of barbarians, so they probably got a piece of him too. FOW prevented me from knowing the culprit, but I did find the ruins later. Too bad we can't get goodies out of ruins, like in AOM.

Barbs get their share if given game parameters encouraging them to run amok. I think there's another thread about this, but came across Hunya in a big continents map, on Noble and he down to two cities with five units confined to garrison. He hated me too, since I wouldn't give him tech for nothing earlier to fight the barbs. Simple solution, to simple problem, finished him off. His former capital, after liberation from Barbs, became a great port and tech center for me. To stay on-topic, I think if I had left him alone another 10 turns, Barbs or someone (Peter?) would have finished him for me.

Same game, later; Mao goes to war with Bismarck. What a bunch of sissies! I actually sent some Musketeers and a frigate a roamin' round their shared continent to see how the "climactic" battle was coming. Mao was pushing down a back road with some knights, about 3, I think and Biz was sittin' there like Tar Baby, not doin' nothing.

I jumped in as I wanted an ally and thought M-Mao-Mao would be a pushover. He pulled bunches of grenadiers out of his cities and started pummelling my cavalry and rifles. I got one coastal city and was getting smashed in the central continent faster than my rather numerous galleons could cart new cannon fodder over. Meanwhile, on the other side of the foreign continent, my frigate reported Bismarck was still sittin' there like Tar Baby, doin' nothin'. Then he sued for peace with Mao, leaving me with a transcontinental war going nowhere. (Sound familiar, Bushies?)

I sued for peace and got to keep the coastal town, which was shortly culture-crushed, a map and enough gold to convert maybe one musketman. Mao started it again later, with Genghis and this time I wanted Genghis out, so I hammered Mao a little more and went to bite off Genghis' vulnerable peninsula on the same foreign continent. Bismarck, though initially attacked by the Mongols, refused to attack back, though I got to repair my ships in German ports while fighting the most enormous AI fleet I have ever seen, from Genghis. Mao and Biz both dropped out and I finally finished off the Mongol with a Hundred Years War, using mostly 19th century technology. If you want something done, you have to do it yourself.

All this should validate AI fight stupid. They say real AI is ten years or so away. Boy, won't it be fun when Civ8 or so comes out and you can really get an intelligent fight out of 'em. Having fought a fairly serious imitation of World War II with the Turks in an early version of Civ3 though, I'm wondering if we aren't regressing.