Is AI Communism/Monarchy Efficient?

[dexters]

click on the unhappy faces to get the pop-up.

Anyways, I think the AI should be capable of doing comparative measurements of its power every few turns.

This would compare its power a few turns before with its current power. When war weariness cause riots beyond the capacity of the luxury slider and the luxury trade, the AI Civ would look for peace.

We know the AI asks for peace if it is being beaten. This just takes it a level higher, where it can, in a sense, see ahead and plan ahead, even if it doesn't loose that many cities.

One of the problem is, many of the War weariness problems are often self inflicted. Civs sometimes like to declare war on one Civ and incrementally declare war on other Civs, either from alliances or maybe from a trade. If they can manage when they fight their wars, I think they will be better off.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Catt
And, paradoxically to the thread title, here is another screenshot from a debug game in which the AI chose to make entertainers rather than switch government from democracy under crushing WW -- the city starved from size 9 down to size 4 before giving in and changing governments . . . problem is that it was Spain (religious) and could switch at will

Both screenshots from the Why, oh why does the poor AI . . . thread in the Strat Forum (probably the thread to which Alva was referring.

Catt

IMO catt, that seems rather human. I sometimes prefer to stick it out in Democracy rather than suffer anarchy going back and forth and being stuck in a less efficient government. Sacrificing a city is a small price to pay, and it's not uncommon when I'm in a real bind to use entertainers as a temporary solution.

I think the AI's real problem is it's inability to differentiate between temporary and permanent. To me, it seems like the AI exists in a perpetual state of permanence where its only goal is to maximize its power under the given circumstances. While it is coded to adjust sliders, manage happiness, it doesn't see these are impermanent states.

If it can somehow recognize this as impermament and suboptimal, then it would use them when totally neccessary, but be actively planning to get out of the situation so it may return to a more desired state... where the lux slider is 0 and the entertainers are returned to normal.

If they can somehow code that, we'd have a far more competitive AI that doesn't have to resort to a self-defeating government switch in which AI's are notorious for staying in indefinately as war after war crops up.

[Catt]

Originally posted by dexters


IMO catt, that seems rather human. I sometimes prefer to stick it out in Democracy rather than suffer anarchy going back and forth and being stuck in a less efficient government. Sacrificing a city is a small price to pay, and it's not uncommon when I'm in a real bind to use entertainers as a temporary solution.

But surely, as a religious civ with only one turn of anarchy, you would change governments when war weariness got so bad that your capitol was starving? When starvation cut its population in half? I don't have the save any longer, but I can guess that if WW was so bad as to drive the capitol (usually the most well-developed city) into starvation, the other cities must be in even worse shape? To not switch temporarily as a religious civ seems a colossal waste.

Catt

[Panag]

Originally posted by Catt


But surely, as a religious civ with only one turn of anarchy, you would change governments when war weariness got so bad that your capitol was starving? When starvation cut its population in half? I don't have the save any longer, but I can guess that if WW was so bad as to drive the capitol (usually the most well-developed city) into starvation, the other cities must be in even worse shape? To not switch temporarily as a religious civ seems a colossal waste.

Catt

hi ,

i can vouch for that , seen it to many times , just start with loads of cash to do some espionage and see , .....

sometimes it happens even with a mod , here you go and put all them cities on a map and the AI lets them starve to death cause he wont change gov , .....

sometimes they even starve cities with two wheat's or cattle , .....

have a nice day

[dexters]

Originally posted by Catt


But surely, as a religious civ with only one turn of anarchy, you would change governments when war weariness got so bad that your capitol was starving? When starvation cut its population in half? I don't have the save any longer, but I can guess that if WW was so bad as to drive the capitol (usually the most well-developed city) into starvation, the other cities must be in even worse shape? To not switch temporarily as a religious civ seems a colossal waste.

Catt

Silly me. I didn't realize it was the capital. That's kind of strange to be really honest with you.

My experience has been the AI is eager to switch governments. They have a level of tolerance initially, and will adjust the slider to 10% lux, but after a while the switch. Granted I'm basing my experience mostly on a recent debug game I watched where there was almost constant war.

I do not recall seeing starvation. And from my experience playing SP, the AI seems to switch to monarch or communism.

This is regent difficulty of course.

[Arrian]

Communism probably works better for the AI most of the time, because under communism it doesn't matter where your FP is - just that you have one. And the AI is utterly atrocious at placing its FP. Speaking of which, that's something I hope Firaxis tries to improve.

-Arrian

[dexters]

Arrian, the FP discussion was actually around a few weeks ago. I went and checked my debug game and it seems like the AI places FP just fine, although their placement is perhaps not the best. They do space out and not build it next to their capital.

Smaller civs even hold out on the FP.

Let me see if I can dig up the thread. I have a save attached to it which you can have a look at.

[Jon Shafer]

I was fighting a war with Bombers and Tanks VS the AI and almost completely got in big trouble. Even with Universal Suffrage, I was suffering 70% war weariness before conquering more than 5 out of 20 cities.

If you expect a long war, then switching might be necessary.

[monkspider]

Being a commie myself, the government in Civ 3 is a bit of a sentimental favorite. I wish that they would make communism more flexible as to be relatively worthwhile in peacetime as well.

[georges bonbon]

Another problem is that the AI is programmed not to dialogue for endless turns.

Even if he is losing cities, he will opt for rising your ww. and hurting himself.

If he is faraway on a small island with 1, 2, or 3 cities (less than 6), he will stay silent for ages. He is not even affected by ww.

[dexters]

The AI is generally ok with phoney wars where you or they declare war but never really attack. WW isn't a big problem, and like human players, they generally let these wars run their course and return relations to normal.

.

[Arrian]

Arrian, the FP discussion was actually around a few weeks ago. I went and checked my debug game and it seems like the AI places FP just fine, although their placement is perhaps not the best. They do space out and not build it next to their capital.

Really? Hmm. That's news to me. I haven't investigated it properly, I guess. It's just that the few times I've looked for an AI FP, I've found that it's in a terrible spot. Add in that the AI will never (voluntarily) move their palace, and the evenly distributed corruption of communism starts to look better, especially once the AI civ in question has eaten a neighbor or two.

-Arrian

[Nor Me]

I've looked at AI FP placement in debug games and it was better than I'd heard.

But you need planning to have decent FP placement so if the AI has conquered some more land later on, it's very likely to have bad FP placement and to be better off in Communism.

I've just looked at my position in AU208 and I'd have lower total corruption in communism than monarchy even without the AU mod improvement and I doubt moving my palace would have made much difference (and given your FP position I'd say you'd probably be in the same position if you had courthouses everywhere.)

[dexters]

The FP issue is tough. Get it earlier and get a productive second core on hang in there and push it further out. In my regent games, I usually go for second FP in the middle ages and build it in the direction I want to exapnd in when I get my Cavs.

I've observed for example that that AI has a treshold before they build their FP. They won't likely build it if their empire is compact. The FP building may be triggered if their empire goes over a certain corruption threshold. If AI has any kind of strategic planning mechanism that it uses to perhaps decide FP placement, it is certainly undocumented. But there are circumstancial evidence that it has.

Here is a rather late save of a debug game. I have posted an earlier save, but couldn't seem to find the thread. I can't really vouch for how much has changed, but it's probably a good idea looking at where the Ottoman FP is. They are the world power and their FP is built just right as they expanded east and ate up the Aztecs. They got their second core.

This game has some rather good FP placement. Scandanivian FP is a little of from where I would build mine, but they built it in the middle ages and would be in the same geneeral area.

The Iroquios was building their second FP on that patch of territory that is disconnected from their main cultural body. If there hadn't been a war, they would have had something like a double nation. Last I checked, India has no FP, nor did China, both squeezed for land and the AI probably would have been better off spending their shields elsewhere.