Why, oh why does the poor AI...

[Arrian]

The AI usually won't talk peace, no matter how horribly you're trashing them, for a number of turns (I think roughly 5, perhaps modified if you've fought them before). Doesn't matter if they start it.

Of course, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but neither does the Zulu attacking you in the first place.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

The Zulu are "going down fighting". I see nothing wrong with that. The reason it seems so odd is that 1) the AI tactics are not as good as a human's, and 2) they're way behind technologically. So their attempt is quite feeble. But 'feeble' does not mean "not the right decision".


Dominae

[joncnunn]

Of note, the Zulu resisted talking for 10 turns from when the war started.

During that turn, they did agree to hand over all their cash (not much), all GPT income they had (very pitiful) in exchange for peace with 3 cities remaining. (Before I had contacted them that turn, I had refounded 3 of their cities that I had previously destroyed and taken one last city)

Next turn the You Win! Domination Victory appeared.

[Dominae]

So are you arguing that the AI is weak because it refuses peace when cornered, or weak beccause it eventually caves in? I would think that the combination of these two is the main problem, a neither taken alone (although "fighting it out" would make for a better game, IMO).


Dominae

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dominae
So are you arguing that the AI is weak because it refuses peace when cornered, or weak beccause it eventually caves in? I would think that the combination of these two is the main problem, a neither taken alone (although "fighting it out" would make for a better game, IMO).


Dominae

hi ,

its indeed a combination of some factors , the two above contribute mostly to it , ...... its rediculous to not go in negociations with one small city and two units left , ...... when facing an enemy with fifthy cities and units , ......

have a nice day

[Dominae]

We've all been through this before in many other threads, but I believe it is ridiculous to enter negotiations when a civ is that weak, from a gameplay perspective. A civ this weak has no reason to go on living, so to speak. Thus anything that is done with it is exploitative ("Gimme all your techs!", "Train my troops every 20 turns!", etc.). A human player would never negotiate under such circumstances, but would just quit. And if simply quitting is not an option, you can bet he or she would go down fighting. Thus we've come full circle.

Really, the real problem is that the AI is willing to give in when it has nothing to gain except for continued survival, which is useless in and of itself in a game.


Dominae

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dominae
Really, the real problem is that the AI is willing to give in when it has nothing to gain except for continued survival [...]

Yet -- not to disagree with your analysis from a gameplay POV -- this sounds so very, very human.

-Oz

[Dominae]

That's true Oz, but there are many real-life human behaviours that should not be included in a game AI. I personally believe this one of them, simply because the human player throws it out the window when he or she knows it's just a game. Other behaviours of this type include 1) unwillingness to play 24/7, 2) tendency to make gameplay errors, 3) willingness to hold grudges from previous games.


Dominae

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dominae
That's true Oz, but there are many real-life human behaviours that should not be included in a game AI. I personally believe this one of them, simply because the human player throws it out the window when he or she knows it's just a game. Other behaviours of this type include 1) unwillingness to play 24/7, 2) tendency to make gameplay errors, 3) willingness to hold grudges from previous games.

Dominae

As I mentioned, I wasn't disagreeing with you from the point of view of what AI behavior makes for the best game; I merely found something ironic in a human-like behavior in an AI being a detrement.

Nevertheless, I would also suggest that's it's not beyond the realm of possibility -- however unintended by the AI -- that such Churchillian tenacity might nevertheless have some profound effect on the game. Examples which come to mind -- the enemy just beyond them has a critical extra set of turns to prepare for war. Or some Byzantine labyrinth of treaties and opinions of trustworthiness (the enemy of the enemy of the friend of my least trusted ex-allie's third cousin once removed is my friend) might result in the otherwise-presumably-doomed Civ having a bit of critical and timely help sent its way. Again, agreed, not statistically very likely -- but most interesting when it does happen.

... Or would you always have the women in the next room, coming and going, talking of Michelangelo?*

Best,

Oz

* For those of you utterly perlexed by this or who REALLY think I should give up these post-4AM posts, it's a reference to Dominae's tag-line.

-O.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
... Or would you always have the women in the next room, coming and going, talking of Michelangelo?*

Somehow I'm not suprised that someone who uses 'Ozymandias' as a screen-name is one of the first to comment on my tag-line...




Dominae

[alexman]

...mine tiles that get no benefit in Despotism?

Thanks to Soren, PTW fixed the irrigation of grassland tiles in despotism, but what about mining cattle on plains? It's the same problem , but with shields instead of food.

And look how badly the AI is hurting by still trying to build settlers way before their first city is large enough.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Dominae


Somehow I'm not suprised that someone who uses 'Ozymandias' as a screen-name is one of the first to comment on my tag-line...




Dominae

... Ah, if there were but a Smiley for one of those figures on the stair doffing their hats and bowing as the eminence gris passes! ... And, nope, I refer to neither "l'esprit d'escalier" -- time to turn and descend the stair! -- nor the three Turnings made while not hoping to turn again, but rather to a painting whose title and artist I've sadly forgotten, but whose image remains vivid.

... & I suppose this is as good a time as any to say Thanks for all your Civilized efforts

All The Best,

Oz

[Panag]

Re: ...mine tiles that get no benefit in Despotism?

Originally posted by alexman
Thanks to Soren, PTW fixed the irrigation of grassland tiles in despotism, but what about mining cattle on plains? It's the same problem , but with shields instead of food.

And look how badly the AI is hurting by still trying to build settlers way before their first city is large enough.

hi ,

, send an email to Soren or Firaxis

good point you found , definatly something for a patch , ....

have a nice day

[Dominae]

Re: ...mine tiles that get no benefit in Despotism?

Obviously (I think), the terraforming activities of the AI are independent of the current government (all decisions are made on the raw output of a tile). This makes it easier to code, especially since there is no need to "go back" and re-improve a tile later on.


Dominae

[alexman]

Actually, that's no longer true with PTW.
The AI used to irrigate grassland in Despotism (see one of the first posts in this thread), but Soren fixed it and it longer happens, unless it's necessary to get irrigation elsewhere, or if the tile gets a food bonus.