What AI habit or feature irritates you most?

[eris]

Many of the annoying things my own AI (governers. workers, etc) does I put down to an accurate simulation of the "People are stupid" effect that bogs down all human organizations. This problem has plagued leaders of all sorts throughout the ages. Civ III has wonderfully simulated that effect. In fact, for gameplay purposes, this becomes a reason NOT to micromanage, as you get to repeatedly ask the question that leaders often ask, "What did you do THAT for?".

Others have griped about the intrusion into one's territory issue and the double standard in that play. That is irritating that the AI gets to play by different rules on that issue.

The one that really gets to me is during REX. My scouts find a perfect place for a faraway city, something with bonus and resources or luxuries or whatever, a real good place to put the FP or at least establish a border. My settler/spearman pair works its way across the terrain, gets to the distant promised land, and just as they get there some foreign settler/spearman pair shows up out of the fog, has a one turn jump on us and beats us to that perfect spot. Usually I have to back off and take some second-rate position to establish border, etc. It is not a "bug" or anything, it is just a case of the AI playing well enough to drive me crazy. Sometimes I have started wars over it, not even at the best of times to start the war, just an immediate reaction to the nasty sly little trick the AI has just played. My reaction is deliberately hyped up for role playing purposes, but still, that can be so annoying that I offer it as my addition to this thread's content.

-Eris

[Darknes_of_Mind]

Maybe its just me, but moreso then the fact the AI can wander through your territory whenever it feels like it, i HATE when they bring a settler in, just to build a city in some little tiny gap in your borders in the middle of your empire. Often only to have the city flip, it is an annoying thing.

Also, when they bring units into your territory, and you demand them to leave once, and they dont, so you demand them to leave again, and they automatically jump to the spot they were going, on the other side of your borders, sometimes in the middle of your empire in that little whole, where they were going anyways, to build their damned city.


I think the auto remove feature, shouldnt move it to the closest unowned land, but should move units to the closest available space on THEIR side of the border.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Randolph
Failure to annex neighboring (AI) civs!! A huge AI civ will sit next to a much smaller civ for ages, when it should completely annex them. Even when they go to war they never finish the job. In fact it should be more difficult in general to get the AI to make peace.
On larger maps (and more civs) the game is basically over after you annex 2-3 other civs. Since the AI is so passive you're then twice the size of any other civ. This isn't a game you can win by just waiting in line to get killed.

Passive AI? I don't find that to be true. Sure, I played one game some weeks ago where right after Chivalry two civs were left as single cities on other continents, and the big AI civs let them live until I won by SS. But that was the first and only time I'd seen that. In most games, mine anyway, the AIs are rampaging destroyers of other civs. A few game back, I watched every civ on the planet (nine) take on the biggest nation in the game (and game point leader the Mongols) and go at them until they were no more. Certainly, the AI will stop wars sooner than I would, but start them up again sooner too (before 20 turns peace expires. Often the very turn after peace), and if it smells blood in the water - forget it - it will maul that civ.

[mrboo123]

In my games, the AI ALWAYS plant forset ALL over there nation! And have city size of 1 or 2!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Darknes_of_Mind
Maybe its just me, but moreso then the fact the AI can wander through your territory whenever it feels like it, i HATE when they bring a settler in, just to build a city in some little tiny gap in your borders in the middle of your empire. Often only to have the city flip, it is an annoying thing.

Also, when they bring units into your territory, and you demand them to leave once, and they dont, so you demand them to leave again, and they automatically jump to the spot they were going, on the other side of your borders, sometimes in the middle of your empire in that little whole, where they were going anyways, to build their damned city.


I think the auto remove feature, shouldnt move it to the closest unowned land, but should move units to the closest available space on THEIR side of the border.

You ever see "Bridge Over the River Kwai"?

Remember at the end, when the young British commando (Jeffrey Horne... I know his name as he is going to be my brother-in-law) is waiting to blow the bridge, and Alec Guiness and the Japanese general are tracking the cord down the river?

And William Holden and the older British commando start yelling?

KILL HIM!! KILLL HIMMM!!! KILLLL HIMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get the idea?

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by eris
The one that really gets to me is during REX. My scouts find a perfect place for a faraway city, something with bonus and resources or luxuries or whatever, a real good place to put the FP or at least establish a border. My settler/spearman pair works its way across the terrain, gets to the distant promised land, and just as they get there some foreign settler/spearman pair shows up out of the fog, has a one turn jump on us and beats us to that perfect spot. Usually I have to back off and take some second-rate position to establish border, etc. It is not a "bug" or anything, it is just a case of the AI playing well enough to drive me crazy.

i've noticed that this happens too frequently when I put my settler on an auto path to a location. no matter how far away it seems to be from the other civs, someone will get there 1 turn before i do. i wonder if this illustrates that the AI knows your moves that are planned out beyond the current turn.

[bongo]

Do you suggest that civ3 has mind-reading capabilities?

An alternative solution is that the AI, given it's excellent map-reading skills has seen that spot already and simply beats you to it? After all, you will never notice when YOU beat the AI to that nice spot.

[Randolph]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


Passive AI? I don't find that to be true. Sure, I played one game some weeks ago where right after Chivalry two civs were left as single cities on other continents, and the big AI civs let them live until I won by SS. But that was the first and only time I'd seen that. In most games, mine anyway, the AIs are rampaging destroyers of other civs. A few game back, I watched every civ on the planet (nine) take on the biggest nation in the game (and game point leader the Mongols) and go at them until they were no more. Certainly, the AI will stop wars sooner than I would, but start them up again sooner too (before 20 turns peace expires. Often the very turn after peace), and if it smells blood in the water - forget it - it will maul that civ.

Very interesting. I promise I'm not talking out of my ass, or about a single game. A few times I've had multiple AI s attack me at once after I've become powerful, but that can almost always be avoided with some diplomacy. I've certainly never felt my existence is challenged after I've annexed a civ or two. (BTW I play almost exclusively on emperor, so I don't think it's due to low difficulty)

Do you think it could be based on the player style? I have noticed AI vs AI wars are much more common after I've had a few wars myself. I tend to have very short (well prepared for), and decisive wars; maybe this leads to less worldwide strife? I also play MODs almost all the time (generally double your pleasure, or the ancient Mediterranean), but although I could see how that might make the AI use individual units less efficiently, I don't see how it could make the AI less aggressive.

cronos_qc: I'll try that

[I Am Jeff]

After an AI civ on another land mass declares war on me, it sends like 1 ship with 1-3 units on it and lands on me. And then it does this for a few turns before it gives up, with minimal losses to myself.

For example in my current game, I am about 1.5 times larger then the enemy civ and it declares war on me because I would not give them incense (that is another annoyance). So they send a Galleon with 3 units on it + an Ironclad. Then next turn they send another group like that. So you see every 6-7 spaces one of these groups. This leads to weak attacks because it can not coordinate the attack with all of its units. Furthermore, I am on a continent and they are to the East of me. They travel about 15 squares south, then like 20 West, and then another 10 north before they land. All the while I have my ironclads picking off their ships as they go by and when it is all over they landed less then 10 units over like 6 turns.

Another thing was with trading. In order to get the tech nationalism, they wanted Electricity, world map, about 800 gold, and about 225 gold per turn. Under any circumstances this is unacceptable and stupid. I could see maybe 2 techs for their one, or their tech for my tech and lump some of gold. BUT GEEZ, 225 gold per turn is outrageous.

My other grievances have been listed like the bunch of old units, the trespassing (to fix this I set up a sting of units so they can not get by), the lack of gold the AI keeps or the fact that the AI has like 10000 gold (I still do not know how they do that by the middle ages), the lack of artillery use, etc. etc.

[dexters]

Originally posted by bongo
Do you suggest that civ3 has mind-reading capabilities?

An alternative solution is that the AI, given it's excellent map-reading skills has seen that spot already and simply beats you to it? After all, you will never notice when YOU beat the AI to that nice spot.

Bongo has a point. It's called selective memory. You remember only what want to remember to fit a theory.

But I must say, I've noticed the "AI settling in a spot" before you get there.

Perhaps someone can try not using autopath and move their settler teams turn by turn. See if the AI still chooses the spots.

[TheArsenal]

But I must say, I've noticed the "AI settling in a spot" before you get there.

Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TheArsenal



Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

hi ,

well the AI can see the whole map completely with all resources and all before you do , .....

have a nice day

[dexters]

Originally posted by TheArsenal



Especially if you are the first to find an island and need a few turns to get a settler a come back. Guaranteed the AI settles there before you get back.

I really don't know about that since I don't play enough archipelago games.

But I think you fail to give the AI credit. The AI is very good at exploring. Because it is a computer program, it is very thorough with it too.

And yes, AI has an idea of where landmasses are, and where resources are. Although they can't see it until they have the right techs to use those resources.

[Roggan]

AND IT SAYSD
GOT OUT ON NOT U TEROGITY
HEHE

AS IT NOT MINE TEROGITY

[Kuciwalker]

I have an idea of where the landmasses are, so why shouldn't the comp? Just looking at my own continent/island, I can often tell where nearby islands will be.

Also, has anyone proven that the AI knows where the resources are? Couldn't it just be stupid enough to settle in bad terrain a lot, so it gets lucky a lot more often?

[dexters]

Originally posted by skywalker
I have an idea of where the landmasses are, so why shouldn't the comp? Just looking at my own continent/island, I can often tell where nearby islands will be.

Also, has anyone proven that the AI knows where the resources are? Couldn't it just be stupid enough to settle in bad terrain a lot, so it gets lucky a lot more often?

Watch a debug game and you will see it settles near resources. (in debug, you see all resources)

But it won't link the resource with roads until it can use it, unless of course a road just happens to go over a resources it can't use.

It may be that the leader AI sees the resources, but the worker unit AIs and the city AIs can't. So they are told to settle in a spot by the leader, without a clue why since they can't see the resources.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by bongo
The AI doesn't have the slightest clue on how to use any form of artillery effectively. A possible exception is naval bombardment, it's not good at it, not really, but better than decent, sort of...

Imagine a learning AI that not only learns from it's mistakes but connects to the internet to exchange strategies with other AI's. They may even get their own forum here at apolyton

Now that's a great idea!!!!!

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by dexters


Watch a debug game and you will see it settles near resources. (in debug, you see all resources) (...)

What a "debug" game?

[Louis XXIV]

It may be that the leader AI sees the resources, but the worker unit AIs and the city AIs can't. So they are told to settle in a spot by the leader, without a clue why since they can't see the resources.

Maybe the AI is planning to settle in areas that are likely to have a resource. Probably not, though

What a "debug" game?

Debug mode lets you see everything. So you know what the AI is doing (I think it is PTW only)

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by bongo
Do you suggest that civ3 has mind-reading capabilities?

An alternative solution is that the AI, given it's excellent map-reading skills has seen that spot already and simply beats you to it? After all, you will never notice when YOU beat the AI to that nice spot.

There's no mind reading involved, once you tell a unit to go to a distant spot, the AI could easily be aware of your intentions. The AIs to me seem to expand their immediate borders unless there's a resource they want. However, I am talking more about spots that have no significant resources nor strategic locations but spots that I wanted that would satisfy some specifc need of mine, usually a distant "colony" that I wil use to populate an undeveloped area.

As far as islands go, i think the Ai knows what you know even if you dont sell your maps. Example: while testing some mod changes, i will use the same map so I can see how changes affect the game play. On the map is an island that is closer to 3 AIs than I am. In the games that I explore the area first, the Ais will always settle it. In games that I meander a settler up there, the island is always empty. If i autopath a ship/settler to the island without discovering it, its a coin flip whether the AI is already there or not. Since most of my games are similar in strategy and play, I always get there around the same time each game.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
(...)Debug mode lets you see everything. So you know what the AI is doing (I think it is PTW only)

Cool, where is it? I have3 PtW

[VJ]

But the AI habit that drives me nuts is blithely thinking they can send troops across my territory whenever they damned well feel like it

Yep.

You can demand them to stay away, but they don't seem to like it much, and it gets annoying that you have to repeat the same mantra every turn, "leave my territory at once!"...

[Arrian]

I like AI settler teams. They're yummy.

What irritates me more than anything else, despite the fact that I understand why it works this way, is the markup the AI charges you if you're bigger than they are for luxury trades. I'm just finishing up a great game as Germany, and I wanted to trade for Carthiginian Wine. So I offered: 7 luxuries, 1 strategic resource, 1 tech. They laughed at me. So I sent my Panzers to "negotiate."

-Arrian

[vulture]

The AI doesn't have any benefit over you sending settlers across your territory. You can demand they leave just as easily as they can demand you leave their territory (leave or declare war...) You just have to be as prepared to go to war over it as the AI is. And, as Arrian says, those settler teams can either be viewed as a nice source of slaves early in the game (it'd cost you 230 gold or so to buy 2 slaves in PtW), or you can let them found a hopelessly corrupt city that has no defence, and take it when it gets to size 2.

If you aren't prepared to defend yourself violently, then the AI will walk all over you. You'd do the same to it if it was so placid.

[peterfharris]

There are two things I find particularly irritating.
1. Given the crucial importance of tech trading I would love to have a pop-up to inform me when another civ has discovered a new tech to save me the tedium of constantly ringing everyone to see if they any fancy new discoveries.
2. Why is the AI agree to absurd alliances. It may be virtually defenceless and declare anyway voiding its trade agreements. (Worst case I ever saw was in a game where I found the Babs had been reduced to a settler on a boat. I got into a war with the French who had taken over all the Bab cities. Over the course of some ten turns I gave them former Bab cities 5 cities, a dozen techs, some money, gifted two luxuries and iron. The Babs joined an alliance with France. They DOWed me even though their military forces came to the grand total of one warrior, one spearman and a galley with four undefended cities which I could reach with cavalry in a single turn. There is something seriously wrong in the diplomacy AI.

[bongo]

The AI do have some built-in restrictions on it's map-knowlegde. In my current game(pangea map) I found an island some distance from the mainland but close enough to reach with galleys(coastal tiles all the way) I stopped before any land-tiles were visible which stopped the AI from sending settlers there. When I finally sent a galley all the way to the island and exchanged maps with the AI, that island were 'swarming' with settlers almost instantly.

[Daz]

I hate it when the ai builds cities on every possible, available tile, no matter now bad the position is. I mean in the middle of tundra, no problem! City can grow max to size 2: no problem.... Its so annoying...

[LaRusso]

until tanks are discovered, you have to deal with pillage attrition war of massive arty bombardment and stacks of infantry ravaging the communications. AI just sits helplessly when i maneuvre big stacks of infantry, cutting communications, then firing 5+ arty salvos and reducing their cities to rubble. then i sacrifice a couple of infantry and take the city. AI is very poor in maneuvring its defensive arty to counter such incursions...

[dexters]

Originally posted by peterfharris
There are two things I find particularly irritating.
1. Given the crucial importance of tech trading I would love to have a pop-up to inform me when another civ has discovered a new tech to save me the tedium of constantly ringing everyone to see if they any fancy new discoveries.
2. Why is the AI agree to absurd alliances. It may be virtually defenceless and declare anyway voiding its trade agreements. (Worst case I ever saw was in a game where I found the Babs had been reduced to a settler on a boat. I got into a war with the French who had taken over all the Bab cities. Over the course of some ten turns I gave them former Bab cities 5 cities, a dozen techs, some money, gifted two luxuries and iron. The Babs joined an alliance with France. They DOWed me even though their military forces came to the grand total of one warrior, one spearman and a galley with four undefended cities which I could reach with cavalry in a single turn. There is something seriously wrong in the diplomacy AI.

I think this is one of the more glaring shortcomings of the game.

Diplomacy requires the management and interpretation of a rival/friend's actions and intentions. The computer is obviously not a human and cannot interpret actions. They can only take the results and adjust their perspective based on a defined formula. As far as I know, there are really only two diplomacy related sliders. Attitude and Reputation.

I also know the AI do have some kind of threat assesment mechanism it keeps hidden from the player. The AI is also capable of measuring allied contributions in a war. All this does is affect the Attide and Reputation sliders. What is lacking is for the AI to have the capacity to distinguish between historical allies, and other types of Civs.

It is frustrating for human players to find themselves faced with an ungrateful AI despite all the help they've lent the AI. I think a third slider, the Friendship slider should be included hopefully in the new XP. Friendship sliders measure historical trade relations, gold lend during war, and hopefully, weighs actions such as returning of conquered cities in the equation.

Right now, the major downside with sliders is that it is essentially a "natural state" slider that is modified by human actions. You Do A, slider gets modified with +1. You do B, slider is modified with -2 etc. There needs to be some kind of calculation going behind the numbers to allow for quantification of more complex actions and weigh the relative goodness of actions. A human player lending substantial gold when the AI is at war should be valued highly. A human player giving away useless pop 1 cities that are far away and difficult to defend may be even valued negatively, as a kind of insult to the AI.

Additonal Notes

On a related note, one of the things that the AI appears to lack is any conception of space. Now, Soren has said that AI doesn't play with a monitor or a keyboard. It obviously doesn't see the game like a human player sees it. Their empire is probably just a list of cities and certain coded instructions will lead to certain actions. Fair enough.

But the AI also have at its disposal the mathematical power of the computer and I would think it would be capable of clustering cities. Cities within a unified border would be clustered as a single "entity" a kind of province as humans would see it. This would allow the AI to manage its civilization a little differently. The core clusters, the motherland, so to speak, would receive priority. Any outsides colonies would be managed as such. If the AI can cluster cities, it could be possible to then program it to plan for acquisitions of foreign cities, protection of its other clusters (say island colonies) against a rival civ's city on the same island.

Cluster management would therefore allow the AI some semblance of strategic planning beyond maximization of cities and power, which to me, appears to be the driving force behind the AI. While not flawed, these instructions tend to let the AI meander aimless through thr game, with no strategic goal. The AI ought to be able to recognize for example that it wants to expand Cluster B. And gear for a war against a civ in that region. It would then examine each Civ, friendly civs maybe eliminated early, powerful civs may be eliminated, and it may come to a conclusioon that at this time it can't attack. And pursue an alternate plan. Say, ask for an alliance against a third civ. Or delay attack until later, after a military build up. These strategic plans can be modified every 5, 10 turns.

What we get is a more human like AI. The AI will shift strategic focus from point to point throughout the game. I think it would make for a superb experience. Because now, it is not just about maximization of AI power, but you have to worry where its going to come from. Wehre will the AI decided to expand.

It will lead to less of that pointless war mongering when the AI is reduced to one city, and still declares war on a powerful enemy. I don't get that. I think it's a fundamental faliure in the current AI that has been ignored. My fear is that the AI is just not built to handle modifications like I hope they would do. But With the set alliance system being proposed for Conquests, the AI diplomacy needs a nice bump. If anyone at Firaxis is reading this they should take note. I hope they do it.

[~OmegaRed~]

God damn unfair diplomacy.

Fair exchange of maps? NO!
their map for my map +literature/monarchy/engineering/my first born/my left leg = maybe