AI: Punishment for Wars of Aggression, No Impediment to Victory, Lack of Aggression

The AI gets a -2 diplo to you if you have all the shards I think that's it.  I agree with everything you said and even posted on this same thing not long ago. However because of all the changes in 1.1 the AI basically had to be reworked from the ground up. Now that 1.1 is about to come out Frogboy can really start to work on the AI. So cut them some slack. Here's hoping for 1.2!

I agree that 1.0.9w still is lacking in the AI department but from memory I think that when 1.0 was launched the 'real' AI wasn't included in the betas. Maybe that is happening this time as well. There has certainly been improvements in the last couple of beta versions to the AI so it looks as though it is getting some love.

I have had the AI declare war on me in either 1.0.9v or 1.0.9w when it thought it could take advantage of a weakness - which I was impressed with.

I've also had AI declare war on me. It's getting better at putting pressure on when it does decide to attack, but its not as good at identifying where it went wrong and compensating (for instance, if 4 units of spearmen didn't work to take a city last time, trying 5 or 6 instead).

So far, though, the largest difficulties I have winning the game, are the games when I'm boxed in and can't expand. Of course, I play with 5 AI on Medium, because fewer AI or larger maps always seem so empty.

The AI does take that into account:

That said, the AI will keep getting better and better over time.  The difference between 1.09 and 1.1 is pretty massive.  

There will always be people out there who can beat the AI.  You just keep posting suggestions and I'll see what I can do.

I think a good way to improve the Diplomacy in the game, would be to introduce a periodic Wizard Council that sovereigns can choose to be a part of. Propositions are put forward, which have to be seconded, and then voted on. The human players should also get to put motions forward from a list.

I'm going to rattle off a few suggestions/observations for overland map and AI, and diplomatic standing adjustments.

Overland-

1. As far as I can tell, the PRIMARY determining factor of an AI attack is the difference in power rating. Now, within power rating is the military strength rating, which has predominantly more impact than any other kind of rating I think. I.e, once you have a comparable military to the AI, ALL the other values that factor into power rating push you well beyond the threshold for where an AI will choose to attack you.

1a. So I think the "range of aggressive action" should be changed, so that money, tech, spells, pop, ect.... do not factor as heavily into whether or not the AI thinks it can win. Case in point: A 3-troop squad of basic soldiers will trump a single unit of advanced gear troops, because of damage scaling. The AI regularly fails to account for this when the player brings better armies to bear on them. The inverse needs to be true for the AI. It needs to realize that a 3-troop strength unit of basic troops will steamroll the player's fancier, smaller units. So basically, the AI should take more risks. Sure it may open them up to a counter attack....but we're not worried about AI players losing that badly.

As human players, we want an opponent that will sometimes take action, will fight to defend themselves, but still can ultimately be beaten. Prior to 1.09, the first and last points were true, but not the second. In 1.09, the second and third points are true...but the first is not.

Diplomatic standing adjustments-

There's not enough going on here. Secondly, the overall system for "Ally/Warm/Close/Neutral/Cool/Unfriendly/Hostile/War" is a little simplistic.

1. There needs to be more faction relationship adjustment modifiers, like:

(You have more/less gildar than us. +1/-1)

(Your technology is superior/inferior to ours. +1/-1)

(Your magic is superior/inferior to ours. +1/-1)

(We are trading. +1)

(Your borders are touching mine. -2)

(We have children in a dynasty together. +1)

(You traded favorably with us. 1+(Final player trade value - Final AI trade value), for 3 years.)

(You sacked one of our cities. -3 for 3 years, -2 for 4 years, -1 for 5 years)

(You killed one of our children. -2)

(You are allied with our enemy. -2)

2. Factions should react differently to some facets of your Empire based on how they feel about you. I.e, if you're on good terms, they should become more friendly as the power gap between you increases. If you're not on good terms, everything that makes you more powerful than your neighbors makes them increasingly hostile toward you, unless you go out of your way to increase your standing with them.

So current faction standing is the fulcrum on which most other diplomatic relationship adjustments turn. It's what decides whether a difference between your faction and another is viewed as positive by that faction, or negative.

This would be tricky to balance, because of things that permanently keep diplomatic relations in the negative, versus things that have a positive impact. But I think it'd make for truer AI reactions  to the growth of the player's empire. If you box in an AI that is friendly, they shouldn't hand wave that fact. They should like you a little less as your kingdom totally overshadows their's.

Because in the end, diplomacy is just too easy. Your power scale increasing relative to the AI means they get more and more docile as time goes on, rather than more hostile the threat of a player invasion increases. Once you add a single diplomatic node to your empire, you've got all the extra trading grist to get the other players to do what you want, and all they're getting in return is a meaningless resource they don't know how to use.

Rather than basically racing the AI to the top of the power rating chart, and then checking the AI every time it gets too close to our current power rating...faction relations should be about trying to manage other faction's opinion of your's as your power increases, whether through bribes, real diplomacy or military action. You should be able to settle peace treaties with people that HATE you, and it doesn't mean they don't stop hating you....but at least you're not at a official state of war.

Thanks for the responses guys!

Some more suggestions for AI Improvement

-AIs should always try to have a 'best friend' that they cooperate with to take down other things they view as threats, be it a larger faction or helping them absorb smaller factions. 

-Any AI that can't make friends should go on a murderous, conquering rampage, unless it is the most powerful faction. Frankly, it's inevitable that this faction will get eaten when it's convienant for any other AI to do so, so they might as well start waging war to do it.

-AIs start the game with a goal in mind. It should be a victory condition. Maybe it's diplomatic, or magic victory. A conquering AI will make 'best friends' and then betray them down the line.

-The AI needs to be able to identify the difference between 'brush wars' and 'strategically threatening wars'. Brush wars occur between factions of equal strength. Strategically threatening wars occur when a larger faction takes over another through force. If the world's largest faction engages in strategic war (this means it's starting to conquer EVERYONE). The AI should focus on making alliances to take that faction out. (Unless they are 'best friends' with that faction)

-If the largest faction is at war with a faction that is much smaller, then all players should get a large bonus to diplomacy with other weaker factions. I'll call it the "Hitler Bonus" for now. AIs should always team up to take down Hitler, and then things can go back to normal. 

Of course, factions that are

1) Homicidal maniacs (Yithril?) 

2) Perpetually Neutral (Capitar?)

Will not participate. 

-If a faction cannot or will not pursue military/diplomatic victory, it should try for a Master Quest victory. The resources gained through questing can 'turn around' a potentially bad starting position. (Lack of resources, bad neighbors)

I think that General Carrodus would probably not agree with this.

Sorry to quote this entire post, but this is the best diplomacy-related idea I've seen on the forums. I can't think of a single reason that this should not be implemented.