AI after Player

[Dnote]

Just wondering if anyone else has had this issue. After an MP game fell apart I kept playing with the AI taking over from the players, but it isn't working.

Empires controlled by the AI from the beginning are fine and behaving normally, but those where the AI has replaced a player have stopped expanding or interacting with anyone else. They no longer colonise or get involved in diplomacy or war. It's been about a eighty years and these five empires are completely stagnant.

Anyone else noticed this?

 

[Urasboros]

Does said AI was managing a player slavery empire?I found some glitches about that, AI really can't manage slavery.
It happens to me every time I drop and I rejoin the game, and I always need to remanage all the tiles cause AI either disable buildings or enslave a random number of pop.

 

[Wizzington]

The AI limits its actions for a few years after a player drops, to prevent it from messing too hard with a disconnected player's empire. It should not last long though.

 

[Bob_Herzog]

How long did you observe the AI? I think for a certain time the AI will not change anything about the empire after player drop out, so that a rejoin is not that bad on the organisational side. Also when the player used some specific strategies, then the AI might not be able to deal with that.

 

[yamato2cz]

Just wondering if anyone else has had this issue. After an MP game fell apart I kept playing with the AI taking over from the players, but it isn't working.

Empires controlled by the AI from the beginning are fine and behaving normally, but those where the AI has replaced a player have stopped expanding or interacting with anyone else. They no longer colonise or get involved in diplomacy or war. It's been about a eighty years and these five empires are completely stagnant.

Anyone else noticed this?

there is define in defines.lua. for 10 years AI is not going to make any large changes.

 

[Urasboros]

How long did you observe the AI? I think for a certain time the AI will not change anything about the empire after player drop out, so that a rejoin is not that bad on the organisational side. Also when the player used some specific strategies, then the AI might not be able to deal with that.

Dropped and rejoined in the arc of 6 months or so.I had to reorganize my 5 planets

 

[Bob_Herzog]

Dropped and rejoined in the arc of 6 months or so.I had to reorganize my 5 planets

My answer (like the one of Wiz who pushed Pos Reply seconds ahead of me) was aimed at the original question (why the AI takeover does not act on certain stuff for quite some time). The tile mangement (slavery, robots, which pop on which tile) is a different matter. And yes I'm quite aware that the AI isn't really good with slavery and/or robots. Which is why I almost never play with either. Since at the end of the day in sectors the AI would still have to mange them, if they were part of my global strategy.

My two favourite ways are either go for a happy population or for a content one that gets a good amount of ethic diversion. Or to plan to stay small (whatever your system cap is) for a good part of the game and expand when you made the most of whatever other bonuses you chose (i.e. small research heavy Fanatic Materialists).

What I find a bit sad is how easy it still is for Fanatic Pacifists to go down a really agressive expansion path. The -5% for allowing liberation wars can be stomached and the other negative happiness only applies during the offensive war. Maybe they need a modifier for 5 or 10 years to punish you for haveing declared such a war (and maybe even let them stack so if you go for repeated wars you either pile up a lot of negative happiness modifiers or it gets prolonged ad infinitum).

 

[The Founder]

My answer (like the one of Wiz who pushed Pos Reply seconds ahead of me) was aimed at the original question (why the AI takeover does not act on certain stuff for quite some time). The tile mangement (slavery, robots, which pop on which tile) is a different matter. And yes I'm quite aware that the AI isn't really good with slavery and/or robots. Which is why I almost never play with either. Since at the end of the day in sectors the AI would still have to mange them, if they were part of my global strategy.

My two favourite ways are either go for a happy population or for a content one that gets a good amount of ethic diversion. Or to plan to stay small (whatever your system cap is) for a good part of the game and expand when you made the most of whatever other bonuses you chose (i.e. small research heavy Fanatic Materialists).

What I find a bit sad is how easy it still is for Fanatic Pacifists to go down a really agressive expansion path. The -5% for allowing liberation wars can be stomached and the other negative happiness only applies during the offensive war. Maybe they need a modifier for 5 or 10 years to punish you for haveing declared such a war (and maybe even let them stack so if you go for repeated wars you either pile up a lot of negative happiness modifiers or it gets prolonged ad infinitum).

Most people complain that you can not expand as pacifist at all. Mostly due to the forced War Policy (no conquest goals).

You want to close the few venues left too?
Maybe after we get some way for Pacifists to be threathening.

 

[Bob_Herzog]

Most people complain that you can not expand as pacifist at all. Mostly due to the forced War Policy (no conquest goals).

You want to close the few venues left too?
Maybe after we get some way for Pacifists to be threathening.

Why go for conquest? Liberation is much more effective in the long run since the population you'll eventually get that way is much better at being integrated. Yes it is a bit annyoing that you have to go the vasalation and integration route but it is far from impossible. With Federation victories comeing up and hopefully a correction to diplomatic unimportance (no member of a bordering alliance/federation should be considered unimportant. Esspecially not the current president). It becomes even easier: Liberate -> new Member. +15% general happiness is already really strong. Take Materialist as extra Ethos go for the happiness goverment and you have a really strong science boost with everything else (food, minerals, energy) bossted along the way too. Only a bit down the line you have all your planets at 90-100% constantly.

Its not the expansion that is hard as pacifist (thanks to the happiness it is quite easy since it also helps with ethic diversion and such) but expansion through war. And that is what should be hard as pacifist! At the end this is a question of what do you want from your game. If I play pacifist I want the game to make it hard for me to go into offensive wars. If I get attacked the game shouldn't overly punish me for it but declaring a war as pacifist should either have a very good justification (sadly there is no mechanism for that. Like asking others to stop atrocities and so on) or it should be punished hard (your people are fanatic pacifists aka Hippies and similar!).

Frankly the real problem for Fanatic Pacifists is that they can't declare a rivaly. With only insults can become hard to lure the AI into declareing war upon you .

Overall it is a lot better than how it was when the game came out. Back then pacifists were the best warmongers on the map (Moral Democracy).

 

[Naelar]

The AI limits its actions for a few years after a player drops, to prevent it from messing too hard with a disconnected player's empire. It should not last long though.

The AI limitation may not have lifted in the case of this game. For whatever reason, even as minimal as a single-game bug. In my games, the AI have done exactly as you've mentioned when a player drops. Stagnant for a short while then begin being interactive.