SERIOUS BUG!

I won't insult your intelligence and ask if you have the Diplomatic Victory condition enabled, but IIRC the AI cannot win with a Diplomatic Victory for whatever reason. As in, they aren't allowed to. Not sure why.

I think the AI cannot win because you can still break the alliance or kill the other race. It works when you have an alliance because you cannot force an alliance on the other race. I hope that helps, because i had the same question.

Lol! I did have it enabled. I know this for a fact because, in the end, I won one.

...they can't?


WHY?

that sounds like a pretty serious bug, still... if it's purposeful, I'd like to know why.

But I can also break an alliance or kill the other race. And nobody forces anything on anyone. So, thank you for trying to help, but that doesn't seem to make sense.

Thanks, though!

It's not a bug and IIRC has been this way since DL...The AI cannot win diplo victory's.

Ok... but why?

So unfair...

So you really wanted to lose that game?

The reason being, i guess, that CODING the Ai functions as to aim for a Diplo victory would feel more like a very unfair cheating attempt caused by a tricky algorithm.
What would stop the whole group (when playing against more than two AI) from outwitting the human player and stack the "virtual" numbers at the right moment?
Nothing, but (calculated) logic i say!

- Zyxpsilon.

Because the AI should never want anyone else to win, and an alliance that accelerates a victory as such should be against the AI design?

IE: If the Terrans are allied with the Drengin and the Yor, all they need to do is either ally with you, or wipe you out to win. The Drengin and the Yor would be losers as well in this case, and both should be striving to keep you from allying with the Terrans, but keep you alive.

No, I just think that the AI should be able to win properly!

Hey, I had a post about this awhile ago! And yes, I agree, I would prefer it if the AI could win under the same conditions as the human player, but if it would cause unnecessary strife for the people at Stardock, I'm very willing to let it slide.

Hi!

Imagine this: after a long ad "blody" struggle you've finaly beaten those nasty AIs down, and your ships rule the galaxy. There's no force left that can challenge you, you can go wherever you want, do what you please, but in the next turn BAM, you lose! AI just won a diplo victory, and despite all your might there's nothing you can do to prevent that.

Really want to play such a game?

BR, Iztok

By that logic, you would be able to win an alliance victory only by destroying the last AI, as it is never in the last AI's interest to join the alliance which allows you to win. For the same reason, influence victories would also be impossible, as any unallied AI should simply declare war to prevent you from winning. They probably wouldn't win the resulting war, but they could delay the inevitable and force you into a conquest victory (or diplomatic, if you are allied with anyone).

If you were fool enough to still be in the alliance at that point, you deserve what you get. :NOTSURE: 

Iztok, the AI could only win a diplomatic victory if they were allied with you as well.

After all, you have to be allied with all remaining civilizations...not all but one.

At a minimum, they'd have to kill you first.

-

And if I'm that far ahead, I'm not allied with them anymore. I don't need to be, and if I haven't turned off the Alliance victory condition, then the game ends prematurely.

That's exactly how it would play out if you were playing human opponents.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of situations i meant... also.

Diplo-Victory is a tricky case for a number of reasons;

1- Any AIs must keep tab on any **human** nearing a win-status IF they think a flipped Alliance may reverse to their advantage -THEN, maintain the balance of power to stop anyone (incl other AIs) from stacking the deck at a winning % through Alliances -ELSE, declare war or upscale their Diplomatic-ratings through other means.

2- Eliminating the weakest(s) at the appropriate moment can cause a HUGE tilt in favor of allianced race-S, IF the total edges at the necessary percentage while the winner (be it human or otherwise) took a backdoor step to create such a condition.

3- It isn't that far off from a clear Influence victory too, strategy-wise.

4- Getting somebody (specially AIs) high enough in the Close/Friendly mindsets to allow for Alliance treaties requires a LOT of assets and thoughts... plus a whole bunch of patience if not, outright luck. Thus - the algorithms certainly have a specific routine to evaluate these very things.

5- Any AI which is even enough to the human player status would do almost anything to prevent a victory. Alliances included - unless.(!)

Sums it up to me.

- Zyxpsilon.

Still waiting for the part where it's serious.

Um, so what you are saying is that I should automatically win on the first turn. \

Well, basically: I mean, if your mindset is that you don't want to lose after so long, you can logically extend that to, say, after 2 years in-game you win.

LordZarth

Erm, the ultimate part of the game is winning - or losing.

That's what it all leads up to. So... that is rather serious, yes.

Hi!

Eh, I completely forgot that little fact: all remaining players allied .

BR, Iztok

Let me clarify...I would consider a bug that crashes the game upon achieving a diplomatic victory (or loss) a SERIOUS bug. But programming logic that does not allow the AI to achieve a diplomatic victory is not what I would consider a SERIOUS bug, especially if it's not actually a bug, but intentional coding. I'm not saying I understand the point of programming the AI in such a manner, but then again, I'm not a programmer and don't really understand game theory. Calling it serious, though, seems a bit grandiose to me. I would have called it an odd quirk, or an illogical programming decision, or something like that.   

Technically every time you win by diplomatic victory, so does the AI...at least the ones you ally with

Great discussion, but consider this: When you win a Diplomatic Victory, technically EVERYONE in the alliance wins! Remember the words in the victory condition?: Gang up on anyone not in your "group". So, what do we conclude from this: the simple fact that Alliances are indeed being treated differently for the Player compared to the other races (this is, after all, a single player game) - and the difference may be present possibly with good reason. Here is the explanation: When the Player allies with two different races, those other races are considered part of the "group" in the alliance (even though you will not see an alliance indicator showing between the two other races). The ending cinematic even shows you - and your buddies(!) - as a group win. The difference is when another race is allied with you and another race, then you are not all considered part of the "group". First, we must consider whether an action taken by an AI can "win" you the game (i.e. you just suddenly win without taking an action). If we say "no", then it is reasonable to not give Victory to the group when the final alliance is initiated by another race. However, what if we join with someone already part of a "group"? This is the cruxial question. If you think it through, strong arguments can be made for either choice. I believe the decision was made that the Player must initiate Alliance with each other race (since this is a single player game) to win the Diplmatic Victory. Remember, the other races you ally with are also winners of the Diplomatic Victory along with you.

By the way - Piznit, you stated the obvious first (so I am not stealing your thunder). I just wanted to get more to the root of what is implied by the Diplomatic Victory as implemented.