I wonder if the programmers who invented the bots didn't fully understand the game themselves ... just the mechanics. ex. programming Italy to attack Austria 80% of the time (90%?) makes no sense in any format of the game

So, for better or worse, the initial training has failed to teach the bots some of the key concepts of the game.

Just a couple of notes:

Bots do not know, and have no possibilities to know, who he human player(s) is/are. The system knows that, and once there's no human survivor it forces a draw, but the bots don't.

And since they are not designed to learn from the games they play (they just hold to what they learned in their initial training), they are not adjusting their behaviour based on some "positive" or "negative" outcome.

Then, these bots have the limits of every current AI software - they have no "knowledge" or "understanding", they just apply what they have "established" is a typical move in a specific board position. Of course, this works rather well in 1 vs 1 games with non-simultaneous moves like Chess or Go, far less in Diplomacy.

Bot games are automatically drawn when the player is defeated. That could possibly teach the bots to identify and eliminate the player in order to force a draw.

Have played a couple (dozen) of games and am finding the same thing - makes the game a total nightmare.

In most recent game, 4 players remained (3 AI and 1 human) and ALL THREE of the AI players colluded against the human player.

What is the training set up for the bots?

Clearly they are trained to seek a bot player victory.

I get that maybe this is by design to encourage ‘alliance’ style behaviour, but for the human player it results in a game versus the bots where everyone is in an alliance against you, and it becomes a total waste of time.

Whilst this setup probably encourages alliance style behaviour, it never leads to backstabbing, from my experience, which is as key a part of the game as the alliance behaviour.

Surely the training set up for the AI is flawed and would be better designed for each AI player to play individualistically?

The Bots are awful. They do not even understand the objectives of the game. They have no concept of stalemate lines, stooping solos, even recognizing solos, or the consequences of their actions. The best solution for avoiding frustration with bots is to not play with bots.

Yes, it is possible that the bots are colluding in order to ensure a solo victory for one of them. This is a problem that can occur in any game that involves multiple AI players, as the AI algorithms can be quite complex and difficult to debug. In the case of Diplomacy, the AI bots have to be able to evaluate the victory conditions and make decisions that will help them achieve victory. However, it is possible for the AI bots to be programmed in a way that causes them to make decisions that are not in their own best interests, but which instead help another bot to win.

The bots are not very aware of how to stop a solo. I don't think they are cooperating beyond seeing the moves on the board. I also don't think they're aware of who the human player is.

Yeah couple of games I had where bots move to eliminate the human even though in turns after there would clearly be a bot solo

Same thing is happening to me playin as Germany where Italy and Austria support moving and holding one another with just us 3 left

Sure enough, a couple of turns later the Russian bot has completed a "solo" victory with the Turkish bot sitting on 12 centres with its units in the Balkans sitting next door to empty Russian controlled supply centres (with no Russian pieces within two spaces) - the Turkish bot even moved out of Spain to clear the supply centre for the only Russian unit in the South West quadrant to take.

I have seen this behaviour several times in bot games, but never to the benefit of the human player.

Playing games against bots which I thought were supposed to be gunboat (though the issue I am explaining would be a problem even if it wasnt). The bots are clearly co-operating in some of the games in ways which seem counter to how a Diplomacy game should operate. For instance in my current game, Russia is on 16 centres and Turkey on 11 - both played by bots. Italy and Austria have been eliminated and Germany (also a bot) is down to a single unit in Holland. I as France am restricted to the English and French home centres and Belgium. Classic juggernaut, well played the bots you might think. Except that the only units in the South East quadrant of the board are Turkish armies in Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania and a Turkish fleet in Ionian Sea - the nearest Russian units are armies in Silesia, Tyrolia and Piedmont. The Austrian home centres, Rumania, Sevastopol, Venice and all the Russian home centres are unoccupied and Russian controlled. This quarter of the board has been this way for several years. The Turkish bot is effectively allowing and even helping the Russian bot to a solo victory. I don't think this should happen if the AI was evaluating the victory conditions correctly - and it kind of ruins the game when two or more countries combine to generate a solo victory for one of the bots.