I post here because it's a gamebreaking thing IMO, qualifying as a freaking bug.

I'm sick of having to deal with a -5 penalty with each leader because they all come making absurd demands every damn turn. It's always "give me that please", "give me that or I'll break your bones", "come at war with us", "stop trading with this one", ...

EVERY DAMN TURN !!!

And usually three of them ! So you've got the choice : you refuse, and suffer a -1 penalty with the bloody beggar, or accept, and suffer a -1 to -3 penalty with one or several others opponents.

Meanwhile, each AI absolutely loves each other, and is pleased with the same modifier that makes them annoyed with me. So we have the hidden "AI love" modifier, and the stupid demands modifier, ending with a nice -10 diplomacy handicap with each opponent. How is that fair ? You build the AP, everyone votes for the other, even if you have better modifiers. And if you spread the religion, expect another to win a diplomacy victory. I've ever seen AI loving heatens they were at war with more than me, dammit, because they asked me 7 times to stop trading or join war.

I don't care if someone can exploit it. When I buy a game, I don't care what others will do with it. I want a fair game. So let the AI make absurd demands to each other and start on the same ground that the human player. If we have negative modifiers for refusing joining a war or giving something, it'd be fair they have the same problem.

And I'd like them to understand that no means NO ! I'm sick of having to say the same damn thing to the same damn stubborn AI for 6000 bloody years. Give us the redding power please, a box we can check for things we refuse to trade or do.

I'm not too good at this game yet, but what I gather from reading around here is that it turns out to be important to pick allies and enemies from early on in the game. Then when "friends" "ask" for things, give it to them, and when enemies "ask", don't give it to them. This will give you good diplo with some countries and bad with others, rather than bad diplo with all countries.

Then of course will be those awkard situations when two of your friends turn out to be enemies toward each other. That's life. :mischief:

-FrL-

Yeah, that's supposed to be the way it works, to force you to take sides. But sorry, I'm on my side first, and I won't impair all my game to please one or another who only thinks to his (its) own interest. Do I deserve to be hated by the whole world for that ? I don't think so. AI refuse to give me freebies and don't join in a war if I don't bribe them. Why should I ? And when you face a Mansa Musa who's not only out teching you but comes knocking every time you discover a tech he doesn't have while he won't trade any of his if you don't give him an advantage, how are we supposed to deal with that ? Give him everything just to make sure we'll have the same modifiers than the others have for free ? That's ridiculous.

Note : despite my date of inscription, I play this game since Vanilla came out. I losed the password for my first account and the forum doesn't send the mail for reinitialisation. The diplo was already upsetting back then and BTS just made the things worst. Now it's like having to deal with a horde of beggars sitting on your doorpath every time you go out.

i think there should be an "Ignore" option, just like the AI gets :(

Maybe a 'solution' is to play in preset teams with a couple of AI's against another team or teams, or use the 'always war or peace' option. You'll have friends and enemies, yet they won't be so stubborn and unclear.

if you can handle a little xml you could do what i did that is inverting the diplo modifiyers for warmonger love (all AI that normally have a +1 or +2 diplo with a AI that is deemed a warmonger personality human need not apply instead i changed it to -1 and -2) so that the AI was a little less buddy buddy that warmonger love is so illogical seeing as if someone is on a warpath its more likely that the target will be one that is the bigger threat not the one thats going to stare out the window at you till your army comes knocking.

if i have 2 players bordering me and one plays like gandi and the other like montazuma im not going to declare war on ghandi first seeing as the monty wannabe is going to ram his spear up my backside if i give him the oppertunity.

In my last game I ended with a total of -28 "you didn't help us in war".

-28 !!!

Most of these wars involving people I didn't care about fighting on continents I couldn't go anyway. Am I the only one to think there's something wrong here ?

I scored -16 with only one opponent. The guy was on another continent, didn't like me from the start, and though kept coming on and on and on to ask me to help him against others who were dogpiling him for some reason. At the end, he hated me more than any of those who attacked him, just because of this retarded modifier.

Duh ! :mischief:

IMO, the modifiers for refusing to give a tech or join in a war shouldn't even exist. I mean, when you ask a favor, you hope the guy will accept but you don't hate him for 6 billions years if he refuses. And those modifiers don't exist between AI, so... If anyone can tell me how to remove it, I'd really like to. Too bad I can't handle xml.

In my last game I ended with a total of -28 "you didn't help us in war".

-28 !!!

Most of these wars involving people I didn't care about fighting on continents I couldn't go anyway. Am I the only one to think there's something wrong here ?



Meh, the solution there is to actually declare war when they ask you too. Since it's on another continent you can probably make peace before they even have a chance at striking back at you. Not to mention they are probably defensive at that point.

And I think it's a realistic system, remember how pissed off Americans got at France over Iraq?
Freedom fries.:lol:

It is abnoxious when they demand something especially because the penalties last for so damn long. The worst part is that there are multiple rewardless demands that all STACK. Religion is the biggest pickle because it is so early you have no way of boosting relations so all you see is that big -4 for being a heathen.

Meh, the solution there is to actually declare war when they ask you too.
I did, several times. I just can't fight EVERY damn war on the planet !

I think there should be an option of "ask me this and I declare war on you". Such that if they would ask you to join them in a war, you would automatically declare war on them. This would make them thing twice before doing that.

I did, several times. I just can't fight EVERY damn war on the planet !
Just do a phooey war. Declare war then make peace ASAP without sending any actual troops.

In most civ types game diplomacy can make the game a cake walk since it gives the player too much power. Civ4 has the one of the best Diplomacy that doesn't break the game. As it's been noted before it's diplomacy works as intended since this is the only way an AI can demand the player's intention.
Dag is right, you should pick who you are going to be friendly with and the ones you are not. This was done so you can't set back causing world wars AI vs AI while you take out one AI at a time. Thus not a bug.

Agreed that those modifiers are annoying. Personally I believe there should be a limit to how far this can go, just as most positive modifiers have such limit. I mean, it's ok to have someone hate me for eternity (after all, this is what -20 modifier really is) after I razed half of his cities to the ground, but getting the same -20 for not joining some absurd war is... well... absurd. There should be some hard cap on this.

Another thing is those modifiers last FAR too long. One can refuse to join war/give tech/stop trading in bronze age, and the modifier sticks around at the time of steam engines (well, on marathon it does). "You declared war on us/our friend" sticks forever, that's just stupid (and unrealistic). The funny thing is that "friend" modifier sticks even if civs involved are no longer on friendly terms!

I know about the "picking allies" theory, but somehow it never works for me - sooner or later my supposed "ally" will turn on me (unless, of course, I'm far and above on the powergraph). As far as I'm concerned, there is no way to prevent "AI hate" syndrome, and the only way to prevent the results is to be the biggest bully around (so I don't really care if my actions hurt their feelings).

Ah, guess I just suck badly at diplo games.

I once got one that was like -50 for nuking his cities then invading and razing them.

AIs usually make demands when they feel you are weaker than them. Don't forget that too.
Also, giving into demands is a great way to improve relations. You have to weigh the benefits and demerits of each demand, but lots of times it's good to give in.

In most civ types game diplomacy can make the game a cake walk since it gives the player too much power. Civ4 has the one of the best Diplomacy that doesn't break the game. As it's been noted before it's diplomacy works as intended since this is the only way an AI can demand the player's intention.
Dag is right, you should pick who you are going to be friendly with and the ones you are not. This was done so you can't set back causing world wars AI vs AI while you take out one AI at a time. Thus not a bug.
Yeah, but that's not working that way. The truth is, in most games your friends will at one time or another fight each other, and then fight another one who fights another one who fights you, and they ALL will come asking you to help. All of them, every five turns, forever. That's just broken. You can't build or maintain a coherent diplo, and less than anything decide one line to follow, because they all will be declaring on each other without reason at one time and they all frown at you because you do/don't join in every war, ending with negative modifiers everywhere whatever you do. At the very least they should remember the answer and not come five or ten turns later ask the same damn thing while the modifiers stack forever.

Another thing is those modifiers last FAR too long. One can refuse to join war/give tech/stop trading in bronze age, and the modifier sticks around at the time of steam engines (well, on marathon it does). "You declared war on us/our friend" sticks forever, that's just stupid (and unrealistic). The funny thing is that "friend" modifier sticks even if civs involved are no longer on friendly terms!
Yeah, that too. I remember a game where I declared war on Genghis in 3800 BC with my two warriors and took his undefended capital, killing him by the way, and Louis XIV frowned for that the whole game on me. That happened before anyone could trade or even have open borders, even before any of us had a religion, meaning Louis was pleased with Genghis for the very moment they met, while he's been cautious with me for ages despite us having the same religion, open borders and trading resources. Instant AI love... How's that fair ?

As for the "they feel you're weak" thing, that ain't true. Most of the ones who demand tribute will do it no matter what, even if you're an era ahead and thrice their power. Most of the time I'm on the top three military speaking, and the most retarded leaders come asking for a tribute anyway. Being weak just makes the things worse and more demands, but even if you're the top dog you'll have Monty or another retard with a bunch of axemen in 1900 AD asking you a tribute at one time or another. And before anyone asks, no I don't agree with demands of retarded warmongers, even if that could make things better between us. That would be just illogical. Most of the time I answer "Muahahaha" and close the window. :D

The programmers need to take a clue from some of the better more indepth RPGs (the ones that arent nothing but hack slash fetish) where the 2 diffrant nations have a skill level for diplomatic abilitys so that when negoiations can actully take place, compaired to now where you kiss the ass of the AI and always big them the better end of the deal sending you further into a pit of inability for when thay decided to turn on you and your only option is haveing a larger army (that is broken) why in the hell is the only way to hold your ground is haveing a larger army.

In civ 1 and civ 2 this was not the most important factor there was other ways to hold your ground and win without the need to hold the larger military force, Alpha Centari was similar in that a player didnt need to hold the largest military to win and i dont refer to the alternat victory options, its been awile sence i was able to play that one so i cant say for sure but one of them is the best the civ games have ever been.

However in every victory condition tye in civ 4 unless you use the always peace option your military is ether the number 1 concern or number 2, so if any part of this game is broken its how important military is this would not be so bad if not for the fact that combat in civ4 is slow, irratating, and is for the most part disfunctional.

Oh and the fact that the civ4 GFX team was intent on makeing every improvment/unit on the planet had full animation activity at all times ensureing that the team had ether never played the game themselves or fully intent on makeing sure the game would not work without have at least 10X the recommended system stats.

There is a old post here where someone won a Civ4 game without building any military. I doubt you can do this in any other civ game.
Even with the tougher civ4 diplomacy, a good player can still use diplomacy in their favor.

Recently played a game of civ 1 and won on the highest difficulty setting useing diplomats as my mode of conquest i built only 3 unit types diplomats settlers and caravans and ran a trade distribution rate of 4.Lux 4.Tax 2.Sci and lead the tech curve for 90% of the game by end game i had a few level 28 citys so i did not use the ICS stratagy, seeing as civ 2 has a similar system only slightly expanded i think i could do the same on that one after getting familiar with the adjustments.

So yes it is possable in other civ games, if you look back the negoiation table has changed so little its quite sad.

Civ 3 and 4 are wargames and thay do that part well except for the bog down that 4 makes, but other then that thay do poorly.

That's amazing since I had enough trouble just keeping them off my cities fat cross. I would be interested reading a post how to win civ1 or civ2 without building any military. Still I fail to see how civ3/civ4 was more of a war-like than civ1/civ2 was. I remember building the Great Wall often in Civ2 in order to have peace and even then it still didn't keep them off my back. Also In civ2 spies was a little too powerful as you could buy cities a lot cheaper than build an army to conquer them.

The only military i had was what i used as MPs in the citys before repub and democracy came into effect and what came with the citys when i aquired them from my enemys its a method of play that has you constantly hounding your enemy so thay cant hound you seeing as standard combat was iffy at best on the highest setting. near the end to save turns i dropped a nuke on there last city and walked in with some of the surplus units i gained from my foes, so i did build military but i dont think militia men stand much chance aginst the more modern barbs that can sometimes spawn.

If the method was overly powerful in civ 2 then it may be partly the prices set in civ 1 as that had a income cap of 30,000 and would not hurt my feelings none to see it a little harder with your foes useing it on you when you arent looking or so.

if you can handle a little xml you could do what i did that is inverting the diplo modifiyers for warmonger love (all AI that normally have a +1 or +2 diplo with a AI that is deemed a warmonger personality human need not apply instead i changed it to -1 and -2) so that the AI was a little less buddy buddy that warmonger love is so illogical seeing as if someone is on a warpath its more likely that the target will be one that is the bigger threat not the one thats going to stare out the window at you till your army comes knocking.


In what xml file this can be done?

If we could simply red out things like the AI can......

If we could simply red out things like the AI can......
This would only cause more confusion as of why the AI declared war on you. The whole purpose of red out is to keep the player wasting time asking the AI something it will not trade.

^^But it would make the game more symmetrical... I'm currently playing a SG where we have the objectives of founding every religion ( done ),having every religion in all of our cities, having our first founded religion ( budhist ) as SR of all civs ( done ) and having our first founded religion in every city in the world. As you can imagine the world could be a love fest, but because of the stupid AI requests ( that even with all the people of the same religion stills wants to fight wars ( sour bloods from long time ago ) ) we are the least loved civs and we're facing a double DoW ATM because of that....

What I'm saying is that the fact of the humans can't redline and the AI can ( I would be happy if both humans and AI would play by the same set of rules, whichever it is ) makes the diplo shift against the Humans, because AI will never have a diplo - because of a request/demand of another AI.

What I'm saying is that the fact of the humans can't redline and the AI can ( I would be happy if both humans and AI would play by the same set of rules, whichever it is ) makes the diplo shift against the Humans, because AI will never have a diplo - because of a request/demand of another AI.
You got to make diplomacy somewhat against the player or the game will be a cakewalk where the player has pretty much control over the AI civs just like civ3.

What I'm saying is that the fact of the humans can't redline and the AI can ( I would be happy if both humans and AI would play by the same set of rules, whichever it is ) makes the diplo shift against the Humans, because AI will never have a diplo - because of a request/demand of another AI.

On the other hand the player never gives any attitude clues to the AI. The player can attack anytime and for reasons completely unknown to the AI. And the AI always has to be prepared. Ever thought about that beeing slightly unfair? ;)

@ Smidlee

True enough, but we already have the stuff in the Civ handicaps file giving humans a demerit in terms of diplo. So if we already are handicapped, why having a unsymmetrical game mechanics?

@gps

:lol: If we are going that way, AI doesn't buy the game, so that is unsymmetrical as well. They should pay us to be in our games ;)

True enough, but we already have the stuff in the Civ handicaps file giving humans a demerit in terms of diplo. So if we already are handicapped, why having a unsymmetrical game mechanics?

What exactly do we have that's handicapping humans?

Bh

What exactly do we have that's handicapping humans?

Bh

BMX bikes, beer and teenage stupidity.....

Or was that not what you mean?

@Bhruic

WFYABTA.... Noble between AI , level dependant towards humans. If that is not a handicap to Humans in highers levels.... I know it is not explicitly coded ,but it is "under the skin"

WFYABTA can apply to the AI too. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "level dependent towards humans"... There are no level penalties for diplomacy.

Bh

WFYABTA can apply to the AI too. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "level dependent towards humans"... There are no level penalties for diplomacy.

Bh

Bhruic,

I think the handicap is...well for example, if you're Hindi, and Gandhi is Buddhist, often times you can not even suggest for him to convert. "That goes against everything we believe in!" Where as the computer can endlessly request for the player to convert religions. When the player chooses to not convert, the player then suffers penalties. I think that is what they are calling imbalanced favouring the AI.

I disagree and I believe that the diplomacy system is balanced towards the human players. My games often reflect this, as I do my best to exploit the diplomacy system in my advantage. I've played, and won, many games where I've only produced 2-3 military units per city...usually warriors and/or archers. The diplomacy system is rather simple if you are hell bent on avoiding war. Learn your foreign advisor's screen, and check it often.

Choosing sides is important. You must know who is aligned with whom, and how they feel about others. This is especially key during or before a war. If you want to remain friends with BOTH parties, instantly close open boarders with all civilizations involved, the moment they start to have issues with each other. You suffer no penalties for manually closing boarders (but receive less or no bonuses.) Where as if you let side 1 demand that you close boarders with side 2, and you say "sure" you suffer penalties with side 2. Also stop trading with both sides. This means canceling all current resource and gold trades, as well as no trading technologies, gold nor world maps with them.

Would you rather not trade at all, or choose sides?

Micromanagement on the domestic level increases your success in CivIV, it only makes sense that micromanagement on the international level increases your success as well.

I think the handicap is...well for example, if you're Hindi, and Gandhi is Buddhist, often times you can not even suggest for him to convert. "That goes against everything we believe in!" Where as the computer can endlessly request for the player to convert religions. When the player chooses to not convert, the player then suffers penalties. I think that is what they are calling imbalanced favouring the AI.

How is that unbalanced? There is no mechanism for human like of the AI. Or, more properly, there is no feedback mechanism for the AI with regards to the human's perceptions of them. As far as they are concerned, the human may very well hate them for their requests (which for some people seems to be the case). But there is, and can be, no way for the AI to know that. That's just a reality, not an imbalance.

Or, to put a different spin on it, you might as well call it biased in the humans favour, because we can choose to go to war when we are "friendly" with the AI. Or we can choose to cancel deals that are in our favour. Or we can refuse to make trades that are obviously good. How many times do we see someone come here and complain that the AI won't accept a grossly uneven trade. Is the reverse not true? Can the human not turn down even a grossly uneven trade?

The human has all the advantages when it comes to diplomacy. Claiming that it's unbalanced in the AIs favour strikes me as ludicrous. Yes, the AI will come to you with demands, and yes, you're either going to have to give in to the demands, or suffer diplomatic penalties. But since the human has a default advantage to begin with, that merely offsets the advantage, it doesn't reverse it.

Bh

Bhruic,

I'm not sure if your post was directed at me or not, but regardless I want to say that I agree with you. I've only had Civ a few months, and I'm playing on Monarch+. Part of this is because I am anal about micromanaging. I micromanage my workers, cities, specialists, civics, religions, diplomacy, military units, espionage, and research. Everything is directly or indirectly related to everything else.

For example, if I have a new city site that is 12 spaces away, and no horses nor ivory in my BFC, there are three (basic) ways to do this.

1) Move your unescorted settler blindly through the fog, and hope that no enemy civs nor barbarians show up to whack your settler, but at the same time not delaying it's movement.

2) Move your settler with a military units, denying the settler their 2nd move. This results in a new city being built 3-5 turns later, but ensures it will not be an easy target if a barbarian shows up.

3) Use two or three military units in set positions such that they can see (fog bust) the entire path from my city to the new site. This ensures that no barbarians will spawn in the direct path. If barbarians do rear their ugly heads, move your military unit(s) to intercept. This protects the settler from barbarians at the same time doesn't delay the city being built.

This micromanagement of my military units permits a new city to be quickly erected and safely, decreasing the time it will take for that city to turn into a thriving city of whatever I wanted that city to do, increasing my empire's overall efficiency and power quickly. Doing 10 different micromanagement "thing" can mean the difference in having a strong army of catapults 10 or 15 turns before your enemy even has construction, or having the enemy have a strong army of catapults 10 to 15 turns before you have construction.

Diplomacy is the same way. If you aren't constantly checking the diplomacy screen you are going to have a tougher time than someone who lives and dies by the diplomacy screen. Get to know your neighbours! Talk to them, constantly. Find out who they're on good terms with. Find out who they hate. Find out who those people like and hate. Create a spiderweb in your mind of who likes who, and who hates who. Sometimes there are two large factions that hate each other, (think Hatfields and McCoys) other times there are multiple factions, with 2 powerhouses of a few civs, and multiple 1-2 civs that are fairly isolated diplomatically. Sometimes it's more beneficial to team up with a neutral 2 civ faction than to join the 5 civ faction that is currently at war with another 5 civ faction.

It is up to YOU to decide. And that's where micromanagement comes in. The diplomacy system isn't that tough to figure out if you put your mind to it. But just like anything else in civ, don't expect to master a new strategy your first game practicing it. Attention and experience are what it takes to master anything in civ. But especially experience.

The diplomacy system isn't that tough to figure out if you put your mind to it.

A lot of things the AI does are easy to figure out. You always have to keep in mind: the better the AI plays, the longer it takes the computer to calculate. And I often hear claims here, the computer is already taking too much time. So what do you want? A flawless playing AI that perfectly simulates a human player - but you need to wait 3 weeks between turns, or a dumbed down AI that almost but only almost plays like a human player but finishes turn within a handfull of seconds??? I think what we got with CIV is still a good compromise. And if you want to have the feeling of playing against human beeings, maybe you should try playing against human beeings? ;)

Your problem is your lack of understanding you're dealing with an artifical intelligence. An AI does not think and does not understand... but you do. So once you learn this simple concept you will learn how to "diplomatically" deal with the AI. In fact, there is nothing diplomatic in it.

Would have answered sooner but got distracted, go to the civilizations folder in the XML section that is inside the assests folder and in there will be a Leaderheadinfo XML file the first civ on the list will be the barbs, just be for worned in order to make a signifigant diffrance you have to change each AI barbs dont do diplomacy so you can skip them.

Have fun wolfstorm.

My only objection to diplomacy is that the negative points last forever. In my last game, Isabella asked me to convert to her religion and I refused. 2,000 years later, that was still being held against me, even though she had converted to a different religion herself.

In other words, you want to turtle.

Stop doing that.

Then you will win.

I'm sorry, but you're not using the diplomacy system as it was designed to be used. Learn how to use it properly, and you won't have people declaring war on you when you don't want war.

youre a freaking nuisance!

I 'turtle' and win all the time! the problem is this diplomacy crap is not fun, its annoying, the only way to get past it all is to just hold enter and auto NO every time someone asks, I have no problem doing this. their moods dont mean jack to me and i rarely ever get declared upon. it dosent stop it from being a rediculous pain in the neck!

Mod, for this, please.

Civ 3 and 4 are wargames and thay do that part well except for the bog down that 4 makes, but other then that thay do poorly.

I have played Civilization since Civ 1, and I think Civ 1 and Civ2 were wargames to a much greater extent than Civ III and IV. In Civ 1 and 2 I almost always played in Always War mode. That's because I found that the AI would always break the peace treaties. And it would always park units by my cities, which prevented me from working those tiles and from moving my units around my cities. Either the AI would backstab me with those units parked by my cities, or I would have to take them out so that I could work the tiles.

So in effect Civ 1/2 were Always War for me. The AI in Civ 1 and 2 was dumber and you could get away with being at war with everyone. War also gave you the benefit of getting all the technologies the AI had by taking some of their minor cities; instead of setting you back as in Civ4, war allowed you to catch up to the AI in Civ1/2.

In contrast, in Civ3/4 it is possible to play an entire game peacefully. The AI will respect your borders (more or less). And always war is much harder in Civ3/4 because the AI is greatly improved. The Civ3/4 AIs send stacks of doom instead of sending units peacemeal like the Civ1/2 AIs.

(Combat Compromises and AI) The units in civ 1 and 2 could be sent peacemeal as you say and still do alot of damage and stacks of doom were more likely to get your stack crushed so its like apples and oranges setting them side by side like that, the so called advanced AI is also not really good to argue for the same reason the comp didnt need to send stacks to win so it was not programmed with that insentive im sure if the combat system worked the same now as it did then the AI would not send stacks as that would to easly risk getting every unit killed with an unlucky roll of the random.

(How many ways to win?) In civ 1 and 2 the victory conditions made sence win by killing/subjigateing all threats or ensureing that your death on this planet ment you could come back later and try again and with a major tech lead theoretically and survival (?).
However the new ways of winning hardly make sence with how thay are applyed in 3 and 4 Diplomacy makes no sence as you cant order all your allies to assist you in war/spying/Subdueing economys so at best you get yourself a nice title and a bunch of would be freinds who wont help you do anything (this could be fixed but the company folks arnt intrested). Culture victorys are badly applyed aswell (civ 3) haveing lots of culture is a little ineffective if it is all in your land (civ 4) haveing 3 citys get super large borders and topping out the fort moddifiyer hardly make me want to surrender and run screaming into the night, and the worst part is that thay removed the one aspect that might almost make Culture seem logical as a possable victory if applyed right and that would be for the population to tell you to go off yourself and join someone else or make there own if you did really poorly (only encountered it a few times and i was the one getting a city half way around the world far from my borders all because my populace was happy as hell and theres was in the shitter).


(of War and Tech) In civ 4 the ability to steal tech dureing conquest was yanked in order to unnatrally discorage rampant war makeing seeing as thay crippled the players ability to get anything done in the short term without useing a big stick (or if you like war engine) when you can force your enemy to surrender without overwhelming force of arms you let me know, and giveing in to there demands to stop the war counts as you surrendering. (In the real world there many many ways to stop a foe that is stronger then you both on a national scale and a personal scale).

Well that was long winded of me.