OMG, I was attacked!

Uncle_Joe:

Seems to me like you want there to be a strong diplomatic penalty for grabbing CS allies, making DoFs with everyone, and making wonders. It'd be a better game if all those were in, would you think?

Roxlimn said:

Uncle_Joe:

Seems to me like you want there to be a strong diplomatic penalty for grabbing CS allies, making DoFs with everyone, and making wonders. It'd be a better game if all those were in, would you think?

Click to expand...

I assume you mean a non-ignorable penalty?

I mean a penalty in about the same way "we covet your lands" and "you are expanding too aggressively" are currently penalties.

Roxlimn said:

I mean a penalty in about the same way "we covet your lands" and "you are expanding too aggressively" are currently penalties.

Click to expand...

"You're too friendly" therefore War.

It could work if tied to AI personalities. But I can see this backfiring big if done poorly, rushed or just overall made impossible to play a peaceful game early.

Roxlimn said:

Uncle_Joe:

Seems to me like you want there to be a strong diplomatic penalty for grabbing CS allies, making DoFs with everyone, and making wonders. It'd be a better game if all those were in, would you think?

Click to expand...

Strong penalties? No. Cumulative penalties? Yes.

If someone is building a lot of wonders, it's noticed but not a big deal if otherwise friendly. Same for over-teching or grabbing all the CSs etc etc.

But if someone is doing MULTIPLES of these? Yes, I believe the AIs should take notice and begin to take counter-measures anywhere from decreasing trade and RA opportunities to denouncing, demanding, and eventually war if no accommodation is met.

For example, if I build a ton of wonders, start to pull ahead in tech, and THEN start to grab a bunch of CSs I would expect to see a slowly building antipathy towards my Civ that would draw at LEAST economic reactions from the other Civs.

To me, that is both the Civs looking out for their own interest (realistic) and also being competitive in the game (ie, good AI).

I'm not looking for all-out attacks for peacefully building but I would like to see the AIs less enthusiastic to constantly be helping me on my way to defeating them via Science or Diplomacy victories.

Roxlimn said:

I mean a penalty in about the same way "we covet your lands" and "you are expanding too aggressively" are currently penalties.

Click to expand...

I may have misunderstood your post, since I thought it was a bit of dry humor because there are diplo penalties for the things you listed.

They just don't seem to matter because, generally, the AI's that seem to care about those things are the AI's I'm not worried about DOW'ing me.

Hmm, Joe posted before I had responded, but reading his post made think of "synergy bonus" for the penalties. As in, if you manage to light up a group of similar penalties that all relate to a runaway boomer, the overall penalty gets magnified.

Unthinking Pain said:

I may have misunderstood your post, since I thought it was a bit of dry humor because there are diplo penalties for the things you listed.

They just don't seem to matter because, generally, the AI's that seem to care about those things are the AI's I'm not worried about DOW'ing me.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was actually a bit of dry humor, but also something of a question. All of those penalties are already in the game and I have been penalized by them at one point or another.

I had to pay the Inca through the nose for Open Borders to get the Culture Vic I wanted because he hated me so much for building Wonders and allying CSs. Alex was blunter. He sent me XP.

All the AIs care about CSs and Wonders. I have not seen an AI that did not mind.

Uncle_Joe:

But if someone is doing MULTIPLES of these? Yes, I believe the AIs should take notice and begin to take counter-measures anywhere from decreasing trade and RA opportunities to denouncing, demanding, and eventually war if no accommodation is met.

Click to expand...

I think you're laboring under the misconception that war hampers the player against the AI. In fact, war is the aspect of the game the AI does the worst. It's shooting itself in the foot every time it does that. It's throwing away hammers in order to give your units XP. Why should the AI self-destruct itself and send you resources when you're already winning?

I will often war in order to get ahead in the game, even now. The easiest way to get ahead is to go conquer some Wonder-packed capital.

Roxlimn said:

I think you're laboring under the misconception that war hampers the player against the AI. In fact, war is the aspect of the game the AI does the worst. It's shooting itself in the foot every time it does that. It's throwing away hammers in order to give your units XP. Why should the AI self-destruct itself and send you resources when you're already winning?

I will often war in order to get ahead in the game, even now. The easiest way to get ahead is to go conquer some Wonder-packed capital.

Click to expand...

Granted, but that should be taken care of in the military comparison routines. If they have significantly more military strength that they can bring to bear then attacking might be the best solution.

But in any case, there has to be a real THREAT of attacking to push a boomer to actually divert production and money to military defenses or else the lead just continues to compound and grow.

I have seen plenty of times in BNW where the AI has more than enough to utterly wipe me out before I would be able to take effective measures had they attacked. But they don't, so I boom, they lose.

And again, I don't think they should just come charging across the borders for minor things but once I'm clearly booming and not responding to demands to cease gobbling CSs or stop taking all the wonders or whatever I should start to feel pressure that if I DONT build a competent military, I'm going to get attacked. This is especially true because SO MUCH damage can be done simply by raiding the trade routes. The AI doesn't even have to come barreling into my defenses if they go after the trade. But I definitely would need a military to protect the trade or else I can be content to do without.

That is the key IMO. There should be real consequences for over-booming like there are consequences for other ways of pursuing victory. And at that very least, those consequences should include getting less or less favorable resource trading and especially being cut off from RAs etc. Sure maybe an AI here and there won't mind and will continue to do so but that shouldn't be the norm (ie, helping me to increase my lead).

So in summary, it should be harder to maintain an economic/tech/diplo lead without consequence ranging from increased economic/diplo pressure to attacks on trade to all-out attacks if the situation warrants.

I've played consecutive games that were first, constant war and relatively low tech pace as a result and subsequently mostly peaceful with tons of RA and fast tech pace. Insane fast teching is the thing I find most annoying about higher difficulty. I understand that with so many variables to consider it's not easy to make a challenging AI without giving it brute force advantages, but gatling guns in 1400 bothers me.

Roxlimn said:

Yes, it was actually a bit of dry humor, but also something of a question. All of those penalties are already in the game and I have been penalized by them at one point or another.

I had to pay the Inca through the nose for Open Borders to get the Culture Vic I wanted because he hated me so much for building Wonders and allying CSs. Alex was blunter. He sent me XP.

Click to expand...

I guess I have a hard time thinking that handing a bunch of meaningless gold to someone so they can hand me the game is a real penalty.

Hi, I'm new to this forum but quite fascinated by all the debates and all you can learn here. It feels a bit presumptuous to post among all the experts here, but is there not a rather simple solution for people who want more aggressive behaviour from the AI also on "lower" levels? Like making certain that the other civs in the game are more aggressive civs like the Zulu, the Huns and the Songhai? Wouldn't that more or less guarantee more wars?

I mostly agree with Uncle Joe. When you're cruising to a Science, Culture, or Diplomatic victory, the AI should recognize it and take one or more of the following measures:

Stop Research Agreements
Make it harder to trade with them
Try to convince other Civs to ally against the human player
Possibly denounce
Possibly DoW and poach trade routs
Possibly DoW with allies and try to take a city
Possibly DoW and kill any Great Musicians/Prophets etc... outside my borders

All dependent on the AIs personality. There may be more to add to this list. And of course war isn't always the answer. But I'm sure it's a delicate balance. Not every AI should start hating you for doing well.

Unthinking Pain:

It was the biggest obstacle I've ever faced going to a Culture win. Every AI attack on me I can smell from a mile off, in general, and usually only works to make me stronger and that AI weaker. The worst that can happen is some AI will suicide itself against me while another AI steams ahead; but that's not exactly the kind of thinking that says "I want to win."

Uncle_Joe:

That is the key IMO. There should be real consequences for over-booming like there are consequences for other ways of pursuing victory. And at that very least, those consequences should include getting less or less favorable resource trading and especially being cut off from RAs etc. Sure maybe an AI here and there won't mind and will continue to do so but that shouldn't be the norm (ie, helping me to increase my lead).

Click to expand...

AIs who hate you for building wonders and stealing their ally CSs will not trade you resources at all, and will definitely not sign DoFs for RAs.

DuseCutter said:

I mostly agree with Uncle Joe. When you're cruising to a Science, Culture, or Diplomatic victory, the AI should recognize it and take one or more of the following measures:

Stop Research Agreements
Make it harder to trade with them
Try to convince other Civs to ally against the human player
Possibly denounce
Possibly DoW and poach trade routs
Possibly DoW with allies and try to take a city
Possibly DoW and kill any Great Musicians/Prophets etc... outside my borders

All dependent on the AIs personality. There may be more to add to this list. And of course war isn't always the answer. But I'm sure it's a delicate balance. Not every AI should start hating you for doing well.

Click to expand...

I like that list. Even if it's a temporary DoW backed by more than a token force (which most AI has in the late game), that could be enough to delay you by having to stop your building and teching march by making you have adequate defenses. That's better than doing nothing and lose.

Buccaneer said:

I like that list. Even if it's a temporary DoW backed by more than a token force (which most AI has in the late game), that could be enough to delay you by having to stop your building and teching march by making you have adequate defenses. That's better than doing nothing and lose.

Click to expand...

Exactly! By doing nothing or worse, actively helping me via trading and RAs, the other nations are just shooting themselves I the foot. Well, actually in the head lol.

So I would like to see an escalation of stopping the help followed by actively hindering me and, depending on the Civ and the circumstance, a military attack (certainly if I have little to no military this should be high on their list).

AIs who hate you for building wonders and stealing their ally CSs will not trade you resources at all, and will definitely not sign DoFs for RAs.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I haven't seen this behavior. Sure every now and then an AI hates me/denounces me etc but there are always plenty of AIs who will happily continue to trade and RA and otherwise help me along.

And I've also most of my games of BNW be the happy happy love-fests where I actively have DoFs with almost every Civ in the game (which makes all their buddies happy and it's just a giant love circle lol).

And it's also very odd that I get denounced for whatever and then shortly thereafter that same AI comes to me for Embassy exchange/open borders usually followed by DoFs and RAs etc again.

Keep in mind that I'm not going out of my way to be 'friendly' either. I don't give away resources for free, I don't stop spying or converting when caught, I don't vote any particular way to please AIs etc. I just do what's in my own best interest and by and large the AIs are more than happy to be buddy-buddy even when doing so is sealing their fate to a boomer who is just pulling farther and farther ahead.

Uncle_Joe:

The AI is not programmed to see VC completion as a threat, as I've mentioned before. It used to, but clamor for change made Firaxis change it back to how it is now. It is actually worse in Civ IV where the AI might as well be your puppet.

The fact that you sign DoFs is a strong positive modifier. If you sign DoFs with one Civ in a faction, it is a strong additional positive modifier. Those two factors make doing DoFs actually a strong friend-making activity, except if you DoF a belligerent warmonger. In addition to not incurring "covet lands" penalties, this actually makes the general tenor of your games very friend-making.

Make no mistake, other gamers, in this same installment, are complaining that the AI is too belligerent - that there is no point to trying to make friends, because it all ends in bloody war anyway.

Neither is true. It just so happens that what you naturally do tends to make the AI friendly, and what they naturally do makes the AI hostile. If you want the AI to be hostile, there are ways to do so.

@Roxlimn; I'm not sure it ever did.

There was a 'we're competing for the same VC' diplo modifier and code is still in the XML, I'm just not sure if it's weighted as heavily as before as I don't recall seeing it show up in my recent games.

Here are some modifiers where Civ is evaluating things you could compete against them ; positive numbers weigh on your relations. negative are good.

It is definitely in the code somewhere because you can clearly see the modifier show up in Emperor of the Smoky Skies scenario. In that scenario, all the AI will become very hostile to you if you inch towards the VC conditions. I'm guessing that the devs saw that as being more consistent with that particular scenario, even if CivFanatic gamers have voiced vocal objections to it in the main game.

Yeah Im sure it was in GnK; im just havent yet seen it in BNW.