Ai using Citadel's - unfair

Sidor1982 said:

The game mechanics doesn't give human player many options, which the AI has. When the AI steals your land he is the bad guy, but you can't do anything about it other than DoW or denouce, which in the eyes of other AI's make you the bad guy. In the opposite situation - You steal the land - the AI has the option to show his anger without denoucing/DoW.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? This is utter nonsense. The only diplomacy actions the AI has that the human doesn't are demanding to stop conversions and demanding that troops be moved(which I do think should be added and removed, respectively). When the AI "shows its anger," it's only for the player's information; it has no effect on the game at all. Like, literally zero effect on the game. And here's a tip: If the AI steals land from you or converts your cities when you have your own religion already, it knows that action is going to piss you off before it does it. It just doesn't care. Seriously, I have never had an AI steal land or convert one of my cities that wasn't either:
1. Hostile toward me or
2. Faking "Friendly" with intent to attack me soon.

Such a situation occurs on many other ways - moving units near borders, settling near opponent, spreading religion, grabbing land, stealing CS etc. The human player cannot react the way the AI can, which makes the diplomacy broken and one-sided, which is in my opinion the biggest flaw of the game.

Click to expand...

Again, the ONLY diplomacy actions the AI has that you don't are demanding that conversion cease and demanding that troops be moved. All the other ones you're mentioning are not "actions" the AI has, and the only reason you even get the screen popup is to INFORM you that you just pissed someone off and they're not willing to take it lightly.

Sidor1982 said:

My post is about something else. Please take that into account before sending an answer completely off topic.

Click to expand...

My post wasn't off topic.

I disagreed when you said you had limited options, this is not true. There are lots of things you can do to influence events, and i gave an example.

Then i went and found a probable reason that the AI is so tetchy for you, a reason beyond simply "two faced-ness". It may not be the case, but you probably had a weak army which meant he didn't need to be so diplomatically cautious.

True_Candyman said:

My post wasn't off topic.

I disagreed when you said you had limited options, this is not true. There are lots of things you can do to influence events, and i gave an example.

Then i went and found a probable reason that the AI is so tetchy for you, a reason beyond simply "two faced-ness". It may not be the case, but you probably had a weak army which meant he didn't need to be so diplomatically cautious.

Click to expand...

My post is about overall game mechanics - not a particular situation. You stating I had a weak army and should get a larger army is by itself off topic.

I'll give another example to make You understand what I'm writing about.

You are sending your miltary towards AI. It sees it and demands You to declare war - You can declare war and loose the ability of first strike or You say You won't do it, but do it anyway - then You suffer a -2 modifier with all the AI's on the planet.
Now You see an AI marching an army towards your border - try demanding from the AI to back down, so when it attacks You it suffers the same modifier with all AI's.
The game doesn't have such an option and therefore the statement that diplomacy is one-sided.

thank you Sidor 1982, this was the issue I had a problem with, not the dirty tactics by the Dutch. All's fair in love and war but not when they have more options in diplo then me. Also I posted as I have never come across this defficiency in the Diplo before (referring to stealing land).

I'll still smash their armies no matter what comes my way (especially when I finish my first fighters for air defence). Teaches me not to try and play peacefully as normally a good third of the map would be mine if I had any intentions towards war in this game. All games follow a war route, I fancied a change.

Sidor1982 said:

I have to agree with the OP on this one.

The game mechanics doesn't give human player many options, which the AI has. When the AI steals your land he is the bad guy, but you can't do anything about it other than DoW or denouce, which in the eyes of other AI's make you the bad guy. In the opposite situation - You steal the land - the AI has the option to show his anger without denoucing/DoW.

Click to expand...

I don't think denouncing makes you the bad guy. If anything, the modifier is set up so other civs are uneasy if a former friend denounces you, so the fact that you denounce means they should be liked less. Of course, this isn't the case if they like them better than you to begin with, but it basically tells the other civs to choose which one they like more.

While the AI has their little messages, I'm not sure they mean anything diplomatically except to let you know what the AI is thinking.

Civking5 said:

U should come and see how effectively people are using citadels in multiplayer games. The horror, the horror...

Click to expand...

This - there was this 3 front game (As in 3 players who most of the time were at war with each other) and there were 13, yes 13, citadels built between them. They were good enough to remain at largely stalemate for most of the game and one had the great wall. The constant shifting of territory was funny to watch.
==============

Citadels are much more powerful in multi I agree - I only wish I could settle them on mountains as Carthage

Sidor1982 said:

When the AI steals your land he is the bad guy, but you can't do anything about it other than DoW or denouce, which in the eyes of other AI's make you the bad guy.

Click to expand...

Not always. I sometimes denounce someone who has been a real pain (and he`s wrongly denounced me) and find that some Civs will contact me to agree and the guilty AI ends up being denounced by 2 or 3 of your friends. I`ve had it a few times. You denounce the right person at the right time and keep your nose clean and you will look like the good guy, even if the bad guy denounces you first.

Make friends, that`s the trick.

Gucumatz said:

Citadels are much more powerful in multi I agree - I only wish I could settle them on mountains as Carthage

Click to expand...

That would be unfair to everyone else since they couldn't pillage them.

Louis XXIV said:

That would be unfair to everyone else since they couldn't pillage them.

Click to expand...

I know, I was just joking. Would be a fun thing though. As Carthage I have already used Citadels next to mountains though for similar purposes - build a road on a mountain, have access to keshiks/cho-ko-nuhs? Well then on multi you can use that mountain in your territory to quickly attack from the high ground strongholds and cities.

Using that strategy as Carthage with Cho-ko-nuhs I once took out a civ in multiplayer with Great War Bombers, Rifles, and cavalry, despite being an age behind. Carthage love :

Gucumatz said:

Citadels are much more powerful in multi I agree - I only wish I could settle them on mountains as Carthage

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could capture Machu Pichu...LOL