peace treaties

this seems like quite a noticeable feature considering what you can get away with in this game with regards to DoWing an AI. does nobody else find it even a little weird that when an AI who has a much bigger military than you offers a peace treaty in which they demand you give them a bunch of luxuries or a city (in that the AI believes it is winning the war), you can just remove all of these things from the peace treaty and the AI accepts it regardless?

for example: it's early game on immortal difficulty and Lizzy runs a settler by itself that happens near one of my cities. of course i'm going to steal it, it's early in the game and i could use a worker, as well as the setback for her. i DoW her and take the settler/worker, do absolutely nothing else, and negotiate peace at the earliest possible time. her military far outclasses mine so she suggests i give her two cities for peace; instead, i remove the cities from the equation and leave it as a naked peace treaty. i propose this and she accepts it. why?

it seems weird that the AI even asks for things in peace treaties when no matter what state you are in you can just change it to a regular peace treaty (which they then accept, regardless of circumstance), and it's one of the biggest reasons for why declaring war early game for something like stealing a worker has almost no drawbacks. i've known about this for a while but it just dawned on me how little sense it makes as a mechanic. was this intended?

It is a known bug that AI will always accept white peace regardless of war situation if it would accept any kind of peace at all.

I agree it is a problem that the computer will always take white peace.

I think it is a bigger problem that the AI does not know when it is not winning. You can be killing AI units at a 50:1 ratio and the AI still asks for cities for peace. Until and unless you outnumber the AI, it will not offer a white peace. But the AI counts units anywhere on the map its own relative strength, so it does not offer white peace until it is being crushed. At that point, the player wants and deserves more.

miaasma said:

...and it's one of the biggest reasons for why declaring war early game for something like stealing a worker has almost no drawbacks.

Click to expand...

I do not think the two really related. If I do the early worker steal, in about half my games the AI is offering white peace -- so I do not need to exploit the bug when I am ready to end the war.

Also when the AI realizes it's whipped, they'll offer up cities *I* DON'T WANT, due to happyness; I want their Gold and Luxes, to bleed them dry while I recover .

The best is when an AI on the other side of the world declares war on you, never sends a single unit, then asks for peace 20 turns later and offers you 30 gold per turn.
AIGHT BRO THANKS

dasaard200 said:

Also when the AI realizes it's whipped, they'll offer up cities *I* DON'T WANT, due to happyness; I want their Gold and Luxes, to bleed them dry while I recover .

Click to expand...

Whenever they offer cities, you can take a portion of their gold, gpt, lux etc instead and possibly get a bright green we're traded modifier if they don't have enough to offer. If they really had nothing else, just take their city and trade it to someone else willing to pay.

beetle said:

I do not think the two really related. If I do the early worker steal, in about half my games the AI is offering white peace -- so I do not need to exploit the bug when I am ready to end the war.

Click to expand...

it depends on how early in the game/who you're doing it to. if you worker steal shaka for example, even in the very early game his army is likely bigger than yours and he'll probably at least want some gpt from you

the other problem you brought up is a good one but i think it's more of a problem of how the game measures army strength. it seems to prioritize melee units over ranged ones, so you could be shooting down a bunch of units every turn with all your xbows and still have the game consider you "behind" in military

miaasma said:

it seems to prioritize melee units over ranged ones, so you could be shooting down a bunch of units every turn with all your xbows and still have the game consider you "behind" in military

Click to expand...

I am just speculating from my experience, not code. Roughly, the computer just counts units on both sides. Strength is a factor, but maybe not weighed properly. Melee vs ranged is not factored. Promotions are not factored. Location of the units is not factored. And the past several many turns of the kill to loss ratio are not factored. On top of this, the AI gives itself credit for being to buy or build more units, even though it cannot get the units it already has into the field of battle.

The algorithms are too flawed, and do not let the AI realize it is losing.

There are three levels of deals between white peace and “give me all your cities”, but it is rare to them until you are getting close to the AI cap. And why would you take peace at that point?

i'm also speculating from my experience, but i've definitely noticed priority for melee units over ranged ones - maybe this is just combat strength, since melee units will always have more combat strength than ranged?

The AI is not good at creating a balanced force, tends to over produce melee, and does not know to hold a couple melee units in reserve. It seems to me that if I kill all the melee units, but leave a carpet of siege and ranged units, that the AI is more willing to negotiate. But maybe that is giving the AI too much credit?

Here is a recent (and excellent) article with two screen shots related to the recent points I am trying to make. In the first, the Mongol AI probably thinks it is winning, even as it is losing quite badly. Yes, it has lots of units, but its units are only there to die.

In the second screen shot, Portugal has just given up a city for peace because she is counting enemy units that cannot be fielded. She thinks she is losing badly, when she is not.

Speaking of this silly AI behavior,

It can easily be exploited late-game around ideologies. If someone is getting ganged-up on just accept the many requests to join in the war and produce a few more units but never go attack the AI in question. 10 turns later when they are losing badly to the rest of the world they call you up seeing your "much larger" force and offer you loads of gpt and sometimes even cities for no effort on your part. No one gets mad at you for backing out early and you have a nice influx of gold and luxuries till they get wiped out.

This sort of thing happens every game too so it's hardly a fluke.

Take their best city. Or a bunch of little ones and burn them down. Alternatively you can often set a city to be razed then gift it to a much weaker ally and they will often burn it down for you.