AI Declaring War

[martindo]

I've seen this "strategy" as far back as Civ 2 or Civ 3: an AI builds up troops but doesn't attack anyone; then as the troops start to become obsolete due to general advance in tech, they declare war just to burn up their unit maintenance costs and maybe get some XP points for the survivors.

If you withstand this cannon fodder type of attack, they are typically very weak when you counter-attack: at the slightest threat to their capital, they will gift you a city as a peace proposal. In some cases, you can request a different city and get it. Although the "gift" brings undiminished city population, some useful buildings not destroyed by war, maybe some Great Works or even Wonders, it can also be a lot to digest in terms of your treasury budget, happiness level, and progress towards Great People.

I even wondered some years ago if this "easy giveaway" was intended by the game designers as a kind of blowback/revenge to undermine the happiness of the war's winner.

 

[Humidor]

I haven't played any other civ game in any real sense expect Civ 5, but regarding Civ 5 specifically, i dont regonise the AI behavior you are describing. I my experience the AI will usually upgrade the units following the tech tree, with an expection being their UU.

However, I think we can confidently conclude that the AI aren't programmed with enough intelligence to declare war with the purpose of reducing maintenance costs and getting XP. Instead war is determined by proximity, war monger tendencies, ideology, your other actions, and of course the programmed values for each leader.

I should note that my experience of the ai upgrading units is probably due to only playing diety, but the above point on reasons for declaring war should stand regardless of game settings

 

[martindo]

I haven't played any other civ game in any real sense expect Civ 5, but regarding Civ 5 specifically, i dont regonise the AI behavior you are describing. I my experience the AI will usually upgrade the units following the tech tree, with an expection being their UU.

However, I think we can confidently conclude that the AI aren't programmed with enough intelligence to declare war with the purpose of reducing maintenance costs and getting XP. Instead war is determined by proximity, war monger tendencies, ideology, your other actions, and of course the programmed values for each leader.

I should note that my experience of the ai upgrading units is probably due to only playing diety, but the above point on reasons for declaring war should stand regardless of game settings

When an AI's civ has a specialized unit that occurs early in the game (Mohawk warrior, Impi, Aztec, Polynesia, etc.), they will build a lot of them as a natural strategy to maximize their advantage. At some point, if nobody declares war on them, they will turn aggressive.

Probably the strategy is capitalize on special-unit-advantage rather than reduce maintenance costs, but I've seen it happen several times, even in cases when they were Friendly diplo status with me.

 

[Humidor]

Might it be a part of gameplay you are describing, where some AI are coded to be more deceptive than others? Going from friendly to war/denouncement will happen often with leaders like Dido, but you can always consult resources like https://civdata.com/ for a detailed overview

 

[martindo]

Deceptive includes false flag? For example, "Our spies have discovered that X is planning to attack you." When in fact, you are friendly with X who just engaged in a research agreement so attack is definitely not imminent.

 

[consentient]

The explanation for the behaviour you are witnessing is because most warmongering civs (which is most of them) have this desperate need to be attacking SOMETHING, be it a CS, a barb camp, another civ, or YOU.

That they are becoming obsolete just tells me you are playing on a lower difficulty level where they are behind the curve.

In my last game, Oda hit medieval T50 sth and had longswords soon after. Yipes!

 

[martindo]

I agree about "desperate need" but what exactly is your evidence of behind the curve? For example, do all AI upgrade units if they are "ahead of the curve"? I think not. I think their general cost-effective strategy is to cull/sift outmoded units: those that can be promoted via pre-emptive pointless war will later be upgraded, while the others will be destroyed thus relieving per-turn cost so that new units "at the current curve" can be constructed without adding to the financial burden.