AI turns suicidal?

[tmarcl]

I was playing a Warlord game this morning, large map, only four civs (I didn't feel like a challenge) as Darius. I've hit the Medieval era, and just upgraded all of my Swords to Longswordsmen and Catapults to Trebuchets. I currently have the strongest military. I've only built a couple of wonders at this point, and haven't bothered any City-States. I'm not friends with any of them, nor have I done any of their quests.

Rome is Guarded against me (he covets my lands). Egypt, Greece, and Babylon are all Friendly. Greece has built a couple of wonders, while Egypt has built all the rest. I currently have Open Borders with Alex. He is currently at war with Egypt (who is right next to him), while Babylon is at war with Rome (who is right next to him). Babylon also has plenty of resources. All four civs have more cities than I do (though I'm doing better with non-wonder infrastructure. There is a huge tract of land north of me (probably enough for 20 more cities, using minimal spacing).

I upgrade my last Catapult, and all of a sudden, Alex pops up and says, "I know the odds are stacked against me" and declares war on me. There is, as far as I can see, absolutely no logical reason for him to do this. There's nothing in the red text on the Diplo screen, either. He sends some units after me, and I'm able to beat them back quite handily. Three turns later, he sues for peace. He offers me 500 gold, and 44 gold per turn! I accept, and he goes back to being Friendly for the rest of the game (well, until I decide to declare on him later).

A few turns later, Babylon pulls the same stunt. Again, there is no logical reason that I can see. I manage to beat him back, and he sues for peace, offering me three luxuries. I have not, at this point captured anyone's cities - I had wanted a peaceful game, thus the large military. I've also not lost any units. In both cases, it was a very one-sided war.

Three turns later Babylon declares on me again! This time, I get ticked off, and beat him down to one city. He asks for peace, gets it, and remains Guarded the rest of the game (understandably). Both Alex and Egypt are still Friendly, and Rome remains Guarded. No one mentions my warmongering (which they used to do by this point).

I'm at a loss. I have absolutely no idea what to think of this. Unless I'm missing something obvious, there is literally no reason why either Alex or Nebby should have attacked me, especially with me having the strongest military (and by strongest, we're talking more than twice the amount of soldiers listed as the average in Demographics.

Anyone else experience this?

Marc

 

[mindbreaker]

Did you never notice that all those great leaders were kind of mad?

Anyway, I did notice in my last game playing an NC start and thus only having one city Alexander covets my land and dislikes a friend of mine but he's still neutral. I don't get the AI either as they just make no sense to me.

 

[Eat_My_Brains]

Perhaps he saw you building a vast powerful military and attacked out of fear despite the fact his army inferior? Perhaps he thought he would stand a better chance now and that you would only get stronger later in the game?

Or maybe its just because you were playing it on warlord? (never had that happen to me though, so maybe he IS just suicidal )

 

[King Patrick]

I played through an entire post-patch game (all-nighter, haven't done that in years!) as Egypt for my first cultural win (prince, pangaea, huge). Babylon, my nearest neighbor, and Spain, some ways off, both attacked several times with "the odds are clearly against me but I have no choice" message. Babylon's military mostly lagged slightly behind mine (muskets vs. rifles) or brief periods of parity, while Spain was mostly way behind (at one point, Isabella declared on me with conquistadors on my border - they'd have faced infantry, artillery, and a shiny new tank, but she pulled back before actually attacking).

I also fended off a stronger attack by Persia, although I just got the normal backstab message from Darius with that one since his odds were not hopeless.

I suspect it's something new in the patch to keep the game interesting when you're on track to a runaway win - I led on points until the modern age, and by then I had a lock on a cultural victory - in response to complaints that the endgame is just pushing "next move" over and over. I can get why Babylon attacked despite being slightly inferior - he was right there. Not sure why Spain kept attacking. Must be some kind of trigger in their personalities; Isabella and Nebby may be more sensitive to victory status the way other civs are quicker to label you a warmonger.

 

[TPQ]

Yep, I have seen this particular AI insanity on many occasions. I think it has some logic to it.

1. The strategic AI sees you as a military threat.
2. The strat AI decides to cut your army down a bit, to reduce the threat.
3. The strat AI declares war.
4. The tactical AI fails miserably to carry out the strategy.

Now, if the tactical AI were as clever as the strategic AI, it would all make perfect sense and nobody would be confused, but instead, the tactical AI messes up the strategy and the strategic AI is forced to sue for peace when it's military is annihilated.

This is the problem imo. The AI seems mad, because it is multi-level and some levels work a lot better than others, which leads to some seemingly odd behaviour.