Confusing Diplomatic Situation

[_Calyx]

I have encountered a rather confusing diplomatic situation - I'd appreciate insight into the cause of this and also advice on how to get myself out of it.

Playing on King, as Arabia. America to my south (the only appreciably close civilization), France to the south of them, Songhai far to my east, Germany to the east of them, Japan in the far, far southeastern corner of the continent.

I found a city exactly half way between Washington and my own capital, to which Washington demands that I stop settling near him. I say 'ok,' seeing better land to the east over which he should have no claim. Apparently that assumption was foolish, because upon the founding of my third city (to the Northeast of my second city, further away from Washington), Washington tells me that my word is worth nothing.

I go on to found two more cities, both to the east. By this point, the Songhai have declared way on Germany, and France has declared war on Japan. All four of these civs are 'friendly' towards me, but due to my rapid expansion I have almost no military.

The Songhai declare war on me (despite an ongoing war with Germany) - probably because of my weak military. I quickly purchase some archers and hold them off easily, while bribing France to declare on the Songhai. The next turn, France declares war on me - I assume due to my still relatively weak military.

Both of these attacks are easily held off - I capture no cities, and rarely venture over my borders. Eventually the Songhai give me a bunch of gold and luxuries for peace, while I simply sign a peace treaty with France. About 20 turns later, they both declare again, with roughly the same result. After the wars, the diplomacy screen says 'They have been at war in the past but do not seem to hold a grudge.'

At this point, France asks me to join them in attacking America, which I do (Washington is still the only city), and I take Washington. Nobody seems upset by this, as my first act of aggression. The Songhai also wipe out Germany around this time.

Then, without giving me even a couple turns of peace, all three remaining civs on my continent (Japan, Songhai, France) declare war on me (telling me that 'backstab is such a dirty word').

I am at a loss to explain this. In between our wars (which they started), France and Songhai have been my best trading partners. These declarations came only a couple turns after I received ~500 gold from each in return for luxuries, and cancelled a research agreement. I have never formed a pact of friendship or denounced anyone, and the diplomacy screen simply tells me that I am at war with them. Both France and Songhai have 1 or 2 more cities than I do - thanks to conquest - and our scores are about even. I don't even think Japan knows where I am on the map.

Can anyone explain this?

 

[Peng Qi]

All the civs you've listed other than Arabia very often go for a conquest victory. I'd imagine that their perception of you as weak along with the fall of Washington was the proverbial blood in the water.

 

[King Patrick]

What does your military advisor say about your respective military strengths? My first guess would be that the other civs still consider your military insufficient for the size of your empire - now including Washington - and think you are easy pickings. Gold on hand also factors into this, of course what they don't seem to factor is that you are a much better strategic general than the AI, nor do they seem to give enough weight to the advantage of fighting on the defense. So while you may feel your military's up to snuff, the AIs may not. Since your military advisor runs off the same calculations (I presume), if he's telling you the other civs are all stronger than you ... there you go.

As for not holding a grudge, a lot of the civs are fairly deceptive. They'll be your friend right up until they Pearl Harbor you, then once you sign a peace treaty, they'll be all friendly again ... until they build their armies back up.

 

[nte]

When I first moved up to king, I had actually the same problem. Upon replaying the start, all I did differently was to keep my military rank in the upper half instead of at the bottom. Result was only one ai backstabbed me in the very early game. Swords and archers stopped the wars. Nearest neighbor almost always backstage me. Now I prepare for war at the start with my nearest friend. Lol

 

[_Calyx]

Interesting, nte. I guess I will have to start doing the same.

According to my military adviser, the my military is about as strong as the Songhai and French - the war will "test our mettle." I have a stronger military than the Japanese.

So to prevent things like this from happening, I should maintain a pre-built military? Expensive. I guess playing on Prince kinda spoiled me in that regard.

 

[AxelRhodd]

I think that it is a mistake not to form an 'axis' with friendly nations.
Initially playing on King and now on Emperor, I realised that not taking sides early on will cause every other CIV to become hostile and erratic towards me rather quickly.

My strategy is to wait for the first denunciation to take place and then to join one of the civs in denouncing the other one the very next turn - thus creating foundation for a lasting alliance.

Smart early diplo is crucial.

But as we all know, even the strongest alliance will end up with a backstab - but that is much later on and it can be dealt with...

 

[TPQ]

Can anyone explain this?

Essentially, in Civ5, all the AIs are plotting against you. Don't think of them as other nations, think of them as stupid humans in a multiplayer game, all going for victory. Everybody is an enemy to everybody else. "Friendly" status just means it's not possible, or in the interest of the AI to attack you now, but shortly it will be.

Having a large military and tonnes of gold will make most AIs a bit more cautious when deciding to attack you, but even in those circumstances, AIs will suicide attack you anyway.

If you want to keep the AIs at bay for a while, have a decent sized standing army, but expect them to declare war at some point anyway, because the chances are they will.

Oh and don't listen to the military adviser, he's and idiot. In fact, ignore all the advisers, they're all morons.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Essentially, in Civ5, all the AIs are plotting against you. Don't think of them as other nations, think of them as stupid humans in a multiplayer game, all going for victory. Everybody is an enemy to everybody else.

.

That's pretty close to the mark, but it's still a bt off.
They are not stupid humans in a MP game going for victory, they are stupid humans in a MP game going for somebody else's demise.
If they think they can slow you down a bit but will get utterly destroyed for their trouble they will do it.

 

[Optional]

It's not all about the military.

Over the weekend I finished my first Civ 5 game - yeah, finally - and I didn't get attacked once, while I was having the weakest military by far throughout the game. I was centrally located, civs moved through my territory to attack each other, three civs got wiped off the map, but I was left in peace the entire game. Nobody even denounced me, I think, although some civs started to dislike me and mock my puny military, but it remained just words.
I kept my 'empire' to just two cities, but my borders became huge, I don't know if that was a deterrent.
I think it was luck, mainly, just like you getting attacked by everyone at the same time was bad luck.

What doesn't help, though, is if you expand rapidly with an under-developed military. That's sort of asking for it. Civs will start to dislike you just for expanding.

And some civs are more to watch out for than others. France in particular is dangerous, rapid in expansion and untrustworthy, but you're best considering all civs as potential enemies, regardless of your current standing with them.

 

[TPQ]

.

That's pretty close to the mark, but it's still a bt off.
They are not stupid humans in a MP game going for victory, they are stupid humans in a MP game going for somebody else's demise.
If they think they can slow you down a bit but will get utterly destroyed for their trouble they will do it.

You're quite right. Presumably though, if an AI achieves every other competitor's demise (AI and player alike) they will win, so other's demise is any particular AI's route to victory.

I agree it seems like the AI's are more concerned with slowing the player than actually winning though, as even AIs who have no chance to succeed in a war against the player, will start one anyway and severely cripple, if not completely destroy any chance that AI had to win.

 

[dexters]

It's very situational, and starts can go from total bloodbath to relatively easy.

But your weak military coupled with warmongers Songhai, France, Germany didn't help.

Washington is a strange personality. He's not a warmonger, but is very quick to be offended. Your issue with 'don't settle near me' seems bugged or perhaps washington simply considers all of your land his because you guys met early (did you meet him in your first couple of turns?) AI you meet right away and are close tend to behave agressively towards you in the opening phase.

That said, you can usually pit warmongers against each other and find common ground with at least one of them. There's no need to war them together.

However, the AI will usually decide to attack you long before you feel threatended. Best not to bribe them at the last minute because they are likely to take your money and dow anyways, use it to beef up military.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Many expansionist and warmongering civilizations, you really should have expected war and backstabs from the very beginning.

You should always keep a strong military. Not "just" strong enough to barely hold onto your lands, but strong enough to decidedly win any engagement. This will keep 90% of the DoWs away, and those who do backstab/declare... well, it won't be an issue since you can easily destroy their army.

All issues solved!