Impossible warfare/diplomacy with BTS 3.19???

[Koning]

After lurking a while, like many people, I decided to join this great forum dedicated to my favourite game. The direct reason for doing so is the fact I currently have the idea patch 3.19 changed the game radically and makes it almost impossibly hard. Up till now I played my BTS games totally unpatched, and just won my first emperor game. This week I finally patched the game to version 3.19, expecting the flaws I perceived would be addressed and the AI to improve. After initial satisfaction, I was shocked by the way diplomacy screwed up my game and made it just impossible to win. I have some issues I’d really like to hear your view upon.

Tech trading has become much harder. After getting alphabet and aesthetics I couldn’t trade almost every tech the AI had researched in a few smart trading rounds. For instance, everyone had masonry, but no one wanted to trade it with me. Additionally, in my experience, the AI is harder to please. You have to give them far more techs for free, or cheap trades, to achieve +4 in trade relations. Also, Civs are harder to get friendly. In the game described below, Hannibal only became friendly at +11. In BTS 3.00 this was just +9. Am I correct, or is this game or civilization dependent?

Above changes make the game harder and less predictable, which is fine by me. But diplomacy in relations to war has become impossible. Civs now declare war on you simultaneously. That’s challenging, but cool. However, civs that are pleased or even friendly (!) do so too. Then, besides tech trading, what’s the point in maintaining relations anyway? In the game below I was attacked by FIVE civs (one twice) in a short time period, without anyone being even annoyed with me. Do I now have to defend every single city bordering pleased Civs with five strong units, conduct no free passage treaties to avoid the AI to map out my territory, or join every war I’m invited to just to avoid being attacked yourself?

If you like reading, consider the game to illustrate my point:

I picked the Spanish to conquer the new world (monarch level, normal speed, large terra map, no goody huts, choose religion,) and to make christianity the world’s dominating religion. Founding a religion always slows down a game, so I was curious to see if I could still win on monarch and playing the patched game for the first time.

Around 500 AD I was solidly second behind Roosevelt in score and had an established empire of eight cities. I had converted Hannibal (to the northeast) and Mao (to the west) to christianity and they were pleased with me. Then, by surprise, the hinduist buddies Pacal (far west) and Louis XIV (my northern neighbour) declared war simultaneously. Cool, never saw that happen before in my unpatched games. I was unprepared and lost a remote city to Pacal. I forced Mao to cancel all agreements with Pacal , so he couldn’t transport his Mayan army over Chinese lands. Pacal far west empire was entirely cut of by Mao’s empire, thus no reinforcements for him anymore Meanwhile, I had trouble winning the defensive war and I luckily captured an ill defended French city off the war front. I immediately offered Louis XIV the captured city and he signed peace. Great, now I could re-conquer the city Pacal took and finish the war! So far, so good.

It wasn’t. The last few turns multiple large stacks of Chinese swordsmen, catapults and axemen over my terrority, presumable to another civ. I thought. Directly after the 10 turns peace treaty with Mao expired (established after I forced him to cancel all deals with Pacal), he, my PLEASED religious buddy, backstabbed me. This happened in 860 AD. Thanks to my military production, my walls and new citadels, and a great general I was able to fight off Mao’s stacks and Pacal’s harassments so far. Nice.
Then, in 1000 AD the peace treaty with Louis expired. I had built up a positive relationship with him again (+1). Regardless of this, in 1010 he declared war again. And in 1020, my pleased religious buddy Hannibal and the cautious or pleased Genghis Kahn joined the party against me. I was at war with 5 civs, (3 neighbours) at once. Not funny anymore…

I decided to reload my 860 AD game, when the war seemed still winnable (just the Mayans and Chinese) to figure out what caused this impossible AI aggression. I garrisoned more troops at all my border cities (some where only defended by 1 archer, probably the AI takes notice of this in 3.19). And I buttered up Hannibal to a friendly status (achieved only by +11 !), and Louis to a pleased status. And I traded resources to all my future aggressive neighbours. None liked to join my battle against the Mayans and Chinese btw. To contrary, to my disappointment, they STILL declared war on me in 1010/1020 AD.. This kind of AI behaviour makes the game impossible to manage and spoils it for me..

Anyway, I’m thinking about installing Civ4 and BTS again without patching. The game was more fun without.

 

[JujuLautre]

Do you draw conclusions only from one game ?

Honestly, I cannot think of anything between vanilla BTS and 3.19 which would change the game drastically as you describe it.

As for diplo, yes, this is leader dependent. And yes, the AI looks at border cities and at your power rating, it always did.

 

[estevesbk]

Well, I may be wrong because I've just played as Noble which is less than your difficulty level, but I wouldn't trust religion to make good relations to neighbors. Actually, I've learned to trust no one. Civs that were pleased to me because of the same religion had already declared war in the past. Be always prepared to war. So I'm only vulnerable at the beginning, on my early expansion, or when I'm mobilizing an army to attack someone. I've found that there's quite advantage on not founding a religion neither converting to one. Of course, you don't get the happiness bonuses on your cities neither you can adopt civis that gives your units + 2 XP, but the relations with all your neighbors seem better. Make Aesthetics one of your priorities for research as it enables you to build a wonder and get the free religion civic, which gives happiness and research boost.

 

[Willem]

In the game below I was attacked by FIVE civs (one twice) in a short time period, without anyone being even annoyed with me.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the 3.19 patch, it's always been a possibility. I remember one game where I attacked a neighbour and all of a sudden everyone on the continent declared on me at once. It's just a case of bad luck if you get that many civs declaring on you. In fact nothing you've been complaining about is new to the patch, it's always been that way. I've noticed nothing different in diplomacy or war or trading since applying it. Everything is exactly as it was.

 

[none]

Sometimes the AI just hates that you're becoming too advanced for them... Might be a case of intense greed and jealousy.

I wouldn't trust many leaders in that game since most are backstabbers (I especially loathe Victoria but Mao and Stalin are quite bad as well). Perhaps the most religious ones can be somehow more trustworthy but I don't think Hannibal is one of them.

Still, I'm not sure I can see the problem, I've read your post and it seems to me you really enjoyed that game. Winning is not everything.

 

[Koning]

Many thanks for your replies. On the basis of only two games ( posted the most extreme one) I got the feeling tech trading has become less easy, as pleasing other civs is. Also, I experienced an AI attacking you regardless your relationship with them (even friendly civs and religious buddies), something I never experienced with 3.00. Maybe the patches influenced this (I remember a changelog at a patch mentioned that the AI is now better aware at ill defended cities), maybe I’m exaggerating on basis of two games.

The underlying and most interesting question for me is: Is it normal for civs to declare war at FRIENDLY? I know it happens rarely at pleased, but at friendly? What’s the use of investing so much to reach a friendly status? Ok, tech trading and maybe a diplomatic victory. I was used that you can convince friendly civs to JOIN a war. But the fact they can declare AGAINST you, is insane. Who can you trust then?

In the next game I’ll focus more on heavy border defence. In my vanilla BTS monarch games I always got away with light defence, and sometimes holding off one or two invaders before building up my own invasion army of macemen. In any case, Estevesbk is certainly right that founding a religion is a waste and not converting at all can be a huge advantage.

 

[Koning]

Sometimes the AI just hates that you're becoming too advanced for them... Might be a case of intense greed and jealousy.

I wouldn't trust many leaders in that game since most are backstabbers (I especially loathe Victoria but Mao and Stalin are quite bad as well). Perhaps the most religious ones can be somehow more trustworthy but I don't think Hannibal is one of them.

Still, I'm not sure I can see the problem, I've read your post and it seems to me you really enjoyed that game. Winning is not everything.

Maybe it was the Apostolic Palace resolutions of Pacal that dragged all the civs against me. His religion didn’t spread to any of my cities, so I couldn’t see what happened. But you're right, I still enjoyed this game because it was challenging It feels good to overcome those nasty backstabbers, but this game was too much. I just want to understand the implications of AI relations better

 

[Bushface]

My attitude to diplomacy in BtS is very simple: I just go for power and units, let the rest of the world go its own way, then stamp out the opposition as fast as possible. It seems to work.

 

[Willem]

The underlying and most interesting question for me is: Is it normal for civs to declare war at FRIENDLY? I know it happens rarely at pleased, but at friendly?

There's always the possibility that they decided to declare war before they became Friendly. They don't alter their plans just because their diplomatic status has changed. And some of them can be bribed to attack at Friendly.

 

[pesgores]

I picked the Spanish to conquer the new world (monarch level, normal speed, large terra map, no goody huts, choose religion,)

(Strategy Question)

Spanish? Why not the Portuguese? They're better for overseas expansion before anyone else.

 

[Koning]

There's always the possibility that they decided to declare war before they became Friendly. They don't alter their plans just because their diplomatic status has changed. And some of them can be bribed to attack at Friendly.

Thanks, didn't know this! This explains why friendly isn't a 100% safe heaven. Seems I have to sacrifice more "vertical expansion" (buildings, culture) for military in the classical age than I was used to!

 

[JujuLautre]

Some possibilities for the AI to attack even at friendly:
- as said before, it started its war plans at pleased, and then went to friendly; if the war plans do not change, the AI will dow at friendly.
- the apostolic palace declaring a crusade; even friendly civ must attack
- defensive pacts go against diplomatic status
- no AI will start war plans against you at friendly, but it could be bribed. In the base game, only one leader is such: Catherine (and the leader bribing her has to be at friendly too)
- finally, vassals: they mess up with the political situation, so if a leader is at friendly to you but cautious to your vassal, he may DoW on your team

 

[Willem]

This explains why friendly isn't a 100% safe heaven.

Nor should it be. There's nothing preventing the player from attacking at Friendly, so why should the AI be handicapped that way? If you really want to prevent a war, just make sure you have a strong military yourself. If you're the topdog in that regard, about the only civs you need to worry about are Montezuma and Shaka.

 

[GreyHawke]

Koning, I agree with you completely. The better AI in the 3.19 patch does alter the game considerably. It is almost ludicrous as you watch the AI change worst enemies, civics and religions in order to frustrate the human player. Your micro of foreign relations is much harder under 3.19 and you should be checking this screen every turn. It would be nice if the AI could be programed to make decisions based upon what is best in their attempt to win, rather than just making decisions based upon what is detrimental to the human opponent.

I'm not a programer, so maybe that isn't possible, but it certainly seems strange the way it is now.

 

[Willem]

The better AI in the 3.19 patch does alter the game considerably.

Read the notes for the 3.19 patch. Nowhere does it mention any changes made to how the AI wages war or conducts diplomacy. The only real AI changes were defensive in nature, to get it to move vulnerable units from threatened cities.

 

[mechaerik]

Only Cathy can be bribed at true Friendly to go after you. There is however, hidden modifiers that have always been there. For example, say you have a vassal that someone hates, but they are friednly with you. The AI averages their relations between you and your vassal, so they don't really get like -2, they can get really angry. There's quite a few; TMIT could tell you about them.


The AI was improved from Vanilla/Warlords to BtS, but not from 3.03(thats the original right?) to 3.19.

Only BtS Better AI improves it.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

If anything, the game was made even better by 3.19, though it's still far from perfect, which is why I use Better AI.

 

[r_rolo1]

Tech trading has become much harder. After getting alphabet and aesthetics I couldn’t trade almost every tech the AI had researched in a few smart trading rounds. For instance, everyone had masonry, but no one wanted to trade it with me. They were all doing wonders that come with masonry techs most likely . The AI NEVER trades techs that give acess to wonders they are building. That is not a 3.19 feature, it was ALWAYS like this Additionally, in my experience, the AI is harder to please. You have to give them far more techs for free, or cheap trades, to achieve +4 in trade relations. Are we talking of the same leaders? You know , some leaders are harder to please... and that is not a 3.19 thing Also, Civs are harder to get friendly. In the game described below, Hannibal only became friendly at +11. In BTS 3.00 this was just +9. Am I correct, or is this game or civilization dependent? Neither. The AI always gets to friendly at +10.... ina game you had a hidden modifier of +1 and in other you had a hidden modifier of -1 . were you playing in the same level in both games ? Again, nothing to do with 3.19

Above changes make the game harder and less predictable, which is fine by me. But diplomacy in relations to war has become impossible. Civs now declare war on you simultaneously.They already did in vanilla ... BtS brought the AP crusade, that widens a litle the odds of that happening, but again it is nopt a 3.19 thing That’s challenging, but cool. However, civs that are pleased or even friendly (!) do so too.Again, this comes from a long time ago. Besides vassal issues, a civ can always declare war at any diplo status if they already started planning a war. Again not 3.19 Then, besides tech trading, what’s the point in maintaining relations anyway? In the game below I was attacked by FIVE civs (one twice) in a short time period, without anyone being even annoyed with me. Do I now have to defend every single city bordering pleased Civs with five strong units, conduct no free passage treaties to avoid the AI to map out my territory, or join every war I’m invited to just to avoid being attacked yourself?

If you like reading, consider the game to illustrate my point:

I picked the Spanish to conquer the new world (monarch level, normal speed, large terra map, no goody huts, choose religion,) and to make christianity the world’s dominating religion. Founding a religion always slows down a game, so I was curious to see if I could still win on monarch and playing the patched game for the first time.

Around 500 AD I was solidly second behind Roosevelt in score and had an established empire of eight cities. I had converted Hannibal (to the northeast) and Mao (to the west) to christianity and they were pleased with me. Then, by surprise, the hinduist buddies Pacal (far west) and Louis XIV (my northern neighbour) declared war simultaneously. It can be completely unrelated.... but most likely you were victim of a crusade. Not a 3.19 issue btwCool, never saw that happen before in my unpatched games. I was unprepared and lost a remote city to Pacal. I forced Mao to cancel all agreements with Pacal , so he couldn’t transport his Mayan army over Chinese lands. Pacal far west empire was entirely cut of by Mao’s empire, thus no reinforcements for him anymore Meanwhile, I had trouble winning the defensive war and I luckily captured an ill defended French city off the war front. I immediately offered Louis XIV the captured city and he signed peace. Great, now I could re-conquer the city Pacal took and finish the war! So far, so good.

It wasn’t. The last few turns multiple large stacks of Chinese swordsmen, catapults and axemen over my terrority, presumable to another civ. I thought. Directly after the 10 turns peace treaty with Mao expired (established after I forced him to cancel all deals with Pacal), he, my PLEASED religious buddy, backstabbed me. Mao has a chance of planning a war againt a target to whom he is pleased with. You were waging a 2:1 war while he was planning his attack ( see below comments ) and most likely you were the weakest side. You would probably do the same if it was the other way around... but anyway, this is not a 3.19 issue. This happened in 860 AD. Thanks to my military production, my walls and new citadels, and a great general I was able to fight off Mao’s stacks and Pacal’s harassments so far. Nice.
Then, in 1000 AD the peace treaty with Louis expired. I had built up a positive relationship with him again (+1). Regardless of this, in 1010 he declared war again. +1 means cautious. Louis can plan a war while cautious with the target. You had not reduced his power in the last war. he still hated you. What were you expecting? Again not a 3.19 issue And in 1020, my pleased religious buddy Hannibal and the cautious or pleased Genghis Kahn joined the party against me. I was at war with 5 civs, (3 neighbours) at once. Not funny anymore… They decided to dogpile you while you were in war with Louis and HC ( see below ). see above comments about Mao. It is the same thing

I decided to reload my 860 AD game, when the war seemed still winnable (just the Mayans and Chinese) to figure out what caused this impossible AI aggression. I garrisoned more troops at all my border cities (some where only defended by 1 archer, probably the AI takes notice of this in 3.19). And I buttered up Hannibal to a friendly status (achieved only by +11 !), and Louis to a pleased status. And I traded resources to all my future aggressive neighbours. None liked to join my battle against the Mayans and Chinese btw. To contrary, to my disappointment, they STILL declared war on me in 1010/1020 AD.. This kind of AI behaviour makes the game impossible to manage and spoils it for me.. You aparently don't have a clue of how a AI prepares a war in Civ IV. In spite of being able in certain circumstances of doing a cold start attack with only the units in hand, the standart modus operandi is to take between 10 and 40 turns ( normal speed ) building units after deciding to attack someone, take them to the border of the target and then declare war ( makes sense... or would you prefer that they attacked always with only the army in had? Do you play like that? ), and they will let you know that when you ask them to declare war on someone else by their awnser in the hover text: "We are with our hands full". Anyway the attitude they have when they actually declare war is irrelevant ( would any RL country , after commiting a full scale war wiht other party, stop their plans because of some b*tt-licking of the target? Why would you expect that of some minimally inteligent player in Civ IV? ). Those AI you mention decided to attack you while you were in a 2:1 war and were the weakest side most likely, so it is not that dificult to understand. Again, regardless of you liking things or not, this was always like this.... nothing to do with 3.19

Anyway, I’m thinking about installing Civ4 and BTS again without patching. The game was more fun without. I'm pretty sure that you will find this kind of situations happening even on vanilla, so I don't see the point of unpatching. At best the diference between 3.00 and 3.19 is that the AI is actually less prone to do stupid attacks to faraway civs ( 3.13 and 3.17 changed some bugs in that area, that are included in 3.19 ) ). Feel free to do what you plan to do, but it will be a worthless effort, and in fact you might end with more situations of faraway AI attacking you

My comments are in red.

 

[Koning]

My comments are in red.

Your extensive comments clarify a lot!
One last question in this thread:
Concerning a crusade against you, I'm wondering whether there's a way to keep track of AP resolutions if you don't have a city worshipping the AP religion. This would be really useful in understanding what's happening in the game, but I fear you can only see them when you are eligible to vote.

 

[r_rolo1]

The AP votes results ,as the UN ones, in the messagesw in the beggining of the turn ( you can recheck them latter with Ctrl-Tab ). OFC if you aren't a member of the AP you only have access to the vote subject ex post facto