Public opinion and AI behavior

[reddishrecue]

You dont always have to join and help out an AI if an AI asks you to help it and go to war, you still have that option to say sorry, maybe next time. Your main concern should be victory and which condition youre wanting to go for. If you focus on research and get that good scientific output, you wouldnt have to worry about the moods of other civilizations particularly if you pay attention to the diplomatic penalties that you may get from conquering cities. The worst thing you can do is completely wipe out a civilization because then everyone can hate you for it unless you end up OP for having too much science.

 

[vesp3r1987]

So far 1 civilization got wiped out (China) and i let Caesar take the last city so hes the most hated guy now
He did not ask me to help him in his war as his "belief" is as he said when did DoF "We must ensure that only the strongest survive"
I know hes going to war because i have diplomat in his capitol and got message from him saying that Caesar is sending troops to attack that civ... 9-10 turns later they did declare war on that civ... im going for domination victory and that 2 cities next to my border looks so juicy... with his armies on the other side of his empire Nebuchadnezzar can be easily defeated i think... well i will make a separate save and see what goes on
Even if im superior at my tech Caesar is expanding quickly and he started popping new cities after turn 300. Im affraid that it would take me more than 50 turns to wipe him out when the time comes

Update: turn 457... my military power was rated 42000+ and second was Caeser with ~12000. Immediatly after this score he popped with attitude "Afraid" and begged me not to launch attack on him. Its the first time ever i see this @@ I was more surpriced that he asked for that few turns after demanding that i withdraw my armies from our border. Guess there will be new war comming and this time Rome wont like it (almost got my GDR)

 

[redwings1340]

The thing to be aware of is that the diplomatic game in civ is a cool kids high school club. You're either in the cool kids, or you're in that other group, and that other group is usually that one civ in the corner everyone hates. So, if you try and be friends with everyone, the popular civs are going to say, "Hey, look at that vesp3, he's friends with that guy," and then denounce you. Unfortunately for you, the unpopular civs are then going to start resenting the popular civs and go, "Hey, vesp3's friends with that jerk" and denounce you too. Eventually the rest of the civs in the game will bond over their shared hatred of you, and suddenly you become the one everyone hates, especially if you've done anything else to anger them.

But there's hope! With a bit of diplomatic maneuvering, you, too, can be a cool civ. Civs like it if you hate civs they do. So, early on, choose civs that are going to be your best friend, and choose a civ or two that's going to be your worst enemy. Be very consistent throughout the game. Trade with the civs you like, and share their religion, then denounce the civs you don't like. Bribe the civs you don't like to declare war on the civs you like, then declare war on the civs you don't like right back to get the shared enemy diplo bonus. If you can be active about making both friends and enemies, you can be the leader of the cool kids gang until ideologies come in to play, and if you do it well, nobody will even care about you taking cities from the people you hate, because everyone you care about will hate those civs too.

 

[vesp3r1987]

Well i did something like what you said... but i have a bit of luck because there are only militaristic/aggressive civs (Rome, China, Babylon, Indonesia and Siamese) and they all denounce everyone... there is no order at all and the world is on the brink of "world war" I did my job early on with bribes and denounces and later with embargos so no where is only 1 alliance and thats my civ and Rome... but im planning to bribe Indonesia to attack Rome and Siamese to attack Indonesia
Then ill use all my nukes and send GDRs to finish off cities... want to end it all fast

 

[Socratatus]

[*]You are depriving yourself out of what little personality the AIs have to offer. In any one game with random personalities, you will pickup on just a few extreme attributes of one or two AI. As you can see from civdata.com, it is a complex system and the AI personalities really only come through after many, many games. Not that it works really well, but random personalities trashes this whole aspect of the game. Random personalities is similar to disabling CS or spying or victory conditions -- you are making the game less.

Totally diagree here. I play long games and you can quite easily see the kind of personality of each AI develope as you play. And you get the freshness every time you start a new game because you`re never quite sure what to expect when you first meet him- just like in reality and just the way i like it. It`s a far more enjoyable way to play. I`ve said before and I`ll say it again -Top marks to firaxis for this simple but game-enhancing option.

 

[beetle]

I play long games and you can quite easily see the kind of personality of each AI develope as you play.

I think you are fooling yourself, but there is no way to test this. The system is totally broken though, so despite all their work, random personalities are probably not that much different than the default values (with the ~40% variable).

 

[Nares]

Not necessarily. I can think of occasions where I joined on a war on paper, never moved a single unit or fired a single shot, but ended up with the "we fought together against a common foe" diplo modifier

It can also go the other way. You can get dogpiled with denunciations for agreeing to such a shadow conflict.

One of the oddities of the faux-conflict system built into CiV is that participating in it, even in a universally positive manner, generates more conflict.

You can, for the most part, remain neutral by refusing any and all AI offers, maintaining a respectable military while avoiding being first or last in score, and only occassionally bolstering relations when you're likely to be denounced by select AIs under certain conditions.

 

[beetle]

It can also go the other way. You can get dogpiled with denunciations for agreeing to such a shadow conflict.

So long as you don’t DoW someone while you have a DoF going, shadow conflicts are very safe:
diplo hit for a DoW << diplo boosts with collaborators

Plus mayhem among the other civs, the chance for you to get xp for units, and peace pay-off at end. Invitations to war are often (less than half the time, but often enough) good opportunities.

If you have not been taking cities, you will not get daisy chained denouncements just for a DoW. OTOH, backstabbing will get you chain denouncements!

You can, for the most part, remain neutral by refusing any and all AI offers [to war]

Yes, but that is less interesting and, I would argue, not optimal play. I only agree to maybe in four requests, but it is almost always a net positive. When I agree, I also see if I can get other civs to join in. Usually there are a couple that will agree (via the dialog screen) or for trivial bribes (via the trade screen). Then I will usually denounce the target civ (which they hate worse than the DoW, so this means I must have no expectations for future trades, so maybe skip this step) which usually nets me more diplo boosts.

 

[Luis_Ah_Hoy]

I stopped adding Win rules.

Sorry for the off-topic, guys.
Just wanted to know, regarding the quoted sentence:

has anyone felt a correlation between not adding a "Domination Victory" and a less aggressive/warmonger CPU?
And if so, in what degree?

 

[vesp3r1987]

I actually find difference but it might be coincidence. With having only time and domi victory civs get to war alot earlier in my last 2 games. W/o domi victory they just lick your a** until you kick theirs
Like i said it could be coincidence since when i had the domi victory on i had Shaka, Gaja Madah (or w/e his name was), Napoleon, Caesar and some other