2 negative thoughts from a BtS fan

[UnspokenRequest]

On dice roll for backstab.
I'm no computer expert, but I'd tend to think that it would take a hel of a computer (and lots of $ in programming) to have an AI that backstabs solely based on its strategic and vital interests.

If this first sentence is true (computer savvy folks can answer this better than I do), dice roll becomes mandatory because I prefer an Ai that can backstab on occasion than no back stab at all.

 

[Pomp]

On dice roll for backstab.
I'm no computer expert, but I'd tend to think that it would take a hel of a computer (and lots of $ in programming) to have an AI that backstabs solely based on its strategic and vital interests.

As I understand it, the AI already decides whether or not to attack based on its interests, but then it makes a dice roll to see if its relation modifier will override its decision.

 

[Merkinball]

I think one of the main problems is that the game doesn't even function like a human being. It just doesn't want you to win now, and at any cost. All thoughts of logic have been thrown out the window. In my game today where I was literally introduced to about seven new civ's because they declared war on me, when they didn't know anything about me, is a little far-fetched. This isn't a move to help an AI win. This isn't an example of an AI acting human. This is an example of the game just not letting you win.

There was a propensity for this in Warlords, but it seems to me more pronounced to. The same goes for battle odds. Battle odds DO NOT PLAY OUT!

I don't see why people DON'T have a problem with illogical warfare. What is the attraction to this affliction? It doesn't add any depth to the game. It detracts from it. What addition to the game is there in my friend attacking me for s__ts and giggles, when someone he hates, who is weaker than me, is right next door? Or why is Monty crossing the whole continent, across three different civs that he hates, and are more weaker than me, when I am already significantly stronger than him? This is a moot war. The only thing it is going to do is take me off my planned course, and keep me concentrating on military instead of my true objectives. And doesn't fit a logical mode.

I think there maybe needs to be different options to pick. Such as, you make a custom game, and the AI plays like humans. They don't care about relations. Eventually they go to war with you anyway. They dog pile you needlessly, cross continents expensively to suicide anyway. And then another option, which is more realistic. A mode that has some sense of rationality to it, some sense of REALISM to it.

Is Bush going to attack England tomorrow because the world isn't big enough for the two of us? Are we going to invade Canada for their mineral deposits tomorrow? No. The least they could do is have some disintegration process where relations tumble over the course of a few turns. This "your friend is declaring war out of the blue just because" business is completely UN-realistic.

There's a lot of issues that need to be addressed. But I guess the game can't be catered to everybody. I would appreciate a tad more realism though.

 

[mrt144]

Is Bush going to attack England tomorrow because the world isn't big enough for the two of us? Are we going to invade Canada for their mineral deposits tomorrow? No. The least they could do is have some disintegration process where relations tumble over the course of a few turns. This "your friend is declaring war out of the blue just because" business is completely UN-realistic.

There's a lot of issues that need to be addressed. But I guess the game can't be catered to everybody. I would appreciate a tad more realism though.

If we did sneak attack canada for our own purposes dont you think our diplomatic relations around the world would plummet?

and why doesn't the US sneak attack canada?

 

[Merkinball]

Do the diplomatic relations around the world in the game plummet when the AI backstabs you? No. In fact, they dog pile right on.

I've been wondering for years why we haven't sneak attacked Canada. It would only take a few boy scout troops after all.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

If we did sneak attack canada for our own purposes dont you think our diplomatic relations around the world would plummet?

and why doesn't the US sneak attack canada?

It does....

Didn't you read about all those folks dying in Toronto, Quebec and Montreal from poisioned water sources....NSA agents of course (presumed that is,no-one can prove anything though muhaha).....or maybe I just made that up.

But there ARE all those other covert agents stealthy going from city to city fomenting unrest and unhappiness, by telling everyone abooot how Alanis Morisette and Bryan Adams are really crap (+8 citizens in each city, drops by one per month they go abroad on tour)....now that one I didn't make up....hmmmmmm......

 

[mrt144]

Do the diplomatic relations around the world in the game plummet when the AI backstabs you? No. In fact, they dog pile right on.

I've been wondering for years why we haven't sneak attacked Canada. It would only take a few boy scout troops after all.

But they have moose! MOOSE!

I agree that teh AI needs to be fixed but it shouldnt be in the decisions to go to war, it should be the reaction of others to war.

 

[Merkinball]

I agree that teh AI needs to be fixed but it shouldnt be in the decisions to go to war, it should be the reaction of others to war. - mrt144

I agree with this too. Let them be opportunistic. But the negative consequences towards the AI for that choice should be negative. I can understand if I'm percieved as a menace. But if I've been peaceful, and have made friends, the consequences should be enough to DETRACT them from going to war. Sort of like invading Canada would be suicide for America, despite how utterly weak the mounties are, we wouldn't be opportunist and take them out.

 

[mrt144]

I agree with this too. Let them be opportunistic. But the negative consequences towards the AI for that choice should be negative. I can understand if I'm percieved as a menace. But if I've been peaceful, and have made friends, the consequences should be enough to DETRACT them from going to war. Sort of like invading Canada would be suicide for America, despite how utterly weak the mounties are, we wouldn't be opportunist and take them out.

1. make the AI value diplomacy and modifiers more. (change the weighting of rolls, the order of rolls, etc etc)

2. make the penalties for such action damaging. (some matrix of modifiers based on relation to attacked civ and the relation of other civs to self, and the tag line "You are dangerous/untrustworthy/opportunistic/illogical")

3. make breaking defensive pacts through attacking the pact mate bad or impossible (huge happiness penalties in cities "we dont want to fight our allies", huge diplomatic penalties)

Sneak attack should be viable, but should not be defacto or common, and should come with costs in regards to relations with other civs. someone stirring the pot with a sneak attack should result in the likelyhood that the sneak attacking civ will be attacked themselves or at least cut out of the loop of trade and bonuses. diplomacy isnt there to prevent war directly, it is there to build enough if of an incentive not to attack.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think people may have misunderstood my idea of tying civics to war relations & war weariness. Civs running monarchies, despotisms or police states would-in my system-be able to happily declare war on other civs with only the regular penalties to diplomacy & happiness. The real issue is when you run Representation or Universal Sufferage. If you attack a civ also running either of these two civics, then you would gain a happiness & diplomacy penalty. However, if you attack a Police State or Despotism, you would actually gain a BONUS. This could also work for Emancipation vs Slavery or Serfdom, Free Speech vs Barbarism, Free Market & Environmentalism vs State Property or Mercantilism & Free Religion or Pacifism vs Theocracy. You could still declare war under all of these situations but-from an AI & player perspective-it would make certain attacks more beneficial than others (i.e. if you are the ONLY Police State on a Continent, then don't be suprised if you get attacked by a bunch of your neighbours-even if they are pleased with you )!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

@Merkinball
1) It's a game. It can't fit reality perfectly
2) It's a case of fairness: Most of us players have already backstabbed someone we were friendly with because we needed something from this civ.
If players can do it. AI should have the right to do it too. Maybe it is too frequent, but it should be possible
3) Today's diplomacy is much more civil than it used to be.
There were a lot more backstabbing in ancient, medieval and modern (XV-XVIII) times.
Maybe diplomatic penalty for attacking a friend should get higher, as the game reach the 20th century or build the UN...

 

[UnspokenRequest]

As I understand it, the AI already decides whether or not to attack based on its interests, but then it makes a dice roll to see if its relation modifier will override its decision.

According to other here, the attacks are irrationnal. If that is the case, the AI is incorrect in its appraisal of its interests, which is what I'm saying:
it is impossible to come up with an AI that base all of its decision on its best strategic interests, as such interests are hard to determine for a computer.