AI Cooperation even while at war?

[eyrei]

Playing last night on a small map, monarch level, I found myself with a slightly smallesh empire on the eastern end of the pangea. The Persians were on the western end, with the Iroquios and Egyptians between us. There were also several minor civs. Anyway, the Persians wiped out one of these minor civs and were getting really big. They threatened me, I told them to shove it and they declared war. I wasn't really worried, especially when I signed an alliance against them with the Iroquios and the Egytpians. I felt pretty safe. Suddenly, a stack of 10 uninjured cavalry appear on my border with Egypt. The Egyptians held a good bit of territory, and there was no way to go around them. So how did 10 cavalry come unscathed through their enemies land? I am guessing that the AI knows what the objective is of other AI units, so the Egytians, realizing these cavalry were not coming for them simply let them through. I fought off this stack, and then another, larger one appeared, and then another. All this time the Persians and egytians were at war with each other. I ended up getting crushed, and after losing 5 cites (half my empire) I just gave up. Has anybody else experienced this seeming cooperation between AI civs at war with each other? I was really pissed, but next time I will be better prepared.

 

[Cerryl]

Probably they had a ROP with egypt before the war started. Even more likely, he was moving them through Egypt several turns before he declared war on you.

 

[eyrei]

Both of those are certainly possible, but what irks me is that the Egyptians seemed to ignore this enemy force in the middle of their territory. The cavalry didn't show up until the war had been going on for about 5 turns.

 

[Dinorius R.]

I noticed something similar in the game I'm now playing.

I wanted to establish a new city in between another civ's cities (but outside their cultural borders). So I pointed my Settler to a square and let him go there on automatic. By the time he got half way, the AI civ had blocked that square with a warrior unit.

I thought this might be a coincidence so I manually directed the Settler to another square nearby and made my city there. Later, when sending Workers to improve that city (again using the Auto GoTo function) the AI again placed their own units just where my Worker units had been directed.

In other words, it was not a coincidence, the AI knows exactly where the human player's units are headed. This I consider grossly unfair.


.

 

[Ironikinit]

Maybe it does, but usually (almost always) it'll move on, so what's the hassle?

 

[Salvor]

I don't think the AI knows your destination, but you're being influenced by a trick of perception.

You gave these units a long go-to move order, that presumably would take them several turns to complete. If nothing gets in their way, they continue to move, and you take no notice of them. But if at any time, a unit of a different country happens to be on their destination, their go-to order gets erased, and you become alerted to their presence.

If you give a goto order that will take 10 turns (for example) to carry out and ends in a square that's surrounded by someone else's territory, it's not really that unlikely that at some point during those 10 turns at least one unit belonging to that civ will pass through or land on that particular square. It's just that you only notice the one turn that he does land there. The other 9 turns your worker happily goes about his go-to order and your attention is never called to him.

 

[Dinorius R.]

Hmmm, I'm not convinced. It happened 4 times and my units were not moving through the other civ's territory. In addition, I spent a good deal of my time every turn telling the other civ's to get off my territory, they just kept coming back and each time to the very squares I wanted my workers to put roads on. Coincidence or trick of perception? I can't prove it, but I don't think so.

.

 

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Dinorius R.
I wanted to establish a new city in between another civ's cities (but outside their cultural borders). So I pointed my Settler to a square and let him go there on automatic. By the time he got half way, the AI civ had blocked that square with a warrior unit.

I thought this might be a coincidence so I manually directed the Settler to another square nearby and made my city there. Later, when sending Workers to improve that city (again using the Auto GoTo function) the AI again placed their own units just where my Worker units had been directed.

... (in a subsequent post):

It happened 4 times and my units were not moving through the other civ's territory. In addition, I spent a good deal of my time every turn telling the other civ's to get off my territory, they just kept coming back and each time to the very squares I wanted my workers to put roads on.

.

So what exactly is happening in your game that's suspicious? From your first post, it's pretty clear that you were sending long-term goto orders to a destination very near, if not precisely in, someone else's territory. Not surprisingly, they occasionally sent one of their own units to that same space. Nothing suspicious there.

If this wasn't in your territory, I don't see how asking him to leave your territory will change anything. If it is your territory, but near his border, it's not at all uncommon for him to move troops there. If it's a spot in neutral terrirtoy that you found useful, he might have decided it was just as useful and is sending units there to scout out the area, and they occasionally land on the square that is the destination of your go-to. The AI moves a lot of units around a lot, and if his border is near yours or near where you want to be, he will land a unit on just about every square in that area from time to time.

If it's in your territory and you ask them to leave, they often repeat the same moves (since they have the same objective) and will repeatedly travel over the same squares. They probably don't know or care what you want your workers to do. They're trying to get somewhere, they have to cross that land to do it, and the more you ask them to leave, the more they have to re-traverse the same area. If it really bothers you, just put some of your own units blocking that square so he can't go there without declaring war and attacking you.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, so please help me understand. What dastardly thing is the AI doing to disrupt you that would require that he know the destination of your go-to orders? It's not like he's sending one lone unit out, going to the square you've chosen as your destination, and digging in (fortifying) and refusing to leave. Or at least you haven't described any situation like that.

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Cerryl
Probably they had a ROP with egypt before the war started. Even more likely, he was moving them through Egypt several turns before he declared war on you.

That brings up either another AI Cheat or a bug.

I have indeed been attacked by a civ's troops when that civ is nowhere near my border. They not only had to have a ROP, they must have started those units moving LONG before the war started.

Go figure.

 

[OneInTen]

I have indeed been attacked by a civ's troops when that civ is nowhere near my border. They not only had to have a ROP, they must have started those units moving LONG before the war started.

So you mean that the AI moves its troops to be close to you before starting a war? Gee, that must be a cheat, no human would use such a strategy.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Troyens


That brings up either another AI Cheat or a bug.

I have indeed been attacked by a civ's troops when that civ is nowhere near my border. They not only had to have a ROP, they must have started those units moving LONG before the war started.

Go figure.

yeah the AI cann't be allowed to stage its units before going to war. <shakes head.> Troyens along with OneInTen I fail to see the bug in your most recent complaint.

You know I think about half the AI complaints that I have seen popping up are people complaining about the AI carrying out a stategy that any good human player would use (some if not most of the time). Heck over on usenet there is a person who wishes to build world spanning empires (which the corruption model was put in to prevent) while at the same time gets annoyed that the AI attempts to build an empire larger than a few cities.

Yeah it sucks when an army suddenly appears on your land from a distant civ and declares war. It makes it kind of hard to take the war back to his territory, especially if you don't have ROP agreements.

 

[Ironikinit]

RoPs are pretty far from impossible to get. Well, not if you've been a decent neighbor, and I try to be with any sizable civ.

Y'know, I don't have to worry about missing all the dumb things Troyens says because people quote him.

 

[Moulton]

In my world, China has spot cities all over the map. I have a few scattered sections, from taking some parts of Zululand, while Iroq took others--and Iroquois is between me and former Zululand. CHina sends units across my land from one part to another.. nothing surprising about that.. and I usually deny him. If I wait long enough, his units pop out on the other side, in Iroq territory. In another part, he sends units through England to my hinterland. He has no ROP with either, yet they do not seem to complain. I have watched the units move just inside the Iroq borders for several turns... Of course, once he moves on inside, I lose sight, and Iroq may also be ejecting him. China is not a threat, and gets mightily upset when he cant reach his remote cities... I expect he will follow an apparant pattern I have seen and declare war eventually. That's ok. I want his coal and luxuries, just not bad enough to go to war. Yet.
On my map all the other civs have ROP with each other, and have for most of the game--exception being CHina, who has an ROP only with Russia. Russia was reduced to one city without any roads going anywhere--ie no contact, except by radio.
No contact, no point going through her territory--one city without any roads--no trade. But in my last war with the Aztec, they signed a MPP during the war--right! --and then a boycott. Legal, but pointless... I guess Aztec saw the end coming and was looking for help anywhere....

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle


yeah the AI cann't be allowed to stage its units before going to war. <shakes head.> Troyens along with OneInTen I fail to see the bug in your most recent complaint.

You know I think about half the AI complaints that I have seen popping up are people complaining about the AI carrying out a stategy that any good human player would use (some if not most of the time). Heck over on usenet there is a person who wishes to build world spanning empires (which the corruption model was put in to prevent) while at the same time gets annoyed that the AI attempts to build an empire larger than a few cities.

Yeah it sucks when an army suddenly appears on your land from a distant civ and declares war. It makes it kind of hard to take the war back to his territory, especially if you don't have ROP agreements.

Actually, the issue is the AI moving troops and planning too far ahead to make sense.

In otherwords, for me to have done the same to a distant attacking civ, I would have had to mass my units and start moving them long before I had any reason to, or even any expectation of war.

I would need a ROP passage agreement to accomplish this, something I am loathe to give as it would permit another civ's units in my territory.

Also, I would be very hesitant to invade a distant civ (with other civs between it and my homeland) because they would be difficult to defend and hold in the long run, and would always be the most likely to flip.

So the AI's strategy remains questonable in terms of cheating, logic, and effectiveness.