AI Extortion?

[vonbach]

Anyone else notice the AI trying this? What the AI will do is declare war make a few
half hearted attempts to attack then immediately go for a peace treaty where he'll
demand money and all of your resources. It wasn't effective but it was interesting.

 

[Mikkow]

From looking into the AI files a few patches ago, I saw that the AI can have different objectives in a war with someone. Can be total annihilation/annexation, inflict severe damage, inflict minor damage. Something like that. Your description makes it sound like it had as purpose to just inflict minor damage to you, and since it is not in a situation to do any more, it is satisfied with the minor damage it caused and offers (pricy) peace.

 

[vonbach]

It never was in the position to do damage in the first place. My military was
smaller than his but in well defended cities. He simply thought he could bully
me out of some money and resources. I'll admit it was an interesting change.

 

[RedRover57]

However, as I pointed out in my post regarding AI mafia-like tactics, this behavior can result in perma war with that AI civ, particularly if they are far removed on the map. This is incredibly annoying and, in my opinion, can be game-breaking. Perma war results when the AI refuses to accept a straight peace treaty until you somehow establish superiority over that AI (usually by reducing its troops and taking one or more cities). If you are far away from that civ, or are trying to play an otherwise peaceful game, this can be difficult to achieve until later in the game. During the time of perma war you will be forced into war with every CS that the AI allies, which can be very frustrating if it is Greece, Siam, etc, as they tend to ally every CS on the map.

I offer up some potential solutions to this problem in my post, but was met with mixed reviews. I believe that there needs to be some sort of limitation on DoWs in terms of distance/geography and time. For example, a DoW would not be possible if the civs were more than X tiles apart (or maybe if troops of the DoWing civ were not within X tiles of the civ to be attacked). In addition, there should be a time limitation on the DoW such that mandatory straight peace would occur unless there is fighting between the civs (I offered up 10 turns for the time limit, which I believe gives a civ ample time to attack). This would stop the situation where an aggressive AI civ DoWs you from across the map, never sends a troop your way but puts you in perma war with little recourse.

In addition, there need to be adjustments regarding how AI civs calculate relative strength vs. players (since players can easily defend against much larger AI armies) and they need to decrease the propensity for "losing" AI civs to give away everything they own in a peace treaty. It seems that the latter issue my be one of the main reasons for the AI extortion behavior, since weak civs give up their stuff so easily.

 

[Mikkow]

However, as I pointed out in my post regarding AI mafia-like tactics, this behavior can result in perma war with that AI civ, particularly if they are far removed on the map. This is incredibly annoying and, in my opinion, can be game-breaking. Perma war results when the AI refuses to accept a straight peace treaty until you somehow establish superiority over that AI (usually by reducing its troops and taking one or more cities). If you are far away from that civ, or are trying to play an otherwise peaceful game, this can be difficult to achieve until later in the game. During the time of perma war you will be forced into war with every CS that the AI allies, which can be very frustrating if it is Greece, Siam, etc, as they tend to ally every CS on the map.

I offer up some potential solutions to this problem in my post, but was met with mixed reviews. I believe that there needs to be some sort of limitation on DoWs in terms of distance/geography and time. For example, a DoW would not be possible if the civs were more than X tiles apart (or maybe if troops of the DoWing civ were not within X tiles of the civ to be attacked). In addition, there should be a time limitation on the DoW such that mandatory straight peace would occur unless there is fighting between the civs (I offered up 10 turns for the time limit, which I believe gives a civ ample time to attack). This would stop the situation where an aggressive AI civ DoWs you from across the map, never sends a troop your way but puts you in perma war with little recourse.

In addition, there need to be adjustments regarding how AI civs calculate relative strength vs. players (since players can easily defend against much larger AI armies) and they need to decrease the propensity for "losing" AI civs to give away everything they own in a peace treaty. It seems that the latter issue my be one of the main reasons for the AI extortion behavior, since weak civs give up their stuff so easily.

I faced the same issues. It was not game breaking for me. War with someone elses city states is not a problem (if they are neighbors, conquer them. Easy since they are unsupported small city states). And if the civ itself is too far away and not able to do anything to hurt me, what is there to lose? Can even try to build an alliance against that civ - united in hatred

Very long wars where nothing happens is however just annoying. It is pointless. What is the motivation for it? So we cannot bribe their city states away from them?

 

[RedRover57]

It is annoying to the point where the game is no longer fun since it happens in almost every game. This severely limits your options in the game. To me that is game-breaking.

 

[RRtexasranger]

What I've noticed in Civ5 is that it is A LOT harder to take over a city than it is to defend it. The AI needs to take this into account when it launches a war. Yes, the AI player may have more troops than I do, but it needs waaay more troops if it plans on taking over with a city with a high defense total.

Heck, even for a human player, I find that I need something like 2 siege units and 2 melee units if I want to take a city over without losing half of my offensive force.

 

[Ranos]

I have no problem with perma war since it something that happens in real life and it isn't really permanent. The AI declaring war is the only thing that makes the game interesting.

If the AI is far removed from you, then all you have to deal with is the occasional contact demanding something.

If the AI is close and can actually attack you, then your units get experience for the battles you really do want to be fighting.

The only thing I do find somewhat annoying is when an AI keeps DoWing you despite the fact you continually beat them down.

I just finished a game in which I was going for the Gandhi 3 city cultural victory achievement. Ended up on an island with 4 civs including the Ottomans. They kept DoWing me and I'd destroy a few of their cities and then take their gold and resources for peace. Depending on Sully's mood, he'd either DoW me as soon as the 10 turn treaty was over or spend 20 or 30 turns rebuilding before he'd DoW me again.

I finally got sick of it and knocked him down to only three cities. I made peace, returned my troops to my cities and 10 turns later, he DoWed me again. Two turns after that he was asking for peace. I hadn't even moved my troops out of my territory.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Perma War as it's represented in Civ 5 does not happen in real life.

I think you'll find long term wars (e.g. The Hundred Years War) are actually a series of shorter smaller wars based around the same root causes that occur one after another in quick enough succession that it simply becomes easier to document and consider them within the context of analysing a wider conflict.

 

[starrywisdom]

I have no problem with perma war since it something that happens in real life

Wait...what?

 

[RedRover57]

Wait...what?

Don't you remember last year when France declared war on the U.S., never sent over any troops but still tried to get all of our gold reserves, New York City and Dallas in a peace treaty?

 

[Bechhold]

Yes but there is a simple solution say "No" destroy said armies and march towards the AI's border and cities and then the AI will propose peace but this time the other way around. Profit.

 

[starrywisdom]

Don't you remember last year when France declared war on the U.S., never sent over any troops but still tried to get all of our gold reserves, New York City and Dallas in a peace treaty?

So what you are saying is that the U.S. and France are in a permanent war? lol...

 

[Ranos]

Perma War as it's represented in Civ 5 does not happen in real life.

I think you'll find long term wars (e.g. The Hundred Years War) are actually a series of shorter smaller wars based around the same root causes that occur one after another in quick enough succession that it simply becomes easier to document and consider them within the context of analysing a wider conflict.

I was thinking something a little more recent. Try The Korean War. While there is currently a truce we are still in an official state of war with North Korea. Sixty-One years and counting.

Yeah I know its not exactly the same thing since some of the perma wars in civ involve no fighting whatsoever. In those cases, however, a different type of war can be considered: Cold War. There was one of those fairly recently too. Yeah I know its not the same thing since in civ there is a DoW, but it's pretty close.

Any other questions?

 

[Uncle Anton]

Sorry Ranos... can't agree. You're talking apples and oranges.

The Korean War is not an example of Perma-War. Perma-War as it's represented in CiV features key things which are completely absent from the real world events on the Korean Peninsula.

1) A distinct lack of Ongoing political dialogue
2) A demonstrable continuation of military action, even if only on a lower intensity scale.... given the amount of time lapsed since 1953, I don't think the number of incidents encountered in Korea even comes close to comparing, especially since what incidents have occurred have often been directly connected to point 1 - be it for energy concessions, terms of trade, flexing of internal muscle prior to a handover of power between rulers etc.

The example of the "Cold War" as a real life example of Perma War is... well... look, I'm not looking to offend anyone, so I'm simply say that it's incorrect. Don't let the use of the word "War" in the phrase "Cold War" confuse you... the Cold War had about as much in common with a direct conflict between two states as the "Cola Wars" did (ie none) - from a US/USSR perspective the Cold War was more a political exercise, than a military one, and even the military examples (Vietnam and Afghanistan) cannot be directly linked to other de facto conflicts in any terms other than purely political ones. You can't call the Cold War a Perma-War. You COULD call it a lengthy political game of one-up-manship punctuated by a series of de facto conflicts, but a CiV style Permawar that does not make.

Indeed a more accurate CiV/Civ4 representation of the Cold War would be say Aztecs and France maniplating through diplomatic manuevering into Songhai and Japan respectively to beat the hell out of one another. Take two other factions, manipulate them, rinse, repeat.

If you can name me one direct conflict in human history which can be described as a CiV style permawar between two nations or even coalitions that have retained the same membership over time I'll be extremely impressed.... neither of the examples you've cited come close I'm afraid. Don't take my word for it... you could try suggesting as much over on the Colosseum -> History forum, but their rebukes might not be as gentle.

If you can think of any other examples let me know... not saying you're not a smart guy, it sounds like you are; but I think you're facing an uphill battle on this one.

 

[nokmirt]

I just ended a war where Persia paid me 1,920 gold. On infoaddict (a mod that tells some demographics info), it said I have 40,000 troops and Persia has around 30,000. Certainly he has had the advantage for the most part in our little war. He usually had me outnumbered pretty easily, just two turns before he wanted like 400 gold and 3 luxuries. I suppose it pays to wait for a better deal.

The other strange thing though, is that Greece had my capital, all they needed was to attack one more time, and it was finished (I could not have stopped them before my next turn). I offered them straight peace which they gave me. Alexander had me by the balls, I thought my capital was gone. The AI needs to be looked into, because when it has you with your pants down, it never follows through. It is absolute folly. The AI should have just a bit more resolve. I would have fought on to regain my capital, it would have made the game more realistic, more fun. Even still, I was surely very lucky in the situation I found myself in.

 

[Ranos]

Since I'm not interested in turning this thread into a completely off topic discussion, I doubt I'll respond after this.

Sorry Ranos... can't agree. You're talking apples and oranges.

Funny you should use apples and oranges because it actually fits into what I said. You seem to have missed the two sentences in which I said, "Yeah I know its not exactly the same thing..." Apples and oranges are both fruit, so they both grow on trees, both have seeds inside, both can be made into juice, etc, etc. Yeah one is red and one is orange, one is more round than the other, one you peel the skin off, one you don't, etc, etc. Still, they are similar.

The Korean War is not an example of Perma-War. Perma-War as it's represented in CiV features key things which are completely absent from the real world events on the Korean Peninsula.

1) A distinct lack of Ongoing political dialogue
2) A demonstrable continuation of military action, even if only on a lower intensity scale.... given the amount of time lapsed since 1953, I don't think the number of incidents encountered in Korea even comes close to comparing, especially since what incidents have occurred have often been directly connected to point 1 - be it for energy concessions, terms of trade, flexing of internal muscle prior to a handover of power between rulers etc.

1) Civ doesn't offer the capabilities to have an ongoing political dialogue however, the AI seems to contact me every few turns to offer some sort of peace treaty, usually demanding outragous things for it.

2) Not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are trying to say there isn't military action in civ perma wars, then it depends on the war. Some there is really never any military action due to the remoteness of the AI civ while some consist of regular battles in which you constantly wipe out the AI army and yet they still insist that they are winning and demand gold and resources from you.

If you are trying to say there isn't military action in Korea, then you should read the news more. Boats sinking due to suspected submarine attack, artillery attack of islands, etc. That sounds like military action to me. And I've had perma wars like that. A boat comes near my boarders and I attack it. I'm off exploring the world and my boat/scout comes under attack. Each perma war is different.

Yeah, not exactly the same but still similar.

The example of the "Cold War" as a real life example of Perma War is... well... look, I'm not looking to offend anyone, so I'm simply say that it's incorrect. Don't let the use of the word "War" in the phrase "Cold War" confuse you... the Cold War had about as much in common with a direct conflict between two states as the "Cola Wars" did (ie none) - from a US/USSR perspective the Cold War was more a political exercise, than a military one, and even the military examples (Vietnam and Afghanistan) cannot be directly linked to other de facto conflicts in any terms other than purely political ones. You can't call the Cold War a Perma-War. You COULD call it a lengthy political game of one-up-manship punctuated by a series of de facto conflicts, but a CiV style Permawar that does not make.

Indeed a more accurate CiV/Civ4 representation of the Cold War would be say Aztecs and France maniplating through diplomatic manuevering into Songhai and Japan respectively to beat the hell out of one another. Take two other factions, manipulate them, rinse, repeat.

While civ a perma war consists of the AI actually declaring war on you and then doing nothing and the Cold War didn't have a DoW, there are similarities. Yes a better representation would be denouncing eachother and the AI appearing occasionally to make angry faces at you and throw some witty insult your way. But there isn't a whole lot of difference when the AI declares war and then never attacks.

I'll admit that the cold war example is a bit more of a stretch but I still think it has some similarities.

So you can pick over every detail of everything but it doesn't really matter. I still see similarities and I doubt anything you say will change that much.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

It is annoying to the point where the game is no longer fun since it happens in almost every game. This severely limits your options in the game. To me that is game-breaking.

My best games (from a quick/easy/win) perspective have always been via the "No thanks...I'll go it alone" route. Which really seems to defeat the entire purpose of the whole Diplomatic AI mechanic. And jeez is it borrrrrrrring. Like most CIV players now a days I must setup my own roadblocks to attempt to enjoy a somewhat challenging game.

 

[turtlefang]

On the perma war deal in the real world, I agree with Ranos.

I think the Korean war is a perfect example of perma-war. Two sides with large military establishments that occassionaly exchange fire (usually about once every 18 months or so) and have diplomatic shouting matches with each other. Not sure how you can come up with something that more of an exact comparison except for the geographic difference.

As far as the Cold War. it really was a war fought with proxies for over 60 years. Afgan and Vietnam being just two that everyone remembers. But it goes on and on. The Middle East with the Isreali/Egypt/Jordan/Syria, African conflicts (too many to name), the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Turkist border conflicts, "chicken" at sea - all funded and, in many cases, using troops from the US/NATO/SEATO against the USSR/PACT/PRC covertly in direct conflict. If you look at the time from 1950 to 1986, you literally CAN'T find a year where fighting didn't occur between these two groups.

A few others - Greece and Persia just before the Classical Age. Several hundred years of war with long periods of non-conflict and some political posturing between, but for all intends and purposes, a state of war between the two. The Isrealis and Philistines in the Bible - again, war with non-war (not really peace) between the two. US and Native Americans - literally hundreds of years of non-stop war that varied in intensity. The Vikings terrorizing Europe for over three hundred years.

I think you find a number of examples of this type in history - unfortunately.

Now, whether they should be in a game or not, is another issue if its spoiling the game.

 

[Waydeuce]

On the opposite end.... I have beaten my enemy down to the point of 1-3 cities (when he had 10+ to start with). He is clearly defeated and sitting on 10k gold, yet wont come of a single dime to make peace ...

Does this make anyone else just want to completely obliterate them ?