AI is evil and stupid - want advice

[Mongoloid Cow]

Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong so the AI attacks me (so maybe I can win by one of the "peaceful" ways (Firaxis said you could), or not have every AI civ ally agianst me by the year 1600)

In the game I'm playing now as the Iroquois on a Pangaea world, I started off in a large grassland area in the middle of it, with the French and Americans north of me, Egypt to the right, and the Aztecs, Greeks, and English on a peninsula far to the left, and the Germans on a tiny island far, far away.

Me and the French became the largest civs early on, but I was much more powerful and cultural. Eventually the French started sending settlers through my territory to the large peninsula to my south, and then declared war on me out of the blue. I allied with America against them, but they attacked me straight away (within 5 turns) after signing the alliance. I easily conquered them with my armies of knights (and got 4 Great Leaders ). By now I had most of the world, and then the Aztecs (with 10 cities and just into the Middle Ages) declared war on me, and after checking the foreign advisor the Greeks and English are furious with me. WHAT THE **** DID I DO? (On the bight side I'll soon win by Domination or Militarily)

PS: How do you stop the AI going through your territory without them declaring war?

PSS: Why can I see the whole world even though I haven't discovered it?

 

[Kinniken]

I've often noticed that the AI's will start to attack you when they realise you are getting too much ahead of the pack.
For seeing the whole world, my guess is taht you are using the "multi" cheat: was any of your saved games ever cointain "multi" in its name? You wouldn't be "King Multi of the Iroquois" by any chance? that would be fun

 

[Corkmaster]

If the tresspassers are obviously passing through to attack another AI I just let them, although I keep a close eye on them and prepare for a sneak attack. Any AI mutual destruction needs encouraging. Giving them right of passage / mutual protection is possible but then you get dragged into their war.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

can you see the entire world including enemy units? then you use the world "multi" in your savegame name - or at least used it once in that game

if you don`t see enemy units you probably traded world maps with someone.....

as for the attacks: they want to keep you from winning. Let them try! If you just clobber their offensive troops, then offer peace you can avoid a military victory..... I now, it`s kind of a strange feeling being attack and NOT fighting back....

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Killer
as for the attacks: they want to keep you from winning.

So true, and so lame.
How can I immerse in a game if I'm constantly remembered that it's ONLY a game ?
Would like the AI to act a little more like rulers and a lot less like players.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka


So true, and so lame.
How can I immerse in a game if I'm constantly remembered that it's ONLY a game ?
Would like the AI to act a little more like rulers and a lot less like players.

That's funny. :crazyeyes

You say you want to take over the world, and you have acted to take over the world, and you have conquered in your quest for taking over the world; and you wonder why they decide to ally to stop you?

 

[Moulton]

If you develop faster then them in an early game, it is probably because you spent resources on expansion, and not on military... but score == territory (primarily), and you wer getting far ahead, so they attack.
Usually they wont attack even if you are ahead, provided your strength is up.
However. I have been attacked by Aztec with 2 cities, 1 pikeman and oen bowmen when I had 150 cities and tanks and bombers. also by England who had three cities, 2 cavalry and one spearmen. I guess I was getting too big, and they were hoping somebody would come to their aid. They were wrong.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Thanx! I din't realise that if you used the word 'multi' in the name, you could see the whole world.

Actually I put resources into Expansion and Military. When the cities were size one they built Archers, Spearmen, Swordsmen, Warriors and Mounted Horsemen, and when they were on two they built settlers so that when they reached size 3, they would be back to size one and I had another city. It was the only way I equal the AI.

The map was kinda weirdshaped. To my south was SO MUCH LAND (I'm talking about a lot of it, enough for 30 big cities in the later game) and the French had about 4 Settlers in the middle of my empire trying to get there. But I don't get why they attacked me while they were so vulnerable.

At the moment I've left the Aztecs with 5 cities, but everyone is P***ed off with me, including Egypt (who used to love me). Should I take over Egypt or the Aztecs, or just leave them alone?

 

[Moulton]

Did you block their travel? They seem to think they have a divine right (read programmed function) to travel to their destination. If you block them, they will eventually get mad enough do declare war. I have watched them go from polite to annoyed to war when I blocked them. Look at a map sometime where there are a bunch of AI crowded on one continent, without human interferance. Their cities are all mixed up. Left alone, one is likely to become dominant and take the other cities, but they build wherever there is space, and do not recognize your claim to territory, unless you actually occupy it.
Take you strongest enemy first, if you have the resources, since you are going for domination, you will need to control most of the land.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I didn't block their travel - the continent was far too wide to do that.

I won by Domination this morning. I conquered the Aztecs, Egyptians and Germans (on their tiny little island). I think that the AI gets advantages when it is so far behind. When I invaded the Germans who were still in the ancient age, I was losing full-health elite Cavalry to heavily injured Spearmen on open terrain.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Moulton
Did you block their travel? They seem to think they have a divine right (read programmed function) to travel to their destination. If you block them, they will eventually get mad enough do declare war. . .

Enemy settlers, et al, wandering through my territory and not leaving even when I dermand them to is highly irritating. I also blocked one civ for some twenty turns by going through the expense of building warriors/scouts, or using workers. They only stopped trying a number of turns after I had a a solid line of units on the border - no small effort on my part. It should not be necessary.

I consider all this a design fault.

Worse, with 1.17, settlers and pikemen actually wander into my territory even when at war with me, especially if I razed a city and left an open patch of land. I got so bored destroying settler units I quit that game.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel


That's funny. :crazyeyes

You say you want to take over the world, and you have acted to take over the world, and you have conquered in your quest for taking over the world; and you wonder why they decide to ally to stop you?

Where did I say that I conquered ? Or that I tried to take over the world ?

In fact, prior to Civ3, I only won conquest games once or twice, because I am just not a warmonger. I am much more a builder.

As I like to roleplay and to be immersed, I just can't decide to start a war out of the blue. I have much trouble to decide to attack a country that has been neutral, and I usually can't attack a past ally.
I would like tha AI to have such kind of moral troubles

I don't care about loopholes that are not TOO MUCH blatants as long as they allow better immersion.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka

Where did I say that I conquered ? Or that I tried to take over the world ?. . . I don't care about loopholes that are not TOO MUCH blatants as long as they allow better immersion.

You are right and I apologize for not reading your post accurately.

Generally, making war is not dishonorable, so if the AI believes it is advantageous, then it probably should. I would like to see a peace-loving AI Civ, but they probably wouldn't survive long.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You are right and I apologize for not reading your post accurately.

Generally, making war is not dishonorable, so if the AI believes it is advantageous, then it probably should. I would like to see a peace-loving AI Civ, but they probably wouldn't survive long.

The sentence I highlighted in italics is exactly what's the actual AI is doing, and part of what kills the immersion.
I don't mean that the AI should not do what is advantageous for it, but I would like that this decision was balanced by moral and relationship status.
I would like to feel there is sentimental bonds between nations (hatred, truthfullness, and so on) and that each civ has its own personnality.
I KNOW that it would open quite a bunch of abuse, but well, it's up to each one to decide to sacrifice his own fun for efficiency.
I would personnally never do it.

 

[Salvor]

Trouble is, "sentimental bonds" between countries never last. A mere 200 years ago, who would've figured that Britain, the US, and France would be allies in a major world conflict? 60 years ago, who would have figured that the US and Japan would have the good relations that are present today? We humans have a tendency to form alliances based on what's advantageous for us at the current moment, not based on who we like or has been our friend in the past. I can't think of any two groups who have had friendly relationships that lasted for 6000 years. Just about every major power has been at war with just about every other major power at some point in their history, just as they've been allied with those same rivals at other times.