AI Piling On

[ezolak]

This is a common problem for me, and I am hoping someone can offer some tips. I play on Huge maps with a lot AI civs on Prince or Monarch. Usually by Feudalism, if not before, I have about 5 or 6 civs declaring war on me. Including ones who don't share a border, have nothing against me, have nothing to gain, and give me no advance warning (demands). I know the problem is that I am perceived as weak, but on these difficulty settings I build units (and everything else) slower than the AI so it is inevitable that I will have fewer units, particularly after the war with the first one or two when some casualties are inevitable.

Sometimes I manage to juggle wars on multiple fronts, sometimes not. In any case, it is not an enjoyable playing experience when it seems like this is just programming to gang up on the human player. It reminds me of MTW when every neighbor invaded simultaneously, but at least in that case it was only neighbors.

I know some will recommend switching religions when they demand it, but not only do not all civs demand it (again, some just pile on with no warning) but also I feel like I shouldn't have to cripple my own civ just for a slight chance to avoid war with certain opponents. After all, there are other civs who would make far more sense for them to attack (proximity, religion, weakness) but they go after the human instead.

Obviously, I am writing this partially to let off some steam of a game I am in the middle of. But this is a common enough problem that I some helpful suggestions would be much appreciated.

 

[r_rolo1]

Diplomacy, unlike in MTW ( yeah, I simply forgot about trying to make a diplo game there..... and the AI there sometimes does attack ppl that they don't have borders with, like England across the canal, if they have lost Caen ), is a effective weapon against that. if you have 5 or 6 AI attacking you, it is because they have much time in their hands, Cultivate some hates between the AI, force some wars and you will never have that issue again because they will be too much occupied killing each other.

If you want to understand better the way that the AI decides it's targets, read this thread, especially DanF posts in the last pages.

 

[ezolak]

Wow, that's quite a thread. I was hoping for something with a little more brevity, but I'll try to digest that when have a few hours.

(BTW, MTW generally cheats by using invisible pieces of provinces to make cross-water territories seem adjacent to the AI.)

 

[Willem]

In any case, it is not an enjoyable playing experience when it seems like this is just programming to gang up on the human player.

It has nothing to do with being human, most of the civs will dog pile any empire that is weak.

I know some will recommend switching religions when they demand it, but not only do not all civs demand it (again, some just pile on with no warning) but also I feel like I shouldn't have to cripple my own civ just for a slight chance to avoid war with certain opponents.

Why would you be crippling your own civ by switching religions? It makes virtually no difference whether you use your own or someone else's religion. The only downside will be that you can't see inside enemy cities which have your religion in them. But with espionage as it is in BtS, that doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[ezolak]

It has nothing to do with being human, most of the civs will dog pile any empire that is weak.

Not in my experience. I see weak AI civs survive repeated wars with a single opponent without them all piling on. However, I readily admit that I am not the most experienced player out there, so my experience could be misleading.

Why would you be crippling your own civ by switching religions? It makes virtually no difference whether you use your own or someone else's religion. The only downside will be that you can't see inside enemy cities which have your religion in them. But with espionage as it is in BtS, that doesn't really matter anyway.

If I have Judaism in 10 cities and Buddhism in 1, and I am running Organized Religion civic, it is a huge setback to change my state religion. I might as well switch back to Paganism in the process.

 

[MosheLevi]

Why not playing on lower difficulty setting where you can have stronger empire VS the other AI opponents.

The fun element for games is directly connected to the level of challenge.
It is very important to figure out and implement difficulty level that is challenging enough to keep you busy but at the same time have the confidence that you can win most times.

 

[Xellos-_^]

This is a common problem for me, and I am hoping someone can offer some tips. I play on Huge maps with a lot AI civs on Prince or Monarch. Usually by Feudalism, if not before, I have about 5 or 6 civs declaring war on me. Including ones who don't share a border, have nothing against me, have nothing to gain, and give me no advance warning (demands). I know the problem is that I am perceived as weak, but on these difficulty settings I build units (and everything else) slower than the AI so it is inevitable that I will have fewer units, particularly after the war with the first one or two when some casualties are inevitable.

Sometimes I manage to juggle wars on multiple fronts, sometimes not. In any case, it is not an enjoyable playing experience when it seems like this is just programming to gang up on the human player. It reminds me of MTW when every neighbor invaded simultaneously, but at least in that case it was only neighbors.

I know some will recommend switching religions when they demand it, but not only do not all civs demand it (again, some just pile on with no warning) but also I feel like I shouldn't have to cripple my own civ just for a slight chance to avoid war with certain opponents. After all, there are other civs who would make far more sense for them to attack (proximity, religion, weakness) but they go after the human instead.

Obviously, I am writing this partially to let off some steam of a game I am in the middle of. But this is a common enough problem that I some helpful suggestions would be much appreciated.

try playing on island campaigns. the ai can declare war but they can't do much without a large number galleons to move troops. you only have to worry about you immediate neightbors.

 

[dirtyparrot]

The main thing I've learned, and I'm by not means an expert or even very good, is that you shouldn't try to make everyone your friend. Pick and choose your allies and your friends. If the civs are busy at war with each other, they're less likely to gang up on you. So don't play too passive and always back down from a opportunity to strengthen your relationship with your ally, especially in wars where the enemy would have to go through your ally's territory to get to you.

 

[Xellos-_^]

The main thing I've learned, and I'm by not means an expert or even very good, is that you shouldn't try to make everyone your friend. Pick and choose your allies and your friends. If the civs are busy at war with each other, they're less likely to gang up on you. So don't play too passive and always back down from a opportunity to strengthen your relationship with your ally, especially in wars where the enemy would have to go through your ally's territory to get to you.

the question of course is picking the right allies. if you end getting weak allies, they are not going to be much use.

 

[ezolak]

The main thing I've learned, and I'm by not means an expert or even very good, is that you shouldn't try to make everyone your friend. Pick and choose your allies and your friends. If the civs are busy at war with each other, they're less likely to gang up on you. So don't play too passive and always back down from a opportunity to strengthen your relationship with your ally, especially in wars where the enemy would have to go through your ally's territory to get to you.

That's good advice. Thanks.

 

[Joshua368]

That's good advice. Thanks.

And once you've chosen who your friends are (and your enemy isn't an immediate danger like a large shared border) and they are warring, don't be afraid to join in on the war effort in a phony war if they ask. You don't care about that other guy anyway, and it's one of the best and easiest ways to get a lasting diplo bonus. ("Our mutual military struggle brings us closer together.")

 

[ezolak]

And once you've chosen who your friends are (and your enemy isn't an immediate danger like a large shared border) and they are warring, don't be afraid to join in on the war effort in a phony war if they ask. You don't care about that other guy anyway, and it's one of the best and easiest ways to get a lasting diplo bonus. ("Our mutual military struggle brings us closer together.")

Yeah, the key thing for me to remember is to not try to be friends with everyone. That was hurting me time and again.

Well, I lost that game because I could only hold off invaders long enough to get a cease-fire, then rush to fight the next invasion from the next opponent. That was untenable, as every civ I cease-fired with just DoW'd me again in the near future. Very embarrassing, as I thought I was beyond losing on Prince. Oh, well.

Another related problem I see is when you have an ally and an enemy, you beat down the enemy, only to have them vassaled by the ally, who then becomes your enemy because that first opponent is going to DoW on you as soon as they can. Any suggestions for this?

 

[Zeiter]

I think there's a lot to learn from that grandmaster of diplomacy, Prince Metternich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemens_Wenzel_von_Metternich
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_balance_of_power

The keyword is "balance of power." Once your enemy has been weakened substantially, that civ is no longer your enemy. You might continue the war for opportunistic reasons (grab a few more good cities, wipe them out to get rid of motherland unhappiness), but the diplomatic reasons for the war are over. The next task is to see who is now the strongest rival. Maneuver to weaken that rival (either through direct war on your part, or through proxy wars, or espionage, or using the AP, or whatever). Once that rival is weakened, look at then who was the next strongest rival. Weaken that rival.

It takes some guts to be continually targeting the strongest rivals, but if you target them early they will never get a chance to run away on you. And if all of your rivals can be kept more or less around the same strength as each other, with you slightly ahead, there's a better chance that they will pick on each other rather than pick on you.

Of course, if you have a really solid and non-threatening ally at friendly that you've been cultivating, you might not want to jeopardize that. It all depends. But if you have a former war ally who is at pleased and who is starting to grow into a monster, don't let the nostalgia of past friendship lull you into a false sense of security. That "friend" could easily backstab (depends on the leader), and then the other opportunistic AI's will dogpile very likely on whoever is weaker. If that is you, then watch out! But the idea is to never let it get to that point.