AI reasons to go to war

[eyrei]

Built into every civ-like game is the tendency of the AI to go after the human player when he is winning. I think in this case, the AI is simply more likely to go to war with the human than other AI civs. It simply requires less provocation, and sometimes none at all. Also, when a civ is weak, its goal becomes "Make the human lose" rather than trying to win, since winning is simply not going to happen. It may be annoying, but in a way, it actually makes the game more fun.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I had that suspicion early on that the Ai was programmed to be homophobus and tested it out. i made sure i was dead last in everything - except enough defensive military to scare all the world together. I had a larger military then all 3 others combined but made sure that it was always close to obsolete (tough work) and often disbanded lots of units for no reason. So actually I shouldn`t be an inviting target but also shouldn`t be a threat - and they came for me all the time. so i used the money chaet to get ahead and was under constant attack. i guess firaxis wanted to avoid a game where you can sit back and watch the others just kill each other off - then dominate via tech and win as was possible in civ2

 

[eyrei]

I think the game was programmed to try to drag the human into nearly any conflict to provide entertainment. Works for me even if I do occasionally get irritated when this tendency causes the downfall of an AI civ that would have been fine otherwise.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Besides, most wars are folly. For instance, the Americans treasonously declared independence from the greatest power on earth. What are the chances of that succeeding?

Well, the Americans actually won that war. The British expeditionary forces had no prior experience fighting on American soil, so the Americans actually had a tactical advantage (not to forget the home ground advantage as well). Not only did America beat the greatest power on Earth , they BECAME the greatest power on Earth.

That is a bad example of wars being folly. Good point though. A better example would be the Germans in both world wars. They had the worst case of Invincibility Complex and declared war on all westward neighbours and Russia. In WWII, they even tried invading the Soviet Union DURING THE WINTER!!! Everyone should know that only a Russian can truly endure a Russian winter.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Interesting point Azrael,but am not so sure they really intended the war to last till winter,was to be a Blitz like all others,what went wrong was the encirclement of Leningrad,the holdup of the southern Army Group at Kiev,the mud and last but definitely not least the T-34.

Otherwise have nothing much to contribute to the thread,gave up long time ago understanding the AI´s motivations to go to war.Think eyrei hit it pretty well,the AI plays as if he was just one among many but his main interest is making life tough for the human player and it´s fun that it acts this way.

Only thing I would appreciate would be the AI respecting ones friendship in time of need.Doesn´t seem as if I´m the only one to help the weaker "more favourable" nations out of a mess,just to be repaid by war.

 

[Moulton]

It is hard to predict what the AI will do. And that's good--we really don't want this to be too predictable.
I declared war on the Romans as soon as I met them, and they have never gottenover it... no surprise.. but he will become an ally, and becomes very polite when that happens. In spite of that, once while an ally, and polite, declared war when I asked his units to leave. I did not give an ROP, and he had no need to cross my land.... but got mad when I denied it...
Aztecs also signed an alliance, and sent dozens of troops through my land every turn. He did not have to cross, but perhaps the other was was longer. (Through England, and he did have ROP with them. Blocking troops on the other side did not work, since he sent more every turn. But I did blockade the border, and then cancelled the ROP--after the war was over, and the 20 turns had ended--and then he declared war. (That war lasted 130 turns... he made peace once, and then went back to war... he was bigger than me, had a larger army, more culture. But no cavalry--I had his saltpeter.)

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Well, the Americans actually won that war.

Glad you picked up on that. Even the Americans didn't think they had much chance.

This example demonstrated several facets.

1. Folly. Ironically the British were the foolish ones as most Colonialists thought of themselves as good British subjects. They revolted because they believed they were being deprived of their rights as loyal subjects of the King. As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, the Colonialists had been driven into the rebellion after repeated attempts at political solutions.

2. Motivation. Not all wars are motivated by power or by logic, but often by pride or ignorance.

3. Inferior armies sometimes defeat superior ones, especially when the superior force does recognize the possibility of defeat by the inferior force. (A problem common among Civ players.)

 

[Ironikinit]

Are you a Tuchman fan, Zach?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Are you a Tuchman fan, Zach?

Funny you should ask. I have her March of Folly on my bookshelf as next on my reading list. I'll be starting it this week. The book came highly recommended by a friend. Is she any good?

 

[Ironikinit]

Oh hells yeah.

We'd be off topic tho if I went into it. Plus it's been a long time since I read her so it prob wouldn't be illuminating.

 

[Moulton]

Sounds interesting, even if off topic... always looking for a good read.
I don't think the AI needs much reason to go to war. Historical reasons, of course... greed, conquest, resources... but also perhaps some racial hatred built in?
I think it just likes war.
In this world I stayed at war with Aztec, Iroq and Zulu -- sometimes all, sometimes one or two at a time --- for about 1000 years, until finally eliminated both Zulu and Aztec. Peace for awhile, and then they started rattling sabres on my borders. China and Iroq both put ships in my waters deliberately, to provoke me. My democracy demanded peace, so I ignored them. England joined the fun. Since my strength was twice anyone elses... I just held out as long as I could. All this time Iroq remained furious with me, China annoyed or furious. Rome furious. England polite? Suddenly Iropquis declared war on the English! and separated by two countries territory...
I made MPP with China and Rome. Iroq would not deal--said I stabbeb him in the back once... I don't think I did, but..
Then MPP with England. England was no threat, but Iroq could be if she absorbed England. World war III. For the first time ever, China is polite and happy, and Rome is polite and happy.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Moulton
Sounds interesting, even if off topic... always looking for a good read. I don't think the AI needs much reason to go to war. Historical reasons, of course... greed, conquest, resources... but also perhaps some racial hatred built in? I think it just likes war.
In this world I stayed at war

Sometimes the AI won't leave me alone. Other times they won't start wars no matter the provocation.

On the March of Folly, good book so far and not so far off topic as it deals with the folly of Civilizations in the past and why they start foolish wars; from Troy to Vietnam.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by LordAzreal

A better example would be the Germans in both world wars. They had the worst case of Invincibility Complex and declared war on all westward neighbours and Russia. In WWII, they even tried invading the Soviet Union DURING THE WINTER!!! Everyone should know that only a Russian can truly endure a Russian winter.

Yep, with BigMistake No 1 it certainly was the Invincibility Complex. That ended with a seperate peace with Russia giving Germany almost all the Ukraine and German troops about 40 Km for the outskirts of Paris.......

In No 2 it ended at the Bay of Biscay.......

Not so big a case of the follies, eh????


Strange as it sounds, but often the foolish will win because the other side will believe himself/themselves secure - "I`m soooo strong he ain`t gonna go for me..... Oooooops! There goes the border town..... and the next...... and there`s Marines and Cavalary in my rear......... "

This doesn`t only apply to Civ, but also to real life!



I don`t want to start a flamewar and a big off topic discussion here, so I`d ask all of you who feel compelled to get angry to e-mail me, but:

If Germany in WWI had moved it`s occupation force of 2 000 000 men out of the east to the western front right after the peace treaty with Russia - would the Allies have insisted on unconditional surrender? I don`t think so! Luckily, High Command was blind and stupid

 

[Chaos]

1. I backtsab them frequently. The only reason why any AI will sign a peace treaty with me is because I am much more powerful.

2. I declare war on them to capture their cities to expand my empire

3. I brutally raze all captured cities as a lesson to those who oppose me

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Chaos
1. I backtsab them frequently. The only reason why any AI will sign a peace treaty with me is because I am much more powerful.

2. I declare war on them to capture their cities to expand my empire

3. I brutally raze all captured cities as a lesson to those who oppose me

I am guessing you have never won a diplomatic victory. I am usually pretty fair in my dealings with the AI, until they betray my trust, at which point they should not trust me because I am just waiting for an oppurtunity. In a way the AI reacts the same way to the human player, except for the fact that it may arbitrarily start a suicidal war at any time.:suicide:

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Originally posted by Killer

If Germany in WWI had moved it`s occupation force of 2 000 000 men out of the east to the western front right after the peace treaty with Russia - would the Allies have insisted on unconditional surrender? I don`t think so! Luckily, High Command was blind and stupid

Erm,that´s what they did Killer,it was called the Hindenburg Offensive and was halted in August 1918.
"Luckily" eh.Don´t want to flame you but everyone complaining about the AI being short-sighted;

LUCKILY the treaty of Versailles was made by short-sighted leaders.

LUCKILY the western allies (esp France) turned an armistice into an unconditional surrender.

LUCKILY they gave the entire fault to Germany.

LUCKILY they took the entire country apart and this in the worst times of economic depression.

LUCKILY they made the Germans understand that they would have to pay for it till 1980.

LUCKILY they made it harder for a post war German Republic to survive.

LUCKILY they didn´t give a s**t and let Germany struggle along and run straight into the hands of the commies and nazis.

LUCKILY the Germans GOT SICK OF IT AND GOT WW2 AND ALL THE OTHER S**T GOING.

Aren´t we lucky.

I can accept when some ppl flame Germany in WW2,take it as the power of evil,it´s not surprising considering the way we are brought up today and which information we get.But does this go for Germany in WW1?I don´t think so.The war is over, I go with the ppl who want to debate about it,and not just place their daft hate lines or politically correct statements somewhere and personally believe if a real armistice had been made after WW1,we would maybe never have seen the likes of Hitler, WW2, Holocaust etc.It contributed a lot to the political shift in post war Germany, even if some are fine with the explanation of an entire country just going beserk.
Yet,it happened but calling it "luckily" is a bit short sighted,at least one can give them credit back in 1919 that they couln´t imagine what was to come,even though some did.But looking back at it today,and placing a political correct term in it,doh.

Just my opinion.

 

[Greadius]

I've tried a moderately different tactic than in the past and have had a diametrically opposite experience.

Basically I'm the ultimate aggressor nation. I've attacked my neighbors constantly without warning, and I've built up a massive military force as the focus of my empire.

The result: 1814 and not a single nation has declared war on me. I've always been the intiator. And they're not doves by an extent, I think all of them have at one time or another started a war. Even the furious nations regard me as furious. I think its great because the AI is responding to playing style: those nations are terrified of me.

The unfortunate thing is I have no allies, or even friends in the world. Ho hum, I plan to destroy them all anyway.

 

[Evil Ruler]

I was playing americans in a large map (mighty warlord-lvl). I had a tech and culture lead and largest empire. I was trading with all civs (techs, lux, res). Everyone was polite with me (I made fair deals, even tributed 3gp/turn to everyone just to keep them happy), some were even gracious.

Then I was suddenly attacked by the bloodthirsty Indians! The attack was made to a far away colony (with 4 cities on a continent which was populated by chinese, japanese and babylonians, the russians were no longer with us...). The massive attack force was made from 1 archer!!! I just can´t understand what the computer was thinking to achieve by attacking my town Well next turn I just swept the attacking archer from here to eternity and signed military alliances with Japan and Greek (which was Indian neighbour) and started to campaign against the treacherous indians.

The fighting continued over 1000 years (mostly because of the long sea-route from my continent to theirs) but the indians were finally beaten.

Just hope there will be a patch to stop AI behaving plain STUPID!!!

 

[macaskil]

Hmmmm. There was a civ with the equivalent of infantry fighting a war with a similarly equipped civ. There was no danger of it losing this war.

Suddenly the leaders of this civ decided to stir things up by launching an attack on the largest city of the most powerful civ of the day - which had nukes, smart weapons, etc. It destroyed a wonder of the world and damaged the barracks in the nation's capital. This powerful civ immediately allied itself with the first civ's enemies and sent waves of bombers over to flatten its defences.

3 months later this civ was history.

It appeared the civ's leaders had hoped that war weariness in the powerful civ would inihibit its response; and that neighbouring civs would have their governments overthrown by the people and have their cities do "culture flips".

60 years before a civ that had conquered the whole of a continent and was in no danger of losing control of it decided to launch an attack against a neighbouring civ which, though its military was weak, had a huge territory, population and natural resources. After initial successes the 1st civ was overwhelmed by the 2nd which had stepped up its industrial production and assembled the largest army on earth. The 1st civ was destroyed and the continent was now dominated by the 2nd and another civ which had invaded it from the West. This civ had only come into the war because of an unprovoked attack by an ally of the 1st civ which by any rational analysis had no hope of winning, as the Admiral in charge of the attack realised only too well.

A civ decided to support a distant civ which was getting its a** kicked by its northern neighbour. Twenty years later, despite still being superior militarily, and bombing the heck out of the enemy, war weariness forced it to make peace, and the ally went down the pan shortly afterwards.

As soon as real world governments start behaving rationally then civ3 governments will!

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Dirk Aurel
LUCKILY the treaty of Versailles was made by short-sighted leaders.
{...}

Honestly I belive you're right - I read Keynes's book - "Economical consequences of peace" and he explain this better and in detail.

Regards,