AI speebump - intentional?????

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

All who have ever played Emperor or Deity game know them well: the medieval wars, the 'nationalism' wars, the 'infantry' wars, the 'Modern Armour' wars. Somehow, when several cis reach these times/units, there will be world wars. Somtimes started by the weaker civ against the human, who then tries to bring in as many AIs as possible, but often by the strong AIs.

Result? Usually, the human can catch up nicely in these times. Conquer territory, build infrastructure, maybe even grab up freed land without going to war oneself, extort techs for peace.....

And if the human is the target, somehow even the civs who do not join will not pull ahead in tech and infrstructure, but rather have a little waste-my-troops festival of their own.

Examples: i play an Emperor game with two big continents. i control half of one, two AIs share the rest, 3 other AIs share the second continent. We do not have contact to over there yet.

Just when it is time for Knights, one AI declares war on me, the other joins me in the wear, but soon starts fighting me, too. A regular free-for-all

Now this would be the time for the other civs to build all the nice wonders! But no, the after action replay shows them fighting (to no avail), trading a few border towns to and fro. When I manage to knock out one of my opponents and reach the other island, they are just making peace. From now on it is the normal race for the Wonders.

Somehow, once it starts, even civs that do not have contact to any waring party have to go and fight! Instead of waiting for Knights, my dear friends on the other island had to have a go with Longbowmen!!!!


Now for my question: have you seen similar thing? For me, it is a fixed feature - if i win the first war here i can even keep up in production and research on Emperor! Same goes for Deity, here it needs two wars (for more territory).

Is that a built in feature to make higher levels playable?????

 

[Tassadar]

According to my experience , human war tend to cascade to world war ( i dont say it is always the case neither a rule). And the research slow down for a.i. as their exchange within themselve. ( they trade less )

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Yes, sure, but even if i fight with one civ and noone else is at war and neither of us brings in a third (=no cascade!!!), the others will soon go tow war. They may have lived in peace for eons or days - they see us fight (or somhow feels it across the ocean) and have to do it, too!

Is the incentive for the AIs to go to war at certain points just too strong????? This is Civilization 3, not Warmongering 1!

 

[smallstepforman]

I think your misinterpreting the game mechanics. When I'm attacked, I always seek alliances. Not necessarily because I need them, I dont want the enemy AI to bribe the neutral AI to join forces against me. Since humans do it regularly, I guess the AI does it as well.

Also, knowing that an AI is exhausted in a war provides a beautiful opportunity for me to attack from behind - I figure the AI is overstreched. The AI uses the same logic. Hence, when 2 factions start a war, it doesn't take long for others to join in. Its the game mechanics.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

smallstepforeman: read again: I was talking about instances where this alliance stuff doesn't apply! When the AI has NO NEED to get overstreched!

 

[Lab Monkey]

I think that for the AI the drive to grab land is too great and goes above all other tactics. As soon as the land is gobbled up, or the AI wants more cities to increase production, it'll start a war. The AI has no survival instinct - we may play the game without wanting to needlessly sacrifice ourselves in a pointless war, but for the AI it's all or nothing. The AI only has victory in mind, not the creation of a stable empire, and will gamble everything to get stronger.

The cascade happens as wars tip the power balances that affect the AI's moods - they become like vultures, grabbing what they can for a few turns, before sueing for peace.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Killer, one possible explanation for what you have seen may be that the AI is programmed to value how safe it is from backstabbing before going to war.

When the AI civ sees that all the civs one the other continent are at war, it assumes that it is now safe to declare war against its neighbour without fear of being attacked from oversea.

I don't know if such logic is programmed into the game, but it makes some sense. I am much more inclined to declare war against one neighbour if I know my other neighbour is already at war at another frontier.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

TNO: that sounds reasonable.....

 

[ERIKK]

I've had the same experience as LT K'M: as soon as one war starts, other wars come automaticly. T

hat's why my deity tactic is making-money to buy alliances. World war will come, research slows down and you will be there to snatch the cities away and place new cities on the spot. Meanwhile you'll have time to catch up on research and/or get them in peace negotiations. The AI's will fight themself to deatch and all you have to do is follow them closely and have troops/settlers nearby. Your profit is 100%

As soon as this 'war-thing' is 'patched away', I'll have to change tactics....

 

[DrJambo]

Like i said in another thread....

The AI is usually very good up until the late medieval, early industrial age. This is because many are at peace and expanding into the unsettled land. As soon as they fill up the empty spaces they look to picking a fight.

The reason the human player catches up in the industrial period is the AI spends most of the entire period in one war or another, signing MPPs or MAs with each other. Meanwhile the human can sit in a Democracy, building infrastructure and speed-researching techs.

I think this is to do with the current balance of aggression across some of the civs (slider under the civilisations tab in the editor).

The balance is already way off centre as it stands... Aggressive setting (number of civs):

1(2)
2(2)
3(4)
4(6)
5(2)

Therefore in the late period, once all land is settled, all you tend to get is a lot of AI civs fighting and falling behind. At least some of the civs should be encouraged to remain in peace and build infrastructure and research tech. Reducing the number of civs in the aggressive 4 setting should help contribute to a more balanced game, or so i think.

See what you think, try modifying these and see the outcome. You'll already notice that games in which the Zulus and the Germans are involved will almost certainly contain continuous warfare in the late game period.

 

[ERIKK]

Reducing the number of civs in the aggressive 4 setting should help contribute to a more balanced game, or so i think.

Yes, but that will make Deity even more harder. You'll never be able catch up in tech that way. You NEED these wars to grow and become a larger, more productive empire. But indeed, it's worth to try. Which file should be modified? An .ini -file (or something like that) I suppose?

ERIKK

 

[Yzman]

Just change it in the editor. Go to the Civ tab and pick a civ, then xhange the agression for them. Then just save the scenario and use it next time. No modified files needed.

 

[ukrneal]

Question: Killer, have you noticed this on all types of maps? Also have you noticed any difference depending on the number of AI opponents?

I have noticed a similar phenomenon on all levels really. I think I have a couple of possible reasons:

1. If the Ai's feels superior to other civs (including yours), they will be aggressive. Humans do the same. This seems to occur on the edge of discovering new techs 9that will in themselves add new units that change the game balance). The difference, I think, is that humans know how to better manage the wars - know when to stop attacking, retreat, etc. The AI seems too aggressive in this regard and will keep at it when it should regroup, retreat, make peace, etc. As a result, the human can use this to his/her advantage and catch up.

2. On bigger maps, where there is more of a "free for all", I have noticed that sometimes a couple of civs do manage to not be at war at the beginning (either through a quick peace, no MPP's, etc.). Then, when they have "progressed ahead" they join the fray. At this point they are either: a) advanced and start beating those around them; or b) they think they are, aren't really, and fare as well as all the others. In a, it's just the first point extended. In b, I have seen the ai start to take a lead if it isn't fighting me (sometimes). Once it starts to take the lead, the other civs seem to gang up on it to level it down (over time). So there does seem to be a mechanism that favors war over research at certain times.

I think MP will alter this a bit, but most likely this a gameplay issue. I feel that I am usually prepared for war at nearly any given time and am happy to play for a stalemate if I am not ready. It is much easier to play for a stalemate than to beat your opponent since you need fewer units. As a result, I think the human player survives these encounters better.

But the ai, in my games anyway, does continue to build the wonders regardless of its true needs.

Also, I wonder if it is more perception than anything else as the war turns seem more exciting and faster. Perhaps the time gap is less than we perceive it to be.

Just my thoughts...

 

[kb2tvl]

here is my take. Before the industrial age, there seems to be a peace where the civs are not fighting. Once nationalism/universal sufferage and toe are buildable, the civ seems to go to war. The suspicion I have is that the civ wants to hurry build/obtain a leader via fighting and hence many useless battles.

The civ seems to rely on wonders and big stuff to get them culature. Where a player will build temples and libraries enmass.