AI still too passive compared to CIVIII
- Thread starter Snazzye
- Start date
MrScorpio
Chieftain
The whole red out thing is the problem to me. Either humans should be able to make certain things "untouchable" like that, where you can't even ask for it, or the ai shouldn't and they should have to say no and gain a negative modifier (for other ais) or anger me.
weasel77066
Prince
Well the AI in civ 3 was pretty brutal I agree, there were certain issues as to wars in there that I didnt like.
Mutual protections were pretty ridiculous. ROP rape was common. Anyone could be bribed to go to war with anyone. Ive had games where everyone had mutual protections with most everyone else. Your strongest ally having a MP with your worst enemy, then signing a military alliance against a third party for a sack of beans... then he triggers MP for other civs, which triggers your MP and you attack your worst enemy only to trigger your best friends MP against you. So it was really odd at times and alot of fun got taken away in cases like that.
Civ4 has fixed alot of that unrealistic behaviour... but yes, it has created a more subtle AI. Wars tend to build up with deteriorating relations instead of, gee, I think I'll start WWIII today...
I recently installed the XXL large maps mod, and throw in 24 or 25 civs.. (or somewhere in there) the map is so packed that war has been recurring since the start of the game. Several huge WW already and a third just started. All before rifleman hit the scene, so this mod cramps the diplomacy field so much, its impossible to avoid a war, but there is still room on the map to spread, and the wars are not as comically created as in Civ3... alliances stick, as long as you treat your friends reasonably. It has enhanced the game by a XXLarge amount.
Mutual protections were pretty ridiculous. ROP rape was common. Anyone could be bribed to go to war with anyone. Ive had games where everyone had mutual protections with most everyone else. Your strongest ally having a MP with your worst enemy, then signing a military alliance against a third party for a sack of beans... then he triggers MP for other civs, which triggers your MP and you attack your worst enemy only to trigger your best friends MP against you. So it was really odd at times and alot of fun got taken away in cases like that.
Civ4 has fixed alot of that unrealistic behaviour... but yes, it has created a more subtle AI. Wars tend to build up with deteriorating relations instead of, gee, I think I'll start WWIII today...
I recently installed the XXL large maps mod, and throw in 24 or 25 civs.. (or somewhere in there) the map is so packed that war has been recurring since the start of the game. Several huge WW already and a third just started. All before rifleman hit the scene, so this mod cramps the diplomacy field so much, its impossible to avoid a war, but there is still room on the map to spread, and the wars are not as comically created as in Civ3... alliances stick, as long as you treat your friends reasonably. It has enhanced the game by a XXLarge amount.
I loved the mutual protection pacts in Civ3. It's fun to get involved in massive world wars. I remember playing one time on a continent with 3 other civs (on one of the lower difficulties) and declaring war on one them. I was dumb and didn't check who had pacts with who, and soon had DoW form the rest of the civs. It was really fun. I first held back their attacking armies and then pushed forward and took a couple. Was a great game.
So you know this is not the case. If you suck in relations an AI civ in Civ3 will never ally, even if you offer them 6 techs and gobs of cash to do it.
Its documented and common knowledge.
I have seen this too with Aggressive AI on. They certainly had more units but they did nothing with them.
I agree. I would like to see this as well once in awhile.
weasel77066
Prince
No idea what youre attempting to say... Sorry, I don't speak ebonics.
Civ3 diplomacy and relations were so badly input that it was an outright exploit. Ive played more games of civ3 than you have posts, and I know how it plays. There are times when you cant deal with the ai, and that I can agree on, but with simple effort and little cost will transform alliances into a chaotic mess that would leave the human player ahead by a long shot.
Not so in civ4... Its been tweaked to avoid the human exploits that were once capable in "your documented perfection" Though there are still exploitable aspects to the game, its not near as terrible as civ3.
Dont get me wrong, I still play civ3, and I still enjoy it.. However Im more into playing hotseat and Email games than I am single. Civ4 plays far better in single than three does...
Civ3 diplomacy and relations were so badly input that it was an outright exploit. Ive played more games of civ3 than you have posts, and I know how it plays. There are times when you cant deal with the ai, and that I can agree on, but with simple effort and little cost will transform alliances into a chaotic mess that would leave the human player ahead by a long shot.
Not so in civ4... Its been tweaked to avoid the human exploits that were once capable in "your documented perfection" Though there are still exploitable aspects to the game, its not near as terrible as civ3.
Dont get me wrong, I still play civ3, and I still enjoy it.. However Im more into playing hotseat and Email games than I am single. Civ4 plays far better in single than three does...
No, it just builds em. Maybe you should try building em too?
That's not a bad description of what happened in WWI and WWII, not to mention the Gulf Wars. I find it fascinating that you find it unrealistic when you've essentially described how war was conducted in the 20th Century.P.S. Not that I think it has any particular meaning but, since you mentioned it, I've played more Civ3 games than you have posts, too!
weasel77066
Prince
P.S. Not that I think it has any particular meaning but, since you mentioned it, I've played more Civ3 games than you have posts, too!
Well WWI and WWII were entirely differnt than the possible effects that are capable in civ3... Both WW could be merged into one giant long war, thanks to the french...with little change to alliances ecxept for the Americans joining after a long stint of isolationism and allying with the communist enemy. What if, in history, the soviet reds had a mutual protection with the japanese? The Japanese promised peace or paid some third world country like the spanish for a mutual protection? War would be declared automatically should a unit be attacked. Its ridiculous. It was nothing like that.... buts its capable in civ3. Its very unlikely in civ4. THATS what Im elaborating on. The differnce in how wars are started compared towards civ3 and civ4. Three was frivolous... Four is more implemented through relations and the "history" each civ have for each other.
Both persian incidents are not related to anything described in this thread.. they would be more related to an AP or UN resolution against a particular civ.
Also- I know that my number of games or posts have little to bear... but I definitely have picked more boogars from my nose than you have posts. I pick an average of 3 per game... so thats alot.
If you want alot of wars between the AI´s is pretty simply. You just have to secure 1 or 2 religions. Spread it so the AI´s got different religions. Make sure to look at the "info" and find out which civs got the heredic rule since they are likely to get the "civic bonus attitude". Take a look at the peaceweight of the different AI´s and bingo. Tons of early AI wars.
I.e. De Gaulle right next to Hummurabi. They got "-4 relations" (not visible) from the start with De gaulle having +2 warmongering and -1 base attitude. Hummurabi +1 warmongering making it a practical "- 7-8" starting relation. You might not even have to spread different religions to them to get a war going fast.
Though one thing thats important. If the AI got plenty of land to expand into, its see´s that as a better way of growing than war. I tend to find more war in a map with a few extra AI´s added. So go custom game or try to turn on the Aggressive AI.
btw in BTS the AI has no perferens against the human player. So if you often get in trouble try not to run a religion early on, until the AI´s have picked their "worst enemy"
I play standard map with 12 AIs. It is more crowded than standard setting and I can assure you that there was a lot of going on between AIs from the early game.
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
Civ4 has defensive pacts which basically sound like what you are talking about - a couple of civs team together for defensive purposes, attacking one means attacking the other civ as well.
Also, the vassal concept makes world wars more common - if you attack the master you will have to fight the vassal too (ooo scawy lol)
Ive had loads of world wars and seen plenty of ai vs ai wars in bts. They generally begin between the 2 dominant religions with vassals/friends roped in on either side in my experience. This is without agg ai too.
The whole build up to a war is much better in civ 4, as is the actual fighting.
The whole build up to a war is much better in civ 4, as is the actual fighting.
What I was referring to was that WWI started over the relatively minor incident of the assassination of the Archduke because of the MP pacts of the participants across Europe (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain and France); in WWI, the Germans and Russians had a non-aggression pact, which Germany broke and Russia ended up being allies with its worst enemy (the U.S.); and in both Gulf Wars all Coalition countries other than the U.S. and Britain were bribed into going to war. In fact, Sunni governments were bribed into war against another Sunni government (Iraq). Those events seemed to be very much like the very things you find unrealistic in Civ3.
BTW, is it "boogars" or "boogers?"
Scaramanga
Brickhead
I think in the early game you should be able to attack other civs units without declaring war (until you research writing).
