AI suddenly and massively declare a war. WHY?!

[Bulka]

Hi all,

Situation was quite good. The vast majority of civs was very nice to me ("you have strong economy", "they just afraid of your mighty", blablabla). They offered pact of cooperations and even war declarations against small civs.

But SUDDENLY six civs (six!) declared a war against me simultaneously.

So, my questions are:

What happened?
What signs of such #$% can I notice?
How to prevent this?

Plz help

 

[Bob_]

So, my questions are:

What happened?
What signs of such #$% can I notice?
How to prevent this?

Plz help

1. You reached the point in game where the AI starts to act normaly.

2. A very good indicator is when u press the "start game" button

3. not playing

nah seriously, i have the same problems. you are probably too mighty... or too weak. no one can say for sure

 

[Kyroshill]

The AI is trying to win the game now.... and sometimes that means making sure that the most powerful civ gets taken down a few notches... sometimes that means crushing a weaker opponent... and sometimes that means dogpile the human...

It's been said a million times... if the AI doesn't hate you, you're doing something wrong

 

[Fabiano1979]

The AI is trying to win the game now.... and sometimes that means making sure that the most powerful civ gets taken down a few notches... sometimes that means crushing a weaker opponent... and sometimes that means dogpile the human...

It's been said a million times... if the AI doesn't hate you, you're doing something wrong

Thats the problem, the AI should not behave like civ was a game. Thats one of the reasons that are spoiling the felling immersion on civ V, its just not real enough.

If you are friendly to everyone, theres no reason to have 6 civs declaring war on you...

 

[LegionSteve]

If the AI really 'wanted' to win it would be better off building defensive units while quietly going for space or culture. Its attempts to dogpile the human are often suicidal because it is so rubbish at war.

I understand the idea behind making the AI try to win instead of purely roleplaying, I just don't think it works very well at the moment. I think it would make the game more immersive if the AI at least roleplayed a little bit, ie placed some value on survival rather than: "The human player has 20 cities and rifles, I have 1 city and 2 spearmen, I am losing the game, I must declare war on the human now!"

 

[Chiyo]

Thats the problem, the AI should not behave like civ was a game. Thats one of the reasons that are spoiling the felling immersion on civ V, its just not real enough.

That is exactly my problem, too. I still remember buying the original Civ: "Build a civilization to stand the test of time." (or similar, it was the German version...) If I had bought the fifth one with a box it would probably have said: "Build a civilization to stand the test of a CiV game."

I have read the argument that a human player would behave exactly like this, but that is the reason why I never played multiplayer games in Civ 4. I want to bulid up a civilization and not play a war game. So now they made single player multiplayer and left out the multiplayer parts...

 

[Kyroshill]

Truthfully I don't have any of these problems... if I want the AI to go to war, they go to war... if I want peace... I keep peace.... I've had civs "hostile" with me for centuries without them attacking....

In my first few games, I got dogpiled.... then I learned how to manipulate the AI.... after all the AI is only a series of algorithms, not a sentient being

 

[Skwink]

Thats the problem, the AI should not behave like civ was a game. Thats one of the reasons that are spoiling the felling immersion on civ V, its just not real enough.

If you are friendly to everyone, theres no reason to have 6 civs declaring war on you...

That would make the game too easy.

 

[Wolfwood]

That is exactly my problem, too. I still remember buying the original Civ: "Build a civilization to stand the test of time." (or similar, it was the German version...) If I had bought the fifth one with a box it would probably have said: "Build a civilization to stand the test of a CiV game."

I have read the argument that a human player would behave exactly like this, but that is the reason why I never played multiplayer games in Civ 4. I want to bulid up a civilization and not play a war game. So now they made single player multiplayer and left out the multiplayer parts...

I agree with this as well.

 

[UWHabs]

The problem is the AI isn't quite to the point where it can credibly challenge a human. If it were, we would definitely see much fewer arguments.

I like having my opponents role play. But I also like having them as real opponents. I mean, in civ 4, you could have Shaka conquer 90% of his continent, and only need to take out one last opponent to win the game. Or Ghandi could sit back and win a culture victory because his neighbours won't attack him since they're pleased with him. I want immersion, but I also want smart opponents.

 

[City Raider]

That would make the game too easy.

No it wouldn't, not if the the AI could competently pursue Culture, Space, or Diplo wins.

There is no reason the AI couldn't routinely win via Space/Culure by say by 1925-1950 (depending on level of course). Meaning if you are playing a peaceful game you need to beat that time frame.

It also should take some "skill" to get to AI civs to friendly and should mean something.
It shouldn't be easy to get everyone to friendly or have someone mad at you just because you are next to each other. There is just no meaningful diplomacy. If you are playing peacefully and routinely winning via space/culture then you step up a level. And if you can routinely win on Diety without war then more power to you.

As it is the AI is terrible at war yet that seems to be its sole focus or fall back position if it is "losing". It is just bad design. Why wouldn't the AI beeline space since on higher levels it can tech better? Or build 3-5 cities and go for culture win as it has 1-2 cities constantly building defensive units in case it gets attacked?

That's what many builder players do to win. Its what I usually do and have been doing since civ 1. Build your core cities and just make it a death zone if you get attacked. A better AI should be able to do this, and on higher levels with slight "boosts" it should be quite formidable.

"Playing to win" doesn't mean war or conquest.

"Playing to win" means finding the quickest/easiest path to victory.

The AI (due to programming) just happens to completely ignore the paths to victory that would be easier for it to get such as space or culture.

 

[JBConquests]

Thats the problem, the AI should not behave like civ was a game. Thats one of the reasons that are spoiling the felling immersion on civ V, its just not real enough.

If you are friendly to everyone, theres no reason to have 6 civs declaring war on you...

Umm, you do no that civ is a game right?

Seriously, I wouldn't want it to behave like real life - that is too boring. Nothing makes a game more interesting like a sudden world war. From my way of thinking an unpredictable games is more fun - just as long as every game I play doesn't end up with a world war.

 

[Samuil]

Well, when it happened to me last night, i realized... the AI is not that stupid...
I was less than 30 turns away from a cultural victory, when all my former friends declared war on me...
that is playing to win...
Now I expect some nukes to hit me (I have only my 5 original cities), and prey they do not hit Paris (makes almost 300 culture)
I may actually be on the verge of defeat on this one, even though I am isolated on an island, I reccon one nice Nuclear Missile shot would ruin my game, and both my closest enemies (my former best friends) have nuclear capability.. (I have no uranium btw, even if I did, at this point in the game it would not make any difference, I am only trying to defend myself, and can not effectively try to take enemy land

 

[bryanw1995]

possible reasons:
1. you had a friend that you had a dof with publicly denounce you, giving you a negative modifier with all other civs in the entire game.
2. your army was the weakest OR the strongest in the entire game
3. your land/food/tech/etc was weakest or strongest in the entire game
4. you did things like build wonders/aggressively expand that the ai doesn't like

It was probably some or all of those things that got it started, then one civ went to one or two others and they decided to declare on you in 10 turns. Typically you can see the signs of this sort of thing happening, formerly friendly civs start making snide comments at you, stuff like that. When that happens try to get other civs to declare on your former ally first, if not then you can often get dogpiled by everyone. One warning, though, if one of the ai is planning to dow within 10 turns due to a pact with another civ then they already consider you to be "at war" and won't do you any favors for any reason.

 

[DaveGold]

The difficulty is not only that the AI is playing to win rather mercilessly. The difficulty is that the human player is THE PLAYER. THE PLAYER is the person who's meant to making decisions managing the empire for good or bad. That's why they bought the game! At the moment in Civ V it's the AI who manage all the diplomacy, leaving the humans without information, diplomatic strategy, or worthwhile decisions.

Ultimately it's THE PLAYER who hits removes the game from the hard disk or buys the DLC.

 

[smash9936]

So you would rather that AI never declare war? That they just pursue culture/science/diplo victories and leave you alone? If you are winning, or close to it, I kind of don't blame them for ganging up on you and taking you down some notches. I'd do the same thing in a game against a bigger opponent, and bribe other AI's to go to war with me, ally with some city states, etc. No one wants to lose. And you know what they say, friends close enemies closer and all.

 

[Fistalis]

I have read the argument that a human player would behave exactly like this, but that is the reason why I never played multiplayer games in Civ 4. I want to bulid up a civilization and not play a war game. So now they made single player multiplayer and left out the multiplayer parts...

This. I quit playing Civ V because the overall feeling of singleplayer is the same experience a person gets playing multiplayer civ IV. With some changed game dynamics. It seems to me the "brilliant" idea of making the AI play to win was pretty much to give singleplayers that multiplayer deathmatch experience and is exactly what i didn't want in a singleplayer civ game.

 

[Kehgrehdid]

Because it's no longer a builder's game.
The AI decided the quickest way to victory is domination. So instead of going for tech victory the way it used to, it let the military subroutine take over its plans.
I don't know who has tried this, maybe starting in the modern era with tech victory that much closer would make a difference. That's just speculation though.
How to keep this from happening? Go back to Alpha Centauri (The more I played CiV, the more I longed for SMAC. Funny, huh?) or another established game, and play that instead.

 

[mislaV_01]

I completely agree. AI is just crazy, and this friendship and denounce things are beyond lame. Is it just me or before the patch diplomacy was more "relaxed". Here is the thing. Everyone is cool and friendly. I coexist peacefully, build wast economical empire. I trade my luxury goods build trading posts, send my merchants, explore the world for natural wonders. I was going for diplo victory and out of nowhere whole motherf**ing world declares war one me, even tho they wared between each other on numerous ocasions.

Why would that happen, what is the stupid logic behind it? I want to role play, to manage my empire with other empires. Every single game same crap. Denouncing comes, then guarded then hostile then short period of friendly and out of nowhere massive DOW. WTF?!?! And i intentionaly play only on lvl 5 so i can role play and build my empire economicaly not military. So let me get this straight...If you attack you get denounced even if you get attacked and wipe out the enemy you get denounced, you expand, you build wonders. No matter what you do at one point in game everyone hates no. Hey who the fu*k cares about 1500 years of peacefull cooperation. Let's trip some acid man and destroy the world...

It sux, it is broken, i could seriously punch in someones face over there in Firaxis...

I wonder if i turned of "domination" as victory condition maybe they wouldn't attack?

 

[Effexor]

The crux of the problem is that the AI does things that just don't make sense. Then people typically fall back to the statement that the AI is playing to win, and thats why it did it. I am of the belief that it's bugged / broken badly based on some things that have happened to me.

For example, I had a civ that turned hostile and denounce me for having a weak military.. on turn 7. I had only met their scout and didn't even know where they were.

I also had one denounce me, and when the screen pops up saying I was being denounced, it said "FRIENDLY". When I moused over the 'friendly' all it said was that they desired good relations. Afterwards, I was still friendly every time I checked. /shrug

So then how to you distinguish whats working correctly, and whats not?