AI Warmonges - Funbreaking

[Neofelis Nebulo]

Okay. I just abandoned a game that I hoped to be a cheesecake as I had perfect starting conditions. Everything seemed fine.

Then, because that one siamese city blocked a preferred to-be-city tile, I declared war and crushed him, leaving him only with his capitol.
I understand he wanted revenge as he allied with Napoleon some rounds later and declared war. Still cheesecake as even though I had only four cities (expansion sure is slow in CiV *grummel*) I had enough warriors at hands to fortify my fronts, even my cut out city I took from the siamese, without casualties. I was just about to prepare my forces to take out Napoleon after I negotiated a peace with the Siamese as out of the blue my up to then best friend Harun suddenly declared war on me (I really don't know why! I still have the most powerful military and we where buddies all the time since I met him, we even fought together against the Siamese (not that he did anything, but hey).
I was angry at this amount of artificial stupidity, but thought, okay, I can divert my thought-to-be invasion force to establish another defence grid, as five rounds later suddenly the last civ I have yet to have war with declared war on me, again for no apparent reason as we for starters never came closer than my Scout meeting them once and she's on the opposite side of the continent.


Even though I can win this set up, it renders me making units instead of expanding or building wonders and knowing the stupid AI, I will have war against those civs every fifty rounds as from this moment on we had war, they'll hate me forever until I completely defeat them. That is in no way fun to play.

Dear developers, you really have to tweak the AI to get at least some resemblemce of something resembling reason, because things like this do not encourage to keep on playing an already unfinished game. This is BS. I don't have problems with challenging situations, but this set up along with the stupid AI just ruins whole games that leave you make nothing else than war.

You should fix the AI asap.

 

[Yngvi]

Harun was never your friend. No Civ is. The AI is opportunistic: if Harun thinks he has an opening, he will take it. The last Civ probably was bribed, either by Harun or Napoleon, to join in. If they are that far away, they can probably be safely ignored.

The best advice I have heard is use the PoC and PoS to (beforehand) direct the AI against your favored target. It can help, but they will still turn on you if they see a chance. (They do it to each other, too: nothing personal.

 

[aimlessgun]

Let's do some roleplay. You're a leader of a country, chillin' doing your thing. All of a sudden this Nebulo guy starts going crazy, invading nations, conquering cities, and generally making a mess all over the place.

What are you supposed to do, ignore it? (though, I guess there were a lot of people in the US who wanted to just ignore Hitler)

This game has a ton of flaws. But a lot of the diplomacy complaints seem to be coming from a "it's different from Civ4 therefor terrible even though sometimes it makes sense" standpoint.

 

[Slowpoke]

My problem is not so much the war declaring, but the fact that if you neighbor them, they will NEVER accept peace for peace until you sack or threaten a city. Doesn't matter that you literally kill 30 bowmen without losses.

 

[nebux]

i like with the new patch with resource trading thing when they just ask for all of your and money for a gem. ok, time to go to war for conquest. no matter what i do i just finish with a domination victory for all those states that think that i'm puny or whatever. i'm puny, time to city razing spree!
i had an all against me war in my last game when siam bribed rome and bismark to go against me. siam was very ahead but those two were in medieval era, both of then with only one city left. that's is just wrong. i don't really understand civ 5 diplo or the dumb person that coded it

 

[tripedius]

Don't get it. Diplomacy ís working in the game although it has some bugs. In my last game I actually had friends till the end, with civ's calling me friend and asking how my war effort is going. Ofc I had some civ's that hated my guts and some civ's that couldnt be bothered. One of my friends was actually as strong as/ stronger than me. Destroyed two civ's but both civ's we're bugging me from the get go. Both also declared the first war on me and I destroyed them much later when I dowed on them.

The trick really seems to be to pick your enemies with care. The civ's I destroyed I made PoS against with other civ's and made PoC with my friends. Having a Pos also meant no open borders, no Poc and no research agreement with the civ the pos was agianst. Also traded lots with my friends (all 1 on 1), gave them open borders and gave in to all resonable requests (not war and not single luxery trading). Basically I choose two civ's to pick on from the beginning.
This seemed to work. From 12 civ's, 2-3 are 'allies', 2-3 mortal enemies and the rest is quite neutral. Most fun was declaring on England and having my 'allies' commenting on that and actually encouraging me to get ride of her.
So it ís doable, but it has no garanties. Pick your PoS carefully and DON'T trade with the civ the PoS is against. Sign PoC's with the civ's you want to befriend and have 'some' reason to declare war. Just kicking the friendly neighbourhood kid because he's small could even piss of your friends in real life. Ofc warmongering Civ's are better for this than peacefull ones. Same goes for CS. Nobodt likes civ's who attack those.
In the end it's no guarentee but it seems to work some what and give less of a random feel.

 

[LegionSteve]

In my current game I am hated by all the Civs near me, and every so often 2-3 of them will declare war. I blocked off a lot of land and told them not to settle near me, killed a city state to gain influence over another city state, and killed Japan because they had built some nice wonders for me in their capital. So of course I am seen as a warmonger, and it makes complete sense for them all to hate me.

As I have become more dominant (more than twice anyone elses score) when they declare war they say something to the effect of "even though you are much stronger, we have to try to stop you, because if we let you keep steamrolling we are going to lose anyway." I can't remember the exact words but that was the general idea.

The more I play Civ 5 the more I have come to like the way the diplomacy works. I don't mind that the computer Civs are trying to win the game, rather than roleplaying, though I completely understand that others don't like it. I think it could make for a very interesting challenge in the late game if all the other Civs try to stop you winning. Of course it doesn't at the moment, because of the terrible combat AI, but that isn't a diplomacy issue.

 

[Bleser]

If you invade and conquer a nearby civ, be prepared for the AI to gang up on you - it's what they do, and makes sense.

Germany and Russia had an alliance (conquered Poland TOGETHER) and then "out of the blue" Hitler back-stabbed Stalin and declared war on Russia two years later. It happens.

 

[Horizons]

You don't have a 'right' to sit and build pretty buildings, expand your empire, build culture etc without being attacked by other civs. You need to man-up, grow a pair and understand that, especially in ancient times, warfare was the norm and 'peaceful builders' were the tiny minority.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Germany and Russia had an alliance (conquered Poland TOGETHER) and then "out of the blue" Hitler back-stabbed Stalin and declared war on Russia two years later. It happens.

Yeah, but England didn't DoW on the US in 1946 because of its recent warmongering ways.

 

[Sonereal]

Yeah, but England didn't DoW on the US in 1946 because of its recent warmongering ways.

The AIs need to learn the difference between warmongering and intervention on part of their interests. Scenarios for Civ5 are weird because Germany loses its Italian and Japanese allies the second it invades Poland, meanwhile, the British cut off OB with the United States are the US joins the war in their side.

It's really bad when the AI requests you jump into a war with them and then look down on you for it.

 

[Helmling]

Let's do some roleplay. You're a leader of a country, chillin' doing your thing. All of a sudden this Nebulo guy starts going crazy, invading nations, conquering cities, and generally making a mess all over the place.

What are you supposed to do, ignore it? (though, I guess there were a lot of people in the US who wanted to just ignore Hitler)

This game has a ton of flaws. But a lot of the diplomacy complaints seem to be coming from a "it's different from Civ4 therefor terrible even though sometimes it makes sense" standpoint.

I'm with you.

I've found the AI rationale when picking fights to be much better than Civ 4. I never have boatloads of belligerents crossing the map in futile attacks anymore. My enemies usually have legitimate conflicts of interests with me now (usually over territory or city state influence) that lead up to war.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You don't have a 'right' to sit and build pretty buildings, expand your empire, build culture etc without being attacked by other civs. You need to man-up, grow a pair and understand that, especially in ancient times, warfare was the norm and 'peaceful builders' were the tiny minority.

I agree with that to a point, but it's also true that not every nation would attack any other nation the first chance it gets. The US isn't going to march its troops into Canada any time soon just because it can.

It should be possible to have friends, even if we need some ingame mechanic that keeps the human player from taking advantage of it and backstabbing the other Civ.

 

[Sonereal]

I agree with that to a point, but it's also true that not every nation would attack any other nation the first chance it gets. The US isn't going to march its troops into Canada any time soon just because it can.

It should be possible to have friends, even if we need some ingame mechanic that keeps the human player from taking advantage of it and backstabbing the other Civ.

In that regard, trade relations should become more important diplomatically since those build friendships and invading someone else's trade partner should be....bad on your part to say the least.

There is already an in-game mechanic that can keep the human player from simply backstabbing a friend. Make the international penalty for backstabbing friendly civilizations larger and there we go.

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

I agree with that to a point, but it's also true that not every nation would attack any other nation the first chance it gets. The US isn't going to march its troops into Canada any time soon just because it can.

Have to disagree somewhat with you here in that you're looking through the eyes of a modern person. If this were ancient times or even in the early millennium, if Canada and the US were neighbors it's very possible the US would invade if it saw Canada as a weaker nation.

Heck, even early in the US history they tried to invade Canada a few times and failed miserably. Plans to do so later were on the table as well.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Have to disagree somewhat with you here in that you're looking through the eyes of a modern person. If this were ancient times or even in the early millennium, if Canada and the US were neighbors it's very possible the US would invade if it saw Canada as a weaker nation.

Heck, even early in the US history they tried to invade Canada a few times and failed miserably. Plans to do so later were on the table as well.

Is that because of "Modern Times" or because our relations have gotten much better since then?

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Yeah, but England didn't DoW on the US in 1946 because of its recent warmongering ways.

America didn't keep any European cities.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

America didn't keep any European cities.

I'd say it did a pretty good job of puppeting Berlin (and Tokyo).

 

[crismac]

Let's do some roleplay. You're a leader of a country, chillin' doing your thing. All of a sudden this Nebulo guy starts going crazy, invading nations, conquering cities, and generally making a mess all over the place.

What are you supposed to do, ignore it? (though, I guess there were a lot of people in the US who wanted to just ignore Hitler)

This game has a ton of flaws. But a lot of the diplomacy complaints seem to be coming from a "it's different from Civ4 therefor terrible even though sometimes it makes sense" standpoint.

This!!

 

[Sonereal]

Heck, even early in the US history they tried to invade Canada a few times and failed miserably. Plans to do so later were on the table as well.

The US had no real intentions of invading Canada after the 1900s. The "plan" to invade Canada was just one of many plans they made to alleviate boredom following WW1.

America didn't keep any European cities.

We're not given an option to liberate cities in Civ5. Not to mention that gifting cities does absolutely nothing to help relations.