Allies

[boneys26]

what is the point in having allies when they don't attack where you want them too, when you ask, They just say we'll do our best then nothing happens even if theres only 1 unit left in that city, And as for trade later on in the game you ask to exchange maps they want your map and 10 gold! whats fair in that? I would like a option to make a battle plan with my allies so they know where to attack and they have to do it... otherwise whats the point in having any allies

 

[MrCynical]

Allies are sometimes helpful, though it seems partly down to the AI's personality. Cyrus in particular is nearly impossible to get as an ally and is worthless even if you do, since he will never lift a finger to help. Some of the other's have however been very useful. A battleplan engine ought to be possible by now, at least to designate a couple of specific targets, but I expect would be beyond the normal scope of a patch.

As for the trading maps complaint, the value of your map depends on how many squares have been revealed and how up to date the information is. It is extremely unlikely even in the late game that your maps will be of exactly equal value, so the AI is being perfectly fair there. I would usually refuse to give a direct swap of maps, mainly because I've usually done more exploring than the other civs.

 

[calyth]

Hm... I'm in this warlord game with Louis XIV - he's part rival, part friend. He used to be more cautious with me because he was either first or second after I weakened Cyrus, but now because the Incans are second, he's glad to help.
So I was about to finish off Cyrus, and was wondering if he would try getting Louis to attack me. He had similar military units (I was a generation ahead, but he's not bad for an AI). Funny thing is all of a sudden I start seeing French units in Persian land - I know he's declared war because Cyrus hates Louis' guts. And better yet, there was this Persian city that was built right on Tundra, which made it useless. And Louis not only attacked it, but appropriately razed it. Save me the effort and the units too.
It would be nice if you can draw a battle plan, but IMO I've seen enough times that AI does know pretty good tactics - Isabella can be very good at holy wars. I do agree that it might be the AI's personality. Right now China and India is duking each other out - I'm not interfering because I don't mind more weakened civs - but they seem to go nowhere after China took a city from India.

 

[yatusk]

I've been really happy with how my allies and my enemies have reacted to my decisions through this game---in fact, they've reacted exactly as I would have almost every time.

Your ally should do the bare minimum to help you out, which is what I've seen my allies do. If you're in a war and your ally has no vested interest in the war or doesn't think it's going to take many cities, it's going to let you do the fight and then jump in and take over a city right after you did all the work---that's perfect!

What you'll see is that the allies think very strategically (and by strategically I mean very simply---it's all game theory to them---it's actually kind of annoying that the AI never thinks about soft factors but it does make the game feel more like international warfare).

When your ally isn't helping you or is being cheap, think about what you'd do in their situation---are you much more powerful, are they much more powerful, do you actually not have anything they'd want, and, yes, definitely look at the leaders---some leaders don't bother trading, others really don't want to go to war, others fly off the handle.......although you can definitely manipulate the AI because, after all, it's a computer and it makes the same decision every time in the same situation, you can't say that the computer isn't playing to how it thinks will win the game.....if you're really strong, you can takeover a city and ask for peace---they'll always give you peace (which is of course the correct decision---what else can they hope for?). if you're weaker than them, you can takeover 4 cities and they'll still not listen to your peace demands. Your allies aren't really your friends...they're just your allies.

 

[yatusk]

Although the Battle Plans idea would doubtlessly be really cool, it would obviously just turn into using the AI to fight proxy wars---in the CivIV, it's really quite difficult to get the AI to fight it out with another AI without getting your own troops involved (which is of course exactly as it should be)
--you can get the AI to declare war on other AIs but unless the declaring party is stronger than the other AI it won't actually do anything....it was designed very cleverly.

In fact, most complaints I've heard about the AI so far have been along the lines of the "AI won't do what I want it to do" or the "AI isn't falling into line and following my grand vision for the game"---the AI is pretty unpredictable and makes lots of bad decisions, but I have honestly not seen a situation where the AI's decision didn't make some sense to me if I were in his shoes (as long as you factor in the leader's personality---i.e. if I were somewhat insane and like sacrificing my soldiers' lives, I Montezuma would send my troops headlong in a well-defended mountain pass)

The AI asking for 10 gold and your map in exchange for his map means that the AI doesn't want your map, that's all...give it something it wants (it probably can get a bigger map from someone else, or is just not a leader that cares about knowing where everything is). Honestly I don't want your map either---I'd take some of your techs though.

 

[Steelsmith]

Even if your ally does very little to fight your common enemy -- or even nothing at all -- having allies in a war can still be very beneficial.

For one thing, your common enemy is likely to send units against all attackers, whereas without allies they would all be directed against you. If your ally is weak, then the enemy might be more likely to go that direction, leaving your homeland safer.

All trade ceases between warring civs, so if your ally had any agreements with your enemy, they're now broken. If your ally was supplying the enemy with important resources, your enemy is now much worse off.

These (now broken) trade agreements may also include open borders. When at war, the enemy can still go on your ally's land, but gets no benefit from roads or railroads, but you do. If your ally is between you and the enemy, this alone can be huge.

Even if the common enemy starts to gain ground against your ally, this can also be to your advantage in a diabolical way. I have had games where the enemy takes a city from my ally, then I take it from the enemy. That way you gain your allies' cities without them hating you for it.

Finally, the diplomatic repercussions can be very useful. Keeping the AI civs at odds is always in your favor. And, you get a positive diplomatic benefit to your replutation with your ally, since you joined together against a common enemy.

When I'm at war, I like to have as many allies as I can. The only exception here is if I think the ally has the military strength to take cities I want before I can snag them.

 

[Kolyana]

Wouldn't it be great if a CIV Game allowed you to declare with an ally and then CO-ORDINATE your attacks? Even in a simplified way - asking them to hit certains cities, resources, or even a section of the enemy country (north, south, middle, left ...) would help A LOT.

 

[The Last Conformist]

SMAC allowed you to suggest your AI ally to attack some specific city. Can't say it seemed to make a very great amount of difference to how the ally conducted its campaign, however.

 

[boneys26]

Wouldn't it be great if a CIV Game allowed you to declare with an ally and then CO-ORDINATE your attacks? Even in a simplified way - asking them to hit certains cities, resources, or even a section of the enemy country (north, south, middle, left ...) would help A LOT.

This is what i mean you only get to ask them to go for a city. Like i'm playing as the english allied with the americans (as i do every civilization game i've played on) and the civ i'm fighting is right in the middle of us both, I ask america to attack citys nearest them (some of them have resources some don't) but everytime it does nothing. It is weaker than us both too. I think the way it should be is that if your allied with someone then you should have to fight if asked not just say "we'll do our best" and then watch.

 

[Dogzilla]

I've noticed some Civs ask me to declare war on some enemy even though they are "annoyed" with me, and have done nothing for me the whole game. Are they just desperate?

 

[yatusk]

Yup, they are just desperate. The times I've said "yes" though I've always moved up 1 level in their opinion of me. Civs that are losing wars always try desperate measures (such as constantly agreeing to new peace treaties).

The losing Civ AI has been much improved---they'll do what is needed to stay alive---in fact, the losing Civ AI is better than the winning Civ AI---seems that way to me because I see a lot of one city Civs around that managed to survive (barely) wars with other AIs

 

[GinandTonic]

Use Allies acording to reasonable expectations of what they will do. Knocking out a few naval units when you have little or no navy is good. Pinning the units in one or two cities that otherwise might open up a second front is also good. Making sure you are not stabbed in the back is A1. If the "Ally" is next up against the wall making them exaust themselves against each other is priceless...

 

[Merzbow]

Wouldn't it be great if a CIV Game allowed you to declare with an ally and then CO-ORDINATE your attacks? Even in a simplified way - asking them to hit certains cities, resources, or even a section of the enemy country (north, south, middle, left ...) would help A LOT.

You CAN do this in Civ4, although it isn't documented. Get in on a mutual war, speak to your ally, choose 'Let's talk about something else', there will be an option for joint attack.

 

[Marcus_Aurelius]

I'm still mad at Ghandi because I paid him 3,000 gold to help me when that evil Isabella declared war on me. What did he do? Once the 10 turn (?) commitment was over he declared peace with her. He didn't do anything to help me, just took all my money. ...Serenity Now...

 

[Merzbow]

I'm still mad at Ghandi because I paid him 3,000 gold to help me when that evil Isabella declared war on me. What did he do? Once the 10 turn (?) commitment was over he declared peace with her. He didn't do anything to help me, just took all my money. ...Serenity Now...

Dude, he's freakin' GHANDI.

 

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Maybe I don't pay enough attention the the leader personalities, but he was the strongest civ, I was hoping he would at least distract her for a whille.

 

[Psyringe]

SMAC allowed you to suggest your AI ally to attack some specific city. Can't say it seemed to make a very great amount of difference to how the ally conducted its campaign, however.

You can do the same in Civ4. I didn't test it enough to find out whether it really makes a difference though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Is this TRUE, Merzbow?? Are you sure this isn't only in MP games. Don't get me wrong, I seriously hope and pray that you are right, because this would be BRILLIANT-though it still isn't the same as saying 'hey, can you attack city X, whilst I take out city Y. Unless that is whay co-ordination allows you to do!?)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Yzman]

Yes I was surprised that people in this topic hadn't seen it. When you are at war with someone in a single player game, just talk to you ally, say lets discuss something else, and tell them "why don't you attack..". They are very good at attacking what you say too, as long as they have the resources to do it. I literally controlled my allies(Rome) huge Stack of doom by just suggesting different targets.

 

[Merzbow]

You can plan a joint attack against a particular city using that interface.