Another gem from the AI

[Creepy Old Man]

Wu calls me up, with the announcement that "I can't help but notice your relationship with Brussels. While that's nice, it's best that you leave their protection to us."

Umm... Siam conquered Brussels four turns ago...

 

[Danei]

Heh, the other day a civ (I forget who) got mad at me and gave me a "Clearly your word means nothing, as your aggression against Egypt shows!"

...I was Egypt.

 

[Roxlimn]

Creepy Old Man:

It's not human, Creepy Old Man. There isn't a Wu player somewhere that's been sucked into the code to play with you. It's AI. This necessarily means that it has a limited feedback or alert script, particularly when those alerts or feedbacks are animated as much as they are.

The Wu AI called in to give you feedback that your past interference with Brussels has worsened your relationship with her. Consistent with other player complaints, I assume that you ignored this feedback?

 

[-=Yin=-]

Wu calls me up, with the announcement that "I can't help but notice your relationship with Brussels. While that's nice, it's best that you leave their protection to us."

Umm... Siam conquered Brussels four turns ago...

Somebody needs to tell Wu that they are doing a pretty lousy job of protecting Brussels!

 

[Jharii]

Perfect opportunity to liberate them from that little weasel Rammy and score big Brussels points and then tell Wu to stick that in her fortune cookie.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Creepy Old Man:

It's not human, Creepy Old Man. There isn't a Wu player somewhere that's been sucked into the code to play with you. It's AI. This necessarily means that it has a limited feedback or alert script, particularly when those alerts or feedbacks are animated as much as they are.

The Wu AI called in to give you feedback that your past interference with Brussels has worsened your relationship with her. Consistent with other player complaints, I assume that you ignored this feedback?

As opposed to doing precisely what about it? If he conquered and liberated it the AI that you're defending would call him a bloodthirsty tyrant. And so would the city-state itself.

 

[Roxlimn]

ohioastronomy:

He could have NOT befriended the CS in question. That was an option, right? After the feedback, he could have gifted Wu some luxuries to improve relations. That's an option, too right?

Liberating the CS is so not good, I can't imagine how you would think that would be better. Apart from setting off the Wu's "He's an aggressor" trigger, you're also triggering interference penalties. Again. This is probably why you can't maintain good AI relations.

 

[sleepingbear]

ohioastronomy:

He could have NOT befriended the CS in question. That was an option, right? After the feedback, he could have gifted Wu some luxuries to improve relations. That's an option, too right?

Or just DoW'd and taken all her fortune cookies. I really don't try too hard to stay on the good side of the AI's, as they are so inept at war that if they do declare war you are likely to end up getting attacked 20 turns later by a scout and 3 archers.

 

[dmieluk]

Creepy Old Man:
The Wu AI called in to give you feedback that your past interference with Brussels has worsened your relationship with her. Consistent with other player complaints, I assume that you ignored this feedback?

You are defending the coding of the AI here? This is a classic example of poorly coded AI. It's not hard to check before the feedback, as to whether the complaint is still current and valid.

I keep getting this message from the AI. It was funny the first time. And yes, as you have guessed, I was playing as Napoleon. I can't explain why the AI gives this feedback.

 

[sleepingbear]

ohioastronomy:
Liberating the CS is so not good, I can't imagine how you would think that would be better. Apart from setting off the Wu's "He's an aggressor" trigger, you're also triggering interference penalties. Again. This is probably why you can't maintain good AI relations.

Liberating a CS is nearly always a good idea in book. As you get a free ally CS which usually lasts 60-100 turns. Giving you more resources, more culture/food, and a fast way to move units from your backfield to the front (gift them to the CS). Whenever I ended up at war with an AI bee-lining any conquered CS's is always my first goal.

 

[ohioastronomy]

ohioastronomy:

He could have NOT befriended the CS in question. That was an option, right? After the feedback, he could have gifted Wu some luxuries to improve relations. That's an option, too right?

Liberating the CS is so not good, I can't imagine how you would think that would be better. Apart from setting off the Wu's "He's an aggressor" trigger, you're also triggering interference penalties. Again. This is probably why you can't maintain good AI relations.

Is there anything in this game that is so ridiculous that you won't defend it?

 

[Roxlimn]

If your point is to wage war and conquer everything, then liberating the CS without regard for the Wu AI's scripting is generally a good idea. However, if you ignore that kind of thing, you shouldn't be surprised if relations are bad.

You are defending the coding of the AI here? This is a classic example of poorly coded AI. It's not hard to check before the feedback, as to whether the complaint is still current and valid.

I have not had a script feedback that pertains to lost CSs. It is probably not even coded in the game's animations. The only way for the AI to provide this feedback is through that animation. Otherwise, we would get no feedback at all.

I keep getting this message from the AI. It was funny the first time. And yes, as you have guessed, I was playing as Napoleon. I can't explain why the AI gives this feedback.

That is clearly a bug in the code, especially if it's repeating. It bears mentioning so it can be fixed. I haven't come across this particular bug.

Is there anything in this game that is so ridiculous that you won't defend it?

Make your point, preferably without attacking my persona. That is a logical fallacy, and I believe it's against CFC rules.

 

[Valdyr]

If they would just fix the problems with AI triggering hostile responses at inappropriate times (calling you a warmonger when someone declares on you and you take one of their cities; hating you when you liberate them and give them their old cities back; telling you to stay away from their borders and move your troops after THEY trudge halfway across the map to plop a settler down at the edge of your lands) things would be so much better. How hard would these fixes be to implement?

Edit: I keep thinking of Europa Universalis III, which was a much simpler game, but had better (no, not perfect, but better) diplomatic AI. There were specific acts (for instance, someone attacking a nation you publicly pledged to protect) that would give you a justification for declaring war, without being penalized. You could also use espionage and dirty political tricks to manufacture a casus belli, which would make you look bad in the eyes of other nations if you got caught doing it.

And the AI treated you differently based on how much of a warmonger you were, which was determined pretty realistically how greedy and vicious you were, not just a flat penalty every time you take a territory for any reason. You got higher "bad boy" points for declaring unjust wars, annexing a lot of territory and assuming direct control vs. setting up a puppet government, etc. and it was all pretty easy to understand. It would add up REALLY quick if you were a huge jerk and just tried to steamroll everyone--you had to take it slow and smart if you didn't want all the major world powers deciding you're a threat and uniting to take you down. You'd also be seen as a huge traitor if you declared war on a country you had good relations with. I wish we had something like that in Civ 5.