1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Any way to ensure an AI won't declare war on you?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by fmlizard2, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. BaconForDessert

    BaconForDessert Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    New York
    In real life, the goal of the state is continuation of the nation-state. That's a necessary component of Civ, but not the only goal.
     
  2. BaconForDessert

    BaconForDessert Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    New York
    There are plenty of situations where spending gold on something else is more appropriate than RAs. Buying units and city-states are the most common cases where I'm cash strapped and turn down RAs, even if they're an even exchange.

    There's a fair bit of convergence in doing RAs with less advanced civs because they're more likely to see more immediate returns on the RA (though they get fewer beakers, they're purchasing cheaper techs to build cheaper buildings and units).

    RAs are good for keeping parity with another civ developing during the earlier and middle periods of the game, especially if you plan to absorb that civ. But I definitely view them as more situational than outright positive.
     
  3. qemist

    qemist Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    That may be so but it isn't what I was commenting on. Backward civs should hardly ever hurt you so avoiding RAs with them on account of their backwardness is muddle-headed. In general humans benefit more RAs than do AIs because they work the tech tree better. The only time an RA could hurt the human player would be if the AI was already ahead technologically. eg Infantry for Fission may not be worth it.

    Mmmm kay. Real world development economics has precious little relevance to civ5.

    I think the consensus of strong players is the opposite: RAs are more beneficial in the late game as techs get expensive. In the early game rushing units and buying CS may be a better use of the money, and fewer RA partners are available anyway.
     
  4. The Pilgrim

    The Pilgrim Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    Virtual reality
    And as I stated above, I don't think binary outcome is appropriate with many agents involved and complicated structure. It's not tic-tac-toe. Civ does try to simulate reality to the certain extent, so not being destroyed should be priority. And it is for human player. On higher difficulties you have no idea whether you can win or not until at least middle game. At the beginning all you do is trying to survive. AI, on the other hand, doesn't analyze the risks correctly at any stage and commits suicide attacks from the beginning. Of course, the chances are better early on, so we complain less about that. But it's still dysfunctional. Rationality cannot be dictated by 0/1 outcome. It simply doesn't work. And hence there is consensus about current 'rationality' being bad.


    Right now it doesn't feel like a goal at all.
     
  5. The Pilgrim

    The Pilgrim Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    Virtual reality
    @BaconForDessert:

    Moreover AI pretty much ignores Rationalism. With PT and Rationalism human player will gain significantly more than AI. And each new RA increases the output of future RA's since the faster you move through the tree the quicker you get an access to more expensive techs to be processed by them. Higher median = higher :c5science: output.

    In the late game it's all about RA's and GS's. They are main science source. And avoiding RA's with weaker civs is indeed a waste. Not only because of their backwardness they cannot hurt you but also because there is smaller (not much but still...) chance they would actually try to do so and break RA.
     
  6. TPQ

    TPQ Cogito Ergo Civ

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    UK
    Agree with you. I want fun from the AI, not human, game-playing emulation.

    It's very frustrating that the AI tries to act like a human player, but can't play anywhere near as well as a human tactically. It's got all the acting talent, with none of the tactical skill. It's not even that hot strategically.

    It becomes very predictable and a bit of a chore to yet again be declared war upon by puny Civs who even acknowledge their own weakness in their declarations...

    I can understand a powerful Civ attacking, that makes sense, but why all these suicide attacks by weak, backward Civs? Even with a powerful Civ, the tactical AI usually just ends up squandering it's military on fruitless assaults. The AI needs massively overwhelming numbers to pose a significant threat and even then an average sized military in the hands of a human player is usually good enough to hold the AIs back.

    It's obvious that the devs will never make Civ5 AIs anywhere near as competent as humans, so why not just try to make the AIs more fun instead and leave the human-like behavior for humans in multiplayer...?
     
  7. BaconForDessert

    BaconForDessert Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    New York
    It's true that human players have the advantage of working the tech tree better, but we also have the advantage of developing our infrastructure better. Hence, unless you're on deity or immortal, you should be able to out-science them with endogenous beaker production.

    Development econ has important conceptual lessons for civ. Technologically backward civs will still DOW you and pose threats, even if not existential.

    Even though they may receive fewer beakers, they're purchasing cheaper techs that unlock cheaper buildings and units. Accordingly, it'll take fewer turns for them to reap the material benefits of the new tech; whereas it'll take you more additional turns of research and more turns of production/more gold to see any benefit from an RA'ed tech. Again, this is why RAs are more situational.


    From lurking here and my own experience, I assumed that bulbing techs with great scientists was the preferred way to clear the end of the tech tree. You're right in that many times buying a cultural CS or more units is a better use of the RA money, but RAs can be more beneficial earlier in the game since the advantages of being technically advanced compound over time (ex. getting to fertilizer before others will give you an extra X turns of population growth over them, leading to relative gains of extra science, gold, culture, and production).

    I'm not saying that RAs are a total waste or anything. But, like all things in civ, you should be strategic about how you use them and balance them with the other goals of your empire and your tools for achieving them. RAs will help everyone clear the tech tree faster, but may erode your lead. If you're going for a scientific or diplomatic win, it's irrelevant because you can probably outproduce/outspend the AIs anyway. But, if you're going for a domination win, it might slow you down.
     
  8. The Pilgrim

    The Pilgrim Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    Virtual reality
    BaconForDessert, in early game money 'worth' more since your income is much smaller. So in addition to modest :c5science: gain RA's are actually very pricey at the beginning. And almost free towards the end. Not a problem if you have spare coins but usually if you do it means you don't play wisely. :)

    I would suggest you to try this out once. Hold back with RA's before you get Rationalism + PT and start spamming as many as you can afterwards. You'll see the difference.
     
  9. BaconForDessert

    BaconForDessert Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    New York
    Sure, I will once the latest patches come out for OSX.
     
  10. Kevin Nash

    Kevin Nash Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    21
    I realize it's probably only applicable to lower difficulty levels, but I play Prince difficulty and usually can avoid most wars by simply having a better military than the other Civs. They certainly might not like me all that much, but usually they won't DOW. The crazy one's do occasionally and I just obliterate their invading force and then sign a peace treaty and take all their gold in the process.

    If I play on island maps I can usually easily avoid all war entirely. If you don't share borders with the other civs they usually leave you alone.
     
  11. lilnev

    lilnev King

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    Avoiding wars (the original topic):

    If you sit down to play poker, and you can't figure out who the chump is at the table, you're the chump.

    Most AIs will declare with some regularity throughout the game. That doesn't have to mean they'll declare on you. Learn to read the diplo situation -- who is the most likely target for each AI? Usually proximity is the dominant factor, followed by military weakness, then other offenses/bonuses (e.g. competing for CSs, shared opponents and denouncements, etc). Then, learn to manipulate the diplo situation. DoFs can be good, especially if you can get a triangle or quadrilateral block for shared DoF bonuses. Bribing AIs into war can be even better. If you recognize that you are a likely target for one of your neighbors, you have choices: build up your military and prepare for war; attempt a DoF, and they'll likely look elsewhere; bribe them to attack someone else; bribe someone else to attack them. And once you figure out who the chump is, work to get them dog-piled, then pile on yourself for the shared enemy diplo bonuses. Rinse, and start setting up the next chump.

    The hardest time is the very early game on high difficulties -- you don't have a lot of leverage, in terms of production for units or cash for bribes, and the AIs start out with such dominant advantages. And if you're winning in the very late game, things will break down with desperation DoWs, though you can postpone that with good DoFs and diplo. If your position is that dominant, a late DoW shouldn't be very threatening anyway.
     
  12. tommynt

    tommynt Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    oh dear, some1 REALLY thinks ai d be that clever?

    AI and espacially diplo is programmed VERY slim and poorly, it follows strict pattern.
    Its trading is TOTALY independent from its DOWs - only thing which maters for trades is your status towards you - NOTHING ELSE.
    Dows follow also very strict and easy pattern, as allready said multiple times you being in lead/winning = DOW (on higher lvls more). AI having strong military and no1 else to attack = DOW. Both totaly indeendant from your status towards the ai.
     
  13. Cpt. Calavera

    Cpt. Calavera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Brazil
    Right now I'm sharing the continent with Kahn and we both have the biggest armies and the greates amount of land in the game. He hates the hell out of me since the beginning and still he haven't DoWed me. I think having a big and advanced army is the best way to keep peace, at least it's working so far.
     
  14. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    I am guessing you didn't read the thread. Two points have been made:

    1. Good luck with that on Diety.
    2. Near victory condition = war
     
  15. Cpt. Calavera

    Cpt. Calavera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Brazil
    Yeah I know that. We will eventually go to war I just don't wanna be the one to DoW cause it'll hve a bad impact on my reputation with the other civs. Right now we are fighting a cold war, showing off our great powerful units waiting eagerly for the other to make a wrong move and unleash hell. :devil:
     
  16. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    Which is exactly what the game becomes, a domination victory.

    Most games come down picking a victory based on how much time it will take you in real life.

    Domination usually turns out to be pretty quick if you are on Pangea. You have probably wiped out one civ if not two and the others have probably killed one to two more. Go attack/nuke the capitals and watch the replay.

    Science is easy because you mostly just have to sit and click next turn and wait for the AI to move a stupid number of units back and forth. Takes a while for all those turns while you go way deep into the tech tree.

    Culture is the one victory you have to actually plan for. Really risky and probably impossible on Diety without being able to also win a domination victory or playing some weird map/settings.
     
  17. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I don't think we have Diety players here complaing there's too many wars. There's been always war variants with high level civ play since time immemorial, and well, CivAI with lots of military has always tended to be more agressive. Diety play relies heavily on exploit(ing) AI weakness, special map types to limit AI power etc. etc.

    More generally, on the point of war the biggest change from Civ4 is that having active friendship treaties does not prevent DoW.

    Incidentally, having active trades does help the arithmitic, because it's not simply an empty promise, the AI is getting something concrete from a trade. It's not fool proof, but some (the less agressive ones) AI will wait until a deal expires to declare. A good idea is to resign deals the turn it expires and not let it lapse.

    Also, I keep hearing Alexander/Isabella mentioned, infact, OP mentioned those 2 Civs. There's a few more. Those Cvis are warmongers, Alexander in particular almost always cleans the floor in his corner and will be a challenger as top dog, and are useful friends selectively and or if they are far away. I for example, will always butt heads with Alex; Bismarck to name a few.

    The issue here is that people assume having Alex as your neighbour and trusting them is a good idea. The Civ flavours in Civ5 is far more consistent.
    One change from Civ4. Civs are no longer generic AI playing generic game with an RNG roll applied on how often they declare war. Warmongers will get more easily offended by almost everything you do, and will thus pull the trigger 'rationally' more often.

    The last thing you also need to watch out for is to the scheming between AI, and or the AI and you against someone. Global politics is now an active arena, rather than set-piece of vassals/relgion controlled by the human player.
     
  18. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    I don't know what level you are playing on but the best part is you are able to have fun on it.

    In a lot of ways I would like more character variation in the gameplay. I think CIV IV had this aspect more well developed. It made the game more fun.

    Opinion of course but the game should be played with a first, second, third place approach not a winner takes all. If there were cash prizes for the top three finishers in a human game you can bet the second place person will try for first if he sees a chance. If not though he isn't going to suicide his empire and maybe take 5th place. Those in 4th and below will for sure risk everything because they have little to lose and a lot to gain. I think this would be more fun. You could even have a ranking at the end saying you were 1 of the 3 superpowers! The person who obtained the victory condition would have their score + the score of the highest player in the game. The second and third would have a super power score based on % of their score to the winners.

    Just seems like it is more fun when the whole game isn't about suiciding your entire empire in a last ditch attempt to win. End game world then looks like fallout and decimated empires.
     
  19. Cpt. Calavera

    Cpt. Calavera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Brazil
    I see where you're coming from and I agree entirely. Even tho I still haven't made it to the late game I can see how frustrating it can be when all the weak AIs throw their armies at you like waves hitting the rock.

    I'm playing on prince difficulty btw.
     
  20. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    This doesn't happen. People are either exageratting or not telling the whole story about their own games where they make general claims about weak AI's being mindlessly agressive.

    If you're on good terms(didn't backstab, gain too big a warmonger penalty) weaker AI will let you win just like any Civ game.
     

Share This Page