Begging AI

[Landmonitor]

@r rolo1

re historical examples,

Yeah, but uniting against a common enemy doesn't mean that those countries are super buddy buddy with each other either. Maybe in the real life game of Civ IV going on right now, England and France today do still have a couple of negatives because of William the Conqueror, Napolean, the hundred years war, and all the rest of it. Also, lets not forget that the US and the USSR were "allies" (to use the term loosely) against Germany, but weren't too happy after WWII.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I've got no coplaint with the diplomacy system, but that's just me I guess. I'm glad it works as good as it does after playing Civ III. This is obviously difficult behaviour to get down in a program.

 

[r_rolo1]

@ Landmonitor

The problem is that Civ AI do not unite versus a common threat a lot , especially if the attacked AI is a long lasting Enemy. Human history is full of examples of rivals uniting efforts vs a common threat ( like you said yourself )..... how many times did you saw two rival AI uniting efforts against a common enemy if they were not forced into it?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I really think the game just wants to force you to choose sides. A game full of Switzerlands would be static and not much fun, wouldn't it?

 

[oranges]

Actually, the current system pushes more towards middle range. I usually end up with maybe one friendly, and one or two furious/annoyed, while the rest tend to be equally split between pleased and cautious. The system that would grant you a bonus when refusing to declare war/stop trade with a civ, would make it more diversified, especially when the positive bonus allows me to bribe a civ into a war. I hate it when they are pleased with me but we cannot negotiate that becuase they do not like me enough. How much do you need to like me, I'm giving you rifling and we are on good terms

 

[r_rolo1]

A game full of today Switzerlands would be boring, but a game that resembled Medieval Italy, with everyone backstabing everyone and forging/breaking alliances as the winds blow from one side or the other , would be cool.....

And the game does not try to force to choose sides, it tries to force the human to choose to who to bribe to war with techs and to butter to avoid a antihuman coalition ( because of the constant begging ). And that is not the same thing......

 

[Shadowhal]

I think we're all missing an important point here: humans have to give something in order to get ais to war for them or stop trading. ais on the other hand just demand without any compensation. I mean how often did it happen to you that an ai joined your war without any incentive? and if it did you were probably pawning so much that you wouldnt need it anyway.

in shot: yeah, I might stop trading or join their war, but not for free. everything has a price and I'm sick I have to pay when they don't. I may be wrong, but I think you can even offer your assistance. like "look, you're at war, you might need help. give me that tech and I will help you."

the other thing that is sorely needed imo is "give me a few turns before I declare war." maybe you're better players that I am and always prepared for war with that particular nation, but normally I would appreciate 2 - 3 turns to reposition my forces and prepare before I declare war. if I respond to a request I basically get thrown into it with no prep time.

 

[SLM]

Even more annnoying than the infernal AI requests of joining their war is them signing a peace treaty right after you agreed... If a player (human or AI) agrees to join a war then the side that requested assistance shouldn't be able to make peace for at least 10 - 20 years depending on game speed. Not with the UN, AP, not even with those silly random peacemaker events.

Anyway, I think Brhuic's idea is great. There should be a max+2 though (like with "You voted for us" I think)