Charlemagne = evil

[shyuhe]

Charlemagne declared on me at friendly... ouch.

Does anybody have the updated XML for BTS to see who will declare even at friendly? Or did they change the AI script so that it'll attack you regardless of mood if they perceive you're going to win the game? Any input is appreciated - thanks.

 

[mice]

Did he move to friendly from pleased any time recently? It could be that case where he planned it, then switched to friendly.

Sorry no I don't have any insight into the code but like you I'm waiting for this info.

Edit, was it with Solver's patch ?

 

[TheLastOne36]

gilgamesh did the same thing to me.

 

[Bhruic]

You've got to remember that all of the modifiers for attitude aren't included in the default modifier list. So while it might list that you have +10 with someone, that might not be accurate. For example, when you play on Noble or higher difficulty level, everyone gets an automatic -1 penalty with everyone else. Also, your position in the score list compared to their position in the score list may give you a penalty. And some AIs are just set up to dislike others (Xenophobic), while others are set up to like others. None of that shows in the attitude modifier list.

Not saying that's what happened here, but if you were close to the "Friendly" cutoff, you might not have actually had a "Friendly" ranking.

Bh

 

[Percy]

Good to know, thanks Bhruic.

 

[Welnic]

I believe all of that about the hidden modifiers, but isn't that then reflected in the attitude? I thought the hidden modifiers were why when you first meet Toku even though you might have a +1 for longtime peace he is usually annoyed. I think that the hidden modifiers change the point where someone becomes friendly, but if it says they are friendly then they actually are.

I would lean towards him making up his mind just before he became friendly.

 

[Bhruic]

Well, that I couldn't say. I modified my game to show all the hidden modifiers, so I haven't played without them in a long time. I think, however, from some of the screenshots that I've seen that at least the colour (ie, red/white/blue/green) of the attitude number matches the actual attitude. That is, you can have a -1 with someone and it will be red if the real attitude is -3 or less. But I don't know if it lists "Annoyed" under those circumstances. You could be right that it does.

Bh

 

[shyuhe]

I dug back through my autosaves. In the last save I found in which he didn't have enough on his hands, he was friendly with me (at +16). I think he's just willing to backstab at friendly... Now I rue not having crushed his empire 1000 years ago when I had a tech advantage on him!

 

[Carnage04]

I believe that the "Attitude" reflects the hidden modifiers. A lot of times you will see +1 "We like you for some reason" and nothing else listed...yet be at Cautious or annoyed.

I've had Civs with large globs of green print about all the reasons they supposedly like me...but they actually hated me.

 

[Kietharr]

The AI will attack if you are militarily too good of a target to pass up (weak army, low production) or if they are being choked, some of them even at friendly. I got attacked by Genghis today at friendly because he was about 2 eras behind me stuck on some tundra and I started spamming the culture corporations at him on the 18 civs earth map, I flipped like half of his empire before he finally declared on me though, still at friendly.

Even better was how Montezuma was 2nd place because he conquered most of the americas (vassaled Huyana in the andes/argentina and Roosevelt in Canada) and I managed to slip in a few cities in the rockies. Put the culture corporations in and started flipping, got all of the west coast and most of the great plains, started making my way into Mexico with the culture before I won cultural and he didn't declare on me even though I was just using longbows as garrisons.

 

[Baldas]

Charlemagne declared on me at friendly... ouch.

Does anybody have the updated XML for BTS to see who will declare even at friendly? Or did they change the AI script so that it'll attack you regardless of mood if they perceive you're going to win the game? Any input is appreciated - thanks.

This isn't exactly what you're asking for, but it may help.

The BtS reference sheets have an "aggression level" rating for the different leaders. Charlemagne is listed as "high" but some are "very high" (e.g. Alexander).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236346

It's also an extremely useful reference for other things. Apologies if you have seen it and already know this.

 

[shyuhe]

Thanks Kietharr and Baldas. I think that pretty much answers why he declared on me since I was culturally attacking his cities (without a very large military in stock). I'll have to keep that in mind for my next game.

 

[aelf]

IMO, this shouldn't be happening. Were you playing on Aggressive AI? I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't, and I don't like it at all.

 

[Percy]

Sometimes, the player will attack an AI he's Friendly with, suddenly, without any other reasons than to win the game. Why shouldn't the AI do the same?

 

[aelf]

Sometimes, the player will attack an AI he's Friendly with, suddenly, without any other reasons than to win the game. Why shouldn't the AI do the same?

Nope. It isn't so simple.

I have actually gone through this a lot of times. Let me just summarise it here. The game has a diplomatic system that ultimately means nothing, am I right? I mean, players certainly don't care about having the same religion as the AI, so why should the AI care? Now you see where this is going?

Furthermore, this locks you into a strategy of building lots of units to ensure your security. If you can't trust your friend on one side and want to fight your adversary on the other, you'd be forced to build sufficient garrison to guard against backstabbing and build units to attack your enemy. This results in a large number of units, which many players find tedious to manage. And an idle army is generally agreed to be a drain on resources, especially as it waits for an attack that may never come. So, ultimately, you might probably want to use it as much as possible, turning it into a game of war, war, war.

I prefer more flexibility in gameplay, and therefore the diplomatic rules must be obeyed by the AI as much as possible.

 

[SevenSpirits]

Sometimes, the player will attack an AI he's Friendly with, suddenly, without any other reasons than to win the game. Why shouldn't the AI do the same?

You mean when the AI is friendly with the player. That's different.

The player's attitude is not represented in-game.

 

[Ankh]

I like the fact that some AI can attack you when friendly it adds tension and some paranoia to the game and that you're never 100% safe it also makes the game alot harder. But the AI have to respect diplomacy as well, it whould be boring if the AI always neglected diplomacy and just tries to win the game. But I find the occasional backstabbing fun.

I find playing with randomised personalities helps alot here so not every AI act the same game after game. Then you never know when an attack will come . Because if you have gengis/monty as a neighbour you know a war is imminent even if they are pleased/friendly so you can start building your military right away for sooner or later he will come for you.

Guess this is a personal reference some players want to be safe from backstabbing and hates it when it happens while some loves the tension it gives.

 

[Percy]

The player's attitude is not represented in-game.

I'll take that to answer alef's post as well.
Precisely. Your attitude towards the AI is not represented, so the AI cannot defend itself against your "backstabbing" (because never attacking for 4000 years, caving in demands, trading a lot, having open borders IS in fact being Friendly...). I am not shocked that it sometimes happen the other way around. As long as the atttude still means something, of course. But Friendly shouldn't be a perfect insurance. If you leave all your cities undefended and the AI needs to win, then it should attack.

Or it shouldn't, if we think of the AI as a part of the game, and not a competitor, which is fine. But then people (not necessarily the two i'm responding to) should not ask for a more challenging AI =)

 

[slobberinbear]

I have not delved into the XML files and could be wrong here, but ...

What about the relative power rating?

If your neighbor is friendly but has a power rating substantially higher than yours, his opportunistic streak is going to kick in at some point. You can be Mr. Friendly all game, happily building and teching, but if your neighbor's got maces and you've got an archer parked in each city, it's just a matter of time before you get the DoW.

 

[alex sword]

I did take a look in XMLs. Average militancy of Mr.Charlemagne is average. This one is not Mr.Gandie, but not Mr.Montezuma or Mr.Gilgamesh - or what his name is, I don't remember? I'm 99.99% sure your military was so weak that even stupid AI decides you are a easy prey. That's all.