Civ IV Diplomacy - AI relations and demands

[Sydney Posada]

It seems like whenever I look at the Foreign Relations windows, I never see one of those modifiers that indicate the AI demands things from other AIs.

Like no "You refused to help us!" which means they don't demand tribute from other AIs. Or maybe the other civ always gives in?

Also, I don't think I've ever seen "You refused to help us in our military struggle" between AIs. Do they not DEMAND other AI civs join in on their silly wars?

If so, that's kind of crummy. Why do they force the player to declare war against another civ, at pain of a negative diplo modifier, if they don't force other AIs to do so?

Also, why don't the AIs ever bribe the player to participate in wars? That's what players have to do, if we want to get one of them to come fight. Instead they always DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND! If they gave me Metal Casting in return for wiping out the heathen Babylonians, I'd be much more willing to lend an axe to their cause. I can understand that it may be abusable to some degree, but what they can do is just lower the amount they're willing to offer vs. the amount they need to do it if the player asks.

Like: the player needs to give up Metal Casting in order to bribe A against B.
However: If A is trying to bribe the player against B, the most they will offer is, say, 200 gold.

Would cut down on abuse (i.e. players agreeing to war for a free tech with no plans on fighting), and reduce that ever-present feeling that the AI plays a completely different game than you do.

 

[roguepro92]

it does suck when the AI asks you to go into war agianst your friend, when that AI who asked is your friend and those two AI's got you in a sandwich xD

it does seem buggy but its better than other way around cuz then people will join wars for free tech and like you said, do nothing but make peace after the time is up...

i rather they have advantage than we have abuse able hand up

 

[Sydney Posada]

it does suck when the AI asks you to go into war agianst your friend, when that AI who asked is your friend and those two AI's got you in a sandwich xD

it does seem buggy but its better than other way around cuz then people will join wars for free tech and like you said, do nothing but make peace after the time is up...

i rather they have advantage than we have abuse able hand up

I wouldn't mind it if the AI did it to each other, as well, but they never seem to! No AI civ ever seems to receive that penalties for refusing trade and war demands with any other AI civ, so the player always gets way more opportunities to get negative diplo modifiers. That's one aspect of the game that I really wish was more of a level playing field; I don't care that the AI gets production, research, and maintenance bonuses at high levels, but the diplomatic inequality annoys me.

 

[m4gill4]

Like: the player needs to give up Metal Casting in order to bribe A against B.
However: If A is trying to bribe the player against B, the most they will offer is, say, 200 gold.

I've never even been offered gold! Just demands. I have never seen any evidence to see that AI treats other AI like it treats the player. I agree that this is unfair discriminatory practices against human players! I emailed the Justice Department but until I hear back I think I'll go kick my toaster out of revenge!

 

[Sydney Posada]

I've never even been offered gold! Just demands. I have never seen any evidence to see that AI treats other AI like it treats the player. I agree that this is unfair discriminatory practices against human players! I emailed the Justice Department but until I hear back I think I'll go kick my toaster out of revenge!

Frakkin' toasters!

And no, I've never been offered gold either. I was just trying to imagine an alternate system in which they offer something - ANYTHING - to get you to go to war, instead of bullying you all the time.

I think we should file a class-action lawsuit.

 

[Wreck]

One thing the AIs do hold against each other is "you were spying on us" demerits. This makes it easier to win via diplomacy than it really ought to be. Get a nice religion bear-hug going on, maybe instigate a nice war against some pathetic out-religion AI to rack up the +shared struggle bennies. Trade techs liberally. Trade them resources long-term to get that additional +1 or +2. Then go for the AP (or UN if you think AP is too cheesy), and wait for the AIs to degrade relations with each other via their spies.

 

[David7]

Wouldn't the AI know if the other AIs would accept or not, and therefore only ask when they know they will get what they wanted?

Bribing humans to join wars wouldn't really work well, since there's no way to draw a bright distinction between actually fighting and only pretending to for diplomacy bonuses.

 

[Silu]

This works both ways. The AI cannot negotiate a trade embargo against you (or heck, even cancel OBs in BtS), you can negotiate them against AIs. Just how things works.

 

[Semmel]

Intelligently, it would work if the diplomatic bonus becomes a penalty if the player does not participate in the war. Say.. the player doesnt send any units, or maybe better: his counters "unit kills" + "unit lost" < 0.1 * ("unit count player" + "unit count enemy") .. in other words: if the total number of killed units is less than 10 % of the mutual number of units.
So the briber AI can really easy see if there is some war going on for its techs. And if not, the player gets diplomatic penelty from the briber and all friends of the briber because everyone knows that the player is not trustworthy. It could be very easy, still.. its not in Civ.. at least not in Civ4 (hint hint.. wave wave..)

 

[Quothz]

Intelligently, it would work if the diplomatic bonus becomes a penalty if the player does not participate in the war.

Sure, that's the ideal. But then the AI would also have to be able to evaluate whether a war request is plausible and not ask for help against, for example, an unreachable opponent. Otherwise it would be even more difficult to make and keep friends.

Mind you, it should do that anyway--I think a good rule of thumb would be to ask for war only with a civ with which you would have trade routes when at peace.
There's a couple of cases I can think of that would break that, but unless I'm missing something they'd be unusual (for example, a landlocked civ trading by river-> coast to a civ that's island-bound or blocked by mountains).

Another alternative, prolly best in tandem, would be for the ally to credit you with helping if you give them some threshold of military units, something like power equal to one unit per city of the type that would be produced by drafting.

 

[Sync]

Though it's annoying that AI's don't badger each other to join wars/cancel deals, it is kind of countered by the whole warmonger respect thing. At least the human player starts on neutral ground with all the AI, the likes of Gandhi have to have a +7 diplo bonus with Shaka for them to be considered 'cautious'.

 

[Thor7]

I think the AI does bribe each other into war, maybe they don't trade techs or gold to do so, but haven't you been dog piled on before but 3+ AI at once? You're telling me one makes the decision to go to war and the other two just fall in behind? I'm pretty sure one of them is asking the others to join him. Just happened to me in my last game where mao, hannibal and justinian all dow'd me the same turn.

 

[Sydney Posada]

I think the AI does bribe each other into war, maybe they don't trade techs or gold to do so, but haven't you been dog piled on before but 3+ AI at once? You're telling me one makes the decision to go to war and the other two just fall in behind? I'm pretty sure one of them is asking the others to join him. Just happened to me in my last game where mao, hannibal and justinian all dow'd me the same turn.

Oh of course they do bribe other AIs to war. It's just that the diplomatic penalty for *refusing* to go to war never shows up. If the player refuses, it's a permanent -1 hit to our diplo with that civ. Other AIs never get that penalty.

 

[lasombra1984]

I've noticed that many AIs become Pleased with Warmongers while "+1 years of peace strengthened our relationship"... AIs smarter that we think))) Hatshepsut is likeky to be Pleased with Shaka simply for not DoWing her)))
Most annoying, and the same time vulnerable AI is Montezuma who has all negative traits - he is zealot, DoWer & backstabber. Usually he becomes awl in the ass for everyone with religion penalty & DoWing somebody.

I think that players ability to bribe much more valuable that AIs demanding

 

[DooMeeR]

Even if you don't actually send units when a civ demands help, it does not mean that you are useless. First of all, it ensures you won't be able to help the attacked civ. The attacked civ may also send units against you, making it easier for the demanding civ to attack. Finally, the attacking civ makes a long-term enemy by declaring war; by making you declare too, it ensures you will also be a long-term enemy of the attacked civ. One less trading partner for you means more trades for this attacking civ.

So basically, war is not just about attacking, and I don't think negative diplo for absence of war "activity" is required. It would be very hard to balance it anyway.

 

[David7]

Intelligently, it would work if the diplomatic bonus becomes a penalty if the player does not participate in the war. Say.. the player doesnt send any units, or maybe better: his counters "unit kills" + "unit lost" < 0.1 * ("unit count player" + "unit count enemy") .. in other words: if the total number of killed units is less than 10 % of the mutual number of units.
So the briber AI can really easy see if there is some war going on for its techs. And if not, the player gets diplomatic penelty from the briber and all friends of the briber because everyone knows that the player is not trustworthy. It could be very easy, still.. its not in Civ.. at least not in Civ4 (hint hint.. wave wave..)

For that equation thing, couldn't you still pretty much fake a battle by like sending 20 cavemen/warriors to die? Or explorers later on? Although I might have just misunderstood the equation.

Also, if you're in say World War 3, it might be hard to get 10%, but if you are joining a 1 vs 1 battle, getting that far would be fairly trivial. So it would probably have to scale somehow based on opponents and everyone's general size, and all of that seems like it might take a while IMO.

 

[lasombra1984]

Even if you don't actually send units when a civ demands help, it does not mean that you are useless. First of all, it ensures you won't be able to help the attacked civ. The attacked civ may also send units against you, making it easier for the demanding civ to attack. Finally, the attacking civ makes a long-term enemy by declaring war; by making you declare too, it ensures you will also be a long-term enemy of the attacked civ. One less trading partner for you means more trades for this attacking civ.

So basically, war is not just about attacking, and I don't think negative diplo for absence of war "activity" is required. It would be very hard to balance it anyway.

I have an experience when one civ asked me to join war with them and made peace next turn with that enemy just to DoW me (I've done such dirty tricks too.. Bribed one warmonger to attack other just to backstab him 5 turns later)