Culture vs warmongering

[Vasil]

Hi

I wonder whether someone has the same issue like me - like two games in a row where I start with the intention to be doing culture mainly I end up warmongering.

Why ... here how it goes on King difficulty:

Ok I start with France (culture baby!) and expand to 3 cities + semi descent army. Army is: a scout, 2 warriors, 2 spearman, 2 war chariots and 1 catapult - last 3 were gifts from friendly military CS.
AI north of me (Spain) decides that I'm too weak and declares war.
I immediately buy walls at my border city. This + a catapult in the city + some smart hit and move with the war chariots + some counters with the spearman and I can annihilate any army that the AI throws at me.

Now comes the stupid moment - 90% of the AI army is dead and it still won't give up. I have to actually threaten one of its cities to make it accept peace.
Well I do that and with some casualties I puppet 2 cities and hurray - peace at last and culture pumping again ... or not ...

... now the AI from the south (Germany) decides that I'm again too weak and declares second war (meanwhile I'm on longswordsman + knights). This time it won't submit until its capitol is actually threatened. Well there were two very nice wonders inside so I annex the capitol and then make peace ... and Spain attacks again.

Stupid ... actually stupid squared ...
After two such wars (all ended up in the industrial age) I actually annihilated both Spain and Germany (left them one city just for fun).

Now a third stupid AI (Russia) from the other continent declares was because I'm a warmonger. They will also miserably fail but will make me destroy them too.

In general - WTH ... is the AI so stupid that it can't evaluate that I'm not weak enough to defend myself or is defense just too easy?

 

[Naokaukodem]

LOL This example is just another reason that makes me not playing the game. This game is just plain stupid. You were lucky to play on easy because on higher difficulty levels it could have been another story.

That makes me think that the AI acts independently of the difficulty level. A weak AI in a low diff.level will do as if it was in higher diff. levels, it is to say - well, agress you.

I have nothing against the AI playing to win, it was even a wish of mines before the release of the game, I thought it could really be fun to play a more human AI.

The problem is, it is just not like you play against human, because all AIs gangs up against you everytime, and in higher diff.levels that does not forgive.

It is not like that in FFAs with humans. Not all gang up against me. Sometimes it can happen that i'm in the middle of the map, and am attacked by two and maybe 3 opponents at the same time. But that's far to be a rule.

Most of the time, in FFAs, as the title of the game says it (FFA = Free For All), each player plays for himself. There can be alliances, but it's not all vs one, except in rare cases where one player dominates all the others and everyone ally against him. That happened to me sometimes, my score was so high in Civ4 that all other players, when they were aware enough, allied agasint me, which felt a bit unfair but not that much, as i generally beat them down anyway, what is very fun.

But in Civ5 single player, AIs gang up on you not because you are really dominating, but because you are the player, even if you are far from a dominating position. That's broken.

You will say: "then play multiplayer". Oh sure why not, but sometimes i want to play against the machine, just in order to beat it in a quiet game, what's the point if all AIs gang up on me?

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I get the same on King level too (France and Iroquois). I wonder about the AI's force evaluation? Is it just assessing other civs on the basis of units it can see? Besides garrisons, I usually keep a mobile ready force back of the lines - it may not even be aware of that.

It could be argued that the AI might as well attack because it hasn't much of a hope of beating your culture/science as France. But it might stand a chance if it went on a conquering spree against the non-human civs instead, starting with its weakest neighbour (if it could identify which that were, that is) - it has a happiness advantage on King and should be able to make a good fist of running a big empire.

But, of course if that were the case, no clear winner may emerge and the human just gets to watch the AIs beating up on each other while quietly finishing a culture/science win.

You just couldn't be so complacent in Civ4, whatever one thinks about SoDs, the AI had to think ahead a little to put them together, and then they'd turn up in quite unexpected places. (Genghis always seems to start his off really early and send them 'the wrong way' round the map. A master of surprise until you know that's likely what he's doing every time...)

 

[sschmalz]

Culture victories are actually pretty easy. Don't build more than 2 cities, and when you have to fight in a war, never ever annex or puppet an enemy city no matter how enticing their tiles are. Raze everything in sight.

 

[Kerosene31]

Did your military advisor tell you that your army was stronger?

Were you the leading civ in score? If you are the frontrunner, the AI will gang up on you (even at their own peril).

 

[snarzberry]

If you have a larger empire than the AI, have expanded in their direction, are out teching them etc then they see you as a threat and are more likely to be hostile. An effect of this is that on high levels in the early game it's much easier to stay under the radar for a peaceful culture win as your score, tech rate will be much lower than the AI's. In that case your main danger is being too weak and getting attacked by someone after your lands. But by monitoring the AI's disposition towards you it's pretty easy to see when this is about to happen and to then avoid it by sicking the Civ that's looking to pick a fight on to someone else.

On King level with the army you described there's very little chance that the AI attacked you because you were too weak, rather they went into hostile mode because you were doing well. You could try paying attention to the civs around you and trying to manipulate them into being aggressive elsewhere. I know it's an often heard suggestion but I really think you'd enjoy playing this type of game on at least emp and maybe imm.

 

[Vasil]

Thank you all for the comments!

Well with the described army I'm not a danger to anyone - any attack with it will fail miserably if there is a defending army standing with the city attacked.

The army the AI threw at me was actually larger ... just the defense is much easier with the city (walls get it around str 15 in ancient/classical age) + the invulnerable catapult inside.Also the AI is stupid enough to attack the city before it has cleared the army around it.

And finally - yes - I'll try on higher difficulty. For now I seem to be failing the King difficulty on large map. Or not exactly failing but I survive to the end but the AI beats me on score.

 

[hurtin]

If you want to be a primarily culture civilization you have to keep up with diplomacy.

In my last game as France I was constantly the weakest military but won a science victory with only a small war near the end game.

When AI's appear to be ready to attack bribe their neighbors to declare war on them. You can tell if the AI is getting annoyed with you if you offer 1GPT and they offer less than 22GP. As long as the AI is fighting someone else they won't fight you.

 

[cman2010]

If you want to be a primarily culture civilization you have to keep up with diplomacy.

In my last game as France I was constantly the weakest military but won a science victory with only a small war near the end game.

When AI's appear to be ready to attack bribe their neighbors to declare war on them. You can tell if the AI is getting annoyed with you if you offer 1GPT and they offer less than 22GP. As long as the AI is fighting someone else they won't fight you.

lol diplomacy is non existant in this game. Also if you bribe them to go to war does the other ai not know about it I thought they did.

 

[hurtin]

lol diplomacy is non existant in this game. Also if you bribe them to go to war does the other ai not know about it I thought they did.

The diplomacy is actually better than you think, but some of the leaders are intentionally irrational. As far as I can tell there is no diplomatic penalty for bribing another to go to war.

Keeping up with diplomacy includes knowing which leaders are likely to backstab you like Russia and Japan, so you have to look for other clues. Are they close to you? Are their trade offers getting increasingly one sided?

Other leaders will come right out show guarded or hostile. You have to get them in a war before they denounce you, because that will cause the dreaded cascade of AI hatred.

 

[TPQ]

What's most amusing is when the AI comes to you and says "Although your might is unmatched, I fill find a way to defeat you!", or something similar and then proceeds to assault your Longswords with archers and spearmen.

I'm in a game currently where all but four of the 18 AIs declared war on me at the same time and half of those acknowledged they had a weaker military. The only Civ that really caused me any problems was Siam with their damn war elephants!

Personally, I always find it fun when most, or all of the AIs declare war at the same time. It's a great opportunity to expand territory without being the aggressor. The AIs usually give up after a while and give you lots of gold too, so multi-dow usually = unit XP, Great generals, puppets and gold for you!

 

[Kerosene31]

The strategy is sound. They gang up on the leader on multiple fronts. The problem with the AI is the combat AI.

 

[cman2010]

The diplomacy is actually better than you think, but some of the leaders are intentionally irrational. As far as I can tell there is no diplomatic penalty for bribing another to go to war.

Keeping up with diplomacy includes knowing which leaders are likely to backstab you like Russia and Japan, so you have to look for other clues. Are they close to you? Are their trade offers getting increasingly one sided?

Other leaders will come right out show guarded or hostile. You have to get them in a war before they denounce you, because that will cause the dreaded cascade of AI hatred.

unless its change from december its awfull, There was no dealing with them in any manner, no matter what it would refuse good trades half the time even if they liked you.

 

[Firvulag]

I had a game last night where 4 of them loved me and stayed that way until after 2 others were subdued. It was only when I decided to try and get them onto my side with England that there was issues. Not that it mattered by then, or that any of them went to war with me, but it was the first time when using diplomacy had helped get me into such a strong position, rather than just finding a way to get there without them.

 

[Civ4Brains]

lol diplomacy is non existant in this game. Also if you bribe them to go to war does the other ai not know about it I thought they did.

I like how you try to tell us that the diplo is non-existent followed by a question about how AI/diplo works. kind of undermines your previous assertion, no?

unless its change from december its awfull, There was no dealing with them in any manner, no matter what it would refuse good trades half the time even if they liked you.

right, so now your telling us that the diplo post-patch is non-existent when it appears you are basing your claim on pre-patch knowledge. You do realise this is a thread concerning CiV post-patch? have you played since the update?

For anyone who cares to use diplomacy at a strategic level CiV caters for this need. If you find yourself in a situation, and this is post-patch I'm talking about, where denouncements or DoW's suddenly seem to be stacking against you then I'm sorry but you have not been paying attention and need to start showing diplo a little bit more respect.

 

[cman2010]

I like how you try to tell us that the diplo is non-existent followed by a question about how AI/diplo works. kind of undermines your previous assertion, no?

right, so now your telling us that the diplo post-patch is non-existent when it appears you are basing your claim on pre-patch knowledge. You do realise this is a thread concerning CiV post-patch? have you played since the update?

For anyone who cares to use diplomacy at a strategic level CiV caters for this need. If you find yourself in a situation, and this is post-patch I'm talking about, where denouncements or DoW's suddenly seem to be stacking against you then I'm sorry but you have not been paying attention and need to start showing diplo a little bit more respect.

not at all I find it to be non existant. On the second point civ 5 does nto cater to anyone on a strategic lvl. Also you did not understand my post I stated clearly that I had not played since december I aussumed you could tell that I had played no games since then with the new patches since I stated so.

 

[Civ4Brains]

not at all I find it to be non exist E nt. On the second point civ 5 does not cater to anyone on a strategic lvl.

Yet as you confess,

I had not played since December

so on what basis you believe you can still claim to know how the diplomacy works and whether there is strategy involved is beyond me.

And to not take your comment out of context:

Also you did not understand my post I stated clearly that I had not played since december I aussumed you could tell that I had played no games since then with the new patches since I stated so.

Your very first post:

lol diplomacy is non existant in this game. Also if you bribe them to go to war does the other ai not know about it I thought they did.

No I'm sorry there is nothing here that indicates clearly you haven't played since December which is in fact why I proceeded to highlight the contradiction of your 2nd post:

unless its change from december its awfull, There was no dealing with them in any manner, no matter what it would refuse good trades half the time even if they liked you.

Here you suddenly make the concession to someone else that you are basing what you know on pre-patch game experience. It is quite apparent I fully comprehend the "logic" at work in your posts, as this is what I am drawing attention to precisely because it exposes the fallacy of your unfounded, ill-informed and non-fact based claim(s).

You appear to have emboldened sections of my previous post in the quote tags as if to suggest you have something specific you wish to say in response yet the details do not follow - feel free to elucidate... oh wait, you can't - you haven't played CiV post-patch. Yes, that much is clear.