Denounced, turn 12!!

[kingpapawawa]

on turn 10 Spain has heard my economy is in ruins. on turn 11 Alexander tells me my army is a little weak. on turn 12 Alexander denounces me, he wants the lands i own... my boarder has not even expanded 1 tile!

russia, emperor, standard speed, standard size, lakes

i have never been denounced so quickly, anyone else seen the ai so hostile so soon?

 

[Ddude97]

Do you count scenarios?
If so then yes, I was using a WW1 Europe scenario (by Max Riga) and managed to get myself denounced about ~turn 10

 

[Truthy]

How close are you to Alex? That could be a determinate for why he'd be so agressive that early.

 

[lschnarch]

In one of my games (1.141) I've got a denouncement at turn 11 from Ramkan...whatever, who happened to be half a continent away (huge continents/emperor/standard number of civs), which lead me to believe that the AI behaviour is purely determined by random numbers.
On the other hand, without having changed my playstyle, in one other game with the same settings, ALL other civs were friendly with me. I even posted a screenshot about that.

Bottom line: whatever people are telling about "how to manipulate AI behaviour" and whatnotmore, is just crap.
You are victim to the the (hidden) random numbers determining the AI's attitude towards you. Sometimes it works to your advantage, other times it just doesn't. Your options to influence these settings are so limited that it doesn't make any sense to even talk about it.

The developers were not able to create halfway "realistic" behaviour and took the easy way to get around their inabilty: random numbers.

 

[JohnnyW]

I've been denounced on turn 6 or 7 by Bismark. Early denouncements happen all the time on higher difficulties with aggressive neighbors when they see you have only a warrior and maybe a scout.

Total BS IMO. You don't even have a chance to build military before they denounce you.

 

[kingpapawawa]

How close are you to Alex? That could be a determinate for why he'd be so agressive that early.

19 hexes between us. he just DOW on me 2 turns ago, im on turn 198 now. he is fixin to get his a$$ handed to him.

Suleiman will probably be next, he denounced me a few turns ago for building new cities too aggressively -- apparently capturing and puppeting a city is the same as building one because i have only built 5 but in control of 12..

he thinks im building to aggressively but he has 23 cities!

 

[Celevin]

I have a theory that, when an AI first meets you, their initial impression is randomly chosen. Sometimes this means they are hostile and denounce you, other times they are friendly and ask for a friendship. There's nothing stopping you from changing those initial opinions.

While it's rather hacky, I like it. It makes for early AI skirmishes amongst each other as well as big multi-alliance wars.

 

[NukeEm]

I dunno.. I haven't instantly liked everyone I've ever met... so I get how the AI might feel the same way... not every encounter is a friendly encounter... but that's me.

 

[Harald]

I don't remember how early it was but I think I had only my starting warrior and a scout. I meet Germany and within 10 turns he denounces me because I'm trying to win the game the same way as them.
Which is kind of fun considering that I didn't really have plan on how to win myself.

But the behaviour is really weird and not particularity fun. Sure be sceptical and even aggressive just have some sort of plan behind it and not empty words.

 

[code9]

Since they introduced randomness in AI behavior, they could have at least made up some excuses like little stories to go with the randomness, ie:

"I am Alexander. Nice to meet you. But! When we met your scouts, they "accidentally" killed one of our villagers pet fox. That's why we don't like you, because you kill nice furry animals and we think you are all the same!"

 

[Finite]

I don't remember how early it was but I think I had only my starting warrior and a scout. I meet Germany and within 10 turns he denounces me because I'm trying to win the game the same way as them.
Which is kind of fun considering that I didn't really have plan on how to win myself.

Considering it was the AI, he probably didn't have much of a winning plan, either

 

[Kyroshill]

Bottom line: whatever people are telling about "how to manipulate AI behaviour" and whatnotmore, is just crap.

Then what's your explanation for players like me who NEVER have any problems with AI acting in such an irrational manner? I know exactly why I've been denounced in any of my games.... and I knew it was coming each time

 

[lschnarch]

Then what's your explanation for players like me who NEVER have any problems with AI acting in such an irrational manner? I know exactly why I've been denounced in any of my games.... and I knew it was coming each time

So, why didn't you avoid the denouncements?

 

[Celevin]

Sometimes you need to choose sides between two AI. One will become your friend, and the other your enemy.

I often denounce AIs which make other AIs praise me and become friendly with me, and others denounce me. It's very controlled.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Then what's your explanation for players like me who NEVER have any problems with AI acting in such an irrational manner? I know exactly why I've been denounced in any of my games.... and I knew it was coming each time

The AI sometimes randomly decides to plop a city down right next to you. It is then "predictable" that you'll have strife. However, this is clearly the result of a random roll for the AI (e.g. settle right next to player). Most of the AI issues have a similar origin; so I think there is no contradiction at all.

Similarly, it's completely clear that you get chain-reaction denunciations as the outcome of random rolls.

One can make up after-the-fact explanations for these events, but the example of city harassment makes it obvious that a lot of this behavior arises from the equivalent of coin-flipping.

 

[Celevin]

Similarly, it's completely clear that you get chain-reaction denunciations as the outcome of random rolls.

I must be in a minority for experiencing this, but these denunciations in my games directly lead to friendships. If Rome denounces Egypt after England does, I find Rome and England then create a pact of friendship.

 

[Kyroshill]

So, why didn't you avoid the denouncements?

ummmm.... maybe because when they denounce me as a warmonger... it's only because I've wiped out a few civs.... OF COURSE I'm going to get denounced....

It's actually not so bad to be denounced.... You go ahead nd denounce right back... next thing you know a few other leaders denounce your enemy too, and before you know it, you've started a war between 3 or more OTHER civs....

meantime you sit back until the time to strike is right

 

[Kyroshill]

The AI sometimes randomly decides to plop a city down right next to you. It is then "predictable" that you'll have strife. However, this is clearly the result of a random roll for the AI (e.g. settle right next to player). Most of the AI issues have a similar origin; so I think there is no contradiction at all.

Similarly, it's completely clear that you get chain-reaction denunciations as the outcome of random rolls.

One can make up after-the-fact explanations for these events, but the example of city harassment makes it obvious that a lot of this behavior arises from the equivalent of coin-flipping.

Sure close borders can cause tension.... but then you have a decision to make.... attack your neighbor, or... if you want a peaceful game, get someone ELSE to attack them... 3rd option.... get all buddy-buddy with your neighbor to get whatever resources he settled on

As far as the AI coming across continent to settle next to me, I haven't seen that since the 1st big patch.... the AI in my games always settles contiguously

 

[ohioastronomy]

You're not addressing the point. People in this thread are pointing to examples where random numbers appear to induce computer AI behaviors, and you're appearing to deny this.

You end up getting "close borders" tensions because a random roll generated them, and you get random aggression from across the map from computer players (including the "you're trying to win the game the same way that I am" thing); in both cases these things can happen early.

You can suppress some of the nonsense by carrying the baggage of large armies and walking on eggshells, but that doesn't make the underlying model any more sensible (or, to people like me, fun.) What I'd be enthusiastic about is a system where you could get mutual and real benefit from things like trade, where wars had an actual cost, and where AI behavior had a stronger internal logic (e.g a close neighbor won't declare war on a dime because they would take a big economic hit from doing so, just as I would from attacking them.)

 

[Gr00vus]

It's actually not so bad to be denounced.... You go ahead nd denounce right back... next thing you know a few other leaders denounce your enemy too, and before you know it, you've started a war between 3 or more OTHER civs....

What a great game mechanic, the subtlety and sophistication is impressive.