Espionage on you

[OsmarChito]

Now that we know that ai can warn other ai or us about an invasion can they warn other ai about your invasion? or how do they know your gonna invade an ai?

 

[snarzberry]

How could they know what you plan to do? Obviously the ai cannot do this.

 

[OsmarChito]

How could they know what you plan to do? Obviously the ai cannot do this.

maybe if you start mass training units and moving to position they can tell

 

[Buccaneer]

How could they know what you plan to do? Obviously the ai cannot do this.

Which is why I think it's kind of stupid that we would have this ability. For one, one of the better equalizers the AI has against us (relatively speaking) is sneak attacks. Now under certain conditions, we would gain even more an advantage over them. And second, what difference would it make for us to know this information? It would be like cheating since the AI could not know our plans (not to mention reload the game).

 

[nokmirt]

Which is why I think it's kind of stupid that we would have this ability. For one, one of the better equalizers the AI has against us (relatively speaking) is sneak attacks. Now under certain conditions, we would gain even more an advantage over them. And second, what difference would it make for us to know this information? It would be like cheating since the AI could not know our plans (not to mention reload the game).

It is like breaking the German enigma codes in WWII. It adds flavor to the game. A sense of intrigue and accomplishment for your spies if they succeed. After all they are gatherers of information. Also, its not a foregone conclusion your spies will find these secret plans out.

If the devs did see that the human had too much of an unfair advantage, because of this ability. Instead of bringing it down as a bad idea. What are some things we can do to make it better and more fair? There must be a way this is something I believe should be portrayed in the game. Any ideas? Anyone?

The AI spies should also be able to have a chance to determine what you are doing with your ships and units enough to figure out if your going to try an overseas invasion. Even as the human, it is going to be a task to prepare the invasion troops and fleet. It should not be too hard for them to figure out what your up too after all, they said this logic is ingrained into the AI. Of course the human can use the bluff and pretend to organize said fleet and not have any intention of invading. However, the question is, can the AI bluff?

 

[tithin]

Which is why I think it's kind of stupid that we would have this ability. For one, one of the better equalizers the AI has against us (relatively speaking) is sneak attacks.

What sneak attacks? Every AI in the game has the exact same personality when it comes to war: Abusive ex partner. With no or few exceptions (maybe ghandi, and even then that's a maybe), they are all planning on war at some point, it's a matter of when, where and with what units. If they're stronger than you, be prepared, if they're equal or weaker than you, they'll approach others to dogpile you. Admittedly this isn't solely directed at the player, but at every single other Civ.

If you're getting caught out by Civs DoWing you, you should be expecting it because every single civ is out to win the game. It just so happens that DoW is the easiest way to do it, and you should really be expecting it.

As an example: Was playing a game of emperor last night, on the British isles map, I manage to wipe out Pachacuti, and Alexander, and work my way north from the south of england to roughly where the border of scotland would be, and take Montezumas capital. At this point of the game, I'm ahead on tech. North of me and Montezuma's Siam who has literally got culture over every single tile in scotland and has more cities than I've ever seen in a game, and on the Irish isles, Germany takes out India and China both within twenty turns. The entire game, Germany's been "friendly" with me, multiple research agreements and trades - the second he clears China from the game he goes hostile and starts to build some cities on the far corner of Wales. Still a ways away from my borders, but still making the expansionist agressive movements. Wants a ton of gold, resources etc for a research agreement, and over 3000 gold for open borders. Two turns later, he's friendly, with a few positive modifiers, so I use that time to pay him off to go to war with Siam and distract him from myself. Another two turns later, he researches atomic bombs and goes hostile again.

The AI is wanting to win the game, and you're a roadblock on their path to domination. Don't be surprised by sneak attacks because they're part of how the game is played.

Now under certain conditions, we would gain even more an advantage over them. And second, what difference would it make for us to know this information? It would be like cheating since the AI could not know our plans (not to mention reload the game).

It's there both to assist in avoiding being "sneak attacked" or at least to mitigate it, and as a diplomatic tool. The AI cannot "know" your plans - because you can make plans that change on the fly - most players do not make decisions based on a formula or based on military score. They make it based on proximity, relative strength, tech advantage and promotion advantage. It (the AI) can make reasonable assumptions on what you MIGHT do, but that's why the AI cannot use subterfuge to learn your plans - assumedly it would still be able to use subterfuges other abilities against you (tech theft etc), but there's no way to learn your plans.

The AI can use the full subterfuge effect on other AIs, other Civs, and assumedly (though not guaranteed) a limited subterfuge effect on the player. Given the difficulty of balancing it, there's a reason that subterfuge won't be usable in multiplayer, I only hope there's at least some form of alternative.

 

[wobuffet]

This could be adapted somewhat to humans (including multiplayer) by instituting some "plan for war against Civ X" mechanic.
Declaring war on somebody without sufficient planning would have large Happiness and/or combat penalties, so most of the time you'd have to plan before declaring war.

 

[Deggial]

I proposed something (more or less) similar some weeks ago in this post.

It's just the question, if players would be willing to bear this restriction to make a game mechanic workable in MP or level AI disadvantage agains a human player.

 

[theadder]

This could be adapted somewhat to humans (including multiplayer) by instituting some "plan for war against Civ X" mechanic.
Declaring war on somebody without sufficient planning would have large Happiness and/or combat penalties, so most of the time you'd have to plan before declaring war.

I proposed something (more or less) similar some weeks ago in this post.

It's just the question, if players would be willing to bear this restriction to make a game mechanic workable in MP or level AI disadvantage agains a human player.

Definitely not desirable from my point of view. Given that players create military units directly in cities, they are already prepared for the war, since they will not declare war without the forces that they need; forcing a delay or some arbitrary penalty in happiness or otherwise is simply irritating.

I tend not to fight offensive wars, but I definitely would not support this sort of mechanism. I think that the only way that it could be made to work is if it was optional but offered the benefit of some 'free' military units; otherwise it simply prevents the player from acting when they wish.

Better to suffer the AI not having the information about up-coming attacks than this; regardless it can analyse build-up of troops on borders to some degree already.

 

[wobuffet]

I think that the only way that it could be made to work is if it was optional but offered the benefit of some 'free' military units; otherwise it simply prevents the player from acting when they wish.

It puts the AI on equal footing with the human and makes thematic sense: it's perfectly realistic to assume that wars require planning, or at least that waging totally unplanned wars are less likely to be effective.

 

[Ashbery76]

Now that we know that ai can warn other ai or us about an invasion can they warn other ai about your invasion? or how do they know your gonna invade an ai?

The new A.I has mind reading abilities.

 

[theadder]

It puts the AI on equal footing with the human and makes thematic sense: it's perfectly realistic to assume that wars require planning, or at least that waging totally unplanned wars are less likely to be effective.

The planning is in the production and distribution of units around the map for humans. The AI needs to have a defined period in which to do this and the developers have exposed this to the player for the purpose of hopefully making the AI a bit less wild.

The AI can do something somewhat similar with human players by watching troop movements.

 

[tithin]

It puts the AI on equal footing with the human and makes thematic sense: it's perfectly realistic to assume that wars require planning, or at least that waging totally unplanned wars are less likely to be effective.

Your assumption here is that the preparation of war is a purely binary state - in this example you're providing, the only literal purpose it could serve is as a crutch for the AI to use as a diplomacy tool. Handy to have for that purpose, but it only serves as an impediment for the player for a few reasons

1) If they are caught unprepared by the AI / Backstabbed by multiple AI's (which is *definitely* a concern with the AI in this game), it's going to wreak havoc with city happiness / combat penalties. At present this isn't an issue because if you know how to micromanage you can work your way around fighting multiple wars simultaneously. If your proposed system were implemented, it could ruin your empire without a shot being fired by your side. The AI is already flaky enough, let's not give them even more of a help up by reducing the effectiveness of units.

2) The production of units is already done at the expense of the loss of hammers to further develop your cities. You're already "preparing for war" by neglecting your existing cities.

There are more reasons, but honestly, I'm tired - suffice it to say I disagree with the implementation of a penalty based "are you preparing for war against the entire world" tickbox that serves no other purpose than to reduce player effectiveness or to ensure that the AI can "read" the players movements.

 

[elprofesor]

Which is why I think it's kind of stupid that we would have this ability. For one, one of the better equalizers the AI has against us (relatively speaking) is sneak attacks. Now under certain conditions, we would gain even more an advantage over them.

Well, the AI can already ask "what the heck are you doing here with an army?" and get a preemptive attack on you (unless you are willing to take the massive diplo penalty), so there are already one-sided mechanics in play. Or the demands when DoFed -although I hope they will finally change that!

I proposed something (more or less) similar some weeks ago in this post.

It's just the question, if players would be willing to bear this restriction to make a game mechanic workable in MP or level AI disadvantage agains a human player.

Well, you could have a tick box for a casus belli against each other civ that would take -say- 10 turns to charge, and would be expendable anytime after those 10 turns. The only downsides to it would be: if you attack a civ without a casus belli, you'd get a happiness penalty for the duration of the war (maybe even a growing penalty, a la war weariness), and for as long as you have ticked the option, you might be discovered by an enemy spy, and suffer diplo penalties with the corresponding civ. But you wouldn't be forced to DoW exactly 10 turns after ticking the box, for example.

You could even work it into the "what the heck are you doing here with an army?": instead of the civ forcing you to make a decision, they would simply take a look into your casus belli tick box, and act accordingly (i.e., leave you alone if you haven't ticked it, and DoW you otherwise).

 

[Deggial]

Well, you could have a tick box for a casus belli against each other civ that would take -say- 10 turns to charge, and would be expendable anytime after those 10 turns. The only downsides to it would be: if you attack a civ without a casus belli, you'd get a happiness penalty for the duration of the war (maybe even a growing penalty, a la war weariness), and for as long as you have ticked the option, you might be discovered by an enemy spy, and suffer diplo penalties with the corresponding civ. But you wouldn't be forced to DoW exactly 10 turns after ticking the box, for example.

You could even work it into the "what the heck are you doing here with an army?": instead of the civ forcing you to make a decision, they would simply take a look into your casus belli tick box, and act accordingly (i.e., leave you alone if you haven't ticked it, and DoW you otherwise).

The "casus belli" and - if not given - a happiness hit (as wobufet proposes) would work fine for me (*very well* as I think about it, to be honest)! As long as you have the mentioned box...
In fact, this would be a less restricting consequence and therefore maybe more bearable for many players.

As for *not* declearing war after 10 turns: This is exactly what I was thinking. If you like, you may have the box checked the entire game without going to war. It is just about your *readiness* to do so - and the possibility for the AI to learn about it.

So in conclusion:
If you choose to play a very aggressive game with the possibility to wage war against your fellow civs anytime, feel free to check the tick box as soon as you meet a new leader. Afer only a view turns, you may DoW without the slightest malus.
But be aware: As soon as spies enter the game (and *not* earlier!) anybody may learn (again: not necessarily!) about your *real* feelings.

To be honest: I would like such a game mechanic!

__

@ tithin:
Sorry, I don't see your point.
Ad 1): The penality would only hit, when *you* declare war, of course! If you get attacked, everything would work as normal.
Ad 2): Everything boils down to a semantic problem, I guess. If you call it a "casus belli" as elprofesor suggests and not "plan/prepare for war", it should work fin, in my regards. You are right, of course: preparing for war includes troop production and assigning them to their position. Having a "home front" - the necessity to convince your people by propaganda, represented by the tick box - does fit in here perfectly. You just have to remember to check it...

 

[albie_123]

'Casus Belli'? Sounds like there are other EU3 fans here.

 

[nokmirt]

I proposed something (more or less) similar some weeks ago in this post.

It's just the question, if players would be willing to bear this restriction to make a game mechanic workable in MP or level AI disadvantage agains a human player.

I like your plan and it would make things fair and balanced. The thing that I was wondering though, do the rules for 10 to 15 turns before war can be declared, also apply to the AI? How long does the AI need to prepare for war in this case? I do know that Dennis Shirk stated that the AI can prepare for an amphibious invasion in ten turns in GaK. So if thats the case, it should be ten turns for the human as well. I do hope the devs add this mechanic it is a brilliant idea and solves the problem of making sure the AI spies have a chance to learn of the human players moves.

 

[Buccaneer]

What sneak attacks? Every AI in the game has the exact same personality when it comes to war: Abusive ex partner. With no or few exceptions (maybe ghandi, and even then that's a maybe), they are all planning on war at some point, it's a matter of when, where and with what units. If they're stronger than you, be prepared, if they're equal or weaker than you, they'll approach others to dogpile you. Admittedly this isn't solely directed at the player, but at every single other Civ.

If you're getting caught out by Civs DoWing you, you should be expecting it because every single civ is out to win the game. It just so happens that DoW is the easiest way to do it, and you should really be expecting it.

You make it sound like that's a problem. I wish they would do more of that and do it more effectively. Besides, it is possible to not ever having to fight much more powerful AI civs at all in an Immortal/Emperor game; so you're not correct about everyone wanting to fight/DoW all of the time. But even if they did (apart from how effective they would do so), that would force you to build defensive units when you didn't plan on to and to protect your borders better. Too many games a player can get by building only the minimal set of defensive units or to leave borders unprotected while on an offensive. When you are most vulnerable is when I would want the AI to attack more effectively (sneak or otherwise). That would cause you to either stop your predictable building paths or to withdrawal your offensive. Too many times I have read about players complaining that the AI opponents are getting in their way from victory because "the AI wants to win". Civ is not nor should not be a sandbox game but a competitive game. I just wish it was even more comppetitive and they would work much better at trying to win (e.g., using superior armies to conquer human players, use gold to buy units and c-s, build ss better, etc. - scaled by difficulty). Espionage could(?) give us even more an advantage to us (on top of what we already have) and how would that make it a more competitive game?

 

[OsmarChito]

i read that the intrigue system works like this: intrigue system brings you a steady flow of random information. For example, your spy might bring word that “[leader X] is building up a naval force and plans to launch a sneak attack on another nation. so the ai can't tell what u plan to do but at least let them know that ur mass building armies and moving into position that'll solve the problem of unbalance i guess

 

[elprofesor]

'Casus Belli'? Sounds like there are other EU3 fans here.

Not necessarily an EU3 fan myself, but so many people around here are that I ended up catching some random words. I've tried the game myself, but I simply couldn't understand it by miself after 6-7h of gameplay (always ended up under heavy debt for no apparent -to me- reason), and I didn't find any useful information on its dedicated fora.
So it's just sleeping in my list of Steam games...