Fake Wars..

I've noticed with this newer patch that the AI sure loves FAKE wars.

At first I thought things were just weird, but after testing numerous times it just seems that when I bribe an ally to go to war, nothing really happens. Even when I get two players to go against someone they already dont like, they don't even bother taking a city. Oh they will send a few small bands of weak units for a skirmish here or there doing nothing much at all but a picknick, but there just isn't really any war.

On the other hand, if an AI is bribed to attack me, well different story. Then I get hoards of units coming my way, and instead of taking little skirmishes, they will come and target my cities in a concentrated group and try to take those cities.

Is this another attempt to just make monarch harder, or is this adjusted on all levels to make things even harder for the human player? Take my last game for example, Rosevel was stuck between two AIs, of a different religion, and crowding them. I bribed both of them for over 1000 years to attack him, and yet they never even bothered to take one single city!

The only time I see an AI taking over another AI's cities is when a natural war arises between them.

 

Two general observations:

1) The AI, when it starts a war on its own terms, generaly likes to make 2-4 good sized stacks of units and attack a single target. When you rush the AI (by declaring on them first, or bribing them), they send whatever is availible to the nearest weak target. That doesn't nessicarily mean city. I've seen them send sizable (or would have been, if they had converted it into a single force) number of troops at copper and other resources on one side of my boarder while massing a city attack on the other.

What this means is that the AI, when it goes on its own, has some coordination to its efforts. When its rushed, it tends to lash out at percieved weak spots in a more impromptu effort. End result: Less driving force behind its punches.

2) The AI no longer suicide rushes cities, and has always had a hard-on for pollaging.

This means that if the AI has equal numbers to the defenders in the cities, they will fortify next to it and wait for reinforcements, or they'll break up the stack (more common, and easier to defeat) and pillage their way through your empire. Again, the end result is that they don't take cities, even though they may be doing signifigant damage to your ecconomy if you don't check their advance.

 

when I bribe an ally to go to war I give them som of my old tanks and fighters that is out of date then its fun when they trun on me with all of my old ww2 tanks and they meat my new army with 150 leopard tanks and 69 batleships and
300 B-52 and and 50 B-2/F-117 and some fighters

 

One thing I noticed: often times if I bribe an AI to go to war, they will make peace almost immediately (after 2-4 turns). To me this shouldn't be possible, I was always under the assumption that a war has a minimum duration greater than that... as the AI will "refuse to talk" for a minimum of usually around 10-20 turns (when war weariness starts having effect). Are the AI under the same restrictions of "refusing to talk" when a war is declared? Or does it depend on diplomatic standing?

 

They shouldn't be able to do that, and AI making peace immediately never happens in my games. As far as I know, they do have the refuse to talk penalty with each other too.

 

Can you give troops???

 

Yep. You have to move said troops to give into the territory of the civ you want to give them to, then click on the icon that looks like a little prezzie when the unit is activated. Then the AI may or may not accept the gift. Usually they'll take it, unless you've got a dominant edge over them, at which point the AI will get suspicious after accepting after they've already gotten a gift or two from you.

Likewise if the AI's maintenance costs are going to be prohibitive for it to accept the gift, it likewise won't do so.

 

Hmm, in my current game, I twice brought an ally into a war against Monty. Both times Monty immediately stopped attacking me, and concentrated on the new front, which probably saved my life. And both times he conquered some cities of my ally.

 

poor ally haha. i do hate it when ai begs you into a war that 4 turns later they go for peace. leaving the mutual enemy on my turf and can bring his full army to bear on one front damn AI

 

I think it may be possible to broker peace in diplomacy from a third party to get around the not talking part.

 

I think in war/diplomacy, the AI is overly skewed against the player. I once entered a defense pact with Russia. Inca declared war on me, even though I had the pact with the very mighty Russia. Russia was far more powerful than Inca, and had a much higher score, and Russian territory borders that of the Inca. Furthermore, Inca had to cross Russian territory in order to invade my territory. Within 4 or 5 turns, Russia and Inca declared peace with eachother and I was left to face Incans alone with no hope for peace.

Surely a defense pact should bind the "ally" to more than 5 turns of warfare? As soon as my army had reached the Incan territory to destroy or severely cripple their Civ, Russia and Inca declare peace. Russia's betrayal weakened my offensive.

On the other hand, enemy AI will relentlessly attack the player during wartime unless there is a chance the player will take prime cities/territory.

 

I noticed when someone asks me to join their war... they will imediately declare peace the next turn, or couple turns after if you join. This leaves you with a big mess on your hands ( alone). But if I refuse to join into their war, it often lasts much longer.

I learned my lessons over time. I don't join wars, I wait until they are done before I do anything.

 

Three points to add to the discussion:

1. It would sure be nice to know for sure when an AI is bribed into war against you, rather than having to guess. They get to know, and that penalty never goes away, AFAIK. If Gandhi or Shaka is sitting half the world away picking on you, it would sure be helpful to figure out what you can do.

2. I seem to recall Soren saying in an interview that one thing he wanted to change from Civ3 to Civ4 was the dogpiling strategy; that's why the AI no longer (to quote Mr. Johnson) "whores itself out for techs" economically, and also demands so much for war. I suspect that might also be in the background here. You can use AI wars to create opportunities, but you can't use them to coast to an easy victory. Just a hunch, though I must say it's also nice on the flipside that that AI can't bribe most of the world to go to war with you-- happened to me a couple times in Civ3.

3. If you really want to see destructive AI vs AI wars, create a second chance. I've noticed that the AI really stockpiles offensive units once it's been attacked, and, per Janus0's point, those units will be on the border with the former enemy. Lots of research with Open Borders and Spies has borne this out-- peaceful borders will have two, maybe three city defenders, while not so peaceful ones will have stacks just ready to go. (Of course, Monty (and some others) will just have scads of units lying around anyway.) The key seems to be letting an ally get a bloody nose early, then send them off later for revenge . . .

 

I don't think that is intended behaviour. It may the logical outcome of some game mechanics.

It might happen this way: An AI A attacks AI B, because A feels stronger than B. After a while, B asks you for help because it cannot handle the war alone. You agree to help B. A sees that it now faces superior combined forces and tries to improve its situation. It cannot make peace with you (I think after a war has been started, a couple of turns have to pass until either side can make peace, at least that's what I observe), so it tries to make peace with B. B is likely to accept, because is B is likely to be weaker than A (after all, A felt strong enough to attack B, and B asked for help).

I don't know if that's really what's happening, but I think it's okay as a working hypothesis.

That said, there are also cases where an ally turns into an enemy because you've come too late to help him. In one game I had a defensive pact with Tokugawa, who owned an island that was a strategically good position for air raids on my strongest rival, so I wanted to make him my friend. However, a bit later another Civ (Huayna Capac) attacked Tokugawa. I stood true to our pact, manned several transports, and sent them to his island - but by the time they reached it, Tokugawa had already capitulated, and consequently declared ware on me. So instead of repelling the invasion, I conquered his island ...

 

this only happens if you're really powerful, meaning that the "common enemy" fears you so much that he is suddenly willing to sue for peace.
So you shouldn't be too afraid

 

Slightly off topic -
I think "fake war" should be replaced by the term "Phony war" as the WWII period from october '39 to may '40 was commonly called.

Brits would write "Phoney", Churchill called it "Twilight war", German (humorous term) was "Sitzkrieg"(Blitzkrieg), British humor made it the "Bore War"(Boer War), in French it was "drôle de guerre" (funny/strange war).

In my opinion, "Fake War" should mean people are trying to fool someone into thinking that there is a real war going on (like war on terrorism...no I withdraw that, not gonna go there), while "Phony War" would mean two nations at war who both are content with avoiding any fighting.

 

It depends on how strong the AI is most of the time and if its aggressive or not....like one time Tokugawa and Monte teamed up and absolutely obliterated me and Musa, there must have been 40 units in all.

 

bribing an AI into war sends them on a pillage.

An 'agressive' ai is only more agressive against you due to a hidden -2 diplomacy and some tactic value tweaks (less money).

I have been asked to join an AI war, ready to ship over a stack, and then he makes our victim his vasall.

 

Totally agree. In my current game (I am trying to achieve a cultural victory) Alexander declared war on me twice and, although he did not have a lot of units, I bribed almost all of the other AIs in hope they would cripple him.

All that I saw were a few units that might have done some pillaging, but not the smallest city was captured during the ages of wars.

From my experience, an AI would take another AI's city only if that was what you wanted the least (e.g. the first AI was becoming too strong).

 

I always see this happen and I have figured out this is what is happening. Civ A (who is asking you to join the fight) is planning on offering peace to Civ B but wants to see if they can get someone ELSE to 'continue the fight'.

I see this happen alot with 3 AI civs. BTW I have 2.08 and BetterAI.