First early wars always declared against me

[Kieran]

I would like to know if there is a built in bias for the first wars to be declared in the game by the AI to be against me?

I've noticed this in most of the games i've played with various map sizes and numbers of civs. I've always had aggressive AI switched off.

Am I mistaken, have I not played enough games, or is there some other reason?

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

There isn't. In my games, there would very rarley ever be an early war unless it was me that declared, and in some games, I dont think the AI would have ever gone to war with me had I not made the first move.

 

[Masquerouge]

I would like to know if there is a built in bias for the first wars to be declared in the game by the AI to be against me?

I've noticed this in most of the games i've played with various map sizes and numbers of civs. I've always had aggressive AI switched off.

Am I mistaken, have I not played enough games, or is there some other reason?

How big is your military? If your military is not big enough, you WILL be attacked. That means AT LEAST 3 units per city.

 

[Thyrwyn]

If the AI is always declaring war against you, then you are not building enough troops. The AI preys on the weak, and if you are on the receiving end of every early war, then you have made yourself the most readily available target.

Try building more units, especially offensive ones (such as Axemen).

 

[kcbrett5]

If the AI is always declaring war against you, then you are not building enough troops. The AI preys on the weak, and if the first youare on the receiving end of every early war, then you have made yourself the most readily available target.

Try building more units, especially offensive ones (such as Axemen).

I like when they declare war on me early. You can normally defend your city, rush a few units, and then strike back and take 1 or 2 of the AI cities before declaring peace. That way I get to expand without even making enemies, because I can avoid the "you declared war on me" negatives. Once weakened and still friendly, I can use that AI to trade techs with to keep up.

I like to keep my early empire somewhat weak on purpose.

 

[se7en]

If the AI is always declaring war against you, then you are not building enough troops. The AI preys on the weak, and if the first youare on the receiving end of every early war, then you have made yourself the most readily available target.

Try building more units, especially offensive ones (such as Axemen).

That's so strange.. in my games (I always play aggressive AI otherwise it's a snooze fest for sure) around one or two modern defenders per city and a decent number of mobile responders for the size of the map (maybe around one per city, split up into two armies) and I'm never, ever, ever attacked except by the crazies amongst the AI who do stupid things like shipping over axemen in modern transports.

I wish there was a "homicidal AI" setting where aggressive AIs would get strong early, maybe even wiping out a few weak civs (including me if I don't play well), after which around mid-game the more scientific civs would take advantage of their tech leads to bite chunks out of the formerly aggressive and powerful AIs. There would be a lot more interesting diplomacy and the world would be a lot more interesting mid-game.

I'm tired of seeing the modern map where every civ still has the exact cities it founded in ancient time.. no more and no less.

Now, I play on Noble, so for those of you who play on higher difficulties is this just a function of the difficulty level? I play here to avoid micromanagement, but if the AIs actually do damage to each other (and me) on higher difficulties then I'll make the move up for sure. Lately I've tried playing on large maps at epic speed, default civs, and somehow it seems a little better. Not much, though. Next game I'm going to try the same settings with raging barbs to see if it gets the AI to build more military that they will (hopefully) eventually use against each other.

 

[AdamW81]

an easy thing to do is check the power graph early game. If you are in last place you need more troops to avoid getting attacked, if you are in the middle of the pack you are probably fine.

 

[RegentMan]

This is one of my problems; not building enough troops early on, so I often see the trumpet blaring at me.

Although everywhere I see posts saying that the AI sucks at conquering/OMG They conquered a city! Why so surprised? In my games, at least two civs are gone by the end, and cities change hands in nearly every war. Do I have the lucky version?

 

[se7en]

This is one of my problems; not building enough troops early on, so I often see the trumpet blaring at me.

Try using hereditary rule to manage happiness.. you'll generally find you have both a huge army and huge cities.

 

[Moonsinger]

How big is your military? If your military is not big enough, you WILL be attacked. That means AT LEAST 3 units per city.

If the AI is always declaring war against you, then you are not building enough troops. The AI preys on the weak, and if the first youare on the receiving end of every early war, then you have made yourself the most readily available target.

No offense, but I think you guys are wrong about that. It really isn't about the size of your military but quality of your military that matters. Sure, bigger size always has an advantage, but quality must come first. For example, if your next door neighbor has 25 chariots, just build one spearman and he will think twice before picking on you. Why? By deductive reasonning, he knows that if you can build one spearman, you surely have the ability to build more spearmans. If he attacks, you may pop-rush more spears and he will be dead. It would be best to go pick on someone else who have no spears.

Of course, there are other factors but size isn't one of them. Why? Becuase if size does really matter, then none of us would have any chance on beating the deity level where the AIs always have bigger guns and everything else.

PS: For some reasons, I feel so dirty talking about this. I'm going to take a fresh shower and go to bed now. Bye...

 

[dh_epic]

The AI seizes on weakness.

I remember I played off of one saved game (for a single player competition)... and I was trying a gambit with some wonders. Twice off the same saved game, I tried to go for those wonders, Genghis Khan did a sneak attack just in time, and really messed me up.

So the third time, I said "forget it" and built up an army. I anticipated Khan's attack.

What happens?

Khan declares war on Washington.

Seems that Khan was ready to go after whoever was the weakest link. Fortunately, I seized on Khan after he had spread his forces thin on offense.

 

[Naismith]

No offense, but I think you guys are wrong about that. It really isn't about the size of your military but quality of your military that matters. Sure, bigger size always has an advantage, but quality must come first. For example, if your next door neighbor has 25 chariots, just build one spearman and he will think twice before picking on you. Why? By deductive reasonning, he knows that if you can build one spearman, you surely have the ability to build more spearmans. If he attacks, you may pop-rush more spears and he will be dead. It would be best to go pick on someone else who have no spears.

Of course, there are other factors but size isn't one of them. Why? Becuase if size does really matter, then none of us would have any chance on beating the deity level where the AIs always have bigger guns and everything else.

PS: For some reasons, I feel so dirty talking about this. I'm going to take a fresh shower and go to bed now. Bye...

I'm not completely sure about this, but...

My understanding (and experience) is that if you are low on the power graph, you are a target. I seriously doubt the AI looks at individual units (e.g. one spearman) and makes decisions based on that. It is simply not that sophisticated.

However, it is important to keep in mind that the power graph is not determined solely by how many military units you have. Your tech position is also factored in. So, you can have a high power rating based on the fact you are 5 techs ahead of your nearest competitor, without necessarily having a large number of military units. I've read in other threads that the tech part of the power rating is determined by military techs, but I'm not sure that is correct. In any case, if you are ahead in tech, you are probably (note I say probably) ahead in military tech as well.

By watching my power rating carefully, I've observed my power rating go up as I build military units. It goes up more when you build more powerful (for the era) units. It's my belief that if you are the first to build a particular unit (e.g. maceman) then that unit is given much more weight in determining your power rating than other units. It makes sense, although I can't claim I'm 100% sure about it. Still, if my power rating needs some help, I am careful to always build a unit based on a newly researched tech whether I really want or like that unit. A perfect example: I usually build one musketman, even though I'm not particulary fond of them.

Given the above, it's just as important, or maybe more important, to be competitive or ahead in tech if you want to keep your power rating up. If you have to keep your power rating up by building lots of military units (because you are behind in tech), then unit support costs bog down your economy even more, and you can fall more behind in tech. Not good.

Another aspect: Just because you have a high power rating doesn't necessarily mean your military is the strongest. If your high power rating is based on your tech lead, your military could be relatively weak. The flip side is you can't assume a Civ with a low power rating doesn't have many military units.

I don't often see it discussed on the forum, but I believe that your economy is your greatest military asset. It keeps you in the tech race, which keeps your power rating up, which puts you in the driver's seat for the wars you are involved in. If no one will declare war on you because of your power rating, then your only wars are the ones you choose.

 

[G Julius Caesar]

I think there are other factors to being attacked, or looking at it another way, there are other things you can do to not be a target.

If you consider who your neighbours are and check their thoughts on you you'll get an indication of what you can do. For example, of you share the same religion, or if you have the same/similar civic choices, then their opinion of you will improve and the chances of being attacked early will lessen.

On Civ 04 vanilla, I used to always get attacked by Alexander early on in the World Map. I never used to use Slavery Civic when offered. However, I realised when I did take that option, Alex would attack less often.

But then some civ traits may mean no matter what you do, you may seem a good target anyway.

 

[Kieran]

However, it is important to keep in mind that the power graph is not determined solely by how many military units you have.

That's it, I'm in the middle or near the top on the power graph, but they attack me

I should trying building a lot of warriors.

 

[Naismith]

I think there are other factors to being attacked, or looking at it another way, there are other things you can do to not be a target.

If you consider who your neighbours are and check their thoughts on you you'll get an indication of what you can do. For example, of you share the same religion, or if you have the same/similar civic choices, then their opinion of you will improve and the chances of being attacked early will lessen.

On Civ 04 vanilla, I used to always get attacked by Alexander early on in the World Map. I never used to use Slavery Civic when offered. However, I realised when I did take that option, Alex would attack less often.

But then some civ traits may mean no matter what you do, you may seem a good target anyway.

Yes, your diplomatic relations factor in as well. It's often not smart to turn down requests for tribute or Civics changes when you're weak. I'm always weak (power graph wise) at the beginning of the game, so I'm much more open to taking, uh, suggestions at that time in the game.

 

[RegentMan]

That's it, I'm in the middle or near the top on the power graph, but they attack me

I should trying building a lot of warriors.

Try to build something more than warriors. That way, you have a defense or an offense if the war comes.

 

[vilemerchant]

If you have someone like Montezuma or Alexander near you, prepare for war and attack them first. Also be aware of the religious nutcases like Isabella who will go mental if you're of a different religion.

 

[CivDude86]

Read this for the inner workings on what determines the power graph. As you can see building a wall is as good as building an axeman and a barracks is a good as building a Praetorian and every 2 pop equals a warrior so you can somewhat be a builder and look like you have military.

 

[Jorunkun]

That's so strange.. in my games (I always play aggressive AI otherwise it's a snooze fest for sure)

(...)

I wish there was a "homicidal AI" setting where aggressive AIs would get strong early, maybe even wiping out a few weak civs.

(...)

I'm tired of seeing the modern map where every civ still has the exact cities it founded in ancient time.. no more and no less.

Now, I play on Noble, so for those of you who play on higher difficulties is this just a function of the difficulty level?

Been playing aggressive AI and random personalities for the same reasons, and find it does spice up the game considerably.

I play on Emperor (with the occasional Immortal attempt, but not on aggressive) and don't believe the higher difficulty translates into a more aggressive AI. There's no AI that actively pursues a domination/conquest win, on either level.

One way to get your games more dynamic militarily might be to use your tech to incite wars between the AI, and to gift military tech to one side in a war so it actually has an edge.

But the fact remains: if you want trouble you will have to stir it up yourself.

J.