Greatful Civs

[superpelon]

I think civs should be a little more greatful in Civ4. I spent my last game protecting the lame 5-city Dutch from a myriad of diffrent civs, GAVE them the resources they didnt have, gave them luxs, gave them techs, gave them maps and gold. RoP and MPP.... for over 2000 years... (ok ok ok at the start of the game i did take over 2 Dutch cities...) but that was in the 2000 BC... anyway, about 1980 AD, after going to war with persia, france, portugal and russia... they sign a Mil Alliance with the Vikings (who are on the other side of the map and are weaker than me) and attack me... malditos desgradciados hijos de su inche... anyway... they lasted about 5 turns... but still

Civs should be GREATFUL... a small, weak nation should NOT declare war on a big powerful civ that is next to it, and trading strat resources with it... and giving it gold, maps, protection and cites... thats dumb.

A "greatfulness" scale should be modeled in... giving cash in times of war, trading and giving spare resources, killing rival units in the civs territory, and giving back captured cites o simply giving them cities... things like that should make civs greatful, and make them think twice about going to war... this way a small nation can become a unquestionable ally and it feels cool to protect the smaller nation. Also included should be a "leadership" factor... so that the smaller civ would follow your lead on who to declare war on, when to make peace, place embargos and such. This way, small civs on the fringes of your empire can become the perfect allies, as long as you protect them and give them stuff.

On the other hand, providing resources, maps, and gold to a civ should anger civs that are fighting them. This could be modeled in as well.

In other words... the Dutch should freaking LOVE me... and should follow my lead in diplomacy... the persians should HATE me, since i was giving the dutch oil, coal, iron, spices, gems and gold... and any persian unit that got near the dutch cities was quickly killed.


LEADERSHIP and GREATFULNESS... any comments??

 

[dylanhatesyou]

I'd love that, actually. Its not like San Marino has ever invaded Italy. Or the Isle of Man sending a force of Marines to invade the UK. Or Monaco launching a nuclear stike against France,

 

[sir_schwick]

I do agree that nations should have historical likeings/hate for each other. In real life the constant wars between France and England turned into a cultural hate that still exists to some extent(look at the British hand gesture for f*** you).

But, the computer should also decide when a certain long-time ally is just going down in the world, and its time to change sides. Would require the computer to use long-term planning, which has never really been done in a civ game.

 

[Cuivienen]

It's "grateful"

This falls under the whole concept of a smarter AI. In SMAC, if you defeated another nation, they could surrender and "swear a Pact to serve you" -- meaning that the two nations were allied until the stronger nation decided to break off the Pact.

 

[superpelon]

ehhh!! PERDON... english isnt my first language... hehe... y el español tampoco asi que no esten chin......

anyway... the "pact" idea is kinda what i meant. They should follow your lead in diplomacy, meaning they wouldnt drag you into conflicts with other nations, when you have a MPP... For example, the US would never let Mexico invade Guatemala*... kinda like that. You sign peace, they sign peace... kinda like that. And you (the stronger civ) decides when to break the pact... well, the smaller nation should be able to break it too, but then no civ would want to deal with them... kinda like that...

esos son mis dos pesos

 

[dh_epic]

Hey there. I think a reason that Civs aren't grateful is because there are big rewards for being a jerk. The AI doesn't account for someone being altruistic because it's not profitable to do so, beyond keeping peace now and then.

I had an idea to reward altruistic behavior, and thus there might be a reason for grateful civs (as much as spiteful civs who hate this kind of action). The idea was called "historical victory". I talked about it in this post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92201

I think it kind of relates. There should be rewards for being nice! In the real world, people are nice all the time ... but that's because in the real world, there's no year 2050 approaching, with everyone trying to determine a decisive winner.

 

[troytheface]

and too...does a nation really put "gratitude" ahead of its national interest?
(On a side note, in life, gratitude is more rare than one would think, oft times there is the opposite reaction..)

 

[sir_schwick]

nd too...does a nation really put "gratitude" ahead of its national interest?

I agree wholeheartedly. Until WWII, most nations used force to accomplish what they could because the cost of war was less then the cost of peace. Now, war between large nations is impractical and would cost more than keeping peace.

 

[NP300]

ehhh!! PERDON... english isnt my first language... hehe... y el español tampoco asi que no esten chin......

anyway... the "pact" idea is kinda what i meant. They should follow your lead in diplomacy, meaning they wouldnt drag you into conflicts with other nations, when you have a MPP... For example, the US would never let Mexico invade Guatemala*... kinda like that. You sign peace, they sign peace... kinda like that. And you (the stronger civ) decides when to break the pact... well, the smaller nation should be able to break it too, but then no civ would want to deal with them... kinda like that...

esos son mis dos pesos

It doesn't work this way in real-life. Weaker civs often drag stronger ones into conflict. Blegium dragged the UK into WWII, or at least this is the official excuse. Likewise during WWII, Italy dragged Germany into wars it didn't want against Greece, Yugoslavia and in North Africa.

 

[dh_epic]

It doesn't work this way in real-life. Weaker civs often drag stronger ones into conflict. Blegium dragged the UK into WWII, or at least this is the official excuse. Likewise during WWII, Italy dragged Germany into wars it didn't want against Greece, Yugoslavia and in North Africa.

While your examples are valid, it is impossible for us to talk about the number of times something DIDN'T happen. The number of times a larger nation had an international interest and didn't turn it into war. (That's like asking how many times you were thinking of someone and they didn't call. Much easier to pay attention the one time you think of someone and they do call, and think "oh my god, that's amazing, I was just thinking about you!")

I'm talking about the cold war, where the USA and USSR never went to war, but had several nations around the world -- especially latin america -- who leaned either Yankee or Socialist. Two nations might show a certain amount of tension, but instead there was a diplomatic solution. Diplomatic is a subjective term, because that often involved supplying weapons or aid to political opponents of the regime in power, and thus changing that nation's direction.

 

[superpelon]

Wellllll.... ok, ill grant thats true... but in 1939 the world was just waiting for an excuse to go to war.

What i meant is more like Latin Americas declaration of war on Germany just after Pearl Harbor, and the whole "western allies" concept during WW2. You cant surrender to just one, you surrender to all... something like that.

 

[Chauliodus]

I do agree that nations should have historical likeings/hate for each other. In real life the constant wars between France and England turned into a cultural hate that still exists to some extent(look at the British hand gesture for f*** you).

But, the computer should also decide when a certain long-time ally is just going down in the world, and its time to change sides. Would require the computer to use long-term planning, which has never really been done in a civ game.

The middle finger, or the british two fingers dates back to Roman times and possably before them.

The idea of the british two fingers as an insult to the Frence because they supposidly cut off archers main fingers is largly considered an urban legend now a days.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm

 

[NP300]

Wellllll.... ok, ill grant thats true... but in 1939 the world was just waiting for an excuse to go to war.

What i meant is more like Latin Americas declaration of war on Germany just after Pearl Harbor, and the whole "western allies" concept during WW2. You cant surrender to just one, you surrender to all... something like that.

A lot of Latin American countries waited until later to declare war against Germany. I believe Argentina or Uruguay sometimes gave refuge to u-boats. You will notice that in general a lot of countries waited until 44-45 to declare war, when it was obvious Germany was losing, to suck up to the winners.

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_14.html

"When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama immediately declared war on the Axis powers. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro on Jan. 15-28, 1942, the foreign ministers of the American republics resolved that all of them should sever diplomatic relations with the Axis. All did so at the time except Chile, which acted in January 1943, and Argentina, which delayed until January 1944. Mexico and Brazil sent troops overseas to help in the war effort. Argentina's refusal to cooperate with the other republics was the most troublesome facet of wartime diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere and a major problem that confronted the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, meeting at Chapultepec Castle, Mexico City, on Feb. 21-March 8, 1945. With Argentina deliberately excluded, the other republics declared that all were joint guardians of each against any aggression; Argentina was notified that she could be admitted to the future United Nations only if she adhered to the Act of Chapultepec and entered the war. The Argentine provisional government on March 27, 1945, declared war against Germany."

So obviously it was primarily the very weak Central American and Caribbean nations that declared war immediately in 1941. The above paragraph refers to cutting off relations but doesn't say much about declarations of war. I was looking for a list of declarations fo war because if memoery serves me right many Latin American countries, like Brazil, waited until 43-44 to declare war, even if they may have cut relations earlier.

 

[Lennon]

It doesn't work this way in real-life. Weaker civs often drag stronger ones into conflict. Blegium dragged the UK into WWII, or at least this is the official excuse. Likewise during WWII, Italy dragged Germany into wars it didn't want against Greece, Yugoslavia and in North Africa.

Although Belgium were partially the reason for the Brits to enter WW2, it was more important in WW1, where Belgium was basically the main reason for Britain to declare war on Germany. In WW2 by the time Germany invaded Belgium, Britain and Germany had been at (phony) war for over six months.

 

[NP300]

Although Belgium were partially the reason for the Brits to enter WW2, it was more important in WW1, where Belgium was basically the main reason for Britain to declare war on Germany. In WW2 by the time Germany invaded Belgium, Britain and Germany had been at (phony) war for over six months.

That was a typo. I meant WWI for Belgium.

 

[Lennon]

That was a typo. I meant WWI for Belgium.

OK, I suppose I was nitpicking anyway...

 

[Onza]

I think Superpelon is right in his suggestion of placing a "gratitude" option into the AI. THere are such examples in real history however rare they could seem. And I experienced the same situation in game when trying to protect a tiny Pacific islands culture from invading hords from the West fro sevel centuries and then they betrayed me. That was stupid as they did not last much longer.

What I think with this regard is that the "gratitude" feelings and altruistic behavour should be strongly based on cultural similarity - i.e. so called culture groups must be MUCH more detailed and numerous and lmust result is MUCH more friendly relations between the nations even without any locked allience -
Look at the British Commonwealth, Europe, Orthodox and Arab countries.

 

[dh_epic]

Look at the British Commonwealth, Europe, Orthodox and Arab countries.

Yeah, LOOK at Arab countries... they can't STAND each other. Tensions are always riding high, people are arguing about what to do... the past 100 years have been riddled with war and humiliation, with borders shifting, internal genocide, the crushing of rival political parties in one home state while another state gives funding and moral support to the opposition party in a rival state.

I think a much more valid line is government type.

Communist countries try to get along, so they can fight Democratic countries.
Democratic countries try to get along so they can fight communist countries.
Fundamentalist countries try to get along, get this, to fight godless communism.
So democratic countries help fundamentalist countries fight godless communism.
And when godless communism falls, the funadmentalists turn the weapons on the democratic countries.

Not to mention the triple axis in the second world War -- Japan and Germany had little in common when it comes to ethnic similarity, but they got along.

Although you're right about one thing: the propaganda films from WW2 (fiction ones, the equivelant of Saving Private Ryan) had the Germans as trecherous but intelligent, reasonable. It was the Japanese who were savage and had no regard for human life, willing to blow themselves up blindly. A lot more American people sympathized with Hitler than they did with Japan. I guess ethnicity does go a long way.

 

[Onza]

So there is no point to argue. The ethnicity does go a long way and so does historical experience. The Russians, say, tend to respect and be more tolerant to the Japanese the to the Germans - we had almost no bad experience with the former at least at the level of consious historical memory - unlike that with Germans.

Complex combination of government type and cultural group would be good one for the AI to get included.

The Arabs can squarrel among themselves but look how they consolidate when there is an outsider enemy like the US or Israel. It even go over the ethnical borders to encompass all the Islamic nations. I think they have way more powerful potencial for unification agaisnt the "godless" democrats (hehe) than ex-Christian West vice versa.

Well OK, the topic was to improve the AI's altruistic/loyality functions. It seems quite reasonable and rooted in reality in one way or another.

 

[Diogenes183]

I like your idea quite a lot, superpelon.

A game without any war and betrayal would be boring, but it would be nice be friends with somebody. I still remember a very fun game of MOO1 ages upon ages ago which featured a very loyal, game spanning Darlok-Mrrshan alliance. Together we were able to bring down the great powers of the galaxy.

In Civ3, even the best of friends will inexplicably turn on you at some point in the game.