duennbrettbohrer
Chieftain
Actually, the "extreme hostility" towards Civ. One ist quite a sensible thing. Common sense tells us that an however improved AI will NEVER be as good as an experienced human player, so it's quite likely that the human will be far ahead in most games. There are MANY examples in history for what happens when a nation becomes too powerful and too obviously expansionist: There will be -as like as not-an universal alliance against it: see WW1, the napoleonic wars, the history of ancient Athens a.s.o. A big and rich nation will also incite jealousy and greed, as Rome did, and thus become a target for raids (especially technology ist easy to steal in Civ2). To conclude, it makes sense for the AI players to unite, since an appeasement strategy is known to be disastrous in the long run, see WW2. Expansionist civs will conquer you in the end, no matter how well you behave if they are not checked in time.
In that light, it even makes some sense for small nations to attack without provocation even if they themselves are destroyed by the inevitable counteroffensive, since they can do some damage and force Civ1 to deploy troops which might weaken the defence by a significant margin, enough for the allies to break through elsewhere. Of course, this only works if there was some sort of coordination of attack strategies between allies, which of course doesnt yet exist in civ.
In that light, it even makes some sense for small nations to attack without provocation even if they themselves are destroyed by the inevitable counteroffensive, since they can do some damage and force Civ1 to deploy troops which might weaken the defence by a significant margin, enough for the allies to break through elsewhere. Of course, this only works if there was some sort of coordination of attack strategies between allies, which of course doesnt yet exist in civ.
