How to keep AI Civs from declaring war on me?

[Ericone]

Large Pangean map, Regent level, playing the Chinese.

As soon as I make contact with the germans, they demand tribute from me. When I say, no, they declare war. Then I bump into the persians and they do the same. Before long, everyone has declared war on me.

What am I doing wrong? How can I keep the peace without paying enormous amounts of tribute?

Thanks,

Eric

 

[Dralix]

Sounds like you have a weak military compared to the AI. They will know this and be more agressive. Consult your military advisor to see how you compare to the other civs.

 

[BillChin]

Pay the tribute if you are not ready for war. It is cheaper in the long run. To keep down the tribute you pay, one way is to have less gold. You do more research or buy techs or maps, or establish embassies with the gold. The enemy can not demand gold that you have spent.

Next, prepare for war. Germans are notorious for early wars because they are militaristic. On Regent level or higher, be ready. Better to prepare for war and attack, than stumble in and flounder (what you are doing now). So pay the early tribute, build up the military and get your tribute back in cities.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by BillChin
To keep down the tribute you pay, one way is to have less gold. You do more research or buy techs or maps, or establish embassies with the gold. The enemy can not demand gold that you have spent.

I remember that tactic from SMAC, as as soon as you had a decent amount of gold one of the AI factions would imeadiatly demand that you gave it to them. Consequently every few turns I was looking to see what I could spend it rushing. Keep no treasurey and the AI had no reason to pick a fight with me.

In my current game will have to remember that the next time one of my resources comes available after the tribute time runs out, so this way I can trade it from something instead of under the threat of the gun.

 

[Capt Ajax]

You can not be afraid to go to war either.
I know that when I first started to play the game, I would avoid conflict at all cost so that I could continue to build and grow. However, the threats seem to never go away. I learned that the best defence is a great offence (Strong Military). Besides those enemy cities fall easier than you might think!!

 

[Mr Spice]

Yep. And by war you may get Great Leaders, which is a very good thing.

 

[Apollo]

Also depending on the strategy you use, in v1.17 you may see a lot more early wars than in previous patches because of changes to the AI diplomacy. The only way to get around it is to put your economy to gold rather than research early on and then buy techs from the AI. By engaging in trades like this the AI will be nicer to you, and you will be able to keep up in techs even with the AI civs operating almost as one unified nation all working together against you.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Apollo
By engaging in trades like this the AI will be nicer to you, and you will be able to keep up in techs even with the AI civs operating almost as one unified nation all working together against you.

My experience does not bear this out (that they will be nice to you if they get gold from you). AI guys keep declaring war even if I keep giving them gifts of gold and they are much weaker than me. (maybe they behave differently on different difficulty levels). Do AI civs start wars because of "jealosy"? Don't know. Then after I kick their *** sometimes they make peace, but they stay "furious" for thousands of years, even if they started all the wars against me. I am in a war now against an AI civ that keeps declaring war on me even though it is orders of magnitude weaker than me. I want to make peace but it won't talk to my envoy, so the only choice I have is to annihilate it. Like the other guys said, war does create leaders for you. Create an army the first chance you get, build the military academy to make more armies, build the Heroic Epic to get more leaders. Then you can use the leaders to do things like build the Forbidden Palace in one turn. The Forbidden Palace would be very difficult to build without a leader because you want to put it in the middle of some cities that do not produce many shields (like the ones, far away from your palace, you grabbed is a war). So the FP (if it is built far away from your capital as it should be) would take a long time to build without a leader! Just be careful to protect leaders after you create them -- they are very weak!

 

[Zachriel]

If they are scared of you, they won't attack you. Build a big army. Let you be the one to decide when the war is to begin.

 

[cephyn]

I wrote this for a private civ discussion group I'm on, hope it helps!

They love you, they hate you, they declare war on you. Yup, I'm
talking about your friendly (haha) neighbor civ.

What I hate, and i mean HATE is when a "polite" or "gracious" civ
declares war on you OUT OF THE BLUE. Doesn't matter if you reload
1000 times, give them gifts, beef up defense or whatever, they ALWAYS
declare war.

Now, we know the AI is pretty hardcoded, so there has to be a reason
right? So here's what I think you should be looking for in your
neighbors and when to be worried about the sneak attack:

1) are they expansionistic, militaristic, or (god forbid) the Zulu?
(both, hehe) --- thats always a red flag. These civs will always be
chomping at the bit to fight or expand their land. We all know
Eliza***** just LOVES to plop cities down ALL OVER THE MAP. And lo,
English are expansionistic. So keep the trait in mind.

2) are they losing/winning? Right I know, theyre of course at least
one of the two, but what you have to worry about is if theyre winning
and youre very weak -- theyll try and consolidate power. If you're
winning, and the civ next to you is desperate for some points, watch
out as well.

3) Have they recently acquired their Unique Unit? If so, watch out --
the AI KNOWS that using that unit is an automatic advantage, and will
almost always unconditionally attack when they get it.

4) Are they resource hungry? Desperate for resources or even luxuries
will cause an AI civ to launch a preemptive attack. If surprise is
their only advantage, theyll use it.

5) Do you own any, and i mean ANY cities that were once theirs?
Whether you took them over last turn or 3000 years ago, whether by
culture or by war, they will WANT THEM BACK. So if a preemptive
attack happens, you can lay money that theyll be attacking
to "liberate" their former city.

THE BOTTOM LINE

If at any time TWO or more of those situations happen in a neighbor
civ, WATCH OUT -- You could be at war in the next few turns. Hope
this helps!

Any thoughts?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


Do AI civs start wars because of "jealosy"?

I am in a war now against an AI civ that keeps declaring war on me even though it is orders of magnitude weaker than me. I want to make peace but it won't talk to my envoy, so the only choice I have is to annihilate it.

1) YES! When they see you getting to far ahead they declare war to slow you down.

2) Welcome to the club! Call it aspoiling attack when you get close to winning, or maybe they think you`re so busy elswhere that they can sneak a city out of your empire.

AI sucks!

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by cephyn
I wrote this for a private civ discussion group I'm on, hope it helps!

They love you, they hate you, they declare war on you. Yup, I'm
talking about your friendly (haha) neighbor civ.

Yes. It could be that the AI guys have random personalities, some somewhat reasonable and others totally irrational. And the "reasonable" ones can transmogrify into the crazy ones.

This also happens in the real world, but the civ3 AI guys are crazier, on average, than the real world countries. In my humble opinion.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


Yes. It could be that the AI guys have random personalities, some somewhat reasonable and others totally irrational. And the "reasonable" ones can transmogrify into the crazy ones.

This also happens in the real world, but the civ3 AI guys are crazier, on average, than the real world countries. In my humble opinion.

Examples:

Russia and U.S., allies in WWII, threaten mutual annihilation for the next 50 years, now friendly.

England and U.S., enemies after the American Revolution, now allies.

France, England and Germany, traditional enemies, now allies.

Germany signs pact with England, then attacks Poland.

Germany and Russia, sign pact, divide Poland, Germany breaks pact and attacks Russia

Japan talks peace, then sneak attacks the U.S.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Japan talks peace, then sneak attacks the U.S.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor illustrates a couple of principles.

1) Although Japan's industrial output was only a fraction of that of the US, the Japanese militarists thought that Japan's people were kind of morally superior to the US. They had a kind of "honor" that the US didn't have, and they would prevail because of that. Wiser people like Admiral Yamamoto knew better, and it's ironic that he actually proposed and planned the Pearl harbor attack.

The southern states in the US thought along similar lines. Even though the north had vastly superior industry, navy, etc., their "honor" would prevail. Sometimes the little guy wins in real life, like in Vietnam and the American Revolution against England.

So maybe CIV3 is realistic in this respect: Even though you are very powerful, a weaker opponent might attack you anyway.

2) Japan did not have the natural resources on its home islands to keep up with the other world powers, and the US was threatening a naval blockade. In CIV3, when I see that all the oil is inside another guy's borders, what is the first thing that comes to mind? You got it. War. And of course the AI guys may declare war for the same reason. How can I get him to declare war on me so that it won't be my fault?

(Why can't I build railroads if I have oil and combustion but no coal??? We don't really use steam locomotives now, you know.)

I think that this aspect of CIV3, resource wars, is very well done. It gives me insights into history (So THAT's why they started that war!)

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor illustrates a couple of principles.
. . .
I think that this aspect of CIV3, resource wars, is very well done. It gives me insights into history (So THAT's why they started that war!)

Good observations. In addition, the Japanese had a head start in military production, and had already established control of large sections of Asia. These conquered provinces did not have much industrial production, but had strategic resources. Indeed, the Allies had cut off Japan's oil supply, which was one of the proximate causes of the attack.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Good analysis sumthinelse. Civ3 wars starting over resources as you pointed out is quite realistic. The only reason why the Japanese attacked us was that they thought they could give us a crippling blow by taking out our pacific fleet, forcing us to negotiate a surrender. The scary thing is that there original plans were to take Pearl Harbor, and they probably could easily have done that. And if they had we would not have been able to salvage any of those ships and would have been in a much worse position for the pacific war.

However, on the question you posed you need coal for those rails. We might no longer burn coal to provide the power to the trains, but coke blast furnaces are required for producing steel, which you need for the railroad ties.

Originally posted by sumthinelse

(Why can't I build railroads if I have oil and combustion but no coal??? We don't really use steam locomotives now, you know.)

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle
Good analysis sumthinelse. Civ3 wars starting over resources as you pointed out is quite realistic. The only reason why the Japanese attacked us was that they thought they could give us a crippling blow by taking out our pacific fleet, forcing us to negotiate a surrender. The scary thing is that there original plans were to take Pearl Harbor, and they probably could easily have done that. And if they had we would not have been able to salvage any of those ships and would have been in a much worse position for the pacific war.

However, on the question you posed you need coal for those rails. We might no longer burn coal to provide the power to the trains, but coke blast furnaces are required for producing steel, which you need for the railroad ties.

About strategic resources: I just went to the bookstore (Bangkok, Thailand) and found a recent best-selling book predicting the future: "Resource Wars" (!) Not a new idea, I guess he is saying it's going to happen more in the future.

I didn't think about the coal needed for steel, but then, to be consistent, why isn't coal needed for battleships etc?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


About strategic resources: I just went to the bookstore (Bangkok, Thailand) and found a recent best-selling book predicting the future: "Resource Wars" (!) Not a new idea, I guess he is saying it's going to happen more in the future.

I didn't think about the coal needed for steel, but then, to be consistent, why isn't coal needed for battleships etc?

Game balance. They didn't want to cripple you completely. Might need those battleships for the Battle for Coal.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


About strategic resources: I just went to the bookstore (Bangkok, Thailand) and found a recent best-selling book predicting the future: "Resource Wars" (!) Not a new idea, I guess he is saying it's going to happen more in the future.

I didn't think about the coal needed for steel, but then, to be consistent, why isn't coal needed for battleships etc?

Well the whole reason why the Bush administration wants to invade Iraq is because of oil, to finally create an US friendly diplomatic state in the middle east. Oil and water and the two resources that wars in the near future will be fought over. (hmm... maybe they should have created a water resource required to build aqueducts ).

Game balance. They didn't want to cripple you completely. Might need those battleships for the Battle for Coal.

Though with the way they set those ship A/D values one wouldn't think they needed to do that as well. But again civ3 is realism only in the abstract sense.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Game balance. They didn't want to cripple you completely. Might need those battleships for the Battle for Coal.

I understand the idea. But I find that railroads are a bigger weapon than battleships in a war. I can use railroads to gang up on invaders wherever they appear, and of course invaders can't use the railroad movement inside my territory. For game balance, I would think that they should make the exception for railroads to use be able to oil rather than something else.

Railroads also allow me to attack (AND be attacked!!!) suddenly along the border. So if I don't have coal but I do have oil, railroads are more likely to be an equaliizer than battleships. I suppose that it depends on the topography of the world, too. If the whole world is composed of little islands, ships become much more important. I usually play on a world that has some big continents, so getting to the resources does not necessarily involve ships.

But if they had designed the game like that (railroads need only iron and coal OR iron and oil) we might be asking "What is the big deal with coal? It's not really an important strategic resource."

Game design is more difficult than it looks. If I had designed CIV3, I am sure plenty of players would come across phenomena which would make them say, "What the ****?!" The fact that we are all playing, having fun with, and (some of us) learning about history from, CIV3 is evidence that Sid and Firaxis did a pretty good job.