Is there any logic to an AI DoW?

[EditorRex]

No, neither nukes or razings have a direct influence in either RTT or capitulation besides the changes in war success ( 10 war success points per detonated nuke , BTW ).

In your situation ... well, I'll assume that Victoria is weaker than Wash and Wash weaker than Boudica . In that situation it is impossible that either Boudica or Victoria vassal peacefully to Wash, that is a good thing , so the only risk is from them to capitulate to him. As long as Boudica is stronger than him , that should not happen, but Victoria, being weaker, might have a risk of capitulating to Wash if Wash has 40+ war sucess points on her and she becomes free ( might be dificult to have that war sucess if the war was really mainly naval ). Same to Boudica if she becomes sustantially weaker than Wash and if Victoria breaks free...

I've had a lot of games where I'm devastating an opponent after getting ahead in a long war, and they suddenly capitulate to a third-party I'd only brought in as a bribed ally a few turns earlier and who didn't seem to be getting much of their territory. A little different scenario than what I've been describing. But is that just my perception? Did that third party have to have achieved some major success points that I'm just overlooking for this to happen? Also, does the overall history of the war shape the success evaluation, so that if I took heavy losses early, but now have the initiative, I may not be viewed as all that successful?

Guess in the Victoria/Wash scenario above, I may want to bribe Wash to make peace with her before she can Capitulate to him. Since they hate each other, that should also proclude her Vassaling to him before I can get her to bow to me.

 

[r_rolo1]

40 war sucess points are not that hard to get if the enemy army is elsewhere: it is the equivalent of capturing four empty cities, firing 4 nukes or , in more normal conditions, take out 2 or 3 cities with 4-5 units in each and maybe a couple of workers without losses..

Anwsering to the second question, no , initiative counts for nothing. If you lost a lot of units to kill the enemy main troop group, too bad for you ... now compensate that by taking cities. That is the main reason why some AI think they are winning the war vs a human, even when they are losing cities left and right: humans tend to sacrifice a lot of siege units and the global war sucess might be negative....

 

[dirtyparrot]

IIRC, war success points from nukes are capped. There is probably an article about this floating around. Also captured workers and settlers do count. And no, the way that the war is heading does not matter. It's the total and other thresholds that count.

 

[EditorRex]

Does the war success calculation also take a look at the AI's losses? For instance, I've had a brutal war going with Willem (he attacked me right after I nuked Victoria) and he just won't break. Annoying because he keeps hitting my minor cities away from the main front with Gunship raids. I've taken 6 of his cities (including 2 I recaptured that he took briefly) and hit him with at least 3 successful nukes, one of which wiped out his massive SOD. He's hurt me pretty badly too and nuked me twice. Had to sack a lot of units to get a couple of his cities. Anyway, by my count he's still lost far more units than me because of his suicidal tactics. At one point he sent perhaps 30 Paratroopers to the same location and I killed all but three with Jets. So do those losses even count in his calculations?

 

[r_rolo1]

Read this thread

In resume, yes, war success counts with the AI losses and wins as well ( the real war success count is your war success vs the AI minus the war success the AI has on you ). And, like I said in the previous page, by some reason, kills that involve air units are not factored in. So those 27 paratroopers don't count for this issues.

 

[LowtherCastle]

ooops wrong thread...