Yeah, but usually countries only ally you if you're already quite powerful. It'd be interesting to see a war in Civ between one superpower, and a coalition of smaller countries. Usually it's the other way around- a lot of powerful countries gang up on one really weak country.
Is war too important?
- Thread starter Ibian
- Start date
Yeah, but usually countries only ally you if you're already quite powerful. It'd be interesting to see a war in Civ between one superpower, and a coalition of smaller countries. Usually it's the other way around- a lot of powerful countries gang up on one really weak country.
Iceciro
Special Ability: Decimate
Well, one thing people keep going back to is GalCiv II, and there are two main reasons why War isn't such a big deal there - and Diplomacy is.
1) There's an entire Diplomacy line of research that makes the AIs a ton easier to make deals with. There are also leader traits (Super Abilities for the Races in Gal Civ) that focus on Diplomacy, making it easy to take one of those races, go down the Diplo line, and with careful meandering stay out of everyone's way until either 1) you're bored and want to gank someone or 2) a galactic war breaks out you have an interest in (saving an ally, knocking off an enemy.)
2) Even when you do have to go to war in Gal Civ, it's a lot more fun. Less stacks of doom, and customizable ships rather than "thirty two axemen" go a long way. The system of war in Civ IV just plain sucks. Having to suicide ten capatpults to take two cities from the AI just because he built them on hills sucks.
It also doesn't help that combat is pretty much mandatory in Civ IV because it's the only reasonable way to get anywhere once the settling phase is over. You can't buy cities for anything near reasonable prices, and there's no real empire building to do aside from "ooh, researched Writing, build libraries everywhere. Ok now what." I've noticed in a few recent games there are times when I can either build military units, or convert hammers to research/wealth/culture because everything else is in the city.
I love Civ. I especially love it for it's multiplayer. But I need to spend more time building a civilization and less time trying to tear everyone else's down.
1) There's an entire Diplomacy line of research that makes the AIs a ton easier to make deals with. There are also leader traits (Super Abilities for the Races in Gal Civ) that focus on Diplomacy, making it easy to take one of those races, go down the Diplo line, and with careful meandering stay out of everyone's way until either 1) you're bored and want to gank someone or 2) a galactic war breaks out you have an interest in (saving an ally, knocking off an enemy.)
2) Even when you do have to go to war in Gal Civ, it's a lot more fun. Less stacks of doom, and customizable ships rather than "thirty two axemen" go a long way. The system of war in Civ IV just plain sucks. Having to suicide ten capatpults to take two cities from the AI just because he built them on hills sucks.
It also doesn't help that combat is pretty much mandatory in Civ IV because it's the only reasonable way to get anywhere once the settling phase is over. You can't buy cities for anything near reasonable prices, and there's no real empire building to do aside from "ooh, researched Writing, build libraries everywhere. Ok now what." I've noticed in a few recent games there are times when I can either build military units, or convert hammers to research/wealth/culture because everything else is in the city.
I love Civ. I especially love it for it's multiplayer. But I need to spend more time building a civilization and less time trying to tear everyone else's down.
@ pi-r8: Won't happen much on its own, but not that difficult to engineer... I stumbled upon this when I tried to find a non-military way to be safe from our favourite tsarina. Catherine is infamous for her willingness to attack friendly civs when bribed... but she needs to be pleased with the bribing one as well. Which means you're safe if you are her only friend. I found this a very interesting way of stirring p an otherwise boring lovefest; just sic her on everyone else who takes a shine to her and kiss up, including giving in to her demands.
Yes, this will create a monster... that's the point. Unless I backstab her the end result will often be a despised but powerful Russia. I've seen coalition warfare against her before I set up the inevitable diplomatic victory.
Judging from the leader info, the same is possible with Pacal (another semi-competent AI whom you can only trust if you are their only friend), but I never tried it with him.
Yes, this will create a monster... that's the point. Unless I backstab her the end result will often be a despised but powerful Russia. I've seen coalition warfare against her before I set up the inevitable diplomatic victory.
Judging from the leader info, the same is possible with Pacal (another semi-competent AI whom you can only trust if you are their only friend), but I never tried it with him.
That probably means you need to move up a difficulty level.
Thats... actually a fairly good analogy.
If the AI even remembered old friendships beyond what is immediately useful things would be a lot better. Just had a game where me and another AI conquered our continent together, and he was pleased. When the last rival died he had a bigger army than me but i had a tech lead. Figured since we had just helped eachother for mutual benefit i could build and tech in peace for a little while before we had to fight it out.
Nope. Not even 10 turns later, he attacks. I could have started drafting rifles vs his swords and catapults, but instead i quit in disgust.
If the AI even remembered old friendships beyond what is immediately useful things would be a lot better. Just had a game where me and another AI conquered our continent together, and he was pleased. When the last rival died he had a bigger army than me but i had a tech lead. Figured since we had just helped eachother for mutual benefit i could build and tech in peace for a little while before we had to fight it out.
Nope. Not even 10 turns later, he attacks. I could have started drafting rifles vs his swords and catapults, but instead i quit in disgust.
Not really. I've just got a rather macabre sense of humour. 
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Come on...that was almost certainly the AI's optimal tactic for winning. If one side has a tech lead, and the other has a bigger army, it would be foolish to sit on the army
.If AI's "remembered" friendships it could be abused pretty badly, as there's nothing preventing human players from vicious backstabs even after 5000 years of peace and brotherhood.
The thing is that in a real situation, there would at least be some hints that he was the backstabbing type. Nobody would team up with a rabid dog like that. There is nothing like it ingame. Unless you know which leaders will attack under which circumstances (and i am not about to go over reference charts every time i play a new game), the only option is to have an army at least as big as his at all times.
And as far as abuse, the AI gets a whole bunch of production and research bonuses. There is a reason for that.
And as far as abuse, the AI gets a whole bunch of production and research bonuses. There is a reason for that.
Artichoker
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,711
Let me tell you why war is so common in a typical game.
It's because human players aren't bound to the patterns of AI behavior. AI leaders, on the other hand, are bound to the patterns of their behavioral profile defined by the AI programming.
If you knew that Brennus would never attack you if he's Friendly, that's a one-sided advantage that the human player has vs. the AI. Add several of those AI leaders into the mix, and you potentially have several AI leaders that won't attack the human because they are Friendly to him.
In practice, this puts the AI leaders at a disadvantage compared to the human, because the human isn't bound by the patterns followed by each AI leader, but they play such that the human is bound by them.
In other words, if the human doesn't start a war, then he loses the opportunity to exploit this aspect of AI weakness--which is the weakness of being bound to AI leader behavioral profiles. If the human doesn't war, then he becomes more like the AI leaders by more closely conforming to the AI's expectations of the human player's actions. The result of this is an effectively stronger performance from the AI in decision making.
Therefore, to make war a high priority in gameplay, as far as the human player is concerned, would be to minimize the capability of the AI to correctly anticipate the human player's actions. Collectively, this minimization of AI strength with respect to all rival leaders gives the human a distinct advantage relative to the AI leaders, when he adopts the war-heavy strategy.
It's because human players aren't bound to the patterns of AI behavior. AI leaders, on the other hand, are bound to the patterns of their behavioral profile defined by the AI programming.
If you knew that Brennus would never attack you if he's Friendly, that's a one-sided advantage that the human player has vs. the AI. Add several of those AI leaders into the mix, and you potentially have several AI leaders that won't attack the human because they are Friendly to him.
In practice, this puts the AI leaders at a disadvantage compared to the human, because the human isn't bound by the patterns followed by each AI leader, but they play such that the human is bound by them.
In other words, if the human doesn't start a war, then he loses the opportunity to exploit this aspect of AI weakness--which is the weakness of being bound to AI leader behavioral profiles. If the human doesn't war, then he becomes more like the AI leaders by more closely conforming to the AI's expectations of the human player's actions. The result of this is an effectively stronger performance from the AI in decision making.
Therefore, to make war a high priority in gameplay, as far as the human player is concerned, would be to minimize the capability of the AI to correctly anticipate the human player's actions. Collectively, this minimization of AI strength with respect to all rival leaders gives the human a distinct advantage relative to the AI leaders, when he adopts the war-heavy strategy.
Maybe there should be something to prevent it. Maybe not earlier when you are a despot or a king... But randomly attacking nations that you had at pleased or friendly for 2000 years during modern times shouldn't be as easy as it is right now.
Similar threads
