No more AI friends??

[WeaselSlapper]

OK I've played a few games now and theres seems to be a serious flaw in the way the AI behaves toward the user. Especially when it comes to warmonger and troops near boarders. I have two games where the AI seems to have lost its mind.

I was Washington playing with Gandhi, Aztec, and a few others. Early on while exploring I rescued and returned a couple of Gandhi's workers and returned them to him. We were good friends for quite a while. We signed a few pacts of secrecy and trade agreements. I killed Japan and Aztecs were expanding and killing like crazy. Eventually the Aztecs declared on Gandhi. As I was preparing to attack the Aztec Gandhi lost his capital. While Gandhi still has a few cities I declare on the Aztec. A few turns later I get a message from Gandhi saying he's noticed my warmongering and doesn't like it. After our current deals expire he's no longer willing to give me any more. Several turns into the war I declared to save him he now hates me and has made peace with the Aztec. A few turns after that he signed a research agreement with the country that just took all his cities but one and hates me. Am I missing something here or is there something very wrong with how the AI figures warmongering?

Also I was in another continents games where there was an empty continent in the middle of the ocean with some barbs and city states I was allies with and the barbs where harassing the city sates I was getting resources from. So I sent 1 calvary unit to the empty continent to wipe out the barbs and the only other civ left (who I was really good friends with) pops up saying I can't help but notice you have a lot of troops near my border. After this message he hates me.

They really need to fix the way the AI behaves, but this is making me never want to have the AI as an ally, because they will turn on you at the drop of a dime.

 

[Grotius]

Gee, I just played an entire game against a stronger Rome, and we remained friends for all 4000 years. Even as I was gearing up to win a diplomatic victory, Rome never declared war on me, kept referring to me as a "friend," etc. Maybe the only reason is that we weren't neighbors -- we were on separate continents. Still, I don't remember the AI being that polite to me in earlier versions of Civ.

 

[King Jason]

Am I missing something here or is there something very wrong with how the AI figures warmongering?

The A.I. is takes a harsh stance against warmongering, it's true. What you did wrong was not involve the diplomacy system in your actions.

They really need to fix the way the AI behaves, but this is making me never want to have the AI as an ally, because they will turn on you at the drop of a dime.

If you conquer a couple of nations, even if you attack somebody's enemy, it's reasonable for any player to assume that they're next on the chopping block. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of deal. The A.I. is trying it's best to act like a human, the best way to get positive results is to partake in their system as if you're an A.I. too.

Basically, next time do this: Go to Ghandi, open up a trade, offer "Declare war on Aztecs" from your side, and see what he says. Declaring war directly leaves no implication that you're doing it for any other reason than you're a warmongering fiend who needs to be stopped. Offering as a trade confirms an agreement between you and an A.I civ.

It works fine, imo... I think the only people who are actually having problems with the diplomacy in this game are the one's that aren't really using it effectively.

 

[Show]

From my understanding any city captured will get you negative diplomacy with anyone who knows the civilization who first owned it. War itself has no consequence on diplomacy.

The only way around this I believe is if you have a pact of secrecy against this civilization, than the one you have the pact with might not be pissed but can't confirm.

 

[r_rolo1]

If you conquer a couple of nations, even if you attack somebody's enemy, it's reasonable for any player to assume that they're next on the chopping block. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of deal. The A.I. is trying it's best to act like a human, the best way to get positive results is to partake in their system as if you're an A.I. too.

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated

Sorry couldn't resist it The irony is big in your last sentence: because the AI is suposedely playing like a human, you, a human, should start playing like the AI So we humans should learn how to be a human with the AI ....

Seriously, you have some reason in what you say: the AI should not lightly continue to cooperate with someone that is clearly on a conquering spree. But there are other options to deal with that besides going red eyes with that player: simple stuff , like directing that player in other directions while sharpening the blade , gift units to someone that is warring them, or even, heavens forbid, cooperate with other players against that menace ... there is more in this that simply go mad .

 

[InvertedSine]

Basically, next time do this: Go to Ghandi, open up a trade, offer "Declare war on Aztecs" from your side, and see what he says. Declaring war directly leaves no implication that you're doing it for any other reason than you're a warmongering fiend who needs to be stopped. Offering as a trade confirms an agreement between you and an A.I civ.

It works fine, imo... I think the only people who are actually having problems with the diplomacy in this game are the one's that aren't really using it effectively.

That's what I would say to do too. And I agree. I think that most people have a problem with it because in CIV 4 you could have good relations with another civ and there was a good chance they wouldn't declare on you even if you are weak militarily. In this version, the A.I., I think, looks out more for it's own self interest. If attacking an ally is the best move to achieve victory. It will do it.

 

[King Jason]

Seriously, you have some reason in what you say: the AI should not lightly continue to cooperate with someone that is clearly on a conquering spree. But there are other options to deal with that besides going red eyes with that player: simple stuff , like directing that player in other directions while sharpening the blade , gift units to someone that is warring them, or even, heavens forbid, cooperate with other players against that menace ... there is more in this that simply go mad .

Sounds like that's exactly what happened, Ghandi chose to side with Montezuma against the player.

 

[Daniel D]

The A.I. is takes a harsh stance against warmongering, it's true. What you did wrong was not involve the diplomacy system in your actions.

Just wanted to add that this varies by leader. There's a leader attribute named WarmongerHate in the game data...

Al Rashid 5
Alexander 2
Askia 4
Augustus 4
Bismark 6
Catherine 5
Darius 5
Elizabeth 7
Gandhi 7
Hiawatha 6
Montezuma 1
Napoleon 3
Oda Nobunaga 6
Ramesses 6
Ramkhamaeng 8
Sulieman 4
Washington 7
Wu Zetian 5

 

[Ranbir]

Problem I have is there is no way to rectify this. If you start off as a bit aggressive, you're pretty much seen as that for the rest of the game.

I started a war early on in my marathon game. Over one thousand turns later, where I've done -nothing- but mind my business and build up culture, I'm still not liked, even though I gift away resources and cities for free. I'll still get messages about " a shame there are some rulers that pick on the weak". Okay, I did that -once- and now I'm branded for life.

 

[Zhahz]

I like that the AI behaves like a player but I don't like the double standards and even players wouldn't be so ridiculous as to:

- initiate pacts of cooperation/secrecy within 10-20 turns of the start of the game before things even get rolling

- call you a warmonger and sever relations while wiping another civ off the map and conquering city states at the same time for good measure (I've yet to find a way for ME to whine to an aggressive civ about their genocidic ways)

- sever ties because you have troops on our borders when you're on seperate continents and none of your units are outside your territory (I've had this happen, which is irritating, because the AI supposedly doesn't cheat and should have no idea where my units are that it can't see - especially when we're 15+ tiles apart on seperate continents).

- etc

Overall the diplo AI isn't bad but when it IS bad, it's really bad.

 

[automator]

- call you a warmonger and sever relations while wiping another civ off the map and conquering city states at the same time for good measure (I've yet to find a way for ME to whine to an aggressive civ about their genocidic ways).

You do.

Cut off trade relations. Or go to war with them.

 

[r_rolo1]

Sounds like that's exactly what happened, Ghandi chose to side with Montezuma against the player.

No, it was not what happened I was talking in "pretty much except open war" ... siding with one of the contenders is not that ... and we could wonder if gandhi would not make a better service to it's cause if , instead of openly siding with monty, he had simply given units to monty. His country would be out of war and other would be taking the brunt of it ...

But no, they must wage suicidal wars because ... yup ,exactly, because of that

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Sounds like that's exactly what happened, Ghandi chose to side with Montezuma against the player.

This is exactly it. I found it pretty ironic that Ghandi choose to side with Montezuma when Monte was on a war path and attacked him when we had been friends and Monty had a much larger army than either of us and after he wiped Ghandi off the map came and destroyed me (it was my first game). I actually did first offer Ghandi war against Monty in the diplo screen but he said there was nothing that could make that happen.

If the computer when by the enemy of my enemy is my friend he wouldn't have shunned me then allied with Monty. I wouldn't have been so upset by this if he hated us both equally (even though Monty was clearly warmongering and I wasn't) but after he signed a peace treaty with Monty he signed a research agreement with him and cut all times with me.

 

[Shamus]

Ghandi's behaviour doesn't seem at all odd to me. He was getting the s**t kicked out of him by Monti, and did what he could to stop it. What better way to try and ensure the playground bully leaves you alone in the future, than by allying yourself with him, and giving the bird to his enemies (in this case, you). Seems like good politicking to me.

 

[King Jason]

I was just gonna say that. Let's say in code we had an open gaurantee that research agreements prevent war. Wouldn't you try to sign one against the guy that just romped you and took your land so he can't make the killing stroke?

granted, it isn't a guarantee. But I don't see why it isn't logical to assume Gandhi's actions were in an effort of self-preservation. Monty was going to wipe him out, So Gandhi attempted to make himself an ally of him... which meant telling you to buzz off.

Like I said, had you offered to go war on Gandhi's behalf directly, things may have turned out differently. But doing it on your own leaves events open to unfolding in unexpected manners. He doesn't have a modifier that says "you declared war on our enemies!" which makes him like you. He's trying to survive. In that respect, appeasing Montezuma could ensure that.

It's too bad you don't have a save, cause I would love to have seen the outcome if you offered to declare war on montezuma in the trade window while Gandhi was still at war. It really does work. I never declare war on anyone's enemy unless asked, or unless I offer it via trade.

 

[Siruss]

The game needs a number system to know how you stand besides the generic reactions when you open diplo with another nation. I've noticed a lot of what you are talking about. China is the "bad guy" in my game and everyone actually had declared on them at one point. I had pacts, I asked people to declare, but I was the one that actually took over the cities, and now EVERYONE in my game hates me. I've been nice to certain nations the whole game and when I do what everyone else is doing, and exactly what's asked of me, I still get hated on.
I think we need to be told about leaders and who respects whom. The Iroquis were nice to me (Aztec) for most of the game, but my own teammate (Washington) hates me. Japan wiped out Germany, and Egypt is going after Russia, but I can't go to them and be like "hey man ur warmongering, if I'm next I'll be waiting for you!"
Moreover, I've had my army sitting on a capitol's doorstep and be like, hey I demand you give me something and they give me the finger. REALLY? You're clearly about to get crushed and you aren't willing to negotiate?
The diplomacy system just needs to be reworked and more interactive I'd say. Foreign policy is too confusing and kinda crappy overall. I can't get anyone to sign a defensive pact with me, but my teammate (Washington) gets people to. I go to war and as soon as possible, he makes peace. Even the teams are screwed up now as my biggest enemy is the guy on my team.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

I was just gonna say that. Let's say in code we had an open gaurantee that research agreements prevent war. Wouldn't you try to sign one against the guy that just romped you and took your land so he can't make the killing stroke?

They don't you can still declare against someone even with a research agreement in place, but it does cancel the agreement.

granted, it isn't a guarantee. But I don't see why it isn't logical to assume Gandhi's actions were in an effort of self-preservation. Monty was going to wipe him out, So Gandhi attempted to make himself an ally of him... which meant telling you to buzz off.

While it was in his short term best interests to do that, by doing that he ensured that the Aztec would win the game. I thought this AI was supposed to try and win, not just survive the next 5 turns. Which he didn't do anyway because I killed him as soon as he signed the research agreement to ensure I wouldn't fall any further behind technologically.

Like I said, had you offered to go war on Gandhi's behalf directly, things may have turned out differently. But doing it on your own leaves events open to unfolding in unexpected manners. He doesn't have a modifier that says "you declared war on our enemies!" which makes him like you. He's trying to survive. In that respect, appeasing Montezuma could ensure that.

I did, and when I offered to go to war with the Aztecs in the trade screen he told me that there was no way to make that work. Granted I didn't offer it anyway (I hit what would make this deal work and he had plenty of gold) but he didn't seem open to the idea. Overall I think this mechanic is broken and needs to be addressed.

 

[King Jason]

They don't you can still declare against someone even with a research agreement in place, but it does cancel the agreement.

I'm aware of that. Read what I said. It was a scenario. Having a research agreement (or any trade) would make anyone less likely to attack, it's factored into the calculation, but it isn't a guarantee.

While it was in his short term best interests to do that, by doing that he ensured that the Aztec would win the game. I thought this AI was supposed to try and win, not just survive the next 5 turns. Which he didn't do anyway because I killed him as soon as he signed the research agreement to ensure I wouldn't fall any further behind technologically.

Survival gives a shot at victory. He had one city left, it's just as likely Montezuma would've killed him if he didn't run with the appeasement strategy. His options were: Lose. Or lose in 5 turns. Most people quit the game, but A.I.'s don't get that luxury.

I did, and when I offered to go to war with the Aztecs in the trade screen he told me that there was no way to make that work. Granted I didn't offer it anyway (I hit what would make this deal work and he had plenty of gold) but he didn't seem open to the idea. Overall I think this mechanic is broken and needs to be addressed.

Not the same thing at all. A.I. will tell you they don't think a deal will work if they can't offer anything sufficient in return for what you're offering. Hitting propose and offering to go to war for free is entirely different.

 

[Evalis]

I did, and when I offered to go to war with the Aztecs in the trade screen he told me that there was no way to make that work. Granted I didn't offer it anyway (I hit what would make this deal work and he had plenty of gold) but he didn't seem open to the idea. Overall I think this mechanic is broken and needs to be addressed.

Confirmed. This mechanic is broken. The AI reads this as 'declare war on this target' but then also reads 'value-atwarwithleader = true' and says it's not possible, because he is already at war. He therefore cannot declare war twice, which is what the computer thinks you are asking. Don't post nonsense until you've actually tested this. HE WILL NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING because he can't. The variables for this were poorly coded.

Honestly I'd like the computer to be preemptive about this and ask me to come save their asses (and hopefully remember it) as apposed to only requesting a war ally when they are warmongering.

As a side note, the computer only really remembers when you take another player's capital. If you just raze a couple cities no one will care. Just did this in my last game and actually got favor from greece for roflstomping japan. Although come to think of it, this may have had something to do with using the diplomacy system to tell japan not to settle near me.. which he proceeded to do, swiftly resulting in a declaration of war. I'll have to test simply fighting people and not taking their capital some other time.

 

[King Jason]

Confirmed. This mechanic is broken. The AI reads this as 'declare war on this target' but then also reads 'value-atwarwithleader = true' and says it's not possible, because he is already at war. He therefore cannot declare war twice, which is what the computer thinks you are asking. Don't post nonsense until you've actually tested this.

If this was in regards to me, I have. I've offered a war declaration while the A.I. was already at war with the target. In fact, I just did it about 20 turns ago in this exact game I'm playing right now.