RedRover57
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,014
If you have played a few games post-patch you will be familiar with the following scenario, particularly if you play at higher difficulties:
Aggressive AI civ A (e.g., Aztecs, Greece, France, China, Rome, Japan, etc.) starts in a favorable spot and quickly begins to dominate in its general area. This civ then starts to declare on every other civ on the map (as well as the player), regardless of distance or other circumstances. This frequently results in "permanent" war between the aggressive civ A and the player, particularly when separated by large distance or with another AI civ in between, since civ A will not accept any kind of reasonable peace treaty until the player is perceived as being more powerful. Often in the case when civ A is far removed from the player, they never even send any troops after declaring. So the player is basically stuck with respect to any diplomacy with this civ and has lost this civ as a trading partner, etc. To make matters worse, if the aggressive civ is a civ like Greece or Siam, the player will be forced into war with every CS ally that civ A buys up for the rest of the game, and often they begin to buy them up at a rate of one per turn.
I believe that one of the reasons for this behavior is that the aggressive civ is trying to take advantage of the propensity of weaker civs to give up most of what they own in subsequent peace treaties. You will often see peace treaties happen very quickly between AI civs, with the aggressive civ making out like a bandit (sometimes picking up several cities in the bargain). After a few of these favorable deals, the aggressive civ snowballs into a runaway. Therefore, this behavior by the aggressive civ is basically extortion in Mafioso fashion. When they DoW you from across the map they will often offer up a peace treaty a number of turns later asking you to give up most of what you own. Since it would be suicide to agree you are stuck at war. In my opinion, this behavior is game breaking and greatly reduces the fun factor.
I'm not a software programmer, but it seems that there could be several easy ways to fix this behavior. Some suggestions:
1. No DoW allowed unless the civs borders are within X tiles of each other (distance X to be determined).
2. Statute of limitations placed on DoW. Mandatory straight peace treaty if no troop interaction has occurred in 10 turns. This would work both ways, so if you the player declare on a civ and don't initiate fighting within 10 turns there will be an automatic peace.
3. Cap the amount of gold, gpt, resources, cities, etc. that can be offered up for peace. I would cap this at 25% or maybe even lower. Therefore, the "losing" civ would have some opportunity for recovery post-war and this would hopefully reduce the chance of a runaway by the aggressor.
Comments?
Aggressive AI civ A (e.g., Aztecs, Greece, France, China, Rome, Japan, etc.) starts in a favorable spot and quickly begins to dominate in its general area. This civ then starts to declare on every other civ on the map (as well as the player), regardless of distance or other circumstances. This frequently results in "permanent" war between the aggressive civ A and the player, particularly when separated by large distance or with another AI civ in between, since civ A will not accept any kind of reasonable peace treaty until the player is perceived as being more powerful. Often in the case when civ A is far removed from the player, they never even send any troops after declaring. So the player is basically stuck with respect to any diplomacy with this civ and has lost this civ as a trading partner, etc. To make matters worse, if the aggressive civ is a civ like Greece or Siam, the player will be forced into war with every CS ally that civ A buys up for the rest of the game, and often they begin to buy them up at a rate of one per turn.
I believe that one of the reasons for this behavior is that the aggressive civ is trying to take advantage of the propensity of weaker civs to give up most of what they own in subsequent peace treaties. You will often see peace treaties happen very quickly between AI civs, with the aggressive civ making out like a bandit (sometimes picking up several cities in the bargain). After a few of these favorable deals, the aggressive civ snowballs into a runaway. Therefore, this behavior by the aggressive civ is basically extortion in Mafioso fashion. When they DoW you from across the map they will often offer up a peace treaty a number of turns later asking you to give up most of what you own. Since it would be suicide to agree you are stuck at war. In my opinion, this behavior is game breaking and greatly reduces the fun factor.
I'm not a software programmer, but it seems that there could be several easy ways to fix this behavior. Some suggestions:
1. No DoW allowed unless the civs borders are within X tiles of each other (distance X to be determined).
2. Statute of limitations placed on DoW. Mandatory straight peace treaty if no troop interaction has occurred in 10 turns. This would work both ways, so if you the player declare on a civ and don't initiate fighting within 10 turns there will be an automatic peace.
3. Cap the amount of gold, gpt, resources, cities, etc. that can be offered up for peace. I would cap this at 25% or maybe even lower. Therefore, the "losing" civ would have some opportunity for recovery post-war and this would hopefully reduce the chance of a runaway by the aggressor.
Comments?
