Removing Early Alliances Has Sripped CivIII of All Enjoyment

[ulik_kel_droma]

The first time two civs signed a pact to "contain my aggression" I was thrilled. The civs knew when you could harm them and took preventative measures. It seems the civs still want to protect themselves but without pacts to discourage going to war all they do is go to war. I'm perpetually at war with 90% of the civs. It's frickin ridiculous. I've played multiple games on chieftan up to monarch and if I make any headway to make a strong civ the game degrades into all civs signing military alliances against me. What is up with this?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by ulik_kel_droma
The first time two civs signed a pact to "contain my aggression" I was thrilled. The civs knew when you could harm them and took preventative measures. It seems the civs still want to protect themselves but without pacts to discourage going to war all they do is go to war. I'm perpetually at war with 90% of the civs. It's frickin ridiculous. I've played multiple games on chieftan up to monarch and if I make any headway to make a strong civ the game degrades into all civs signing military alliances against me. What is up with this?

They will gang up on you if you are perceived as weak. It works in reverse, too. If I see my rivals carving up a Civ like vultures, so like a vulture, I will usually participate. Free lunch! So don't be someone's lunch. I am rarely involved in a war I didn't anticipate.

One tip is to replay abandoned or lost games. Back up to an earlier age and replay the game until you understand how you lost. Then start a new game with your newfound knowledge.

 

[Heffalump]

it's NOT been my experience that pacts deter war.

As for signing alliances against you, that probably results from past behavior. I've had games where, even as the strongest civ, there were no alliances signed against me, but i hadn't attacked anyone either.

 

[Sullla]

Much of the thinking on this thread is backwards; unlike Civ2, in this game you will see military alliances signed against you if you are weak, not strong. The Civ3 AI knows better in most cases not to ally with a weak civ against the world's superpower. Then again I rarely see military alliances against me because I always try to get allies on my side when fighting a war, since otherwise my enemy will get them on his side. Good diplomacy can help ensure in most cases that you will not suddenly find the world allied against you.

 

[Rain]

Alliances can be a dicey business. I think whether you want them or not is very situation dependant and requires some examination. Sometiems you dont want the ai carving up your enemy. Alliances can also have very negative effects if you have to break them. Overall tho i think they add an interesting dimension to the game and it would be weaker without it.

 

[Mavfin]

Note: I'm writing about Alliances, NOT MPP's. I avoid MPPs unless there's absolutely no other way.

If a Civ declares war on me, or me on them, if at all possible, every other Civ in the game that I can get to ally with me, I do so. I usually time my war declarations (if I do it, rather then being declared ON) so that my lux I'm selling are up for renegotiation, and I have some cash around.

What happens then is: 20 turns later, I will probably cancel alliances and make peace, no rep hit. Of course, that's *if* the civ(s) I'm at war with still exist to make peace with. Then I watch the rest of the world at war for at least another 40 or so turns, while I peacefully build up and pick my next target, or work toward whatever type of victory I want/can get.

I *always* figure 20 turns of war if I bring allies in. Usually the AI's will cheat you by making peace early. Just remember, always go around and cancel the alliances that havent' already been cancelled by the AI by making peace before you make peace yourself, unless of course you're getting your butt kicked and have to make peace to survive. The only exception to 20 turns of war is if the civ(s) you allied against are eliminated. Then the alliance(s) are gone anyway. Can't ally against the Germans if they are wiped out, can you?

:rocket:

 

[ulik_kel_droma]

Much of the thinking on this thread is backwards; unlike Civ2, in this game you will see military alliances signed against you if you are weak, not strong. The Civ3 AI knows better in most cases not to ally with a weak civ against the world's superpower. Then again I rarely see military alliances against me because I always try to get allies on my side when fighting a war, since otherwise my enemy will get them on his side. Good diplomacy can help ensure in most cases that you will not suddenly find the world allied against you.

Sullla, none of that matters. Weak or powerful I still have so many civs warring with me that I just turn the game off. Currently I'm the French and am the more advanced than my neighbors and my army is alrger than theirs. They are impressed with my culture as well. I've been diligient with my negotiations and have not done one act that could be in any was construed as agressive. Yet, the Germans got upset with me and declared war. Then the Russians declared war on me. Then the Babylonians and Persians declared war on me. Neither Rome or Persia will come to my aid. It all just seems so pointless. And un-fun.

 

[etj4Eagle]

One of the most important things to do when going to war is to get alliances with some of the neutral players, in particular any that may pose a real threat to you. Otherwise your enemy will just pay them a fabulous amount and bring them in. In my games I often have a half dozen or so offers of forming a military alliance to crush another civ. And as you have found out, adding that second front can really change the course of a war.

For me I will always get an alliance with any strong civ that I share a long border with when I go to war. Don't want somebody to take advantage of the situation.

 

[Heffalump]

For me I will always get an alliance with any strong civ that I share a long border with when I go to war.

I do this too. It's one thing to have someone on the far side of the world declare war on you when you least want it. A whole other when it's a strong neighbor.

As they say, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...

 

[Zouave]

As someone mentioned above, all this is a two-way sword.

Since the bean-counting AI is so simple-minded, it might either go constantly at war with you - or NEVER go to war after one point.

I once conquered the Aztecs and totally dominated one hemisphere while maintain a 300 point leader over every other civ. So what happened? Two thousand years went by with no war; the five other civs didn't even go to war with each other. The game just stagnated into a snoozefest.

Of course, because I attacked the Aztecs, even two thousand years later civs wouldn't trade with me, which is stupid, but not as stupid as this:

I make a deal with a civ for a tech trade. I then throw in three bonus luxury resources (no extra charge) - and they cancel the entire deal saying "not after what you did to the Aztecs". OK, idiot. I'll keep my resources and you get nothing.

Here's a better one. A weaker civ comes to me wanting a MPP. I offer some free resources and they insult me saying "not after your perfidy with the Aztecs". OK, no MPP and I keep my resources.

That stupid AI.

 

[cegman]

Why doesn't the AI get the rep hit that is pointless they can end them and rarely do they get affected as far as I noticed what is with that.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
As someone mentioned above, all this is a two-way sword.

Since the bean-counting AI is so simple-minded, it might either go constantly at war with you - or NEVER go to war after one point.

Exactly the point. Sometimes they fight each other, sometimes they gang up on one civ or another. I'm convinced it has to do with play style. This is very similar to the flipping debate. A player who loved blitz style attacks, couldn't understand why cities kept flipping on him. He was kind enough to post a game, and from my point of view it made a lot of sense. He didn't have a lot of garrison to stop the rebellion. Nor did he spend his ample cash on temples. He was so powerful, he could spend 20% of just one turn's production to manufacture units just to disband them and force the temple on the next turn. (Force-building wasn't actually required, but he had very substantial resources.)

There is something about each person's play style that triggers these wars. I have been ganged up on, but I took my abandoned games and replayed them until I understood why I kept getting singled out. Meanwhile, I got real good at defense. You can do a lot with massed artillery, ya know!