Two tracked AI diplomatic stance

[MarshalN]

It seems to me there are two kinds of games now, diplomatically - either everyone is friends with everyone, or in some cases, like my current game, almost no one is friending anybody. Anyone else find that to be the case?

 

[redwings1340]

Overall, yeah, sort of. There are exceptions though. In a recent game as China, everyone was playing the I love everyone and lets be friends game except Babylon. Babylon was a grinch that hated the world and wanted to destroy it. When they threatened to take the Netherlands' capital, I declared war on them, beat back their army, and took one of their cities in a peace deal. Then, nobody feared Babylon for the rest of the game, and rarely a turn passed when at least 2 civs weren't at war with Babylon, trading turns between the Shoshone, Netherlands, Americans, Chinese (me, to protect the Netherlands when they DoWed Babylon and were about to lose their capital, it happened a few times that game), and Ethiopians who sent armies to Babylon, and a few others who declared war but were too far away to do anything. Everyone else in the game were friends.

 

[ToodleElNoodos]

Ya, I have noticed they tend to like to bully folks. They also seem to try and align with whomever is considered the strongest, but maybe that's perception bias for me.

 

[roymend]

Actually in my experience, it was the first case in most games - until ideologies. The moment when everyone picked an ideology, two major alliances were created (Order and Autocracy or Order and Freedom in most cases), and the civ (or rarely - the civs) who chose the third ideology was left alone in the diplomatic field.

On one hand, I like these big alliances - they create interesting cold wars, which develop to 'hot' wars in the late game. But on the other hand... I mean, I used to be a friend of cathy, but now she chose order and I chose autocracy. "Backstab is such an ugly word..."