"We would have nothing to gain"

Gwynnja

Deity
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
2,010
Location
CA
When you want to bribe an AI to attack another, they can have several different reasons not to attack the target--
"We have enough on our hands right now:" plotting war/at war
"We couldn't betray our close friends:" AI relations with target are too high
"We are afraid of their military might:" Target's power too high

These three are all fairly straightforward and moderately logical, but that leaves

"We would have nothing to gain:" WTF is this crap? The only thing I can think of is AI cheating with the power viewing or that the target is too far away. Anyone have an explanation or speculation? I'd love to have a definitive answer.
 
I'm no expert, but it seems distance is barely a factor. In the Earth 18 Civs scenario, world wars regularly break out in the BCs with Japan declaring war on France or something else insane.
 
The AI has a notorious bug in it's distance formula, which means in practice it tends to not really care how far away a civ is if it doesn't share a border.
 
I would suspect that the "…nothing to gain" response may mean that the AI is pursuing either a Space or Culture victory, the only ones they seem to be able to actively pursue, and don't see any benefit in declaring war.
 
Not sure truly, but I believe I heard it somewhere that "We would have nothing to gain..." means that the AI doesn't have enough reason to attack the third party: no resource gain, no worthwhile territory gain, heavy balance of power or they think they might lose, or some other reason. Most logical system, but then again when has the AI ever been logical?
 
Could simply mean they already have what you are bribing them with.
 
And this is why I feel peacenik civs are worthless allies. So many times have I become good friends with Lincoln or Hammurabi only to learn that they're not gonna help me against someone who is both our mortal enemy.
 
Top Bottom