When should I give free Gold to the AI to prevent a war?

[Gary King]

I've read that giving Gold as tribute to the AI will prevent them from going to war with me, especially if I'm playing on Immortal or higher and want a peaceful game.

When should I give the tribute, and how much should I give? I want to avoid large wars with powerful militaries if possible, but I also don't want to bankrupt myself in the process.

For instance, if an AI shares spy intrigue with me and tells me that another AI is planning a war against me, then should I then give that other AI 500 Gold to appease them so they don't go to war with me?

 

[Browd]

Giving gold to appease is, in my view, worthless. You get a nice green "we've traded recently" modifier, but it fades relatively quickly and otherwise nothing has changed. Using gold to bribe the AI to attack someone else, or to bribe someone else to DOW that AI, is a much better expenditure.

Of course, using gold to buy or upgrade some units may work even better -- depends on the strategic situation.

 

[Gary King]

Okay thanks, I suspected as much that it wasn't worth it. I'd always spend the money to upgrade my units or else bribe the AI to go to war with someone else.

 

[danaphanous]

wait, the AI doesn't take lost deals due to DOW into account when declaring war? I would think doing GPT would make them hesitate as they'd lose the rest of the turns on the money...but I guess they're stupider than I thought. Why am I not surprised?

Also, I've heard lots of ppl suggest the war-bribing technique to keep vicious AI distracted but I have had zero success with this. Every warlike AI that I bribe to fight, whether I fight with them or not takes the money and them proceeds to do nothing against the other civ. Maybe I need to pick mortal enemies? But what do I do if I'm their target?

 

[Brew God]

I have come across this often it seems that you bribe a civ to declare war on another civ to keep them occupied or to weaken their economy etc. Then the civ that you bribed does absolutely nothing and or declares peace quickly.

Brew God

 

[Koiranputki]

It seems, at least at some points in the game, having a reasonably strong military might be a better strategy than paying them off.

In one recent game where I was accumulating faith points very quickly and had "Holy Warriors", I neglected to cash in for a few military units before the game automatically popped a Great Prophet. That turn, or the next, both my rather close neighbours....Kamehameha and Ghengis ...DOW'd......

As I viewed my getting the GP as an oversight, I re-loaded one of the autosaves and bought I think it was two pikemen.... The next turn nothing except friendly overtures from my two neighbours. In fact neither of them ever did DOW...I eventually had to attack both of them.

So, at least in this instance, peace and war revolved around one or two pikemen. Other times I've been "numero uno" in military units and they still DOW.... I guess the game mechanic for this is very complicated. Probably if you play enough you get an intuitive sense for when war is likely....And a big part is who the civ is and how close they are....besides military units, friendships, warmonger penalty, etc., etc.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Bribing one AI to attack another can work grat, but only when war make sense for them - proximity, realtive strength of army, warmonger, etc. Same thing if someone bribed you to DOW. Otherwise you would take the $$$, and after minimum period seek peace.

 

[joncnunn]

wait, the AI doesn't take lost deals due to DOW into account when declaring war? I would think doing GPT would make them hesitate as they'd lose the rest of the turns on the money...but I guess they're stupider than I thought. Why am I not surprised?

No, the AI's diplomat doesn't talk much to its military adviser (or vice versa) and in part because if it did; then it's "pretend friendship" would be even easier to discover.

BNW is supposed to add a minor consideration of trade route income though.

 

[paralistalon]

It's usually easy to tell when you're about to be DoW'd because they start moving catapults into formation in your general direction. That is the time to bribe them!

 

[Janskey]

In my first deity game in Civ V, I bribed Dido to attack another civ so they wouldn't attack me. Well, they wiped out that civ so I had to do it again. In the end, Dido was controlling the whole continent except my few cities.

I reloaded and this time built that first trade route a bit sooner, then bought a couple more units than on last try. Things went much smoother.

I've also tested the AI behavior regarding DoWing on different save games. Sometimes buying just one unit can make their army go marching away. Para bellum, as the saying goes.

 

[Memoryjar]

In the end, Dido was controlling the whole continent except my few cities.

It's Dido.

 

[beetle]

wait, the AI doesn't take lost deals due to DOW into account when declaring war?

It is worse than that. With GnK you can sell resources for bulk gold trades to an AI that is about to DOW you, right up to the turn they attack. If you manage to have a Research Agreement, they do tend to let those complete before DOWing. Defense Packs don’t offer much assurance, but the AI does seem to time DOWs to their exact turn of expiration.

My last game, I had bribed the Ottomans into war with every other civ, and I was paying them 11gpt for three different luxes (so 33gpt total), but none of that was enough to prevent Suleiman from DOWing me too. I am replaying that game now, trying to survive an early war with Suleiman (rather than my last game tactic, where I avoided that early war by paying Suleiman to attack others, but ended up helping him to become a monster).

 

[NASAROG]

Never. The A.I. doesn't keep its word. It should suffer the same penalties we do for breaking agreements. It doesn't.

 

[Jampine]

Bribing one AI to attack another can work grat, but only when war make sense for them - proximity, realtive strength of army, warmonger, etc. Same thing if someone bribed you to DOW. Otherwise you would take the $$$, and after minimum period seek peace.

I've never been able to bribe an AI into attacking another, if they're friendly its likely their army is too small to attack, and if its got enough troops, they usually hate me for eating their trifle or some minor thing like that, and refuse to trade with me.

Also, they will never pay me to attack someone they hate, even when they're getting on the verge of being outnumbered 5:1

 

[beetle]

I've never been able to bribe an AI into attacking another...

Really? Have you tried bribes on both sides?

if its got enough troops, they usually hate me for eating their trifle or some minor thing like that, and refuse to trade with me.

They might want quite a bit, or ask for very lopsided trades that you won’t agree to, but you should be able to negotiate offers (even if you don’t accept them) if you have luxes or resources and money.

Also, they will never pay me to attack someone they hate, even when they're getting on the verge of being outnumbered 5:1

I also have never gotten an AI to bribe me to DOW (mutual or otherwise). Does that ever happen?

 

[Gary King]

Yeah, I too have never seen the AI "bribe" me to DOW. I've had the AI ask me if I want to join them in a DOW against another Civ though, and offering to let me prepare for 10 turns first if necessary.

Also, I definitely have bribed the AI to DOW another Civ successfully before, but it doesn't always work for sure. Your best bet is to bribe a warmongering Civ to do so, but you should get them to face another powerful Civ, because otherwise like others have mentioned, the Civ you bribe will simply become too powerful to stop, which is something I've experienced one too many times before!

 

[adwcta]

Giving gold to appease is, in my view, worthless. You get a nice green "we've traded recently" modifier, but it fades relatively quickly and otherwise nothing has changed. Using gold to bribe the AI to attack someone else, or to bribe someone else to DOW that AI, is a much better expenditure.

Of course, using gold to buy or upgrade some units may work even better -- depends on the strategic situation.

I've had the exact opposite experience. Tributes often work much better than bribes in the longterm, especially on Immortal/Deity.

Bribes don't make the civ like you more, it just instigates a war (and usually costs more than tributes). Tributes accumulate over time (you want to max out your tribute, and then only pay the decay), and actually make you friends for RAs, and getting diplo bonuses with their friends, and preventing backstabs and random denounces.

Tributes are a super-early game tool (when bribes are often not an option yet) and a late-mid-game and beyond tool, it builds efficacy over time. It's used to create allies. Bribes work best the first time, and loses efficacy with multiple applications. Its used to create scapegoats.

Two very different diplo tools.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Browd]

Well, tribute is money down a rat-hole in my experience. It's way too expensive to maintain the bright green modifier, and buying and upgrading some units for deterrence is usually a better expenditure -- less gpt bleeding and more flexibility/utility. Frankly, I think bribes work best when you can see the AI coming -- e.g., they just made peace with another civ and are obviously looking for another victim.

A few games ago, I found myself between Attila and Japan, blocking both of their expansions -- I maintained a modest deterrent force (about 1 ranged unit per city, plus some pikes(->lancers)) and bribed each to DOW others (and each other, of course) and others to DOW them when their attention strayed my way -- maintained DOFs with both until Ideologies began to conflict. The bribe costs were usually one luxury or one luxury and a few strategics (or the gold equivalent).

Might the same amounts have worked as tribute? Perhaps, but having to make new gifts to maintain bright green is irritating to me. And having them chew on each other and on my cultural rivals had its own benefit. After all, there's a difference between pursuing a "please leave me alone" strategy and a "please chew on each other, and those guys too" strategy.

 

[beetle]

I've had the exact opposite experience. Tributes often work much better than bribes in the longterm, especially on Immortal/Deity.

What do we mean by “tribute”? Is there an actual game mechanism with that label?

If a civ asks me for money, and I agree, that seems to help with relations quite a bit.

But I think we are talking about just gifting lump sum or gpt, without any prompts. Is that correct? Is this what we all mean by “tribute”?

How can you tell how much and how often to tribute? The game mechanics being what they are, I would expect that frequency of gifts is more important than the amount. I would also guess that amount might not matter. I have gifted surplus iron/horses that I could not sell and that gets me green “we have traded recently” modifiers. It seems kind of cheesy actually. Will a one-way 1 gpt offer work just as well for this? What if I give 1 gold manually for 30 turns in a row? Is that more influence than a single 30 gold gift? Does 1 gold every 10 turns maintains that “we traded recently” modifier?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I thought you were going to work on that? Or did you decide that we are not worth the bother?

 

[TPangolin]

If you have 5gpt per turn to spare, just gift it anyway. In my experience it makes everyone love you long time term.