Who is the best nation to be allied with?

[Allemand]

The French have been the most reliable for me. I've also had good relations with the Egyptians in some games, but I usually attack them because they're so easy to conquer (War Chariots are no match for Knights).

The Indians have always been problematic. Relations with them can go downhill very fast.

 

[connor]

The French definitely seem to be the best ally and most reliable. That also, certainly seems to be the consensus on this thread.

The one I trust the least seems to be the Chinese or Romans or Japanese and the Greeks.

 

[Magnus]

Agreed.

militaristic civs tend to be too greedy for a maintained alliance. The pacifistic civs who have a penchant for getting large, make good allies.

 

[JimTheConqueror]

I play mostly as the English (the only way to get that poor struggling Civ to achieve anything is to give them the benifit of Human Intelligence).....anyway, when I DO play as the English I like to keep the old Anglo-French rivalry going from the real world.

I wont fight the French unless I have too, but I'll be forever blocking them in, trapping their settlers behind screens of my units, and will only trade with them if its a deal massively in my favour! Even so; little Joan will pop up with great regularity, smiling away and being Gracious for no obvious reason...."The French military force outnumbers us..." warns my advisor.

Fair enough then, says I, military pact against the Iroqouis it is then, "On, on you noblest Frenchies"

"I say Dear, doesn't this Franco-Iroqouis war look nasty on the news...what do you mean we are supposed to be involved too?"

Yes readers, the French are the perfect ally.....It comes down to trust (aka gullibility)

 

[The Danster]

Slightly off subject but i do find that i help out my home nation a bit too much. Being from England, i don't like to see the English suffering in the game, so i quite often give em Techs to make sure they keep up with the other nations, which tends to mean they end up being my best pals...

Does anyone else find themselves doing the same? Especially if there's anybody who has done to their own detriment!!
:crazyeyes

 

[JimTheConqueror]

I do that too with the English, but only because otherwise they blunder through the game lagging so far behind EVERYONE else.

Its depressing to watch the poor little chaps struggle along and get crushed or absorbed by ANYONE who fancies a piece of Blighty.

Out of all the AI Civs, the English always play as if they are trying desperately to return to the trees their ancestors used to live in!

You have to throw them a crust (by which I mean all the money you have, and all the techs you develop) just to stop their neighbours gaining in power from soaking up the English lands and cities.

 

[Dragon67]

India, France....well they are nice, but they use to be to weak in my games. I hate American and Greece, since they have betraded me several times, American even attacked me when we was in a war, easy fore him since I was stupid enoth to sign free passage agrement(but that was his destiny, I wiped him out....heh).

I like Persia and Chinese, since they so fare never has betraded me, if I'm act fair to them. But the Chinese use to make peace after 20 turns somestimes, but so fare Persian has never done that. Persians has even stayed in our mutural protection pact, years after the 20 turns has ended, without to demand anything more. Both of them use to be strong nations, not like India and France, they are to weak, and can even lose a war. So my personally rank is: Persian-Chinese-Egyptian-France-India.

But finallly I try to use all of them in one big alliance, since my first targets are: Zule-Iroquis-Rome-Germany. They always act agressivity, use to be to strong, and they are always a treath in my games, I hate them. :crazyeyes So with a big alliance against them, one by one, I can wipe them out without using my own army, if they are fare away ofcourse.

 

[God]

Agressive nations are harder to ally with, because they'll demand more.
France is the best. The English are pretty nice too and so are the Indians.

 

[LordAzreal]

Hmmm... The best nation to ally with is usually the more docile one. Take a look at the civ3mod.bic file and look at the civilizations under the Civilizations tab in the Rules editor. Those whose agression level is high are not to be trusted :slay: (eg. Germany, Zululand). Those who are half-way (eg. Greece, America) can usually be trusted and those whose agression level is low (eg. India) should generally be the most trustworthy civ.

I may be wrong... but its just a thought.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Yes agree Azrael,have also found it being so,all ppl moan about Germany attacking them even in pacts,it´s the aggression rate,
BUT...India does have a low aggression but you can´t trust ´em either,backstabbers!!In my case India was weak,so don´t ally with too weak Civs,since they can easily be bought off by more powerful Civs

 

[LordAzreal]

Hmmm... I haven't had Gandhi do that to me. In fact, the Indians turn out to be second to me and I have found them trustworthy. Anyway, just because they have a low aggression level doesn't mean that they don't build up their forces. Every time the French have been my neighbours, they have always built up a huge army. They just don't use it aggressively. The types of units and improvements they build are in a different area to the aggression level. Though it still seems strange that one of the most pacifist civilizations builds up the largest army.

 

[Dragon67]

But it's also importent to know, if it is early in the game, and if your own army is to weak to wipe them out, then your allies will take the enemy cities, and maybe wipe them out. Then your allies will expand, and thats not good eather, it can in some chases make it even harder fore you later in the game(even the Indian can be danger if ther expand to much). If the enemy are fare away, I try to avoid to engage my own troops, I always try to make an alliance there nowone can win. My allies, and enemies will lose a lots of units, and that will also slow them down in the tech race. And the only winner is me, since I never bother to engage my own troops,and that to not harm my econmy as it do to them.
Later in the game I try to look at the foreign advisor screen. If one of the opponents has an mutural protection pact, I will try to ask him first. Then I will get another "free partner" after a couple of turns. So in that way I can make an "world war" if I am lucky with few partners from the beginning.
So I think the best way to make an alliance is not what kind of civ it is, but what's the best fore you in the moment.

 

[Magnus]

If at war with a particularly tough civ, I will make pacts with any land neighbors of it that are weaker than ME on the histograph - I would rather have a few smaller civs get a slice of the pie than help a bigger civ get HUGE. Smaller civs are easier to lure into alliance, as they are hungrier and generally are behind you in tech, so a couple techs will get them on board. Best case scenario is when the allied civs are on the other side of the civ you are warring agaisnt, as they will serve to draw troops away from your front, giving you a much easier time there.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Magnus
If at war with a particularly tough civ, I will make pacts with any land neighbors of it that are weaker than ME on the histograph - I would rather have a few smaller civs get a slice of the pie than help a bigger civ get HUGE. Smaller civs are easier to lure into alliance, as they are hungrier and generally are behind you in tech, so a couple techs will get them on board. Best case scenario is when the allied civs are on the other side of the civ you are warring agaisnt, as they will serve to draw troops away from your front, giving you a much easier time there.

Ha!

So that's what's what you were thinking!

Just kidding - check your e-mail, Magnus, I'm finding Trieste to be a little warm this Spring.

(sorry, civfanatics, for letting a little civfanatic Diplomacy intrude on your conversation, but business is business)

 

[Dirk Aurel]

@LordAzreal

Sorry,guess I was talking fuzzy,I didn´t mean India is weak because it has a low aggression rate,India was weak in this particular game,they were doing well in the first few thousand years...but then came the Greeks!They overran my entire continent, just India and me left.The Greeks swallowed like five Civs,all my borders north,west and east were towards Greece,my back to the sea.Then they picked on India,which was southwest of my civ China,naturally India couldn´t defend itself against this menace.
Greece at the peak of it´s power had like 170 cavalry or something, when I did intervene India was very much weakened,that they hadn´t gone under was only thanks to chinese support, gave them cheaper trade deals,used my units with RoP to block Greek advances etc.Told the Greeks to get off my land,they declared war,India and us formed an alliance.Since I had tanks,Greece was pushed back in a few turns,well then for some silly reason Persia (a friend) declared war on me,guess China was getting too big with all these former Greek territories, then a turn later Persia pulled France into the conflict,and another turn later France bought off India to fight alongside them.
After all the help I gave them this is how they repaid me,their silly civ only survived thanks to China,they would have gone under like the other five civs,that´s what I mean by backstabbers you see.

They were ofcourse no real threat,but I didn´t really understand why he turned against me,the only way I can explain it is because they were weak,he didn´t hate me,last time we spoke he was gracious,France being third power after Greece´s decline didn´t have to offer much in bribing them either with tech or money.

 

[LordAzreal]

Interesting story you have there. From what you tell me, I would come to the conclusion that the Indians tend to act all passive in most conflicts unless someone asks them to fight. Then they go mercenary, fighting for the highest bidder. I guess that in all my conflicts, India have remained on my side because I WAS the highest bidder. And my Modern armour ploughed right through the musketmen my enemies keep forgetting to upgrade and the riflemen they draft at last minute, so the Indians probably didn't have much time to ask for a higher price from my enemies.

But the Indians aren't the only people who do this. I was once at war with England and I bought Russia into an alliance against them. Then the English paid them a higher price and so I had to stand against Russia as well. I hesitantly asked for an alliance with the Germans (who were also bought out at higher price). I managed to get peace with the English and Germans after all this, but the Russians kept fighting as though it was their vendetta that started the conflict (and then they bought England and Germany back into the conflict).

I guess the problem you had with India can be blamed on short-sighted AI, as they tend to try and make decision that are in their best interests. The stupid AI using India probably decided that 20 gold per turn over 20 turns was better than an alliance with a significantly larger nation who wanted to defend them. Your example is the height of AI short-sightedness.

Which leads me to the conclusion that the AI are ruthless, insidious, short-sighted mercenaries.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Wish we wouldn´t be agreeing on the AI being short-sighted, not to say daft at times,but we are Guess the game has it´s limitations,yet I don´t think this is really AI´s fault but rather that of Firaxis,sorry peeps The way I see it,it´s a minor tweak in programming of the AI that would do the job,Persia was an island not too far east of India,but France was on the other side of the map,like I said had tech superiority,aka battleships, carriers and loads of subs,there was simply no way France (with ironclads)would get any transport over the sea safely,the same goes more or less for Persia,their cause was doomed from the very beginning,and India was most stupid not taking this into account. It really is time for MP,but a tweak in AI programming would help till then,have read on other threads that the AI tends to count numbers instead of how advanced a civ´s units are,this should be changed for one,next thing would be to change AI respecting friendly ties to other nations,not always but it should take it into account,they had good relations to Persia, but also to me,yet it was France who pulled in India,senseless.Last tweak they really could add would be to give the AI a sort of strategic idea;

(possible) more/less powerful,advanced/inferior enemy~next door/far off;
(possible) ally close/far away;
conclusion: (no/)good idea.

It prolly is hard work programming AI,and I do respect that,but this really sounds simple to me,and possible.
Like you said the AI consists of short-sighted mercenaries.Shame.


Your example is just as messy as mine,this sounds to me like Russia being bought off considered the alliance with you as having been "broken" before the 20 turns ran out,objective: punish (treacherous) enemy for all eternity.
Another great example for AI stupidity.
How powerful were the nations in your game,btw?

Noticed that with the drafting of units too,not really upgrading is it,doh.Greece "upgraded" it´s lost riflemen by drafting recently discovered Infantry.
The Babylonians were catching up in science, they had remained in democracy and at peace while our continent was waging war.Babylon was second in ranking,our trade deals consisted not of money but dyes for furs,fair enough.Since they weren´t losing money to me in trade deals they did upgrade and changed their units pretty fast,more than a 100 cavalry shrunk to 50 instead they built 50 tanks, in around about 5 turns.Same goes for ~60canons->~50artillery and ~125riflemen-> ~115infantry. Think the upgrading of units is dependent on the money the Civ has either p/t or in general, often I make great profitable trade deals with rich nations who have several hundred gold,just to find them a few turns later ruined at zero gold.If a war adds to the household problem it will only get worse for this Civ.Well at least it builds it´s most advanced units. :crazyeyes

 

[LordAzreal]

In my example above, all said nations (including mine) were about equal in strength. And there was no formal diplomatic agreements (apart from peace treaties) with anybody before England declared war.

Anyway, you can't blame Firaxis for a short-sighted AI. They can only be working with primitive computers which are nothing but clockwork that can only act on predefined instructions in a predefined way. The human mind is far more sophisticated than that as it can receive instructions and contemplate the best possible course of action. Unfortunately, in all games, the AI will always be like it has been until someone creates an AI that can think for itself. Once AI can contemplate possible actions to take at a certain point, it will quit being so short-sighted. Though there's the risk of military application for this sort of computer, I look forward to the day I can take on an AI that has its own thought patterns when playing these sorts of games.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
In my example above, all said nations (including mine) were about equal in strength. And there was no formal diplomatic agreements (apart from peace treaties) with anybody before England declared war.

And Russia were bought out by England two turns after I enlisted them as allies. No provocation on my part.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Like I said Azreal,I do respect their work,am not expecting it to think,what I had in mind was what AI can already do,and that is calculate.A certain tech value along with numbers and distance,I might be mistaken,but I think it´s possible.If the AI can count human units,and thereby calculating his victory possibilities by comparing his to yours, can´t imagine it not being able to see a difference between advanced and inferior units,if so we´d all have 1for1 outcomes in battle.Think it´s rather the AI ignoring unit values.

As for the AI as it is now,they did a good job on it,am having fun in SP,so no moaning from me.Only thing I´d like is the AI respecting more things than simple numbers,quality and friendly relations should be taken into account.Why can the AI for instance remember the player backstabbing him,but not the other AIs doing the same?A lot of posts point out only the negative in the game,one does appreciate it,just wants to suggest improvements here and there.AI never was my main interest,I played the predecessors for ages,was fine with it,this and that would be a pain,but in general my interest would have been on gameplay and features.That´s where I´d make most changes.

Russians taking sides with the enemy after only two turns,this just can´t be.Noone can tell me this is smart AI policy,taking your money and then just joining the others,and am pretty sure it wasn´t planning.If the player would do this he´d be hated for all eternity.On another thread it said the human player is marked for "special handling".I don´t mind the AI focusing on the player,but having one or two allies is nice,and it makes me accept the AI ally as "more human".At least this goes for me