Why does the AI get away with warmongering? This needs to be fixed.

[CivAddict2013]

Something I've noticed in Brave New World is that, if I attack another civilization and if I attack city states, almost every other Civ denounces me.

But I've noticed that if the AI does warmongering; nobody seems to give a crap.

For instance, my last game, I was neighbors with India. He declares war on France and takes almost all his cities. Only two Civilizations really denounced him. All the others one's befriended him.

Secondly, let's look at Poland in the last game. Poland declared war on me several times, captured one of my city states; declared war on the Aztecs and almost nobody denounced him.

This has to be fixed. If the AI is a warmonger, they should get denounced just as I would.

 

[Adjuvant]

Warmonger penalty has determining factors, one being how well the recipient of the DoW is liked.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

They might not denounce, that doesn't mean they are friends, either. AFAIK, there is no way for us to see if the other AIs are trading fairly with him or what their diplo stance is.

 

[TLHeart]

When you saw that he was denounced, did you denounce also? If you have a strong military, and are friends with other civs, the chain denouncement continues on the AI. If you don't denounce, then others will not.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I see the AI get denounced more than I've been denounced. I recently had Poland and China both making war against me and China denounced Poland.

I think you're just experiencing a perception bias. Similar to the idea that, when you're injured, it's the worst pain imaginable, but when somebody else is injured, they're just complaining too much or being a baby. You're just more likely to notice when the AI denounces you compared to when they denounce each other.

The code is pretty clear that it doesn't distinguish between a human and computer when it comes to diplomacy, so, unless you're doing something dramatically different from them, it's not acting any differently.

 

[Civilmyzation]

In my games, the AI never "gets away with it". they stop getting research agreements etc. it makes a difference. its really about trying to get the rest of them to get together. I just had a game where Rome decided to go all warmonger crazy. took out spain and made a bunch of civs angry. got denounced by about 4-5 civs, and those 4-5 civs all declared war on Rome and went and took his Capital before a peace agreement was made. he went from top of the game to bottom of the pile.

 

[Aristos]

There is no distinction whatsoever between human and AI in the code that governs AI diplomacy (with very few and specific exceptions), in general, and the warmongering penalties, in particular. The same block of code applies to ALL and ANY player in the game.

I will not post the code here as I have already in other posts. You will have to take my word for granted (or look inside the code yourself).

 

[bbbt]

The AI doesn't get away with it. I've seen warmongering AIs get mass-denounced, attacked, and, later on, embargoed.

I think the AI understands the rules of the diplomacy game better than most players though. Also, sending caravans to a civ is a huge boost to diplomacy, and the AI gets those out very quickly.

 

[Quineloe]

reducing the number of city states in the game set up is a better way of dealing with "too many city states" than capturing them. Taking out city states is a big red flag for the AI, whether that's good design is questionable, but that's how it is in the unmodded game.

 

[Barghaest]

The AI suffers penalties for warmongering same as human opponent. In my current game the #2 in score (and one of the strongest military powers in game) is being chain DoWed/denounced like crazy. I couldn't figure out why people seemed to hate Carthage so much since I'd seen them do very little but once I got around to exploring their side of the continent I've found no less than 4 CS they have puppeted/annexed... so they've brought the ire of all other AI in the game for their actions and will probably never recover.

I plan to make good use of this situation by liberating several of the CS so I can conquer another nearby that annoys me without world-wide wrath (probably liberate one of em then conquer my target before liberating a few more).

 

[phillipwyllie]

Pointiest Sticks. You're less likely to get denounced/DOWed if you have a large military, we're talking negative gpt large. Other factors like RA's may come into the equation. The AI will denounce/DOW other AI players just for warmongering(well what you can see, you can't the diplo modifiers other civs have for each other).

I do agree with the OP somewhat as warmongering/diplomacy seems to be one-sided weighted in favor of the AI. You get up to no good and a chain of denouncements will come. On the flip-side I have seen that the AI sometime seeks allies in a potential war before it makes it's move, which is what I do by seeing how much they will want in trade for a DOW(the AI can't bribe you to DOW like we can). On the flip-side to the flip-side it seems to get allies you must denounce first and ask on the next turn, even those AI's who don't tell you they agree with your denouncement may be the cheapest to bribe.

 

[goremand]

I think a huge part of this is the AI is not too great at taking cities compared to an experienced human. Seen in this light, it makes sense that the AI would hate city-takers since such a player possesses and "exceptional" advantage. Meanwhile humans thinks capturing cities is not very hard and thus a normal tactic.