Why is the AI always a Warmonger?

[Melboz99]

Originally posted by Shaka II
Also, one might try to disable domination and conquest victory to see if that affects things, if one is a builder that is. Would that make the AI less agressive or the same? Don't know.

The only condition I usually disable is diplomatic victory, just in case it becomes a love fest, and I've acquired a bad rep.

Funny, that was my thinking exactly!

The first game I played I was just getting the hang of it. I hadn't played Civ in close to a year.

I played on Settler with no Domination, Conquest, or Diplomatic Victory.

I was never attacked! And that was even before I started building proper defensive forces.

Second game was on Chieftan, same settings. Again, never attacked.

Third game was on Warlord, only I didn't disable Conquest and Domination. I got attacked during the Middle Ages by Khan.

Fourth game was on Noble (stupid defaults!) and again I got my a$$ handed to me. Same settings as the previous.

Fifth game was on Chieftan, same settings. Again, I got my a$$ handed to me.

Sixth game was on Cheiftan, only I got smart and disabled Conquest and Domination. Alexander was "Pleased" the entire time!

The Germans only had -2 or -3 towards me in the relations. But there was a whole ton of +'s.

Nobody attacked me this time.



I think this is the way to do it. I could of course choose "Always Peace" but then what would happen if an AI built his cities in the way of my path to Victory??

Dan O.

[Dis]

I don't like to disable any victory conditions. It feels like cheating. Even though the anecdotal evidence above seems to suggest they adjust to the settings. I just like to give the AI (and myself) every option to win the game.

[Kc7mxo]

i think a lot of the time an AI will also declare war on you if one of his cities is in danger of flipping.

[SpencerH]

Its interesting to see the variety of 'AI warmongering' that we are seeing with civ4 compared to civ3 (for example).

I'm only in my third game.

First was just a test on chieftan or something and it was a blowout for me.

Second was a game at noble. I was the score leader but I quickly learned that the 3-4 units/city that were more than adequate to defend with in earlier games just wouldnt cut it. Frederick attacked with a massive stack and there was nothing I could do to stop him! Even going back 2 turns to reposition some troops did not effect the eventual outcome. I simply did not have enough units. Everything had been pretty peaceful up to that point so it semed like a maneuver right out of a human game. OTOH I may have precipitated his reaction with my hindu missionaries and high culture pressing his cities.

Third game at noble, again building and culture emphasis but having learnt my lesson I now have 8 units (at least ) in my borders with Rome (minor power) and the Aztecs (after they wipe out the USA). I did manage to beat an Aztec invasion but had to pay for peace. In this game I have almost no one to trade with, they're all hostile except for the Greeks. What I find strange is that the Aztecs are the science leader (by far) at endgame despite their warmonger status - something that didnt happen with earlier game versions (at least not often with me). With 90 some turns to go and me refusing to bow to their whims the Aztecs have again invaded with some huge stacks of inf and cav. The end is near.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Melboz99
Right now I have founded every religion, and have built every wonder that has been built save The Hanging Gardens (don't know why that one never showed up).

Hanging Gardens has an aqueduct prerequisite. Possibly you didn't have enough aqueducts before it became obsolete?