Bah, I do not care for the AI diplomacy relations system

[Strategist83]

Pardon me, but I find the AI diplomacy to be a major drawback for the game. Why should the AI "care for their brothers and sisters of the faith"? The game is about winning, not seeing one's state religion spread all over the world!

I would rather have a much more opportunistic AI - that would resemble a human opponent much better. If your military is weak, the AI should exploit this and attack, regardless of diplomatic relations. It certainly should not hold back just because 'you have chosen your civics wisely' or some other BS like that.

I like how they gave the various AI's different personalities - aggressive Alexander or pacifist Ghandi make very different and very interesting opponents - but they really need to lose the overly artificial stuff like an AI being upset because 'you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion'. A tad role-playing is cool, but let the AI be more interested in winning so the player can no longer manipulate it so easily.

[Silver14]

If you neglect your military enough the AI will attack you no matter what your standing is with them. This becomes even more likely on harder levels. Many have seen this and some have complained, "why did so-and-so attack me when we had such good relations".

[xxFlukexx]

Woah, you don't like that? I think that's one of the games great features, I mean in Civ3, why the heck do some civs hate you and others don't? I mean at least in Civ4 there feels like there are actually reasons for going to war other than 'I want your land, gimme!' I prefer the SMAC system the best, but Civ4s is a world better than Civ3s.

And the AI does attack you if your army is too weak like Silver14 says. Some leaders will also attack you for no good reason when you have very good relations with them(aggressive civs do this) The AI also will pile on hurt civs, sometimes I have to bribe other AIs to make peace with my current target or else they will vulture cities.

[sovietwaffle]

The penalty varies between leaders too. If Isabella is Buddhist and you're Islamic, prepare for war as she begins to hate you more and more. Howeverm I've had no problems allying with Washington or Bismark despite religious differences.

If you're asking why they factor in religion? Well if you haven't noticed religion was a HUUUGE part of relations in the world. The Crusades were religious wars, Italy had some major internal struggles between city-states because of religious differences. Personally, I don't find religion to be that big of a deal, but some do.

[LDiCesare]

The game is about winning, not seeing one's state religion spread all over the world!

Yes, but the game is also somewhat about rewriting history and historically, religions have been a very important cause of wars (crusades, jihads, the 30 years war...) so this is accurate.

[byrath]

Sounds to me like you might enjoy playing with 'Aggressive AI' turned on.

[Solver]

This is an excellent example of how different people enjoy different things. I love the AI relations system, and I love the fact that you can consciously get good relations with AIs by doing the right things. I hated the Civ3 aggressive AI which would often declare war out of the blue, basically on a wild dice roll.

The Civ4 AI DOES take weak military into account when declaring war. Neglect your military, and you'll be declared on. If you don't like the way it is now, play with the "Aggressive AI" option turned on and it will make you happy. There, the AI will be more likely to declare war and will almost always use the opportunity to do so if you're weak.

By the way... removing those "artificial modifiers", as you called them, would entirely destroy the diplomacy in the game. If you removed them, there would be practically no way to ensure good relations with anyone, and you'd essentially be stuck with a Civ1/Civ2 system where there are no relations, just either war or peace.

[Cort Haus]

I completely disagree with the OP. Having AI's that ignore diplomacy and just attack a weaker neighbour the whole time are the worst sorts of games to play.

C4 leaders have personalities, loyalties, and genuine grudges. The Civ 3 AI was fickle, cold, bribe-able and lifeless by comparison. As for Civ 1 & 2 diplomacy - well, there was none at all, as far as I can remember.

[Strategist83]

Byrath, Solver, Cort Haus: The aggressive AI 'favours war over diplomacy'. This is not what I want. I want an AI that is a shrewd strategist - I want an AI that does whatever it takes to win.

I think part of the game's beauty lies precisely in the fact war is not the only way to go. I do not want that taken away. But it annoys me immensely when I am about to complete the final parts of the space ship and the AI does not send its huge army against me just because it likes the civics I am employing.

[Aro]

What you want is Civ VI.

[Eric_Chan]

Civ IV's system is much richer than previous Civs. That's what I like about it.

I do agree it's annoying to have people you've maintained good relations with suddenly declare war. But heck, who hasn't suddenly declared war on a friendly Civ at one time or other themselves?

[Feyd]

What I don't like is the penalties that I start to rack up when I refuse to give the AI a tech that nobody else has. I once got a -4 with a civ simply because I wouldn't give them techs that nobody else had. Is there some limit on how many times they can ask (per however long the penalty lasts)? If the penalty lasts for 20 turns lets say the AI can only ask you for something once every ten or fifteen turns? OR if you do turn around and give them something it eliminates previous penalties?

I don't know, but I find that much more annoying than religious differences which I agree are very important to the realism of Civ IV.

[MadDjinn]

have you played Diety difficulty yet?

if you can beat that, and the game isn't hard, then ok...

[Solver]

Byrath, Solver, Cort Haus: The aggressive AI 'favours war over diplomacy'. This is not what I want. I want an AI that is a shrewd strategist - I want an AI that does whatever it takes to win.

That's what the option description says. But in reality, that's not how it works. How the option works is by increasing the AI incentive to attack, and making it less forgiving. For example, if you have a weak military, the chance of the AI ignoring it and letting you be is lower with the option on. It doesn't mean that the AIs will attack you relentlessly and stupidly.

[Odin]

I find the new relations system is really good because you can't bribe everyone into liking you. If you are chummy with FDR and have lots of resourse deals with him, and Caesar hates FDR's guts, your relations with Caesar will go down. It's not realistic to have everone liking you.