AI's Inexplicable War-Declarations, esp. in Mid-Game

[zabrak]

Allowing the AI to possess stealth bombers is an invitation for them to be used against you. Either you're ahead, which might be forgiven earlier but not as the end approaches, or you're behind, which will lead to being victimized at any point in the game. Fortunately, you've got an easy solution: bribe your "friend" into attacking its "enemy". At least it'll be cheap.

Part of the problem is the necessarily simplistic algorithms with which the AI is coded. But mostly, this sort of situation is the result of trying to shoehorn a realistic simulation of international affairs into the framework of a game which has victory conditions that force direct competition. Perhaps if the goals of AI leaders were the commonwealth of their citizens and the preservation of their way of life, then "friendly" civs in the game would behave more like friendly nations in the real world.

Instead, the only thing that your relations status communicates is the cost modifier that your trades enjoy. "Friendly" means nothing more than the AI will give you a nice discount on your next box of lamb chops. Frankly, that anyone is fooled for even a moment that it's otherwise is a testament to the depth of the game and the talent of its authors.

I've always thought the name of the game is a sublime joke. You can build, from the raw savagery of nature, complex and beautiful creations, which you use to crush everyone else. You never really conquer your barbarism and become civilized - why expect a machine will do better?

[One_more_turn]

Only if the whole world is unified under my banner, it will be truly civilized. ) )

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Saurus
In the real world, there is always a certain agenda why a nation declare war upon another and this agenda almost always has something to do with economic expansion or an atempt to defend the current economic position. This is the case also when neighbours are fighting each other and most certainly when fighting someone at the other side of the globe.

For instance, If the US needs to secure oil import, then invading Iraq is more appealing than invading Mexico. It is also more appealing to Invade Iraq than North Korea for the same reason even though North korea is much worse of a dictatorship than Saddam Husseins Iraq would ever have been - the "liberation" of the iraqi people used only as a pretext to grab the oil in this regard. Iraq had also just recently slipped from using dollars to using Euros for oil-trades prior to the invasion.
The invasion resulted in that the euro was quickly
replaced by the dollar again.
Should this invasion not have happened and Iraq would have continued doing bussiness in euros, the value of the dollar would have dropped with an economic inpact.

Off the top of my head, I'd say most wars can be accounted for by five factors, often with two or more factors working in combination.

1) Religious hatreds.

2) Economic interests.

3) National security (including, less directly, the security of a nation's allies).

4) Moral outrage.

5) Egotism on the part of one or more leaders.

Wars are especially likely when more than one of those factors is present. In such cases, trying to find the one single cause of a war inevitably results in a grossly distorted picture because the reality is that several different causes played major roles in making the war seem worth fighting. Indeed, in many cases, no one cause could justify a war all by itself. I view the invasion of Iraq as a good example of a war driven by a combination of several causes. (Which, in turn, means that any fair evaluation of whether and to what extent the war can be considered justified has to consider the entire picture as a whole rather than focusing on a single cause in isolation. I'd say more but I don't want to stray farther off topic.)

The problem with Civ is that its attempts to model these aspects of why nations go to war are too simplistic to give players a good warning that they are in imminent danger of being attacked. Having an aggressive AI leader in the game increases the chance of being attacked at some point, but since the same leader is in place for the whole game, it doesn't tell us anything about when. There is no warning that a new leader has taken over and is making ominous-sounding speeches.

Similarly, bad relations with an AI increase the likelihood of its attacking at some point but don't give a clear idea of when it might attack. Relations can be negative for a long time with no attack occurring, and AIs can attack when they have positive relations. There is not generally a big downturn in relations immediately prior to the attack.

And in the real world, wars are often preceded by an inability to resolve a major dispute through diplomacy. In contrast, the closest Civ IV comes to modeling that is having the AIs make demands. But the Civ IV model gives players no real hint as to which demands an AI considers so vital to its interests that refusing to meet the demand would be likely to result in wark, and which demands the AI is making just to see if it can get something for nothing. (I've long viewed the mechanism for AI demands as a top contender for worst design feature in Civ IV. It seems almost like something deliberately designed to undercut enjoyment of the game, since it forces players to either give up something for nothing or accept a diplomatic penalty for no good reason, neither of which I find the tiniest bit enjoyable.)

The end result is that AI attacks often seem to come out of the blue for no discernable reason. That can be extremely annoying for a builder who would like to have at least a little advance warning that diplomatic tensions are making expansion or modernization of the civ's military more important.

[Ari]

The AI's great at threats, but terrible at ultimatums. I can't remember civ 3 all that well, but SMAC was far better at having an "...or else" when the AI was dealing with you. Failing to accede to a demand would potentially immediately create a state of war. The lack of such a thing here subtracts from the realism, and as nbarclay points out, the fun, since threats seem arbitrary compared with actual aggression.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Ari
The AI's great at threats, but terrible at ultimatums. I can't remember civ 3 all that well, but SMAC was far better at having an "...or else" when the AI was dealing with you. Failing to accede to a demand would potentially immediately create a state of war. The lack of such a thing here subtracts from the realism, and as nbarclay points out, the fun, since threats seem arbitrary compared with actual aggression.

In addition to that, it seems impossible to issue your own ulitmatums or have your previous conduct considered in terms of following through.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by nbarclay
And in the real world, wars are often preceded by an inability to resolve a major dispute through diplomacy. In contrast, the closest Civ IV comes to modeling that is having the AIs make demands. But the Civ IV model gives players no real hint as to which demands an AI considers so vital to its interests that refusing to meet the demand would be likely to result in wark, and which demands the AI is making just to see if it can get something for nothing. (I've long viewed the mechanism for AI demands as a top contender for worst design feature in Civ IV. It seems almost like something deliberately designed to undercut enjoyment of the game, since it forces players to either give up something for nothing or accept a diplomatic penalty for no good reason, neither of which I find the tiniest bit enjoyable.)

I reject almost all AI demands, since if a stronger opponent demands something, giving it to them just puts off my doom, and if a weaker opponent demands something, giving them something would just help them challenge me. I also make a point of razing the cities of annoying opposing civs, not that they care.

There are some ways to tell when another civ is getting ready to go to war, possibly with you. In one game, for a while I tried to get Alexander to go to war with one of my neighbors, but his price was higher than I could meet. After a while, all of the "go to war" options were redded-out with the explanation that they have enough on their hands already, but they weren't at war with anyone. Alexander's power rose rapidly, and some time later he declared war, and brought a substantial chain of obsolete units that had been marched quite a ways from his territory.

[Chaos Theory]

Genghis Khan declares war on me late in the BCs. I may have been last in the power chart, but not by much - everyone was bunched up there, thanks to raging barbs. Khan is last place in points, and probably for good reason.

I have several axes and archers, and he sends chariots, a couple at a time, and he doesn't even share a border with me. I kill all of them, losing only a little bit to pillaging, and losing a few units. He won't talk to me for ~20 turns, and when he does, he's willing to give up Polytheism for peace. I hadn't even left my territory during the war. This is Monarch difficulty.

It turns out I was his worst enemy, though he didn't have any negatives with me apart from the "This war ruins our relationship". I wish aggressive didn't equal stupid.

[MikeH]

I check the power graph all the time these days, if I'm significantly behind any of the civs I rapidly build loads of units, but generally you have to make sure you keep your military spending quite high, even if you don't have any enemies, or they'll pick you off.

[MikeH]

It certainly slows you down less to build more units than it does to deal with the annoyance of an invasion, having to build all the improvements etc. again.

The computer doesn't seem to take into account any tech disparity, or the fact that you can kill huge numbers of inferior units with your human intelligence and small but technologically advanced army.

[Blaupanzer]

1. You are ahead of a powerful AI.
2. Based on unit count (the power graph) you are weak.
3. You get attacked.
Where is the surprise in this pattern?
The fact that this pattern irritates builders means the game designers are doing their job. It was not designed as a noncompetitive game.

[couerdelion]

Re: Re: AI's Inexplicable War-Declarations, esp. in Mid-Game

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli


Sounds like the Spanish Armada to me. Spain went for the militarily weak, 'heretic' England and not their neighbours in Portugal or France.

Actually the war with England due to the increasing hostility between the two nations and England's support for the Dutch in their war against Spain.

Spain, at this time was constantly fighting but they were at least reasonably fair in the way they shared the wars around. France and The Netherlands got most of the effort but Rome, England, Ottoman Empire were not left out in Philips mad dash to continually bankrupt his nation.

[yimboli]

Interesting posts.... I've seen many members state that the AI attacks militarily weak nations - it bothers me that this game mechanic seems to render the pacifism civic much less useful. I love having +100% great person generation, but the extra money for military units is unbearable if you try to keep your military strong enough to avoid silly wars. I understand that it's just the plus/minus of the civic. If I can get 100% more great person generation, then I'm willing to accept that in the event of invasion, it's going to take me a while to gear up and turn the war around. However, the fact that the AI is overtly targetting weak civs is disturbing - obviously it makes sense to attack weak civs, but here's what really gets to me:

Why does the computer know how strong my military is?? Is that really fair? Before the armchair historians pipe in, I'm not looking for real examples - I want to know why *I* can't see how strong the *AI* is militarily, but somehow the AI knows when I'm weak and declares war. Seems a bit skewed. Maybe it would make sense if we had open borders, but even then the knowledge of military strength should be mutual. Unit count is useful, but it isn't really a good predictor - example: I invaded Saladin with Infantry, and he was defending with musketmen and even a few warriors! This is arguably my number 1 complaint about civ4.

[Generaldoktor]

Re: Re: AI's Inexplicable War-Declarations, esp. in Mid-Game

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli


Sounds like the Spanish Armada to me. Spain went for the militarily weak, 'heretic' England and not their neighbours in Portugal or France.

Portugal was owned by Spain at the time of the Armada.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by yimboli
Why does the computer know how strong my military is?? Is that really fair? Before the armchair historians pipe in, I'm not looking for real examples - I want to know why *I* can't see how strong the *AI* is militarily, but somehow the AI knows when I'm weak and declares war. Seems a bit skewed.

Your asking for something beyond the Power graph correct?

[Son of David]

Originally posted by zabrak
But mostly, this sort of situation is the result of trying to shoehorn a realistic simulation of international affairs into the framework of a game which has victory conditions that force direct competition. Perhaps if the goals of AI leaders were the commonwealth of their citizens and the preservation of their way of life, then "friendly" civs in the game would behave more like friendly nations in the real world.

I thought this was a fantastically well-made point and I'm surprised others haven't wanted to discuss it!

In actual fact the new Warlords concept of the Vassal state might go some way towards rectifying this problem. It will be possible, in effect, for a civ to throw up its hands and say 'we are not competing with you, just let us live in peace and we'll pay you tribute'. Obviously there is little reason for a human player to do this but if AI players can do it it would help simulate real life.

One could say, rather loosely but largely correctly, that Canada is a 'vassal state' of the U.S. I.e., if the U.S. was aiming for world domination or a 'space race victory', Canada would not only not compete with the U.S. but probably, through trade and cooperation, help it with that endeavour.

We shall soon see if vassal state concept in Warlords helps to make the late-game more diplomatic and rational ....