Is the AI more warlike?

[Shogun Gunner]

I'm currently finishing a game as the Mayans on a large map with 13 civs. My obversation is the AI is far more warlike.

In previous versions of Civ, we are familiar with the "gang up on the leader" AI strategy; the "doomed sneak attack for poor reasons" AI strategy; and the infamous "declare war, land one unit on your beach" AI military strategy.

Now I'm having a hard time keeping track of the shifting alliances, broken alliances, trade embargoes, etc. Warfare seems to be at an all time high! Has the AI strategy/politics become more sophisticated?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unhappy with a change here, but I wasn't sure if I'm seeing this because I've played only two games of C3C (not scenarios) or if I'm seeing a new pattern of AI aggressiveness?

Can anyone confirm or correct my perception?

[Fried-Psitalon]

Well, the AI definitely has a better grasp of naval invasion tactics now, but the 'desperate attack by a desperate man' AI move is still there. Honestly, though, I don't find that terribly unrealistic to the "real world" per se; desperate men rarely see things in the "rational" light the rest of us do, and will make doomed efforts in that regard, in all facets of life - not just national leadership.

[duxup]

My experience so far is that in conquests the shifting alliances, broken alliances, trade embargoes, etc seems to reach a point of utter chaos and after that there's just no going back. While this is fun at first, it just becomes a mess in the end, and takes some of the fun out of it all.

The weak diplomacy screen doesn’t help much for keeping track of what is going on. However, in the end it just doesn’t matter since every turn things will totally change.

I’ve got a game going where the AI X, and Y will form an alliance against Z. Then AI A will get AI X to declare war on Y. This and more happen every single turn and often alters/reverses its self on the very next turn. My foreign policy advisor is asked for a 300% increase in staff just to keep on top of things!

It feels like AI diplomacy is much more “loose”. Even weak AI countries seem able to convince strong large allies to go to war with one another, for no apparent reason.

The only thing I can say is large nations that share land borders (and thus immediate danger) seem less likely to go to war, but will pretty much declare war on anyone/everyone else.

I’ve yet to see enough to be able to tell how many forces and how well the AI is regularly using them at this point.

Perhaps I’ve just run across a few anomalies, more game play will tell.

[dexters]

I'm not sure if I can agree. Alliances shift, but generally, civs that are at war or were at war will hate each other and natural coalitions form. That's been my experience since pre-C3C. So alliances and alignsment of power tend to be relatively stable in the long-term and shifts that occur tend to be more permanent. The AI may sometimes sign agreements that drag them into a particular conflict.

One of the things that appear to have changed is AI evaluation.

I've seen this happen numerous times now, but if two powers are locked in a war. A third AI power will oftentimes see opportunity and declare war. This can work against you and for you. In my most recent game, I went to war with the Sumerians, the next turn, the Indians joined in. I didn't call them up for an MA.

I suspect relations between the 3rd country and one of the countries at war may be important. If you have a good relationship with the 3rd country and you go to war, the chances of the 3rd civ joining in out of opportunism is probably increased. I also suspect that the AI will evaluate your chances of winning based on military size and power.

[Shogun Gunner]

duxup:

I must say you were more concise than I was. When I posted the original message, I twice wrote and deleted paragraphs trying to describe the "utter chaos". Well said. I also try to track the logic why an AI country would attack, make peace and attack their former ally - just to fully reverse the process ten turns later!!!

Okay, I'm not crazy, which was my main motivation for posting the thread.

By the way, I love the line about increasing the Foreign Minister's staff by 300%!!! very amusing!

[duxup]

Originally posted by dexters
I'm not sure if I can agree. Alliances shift, but generally, civs that are at war or were at war will hate each other and natural coalitions form. That's been my experience since pre-C3C. So alliances and alignsment of power tend to be relatively stable in the long-term and shifts that occur tend to be more permanent, a AI may sometimes sign agreements that drag them into a particular conflict.

That is how I've seen Civ 3 traditionally work. However that has not been my experence with Conquests so far.

Still my experences may have been anomalous. I might have just gotten some incompatable civ matchups.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by dexters
I'm not sure if I can agree. Alliances shift, but generally, civs that are at war or were at war will hate each other and natural coalitions form. That's been my experience since pre-C3C. So alliances and alignsment of power tend to be relatively stable in the long-term and shifts that occur tend to be more permanent. The AI may sometimes sign agreements that drag them into a particular conflict.

This is also my experience with vanilla Civ3 and PTW as you detail in your post regarding the AI war/alliance behavior. However, in my first two C3C games I have experienced a distinct difference in AI war/alliance behavior. Since I have only played two games, I posted a thread to get other input. Interesting that you have experienced "traditional" (for lack of better term) AI behavior.