Taking Advantage of Artificial Incompetence

[nbarclay]

One thing everyone who's played Civ much knows is that AIs aren't all that competent at fighting each other. Lately, I've started sometimes taking advantage of that by bringing AIs into my wars of aggression as allies. If I can force the civ I'm attacking into a two-front war, or maybe even a three-front war, fewer offensive units from the AI I'm attacking will come after me. Further, while the civs I enlist as partners might make some small territorial gains, they won't gain nearly as much as I will and will spend a rather large number of shields' worth of units doing it. That's especially true if the prospective allies aren't in an advantageous technological position compared with the target. (Advantageous positions can come either from being more advanced technologically or from being at a point in the game - cavalry vs. musketmen, for example - where attackers have a significant advantage with equal technology.)

That tactic is a bit risky in Republic (or especially Democracy), since making peace early can ruin your reputation and war weariness can be a serious problem if you can't completely conquer your victim in a timely manner. But under governments that don't have war weariness problems, the only problem is that you might not be able to make peace as quickly as you'd like to get rid of the "Stop the aggression against our mother country" unhappiness in conquered cities.

I'm sure this technique is old hat to quite a few players, but it seems worth mentioning for the benfit of whoever might not have picked up on it yet.

[Rellin]

I use this strategy 90% of the time. I generally get a few of the mid ranged civs to join in my wars for either techs, luxeries or resources. I go Monarchy 100% of the time so War Weariness is never an issue for me, but as you said, the only draw back is when you have accomplished your goal or want to attempt to extort techs for peace you must wait till the 20 turns are up, or your AI allies breaks their agreement with you, as they do quite often.

[Rhothaerill]

For the most part I will avoid this strategy as I usually make war in one of the representative governments. I often don't want my wars to last more than 20 turns. However when I know that the war will last more than 20 turns then I don't hesitate. Also i will sometimes enlist a neighbor of mine for the sole purpose of avoiding a two-front war on my part.

One more thing...and I haven't really tested it lately as I avoid doing it...if you do sign an alliance with other civs and you obliterate the nation that you are at war with then you take the reputation hit as if you broke the alliance. If anyone knows if that has changed please say so.

[Solomwi]

Rhothy... I used to use that to keep myself out of a two front war, too, but have found it much easier to simply renegotiate peace with that civ rather than drag them into the war, thereby either locking myself into war for 20 turns or taking a rep hit. This, of course, only applies really in rep governments when, as you say, the 20 turn issue needs to be considered.

Don't know on your question, but now I'm curious, too.

[alexman]

I don't think this was ever the case.

What does happen is that if your alliance involved giving something per turn to your ally, then you get a reputation hit.

[Edit: crosspost. My post was in response to Rhothaerill's question.]

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by alexman
I don't think this was ever the case.

What does happen is that if your alliance involved giving something per turn to your ally, then you get a reputation hit.

[Edit: crosspost. My post was in response to Rhothaerill's question.]

Ah that was probably it then. I only remember getting the reputation hit a few times and then trying to avoid it afterward. I'm quite sure I gave them something to ally with me.

Thanks alexman.

[Theseus]

Ah.... Gang Bangs.

Lots'o fun. There are some corollary benefits as well, including improved attitude and lessened likelihood (but not complete) of attack by your allies.

Rellin makes a good point too, btw... when careful when bringing in the big boy AI civs, you just might foster a KAI. (or maybe for a masochist like me!)

[vmxa1]

I find the AI is often not even of much use as an ally. They seemed to not send units all that much. I will get them involved to keep from a gang up on me. Well sometimes I like to do all against the world.

[TheArsenal]

I generally don’t like to ally with the AI. There are a couple of exceptions. One being if a notably strong AI attacks before I am ready, or if its attack will disrupt important war plans I am making elsewhere (a resource grab for example) and the AI I ally with is situated between me and the aggressor and I am in a government that can withstand 20 turns of being at war.

Depending on the map, many times in that situation the aggressor AI won’t be able to even get units into my territory except for the occasional half empty galley. The problem as noted already is, it can create a KAI right on/closer to my border to be dealt with later.

Otherwise, if all these conditions aren’t met, I’ll slug it out by myself for a few turns, do what damage I can then call for peace.

[Aeson]

You can take it a step further and declare war on AI you have no intention of fighting, then sign up neighbors who can't expect to fight them either (on a different landmass especially). This makes the AI focus on military and since you aren't actually fighting anyone war weariness isn't a problem.

Then the next step in progression is manufacturing situations where you can get those AI to declare war on you for negative war weariness, getting your allies to declare war on you to break alliances when you want to make peace with the enemy, ect.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
I don't think this was ever the case.

What does happen is that if your alliance involved giving something per turn to your ally, then you get a reputation hit.

Is your giving something per turn for the alliance sufficient to trigger the hit, or does there have to be something up front from the AI as part of the deal for that to happen? Or do you know? I don't remember ever getting a reputation hit that I noticed from destroying an enemy early, but I'm not sure what situations I've created where such a thing could happen.

Note that if you have the cash and a good reputation, instead of offering something per turn for an alliance, you could offer cash for the alliance and then get the cash back by selling something per turn. Also note that making combined versus separate deals can matter if one of the AIs involved is currently paying the other gold per turn. If your intended ally is receiving gold per turn from your enemy, getting the gold per turn as part of the alliance deal can provide profit that would not be available in a separate deal after the alliance is signed (because your enemy stops paying when war is declared). Conversely, if your intended ally is paying gold per turn to your enemy, your ally will stop paying when it declares war and thus perhaps be able to pay you more gold per turn than if you sell whatever you want to sell as part of the alliance deal. Of course you don't actually know exactly what deals AIs have with each other, but sometimes you can make a very good educated guess. And if a civ is unwilling to pay gold per turn when you first open negotiations, there is no risk that the amount of gpt they can pay will go down after the alliance is signed.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I find the AI is often not even of much use as an ally. They seemed to not send units all that much. I will get them involved to keep from a gang up on me. Well sometimes I like to do all against the world.

If your ally is your enemy's immediate neighbor, they can provide some value in drawing off enemy offensive units whether they do much to attack your enemy or not. Indeed, drawing off enemy offensive units is one of the thigs I want most from my alliances. That can be especially useful if the enemy happens to have a powerful offensive UU available at the time you attack: what is it worth to have half the Persians' Immortals or China's Riders go after another civ instead of you? Alliances can also provide a way to manipulate an AI into burning its GA sooner rather than later if that seems desirable.

[nbarclay]

The reason I titled the thread "Taking Advantage of Artificial Incompetence" is that even when an AI is fairly strong, it is unlikely to gain as much from an alliance as a good human player who prosecutes a war aggressively will. The real danger of creating killer AIs comes from luring AIs into wars with each other where the human player doesn't plan to do much fighting, because under those circumstances, the AIs stand to gain quite a bit from the war if they can get the upper hand while the human player has no real prospect of gaining anything.

Nathan

[Plotinus]

Re the reputation hit - bear in mind that if you are in a military alliance with another power, their attitude to you will be automatically improved for as long as the alliance lasts. When it ends, for whatever reason, this "artificial" boost also ends. So an apparent reputation hit might in fact be simply the effect of no longer being in the military alliance, as your reputation with the former ally drops to what it would have been anyway.

[Mountain Sage]

Good strategies all. I use them a lot (yes, me!), especially on 3 occasions:

1. I am in a building mode.
An AI lands the usual 2 spears and refuses to ship them in again. I sign military alliances with at least 1 of its neighbours and happily go on building my city improvements. The drawback is of course that the war lasts 20 turns.

2. I plan a war.
I declare war, sign some military alliances especially with civs on the opposite (geographically speaking) of my targeted AI and wait for some turns. All the targeted AI's troops are sent on the other side. Then I land mine.

3. A KAI emerges (or better, is emerging).
I sign alliances, but do not draw in the weakest civs. After 20 turns, I sue for peace. Quite often, the KAI and other civs go on warring for a long time. If the balance shift in favour of the KAI, I support the weakest one(s) with gold and techs.

As for the gifts, I find that too often the price is very small: world map, RoP, some gold or luxury. If it's gold, I make sure it's a lump sum, which I get usually back the same round for trading a tech or luxury.

I really avoid taking rep hits, as you never know who your next 'ally' will be...