Economics and trade

[rah]

No but it seems that way. I did do one test where I was +17 diplo with the NA. I joined a war with them at their request and moved my reserves that were in my capital to the front. Right after I did I noticed a troop build up on my border and x number of turns later he declared on me. I went back to a previous save and left my reserves in my cap. (my cap was actually a border city with him, but with a large culture buffer) and he never DOWed me. Not that scientific, but it has worked. But you're right, I can't be positive that it was the only cause.

[Ming]

While I've never tried it with an AI that I''ve been +17 with... I've had some luck baiting neighbors by pulling my troops off their border. AI's that are "pleased" with me have responded to the bait, even when they are pissed at other neighbors. It does seem easier to do if they are at least slightly ahead of me on the power graph. And it also seems to work the best if I'm at war with somebody else and I'm engaged on the opposite border.

Maybe it's just coincidence, but it seems to happen more when my border cities with the civ have been stripped of most of their units.

[rah]

Maybe, maybe not. When my empire is basically a circle with my cap in the middle and I keep my defensive SOD in my cap since it can reach any city in two turns, I seem to get DOWed more which I might assume the lack of troops on the border had some impact.

And just so people are aware, Ming and I almost always play aggressive AI.

[Ming]

While it's a good assumption... the case you bring up is usually what many do when they are in the middle of the board and are surrounded by other civs. You keep a reserve force handy to defend whatever border gets attacked, while minimizing the number of units in your outland cities. On the other hand, one might also assume that you are being attacked simply because you are in the middle of the board

In many single land mass games, the civs in the middle of the board are the first to go

[wodan11]

A ring of cities is often what happens, but rarely am I truly "in the middle of the board". Usually I have at least one, often two, and preferably three moderately safe borders. And if I have only one or two, I usually make it an early game goal to have conquered my way out of the possibility of multifront wars. That's a bad thing in my book.

[rah]

Yeah, if i have one civ pinned in, it's always tempting to take them out to eliminate a potential border problem, but it doesn't always work out well, when I have to back off due to a couple of other civs taking advantage of which way I'm leaning. So sometimes I wait too long to correct the problem. I do agree that its a BAD BAD thing.

[Ming]

If you have a civ pinned in, it's just a matter of when, not if, that they will attack. Once they run out of place to build cities, they will attack. Usually, if you just prepare for it, they will send in their SOD... you destroy it, then go in and finish them off. The AI is soooooo predictable.

[Azuarc]

Of course, there won't be an SOD in Civ V since you can't stack units. Kinda makes you wonder how the AI will handle their military, but that's getting away from the original topic.

In Civ 4, the AI definitely will attack border towns that are poorly defended, and will declare it's wars based on that and nothing more. It's programmed to seize advantages. If you're astute, you'll see it coming, but sometimes you think you're cool with somebody because you share a religion and open borders and all...and then they backstab you. I'm not wholly adverse to that in concept, except that it can often lead to gangbang situations.


As for economics, I honestly think that a lot of it should be directly tied to city size. An early civ is focused on sustenance, not commerce. Eventually farming techniques allow fewer people to work the land, and then you have people who actually live in a town or a city as a dedicated living. In that regard, I think that's one thing that Colonization had going for it. (The old one, I never played Civ 4 edition.) Considering that I tend to be lazy in my Civ games and not really mind what is going on in my cities, I think this would be a way to get me to pay a little more attention so I don't screw up. It would also be more appropriate to history.

Of course, I'd take it one step further and have large cities physically expand into multiple tiles, but that would require changing the paradigm for just how big a tile is and the scope of a single city.

[rah]

I'm sure the AI will do what's it always done, use quantity over tactics. It just won't be SODs, but expect more units anyway.

[Arrian]

The AI is soooooo predictable

To be fair, put me in that situation (hemmed in) and I'm pretty predictable too!

-Arrian

[Ming]

True enough... The big difference is, the Human player usually breaks out... the AI usually signs his own death notice.

[Blaupanzer]

The AI in these cases will trigger a war, but mostly doesn't seem able to read the powergraph. Attacking either the strongest (stronger than him) or the richest (who can buy allies) seems like a suicide-trip. However, the AI does precisely this, over and over, game after game. Makes you wonder about the programming.

I turn vassals off in my game, something the programming may not address. Maybe the weak central guy seeks to vassal off to the strong or the rich. Not much else explains this behavior.

[rah]

I turn vassals off also.
If they're pinned in I can understand it. What vexes me is when i and one other are pinning in an ai. He can share my religion and not the other's, be far happier with me, i'll be considerably higher on the power graph, yet they choose to attack me. Absurd. And even worse when he can get the neighbor that he didn't like to join in. Granted in the long run it doesn't really matter because I would have taken them both out anyway, but after a while you stop caring about the diplo aspect of the game.

[Ming]

True enough...

Let's hope the new trade and economic models do a better job of incorporating an improved diplo aspect that they seem to be promising.

[rah]

Agreed. When you backstab a civ that was your loyal trading partner for 1000s of years, you economy should take a BIG hit. Trade should also be as big a diplo factor as religion was in IV. +1 or +2 just wasn't enough in my opinion.