Whats the Bloody point?

[shade]

only anti-agressionpacts against you.
My last game is better i can't even get them to make peace best i get are cease fires .(maybe it's because i'm atrosciuos )
shade

[Rasputin]

i have played gaems wher ei have not attacked a single nation , but they have all signed anti aggression pacts agaisnt me, I know its because the AI is suposedly too weak and as soon as you get ahead it does this to fight back, but it is just so unrealsitic...

[The Andy-Man]

i have recently been plating a game in King (fist tiome for me)
as the english on world map. I was a lil agressive, but nations kept making war with me. so i conquered most of the roman empire and had a large nation. EVERYBODY has an anti me aggression pact except my allies the spanish, but they have 2 citiess

and because i never expected to go war. some of my cities have very little defence, bye bye big empire

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Rasputin
i have played gaems wher ei have not attacked a single nation , but they have all signed anti aggression pacts agaisnt me, I know its because the AI is suposedly too weak and as soon as you get ahead it does this to fight back, but it is just so unrealsitic...

I know the feeling. I played as an OCC once where a number of nations made anti agression pacts against me. go figure.

[The Andy-Man]

but if you are the most power nation, wouldn't it mak sense for the AI to want to ally with YOU?

i would rather have the most powerful nation as my ally then have 2 crappy nations with me against the most powerfuk whuich just destroyedc the romans!

[EOL]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but if you are the most power nation, wouldn't it mak sense for the AI to want to ally with YOU?

i would rather have the most powerful nation as my ally then have 2 crappy nations with me against the most powerfuk whuich just destroyedc the romans!

Sure in the real world - but how would one lesser civ win the game if he can't scupper the plans of the leading civ due to an alliance. It might be more realistic if civs allied to the eventual winner were allowed some of the glory too.

EOL

[Rasputin]

allied victorys are something i am hoping to see in Civ3 .. opens up more stratgeys instead of all ganging up on one..

[shade]

There is only one thing that would make civ3 infinite better than Civ2=> an AI with a brain(all the rest will pale against that,I'm sure of this)

Shade

[Rasputin]

no not an ai with a brain , but MP built as integral part of the game ... not an add on ....

[The Andy-Man]

if there were more civs and a bigger map, alliances would mean something, for there would be less room to expand, and there fore most nations would need the help of some others to obliterate another grtoup of nations etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
stupid AI, its like your up against 6 irish nations (no offence).

Evidently you missed my "yasser arafat is a civ2 ai" thread in the off topic forum

at risk of being off topic
LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

The anti human player "aggression pacts" are common playing at Deity level after 1750AD - I assume the same date holds good for Prince.

----------------

SG(2)

The AI gang-up starts in 1750 on ALL levels, IIRC. Its just much easier to deal with on the lower levels

LOTM

[The Andy-Man]

its worse when your nation is inbeetween the other 2 on a massive continent
and nobody has come up with tactics or leadership but they all have connons?

[Gatekeeper]

T-A-M, et al.:

I don't find it that illogical when weaker nations team up against you.

In your world — one where logic would dictate that the weaker join the stronger for preservation's sake — then Cuba, Iraq and Libya should all be in the American fold. After all, isn't our military might strong enough to wipe them off the face of the Earth? Yet these nations continually thumb their noses at us and get away with it despite their weakness. They also seem to get their jollies by making pronouncements against U.S. "hegemony."

With that in mind, the AI strategy isn't so far-fetched, IMHO. It's annoying, yes, but not unexpected. BTW, I have my games set to scenario mode, where you can prevent the AI from sharing technology with itself (that gets rid of the Stone Age culture becoming a Modern Age culture in the span of a single turn).

As for the post 1750 AD anti-human player alliances, I avoid that by simply trying to stay at "mighty" status or lower. Usually that can be accomplished in a perfectionist type play with less than 20 cities and a strong (but defensive) military.

CYBERAmazon

[The Andy-Man]

there are more nations that side with the stronger then the weaker, cuban anti-american attitude has arisen from them being on friendly terms with another mighty power in its day (russia).

But look how many weaker do join the stronger, all of europe joined with america instead of all joined against for eg.



and every time i have tried to live a perfectionist society, the AI declares war, and unless i CONQUER him, he never gives up. then i end up with more then 20 cities.