Threats are not useful at all

[Ljube]

This time I fully agree with what you are saying. But if there are different types of people, why are there not different types of AI. Some of them should yield, assuring their existence, the others should not. Now, that would be something. And it should be random, not fixed to AI nationalities.
As far as I am concerned, I consider quitting in poor / hopeless positions in a multiplayer game a very impolite thing to do, which can change the balance of power and spoil the game for the other players. I never quit and fight to the last man. I’m also willing to become a vassal state whenever it’s necessary. And sometimes you can really win as a vassal state, take my word for it. Why would the AI not behave in the same way: Respond to threats by more powerful players, be it the AI or the human, with modest gifts and use the newly established ties to expand and prosper?
But yes, they haven’t programmed it correctly. Even the humble AI in Master of Orion 1 is better programmed.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ljcvetko
This time I fully agree with what you are saying. But if there are different types of people, why are there not different types of AI. Some of them should yield, assuring their existence, the others should not.

Yes, more extensive AI personalities is something I would have liked to see as well.


Dominae

[Ljube]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Anyway humans that were way behind would be eliminated if the AI knew how to play. How often do you se them with 2 or more times your troops and they lose. They have large numbers that they never send into the battle or they do it piece meal. Is this reality?

Sure, but when I'm facing destruction, I yield to threats. The AI on the other hand would never yield and would rather let you destroy it.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Now, what would you have done if you had been in my friend’s position? Would you have had constant war with me, with absolutely no hope of success, or would you, as my friend did, have accepted my really lenient conditions for peace and continued to act as my vassal, still hoping you could join the space race?

I would have made life hard on you till you were forced to take me out. If I had no real chance of winning I could at least be a pain in the butt. Why would I keep playing on as your vassal? Where's the fun in that?

[Ljube]

But then you surely wouldn’t have won. My friend in this case, on the other hand, has had a real chance to win. Remember, this has not been a duel, for in a duel there’s no such thing as a vassal state – you fight until one of you quits.
This game ended in a real space race, initiated by my friend, who has built Apollo. The only problem he was facing was the fact that he had only 11 cities, compared to 48 of my cities. But, unlike me, he had factories, power, nuclear and hydro plants, libraries, universities, super science city with Shakespeare, marketplaces, banks, stock exchanges, port facilities and a bunch of caravans.
I even gave him SETI on condition he would give me two advances, a condition he never honoured, so I had to steal superconductor and plastics at the crucial moment.
He only needed another city to complete the spaceship ahead of me.
So, as you can see from the example, it’s sometimes beneficial to be a vassal state, since nobody considers you a threat and would not invest resources in a war with you. If you have a powerful ally who can protect you and will honour agreements, well it’s a win / win situation.

Kind of like a position in which Serbia is now compared to the US, don’t you think? We’ll even end up sending our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Liberia to support our “allies”.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ljcvetko
As far as I am concerned, I consider quitting in poor / hopeless positions in a multiplayer game a very impolite thing to do, which can change the balance of power and spoil the game for the other players. I never quit and fight to the last man. I’m also willing to become a vassal state whenever it’s necessary. And sometimes you can really win as a vassal state, take my word for it. Why would the AI not behave in the same way: Respond to threats by more powerful players, be it the AI or the human, with modest gifts and use the newly established ties to expand and prosper?
But yes, they haven’t programmed it correctly. Even the humble AI in Master of Orion 1 is better programmed.

I am not sure I woudl agree to the concept that quitting is impolite. If the others did not want to see me bail out they should have come to my aid. Since they did not, they can take the consequences.
I would however player to the last unit I had and do as much damage as I could. If that meant trading everything I could to your enemies, thats what I would do.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ljcvetko


Sure, but when I'm facing destruction, I yield to threats. The AI on the other hand would never yield and would rather let you destroy it.

I would agree they are often slow to yield, but I don't agree they never do. But again they do not have the luxury of programming an endless triage to make a better tactical play. They have a finite set decisions and they are limited.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by vmxa1


I would agree they are often slow to yield, but I don't agree they never do. But again they do not have the luxury of programming and endless triage to make a better tactical play. They have a finite set decisions and they are limited.

In a game I'm currently playing (Aztecs) an incredibly stupid thing happened, which is, nevertheless, happening all the times.

Stupid English, whom I have already beaten up and forced to depart of two cities, seemed to have recovered from the initial setback, but then got into war with their big neighbours: the Egyptians, who then signed alliances with everybody but me against the English.

Tell me if that's stupid or what.

BUT, when the same Egyptians requested gems from me in exchange for not destroying my poor civ with their army of knights, well guess what I replied.
I accepted their generous offer, of course.
Does that make me Egyptian vassal?
I don't care. Eventually, I'll deal with them one way or the other.

But, if I had rejected their outrageous demands, well the whole world could have just as easily turned against me.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by vmxa1


I am not sure I woudl agree to the concept that quitting is impolite. If the others did not want to see me bail out they should have come to my aid. Since they did not, they can take the consequences.

Rest assured, if we ever play a game together, I will come to your aid in times of despair.

Originally posted by vmxa1


I would however player to the last unit I had and do as much damage as I could. If that meant trading everything I could to your enemies, thats what I would do.

This is really not nice. You spoil things playing like this. Is your goal your victory or my demise?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ljcvetko


In a game I'm currently playing (Aztecs) an incredibly stupid thing happened, which is, nevertheless, happening all the times.

Stupid English, whom I have already beaten up and forced to depart of two cities, seemed to have recovered from the initial setback, but then got into war with their big neighbours: the Egyptians, who then signed alliances with everybody but me against the English.

Tell me if that's stupid or what.

BUT, when the same Egyptians requested gems from me in exchange for not destroying my poor civ with their army of knights, well guess what I replied.
I accepted their generous offer, of course.
Does that make me Egyptian vassal?
I don't care. Eventually, I'll deal with them one way or the other.

But, if I had rejected their outrageous demands, well the whole world could have just as easily turned against me.

That is a familar story, but I am not sure what it had to do with my post you quoted. I never said they were smart, I said they have a limited list of responses, many not very good.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ljcvetko

This is really not nice. You spoil things playing like this. Is your goal your victory or my demise?

I thought we had already decide I had no chance at victory, so revenge is all I would have left to make me feel better. It seems rational to me. It is also much fairer to the others, rather than become a vassal. If you have crushed me, then by definition the others are my allies.
So I do not accept it as not being nice. As to your demise at that point, that is all I would have left.
If I had conclued I still had some outs, then I would not be going that route.
Do you think I should just take a drubbing and not take any retribution at all? If the players were no more competitive than than, it would not be worth oplaying them. I want people that are going down swinging.

[Ljube]

With an uncompromising attitude like that you are sure to go down first. I don't play like that. I'm usually able to get out of a desperate situation by means of diplomacy. If this means becomming someone's vassal, well, in that case, let's see, well, compare the utter humiliation of being beaten with continued existance with real chances of victory, well, what will I choose?
Need I spell it out, when the answer is so obvious?

[vmxa1]

Would you make up your mind. Either I am a lame vassal or I am not. I cannot be beaten and have a chance to win at the same time. It is one or the other.
How can I compromise, I lost, remember? You seem to have lost your premise. Anyway I think it has been beaten to death. So how about I concede here.

[Ljube]

OK. It's like this. You should never let yourself get in a hopeless position. If I'm weaker, I don't fight the stronger guy, but strike a deal with him. For instance, I let him trade with me. Then, if he's very strong, he'll be occupied with the others. I don't do anything that could possibly irritate him. I share science with him, and from time to time, request gifts from my gracious ally.
This strategy must be employed if you don't want to search for excuses for your defeat, or even worse, your total destruction.
Playing this way, you still have a strong chance in the space race.
By that time, you should be much stronger, so your "ally" shouldn't be able to punish you at will.
If you play it smart, you'll be completely outside of all major events and wars, developing and researching unimpeded.

If the AI in civ 3 could play this way, it would be much more of a challenge than it is right now.
For it is not logical to eliminate a submissive.

[Gufnork]

If you have one city left and give all your tech to the agressor, guess what the rest of the world will do? Yup, they'd knock on your door asking for demands. This will continue until you say no and die. Might as well die immediatly instead of being the worlds *****.

And yes, everyone doesn't react this way. It just so happens to be the most annoying way for someone to react, thus everyone will react in that manner on Deity. Deity = as hard as it gets. They could have had a difficulty that fitted to your exact taste, but that would require a whole lot of difficulties since each would require his own (not to mention that you actually get better).