Why keep them happy?

[geniemalin]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that AI attitude doesn't really matter. I've been sneak-attacked by Polite civs who are in a good military position, and made plenty of deals with Furious civs at rates that seemed no different to dealing with Gracious AI. I've been extorted for tech the turn after I gave a gift to an opponent and turned him Gracious from Polite.

So exactly what effect does attitude have. Is there any point trying to keep the AI happy?

[MrWhereItsAt]

You should find that having a better attitude from that AI civ will mean you more often get BETTER deals and have better chances of signing MPPs and Alliances.

There will always be exceptions of course, and at higher levels the AI is a lot more aggressive. Moreover, if they have a larger military than you it is always inviting disaster.

[vmxa1]

I am sure there is a reason, but it has always escaped me and I just don't care what they think about anything.

[DrSpike]

Well the reason the AI works this way is that you can't just get a tech lead and buy the AI off with tech for the whole game, like in previous games. This way if you are weak you invite attack even by civs with favourable attitudes towards you.

Later on you can still use your good relationship to sign deals that stop the AI from attacking you.

[Purple]

After installing Conquests, it seemed to me that the AI had been changed with regard to this feature, so I turned off the "Preserve Random Seed" option and ran some tests, saving and replaying turns to observe war declarations and alliances.

My conclusion was that the AI behavior was totally random. In the Rise of Rome scenario, which I used for the experiment, a replayed turn would yield a wide range of results: from no changes in the F4 screen at all to situations where even my polite ally would suddenly break our alliance and join another against me (presumably bribed by another civ).

This was a totally unscientific experiment; I didn't record the outcomes. I was just curious about the odd AI behavior. And I cannot say for sure that it has changed in the basic game, but at least in this scenario it seemed different from basic Civ and PTW.

To me this behavior is akin to natural disasters, where floods, quakes, tidal waves, and invasions from outer space occur at random, but of course, the designers didn't include such events. They seem to have made up for that omission by the unpredicatable AI diplomacy.

[Gibsie]

Hmm, maybe because if you get to the modern age and they build the UN, you automatically lose.

[Ecthy]

Gibsie raises a valid point here, that has actually happened to me before...

[steven8r]

Originally posted by Purple
To me this behavior is akin to natural disasters, where floods, quakes, tidal waves, and invasions from outer space occur at random, but of course, the designers didn't include such events.

There are now volcanoes that can errupt and spew-forth pollution. But I do kinda miss the tidalwaves and fires from the first Civ.


back OT:
The AI attitudes are mostly only useful for UN elections. If you are stronger or weaker than AI's, it doesn't matter what their attitude, they will eventually gang-up on you.

[0bsidi0n]

So they love you and kill you if you're weak, and hate you and (attempt to) kill you if you're strong. I wish the AI was a little more pacifist, war is fun, but not all game with everyone.

[vmxa1]

In CivIII and PTW you can play a strategy to be on good terms for the whole game, if you choose.
In C3C you can set the AI aggression to lower the likelyhood of wars.
If you are playing at a level that you can be strong compared to the AI, you will increase the amount of time you are at peace. Especially if you are willing to give gifts often and trade. I just do not like to play that way, but it can be done. In the late stages, it is hard to keep the AI from wanting your land, unless you are very strong or they are very busy with others.