That Warmonger Gandhi

[Mace]

Originally posted by vmxa1
What do you mean by unprovoked? If you mean you have done nothing towards them, that is one thing. What about them needing more land or resources or to win?

Humans go to war for those reason all the time. I just want to have all of this island/cont/world. I just want that coal or that lux.

Well vxma1 I am constantly toying with new ideas re: Civ3 and this is one of them.

Unprovoked = "Polite" or "Gracious" attitude...AND
no prior reputation stains..no RoP rapes, no treaties broken by the human player.

If the human player has busted treaties and so forth then that's different.

Aggressive AI civs (Mongols, Vikings, Aztecs, etc.) will (and should, in Civ3) attack the human player whenever they feel like it. That's their nature.

However, less aggressive AI civs should not, IMO.
India, for ex. should never attack a human player if:
1. India has "polite" or "gracious" attitude toward the human player.
2. the human player has never broken any treaties

Hitler (aggressive Germany) may have been "polite" to the Poles and Czechs in 1937, but that didn't stop him from gulping up Poland and the Sudetenland in 1938 and 1939. But Nazi Germany was aggressive. Germany has been aggressive at other times in her history too. I believe in Civ3 Germany is on the aggressive side.

However, can you imagine a supposedly peaceful Gandhi doing that? It doesn't seem proper for a low aggressive AI civ (Iroqois, or India) to attack a player they are "Polite" or "Gracious" towards.

What do you think about that?

[Aqualung71]

That would open the game up to massive exploitation by humans. Keep your neighbours polite while you build your economy and no military, then once you are in the lead whack 'em with your suerior units. Game over. Yawn.

Currently, even polite neighbours will attack you if they feel your military is weak. This is as it ought to be. Neglect your defences at your own peril!

[Daz]

I agree we cannot make it too predictable. That would just not be diplomacy, would it?

But I guess you'll agree that right now, its too damn random.

[bongo]

Originally posted by Daz
But I guess you'll agree that right now, its too damn random.

Is it? I can't remember the last time I used the phrase 'I didn't see THAT coming' when an AI declared war.

Oh well, maybe I don't play enough

[Daz]

What I'm saying is that you can be best buddies with Ghandi for 2000 years, abd as soon as your military is inferior to theirs, BAM, they're all over you.... They are not even considering your economy, and the fact that in 10 turns you'll amass enough forces to overrun them....

[Ljube]

Originally posted by vmxa1
What do you mean by unprovoked? If you mean you have done nothing towards them, that is one thing. What about them needing more land or resources or to win?

Why didn't they ask for those resources? And they can win the space race too.
For instance in one of my games, the Persians demanded tribute from me, I paid and not only that, I paid more than they asked for, because their units were amassing in front of one of my cities. Regardless of my concessions, they attacked the next turn.
I find this behaviour ridiculous.

Originally posted by vmxa1
Humans go to war for those reason all the time. I just want to have all of this island/cont/world. I just want that coal or that lux.

No, I never go to war if I can obtain the needed resource by peaceful means. And if I knew I could trust Ghandi or alike, I wouldn't have the need to eliminate them from my island.

In my opinion the way the AI in Civ3 is behaving is very similar to final war in Master of Orion. I don't mind that, but in limited doses. I like to win diplomatically sometimes. And I don't mean the victory through the vote in the United Nations.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Daz
What I'm saying is that you can be best buddies with Ghandi for 2000 years, abd as soon as your military is inferior to theirs, BAM, they're all over you.... They are not even considering your economy, and the fact that in 10 turns you'll amass enough forces to overrun them....

Who knows what internal politics are going on in Gandhi's government? Maybe his cabinet has gone hawk and he is appeasing his right wing. Maybe he is starting a war for election purposes. Maybe the military has taken over power from an old, partly senile 5,000 year old man and he is a mere figure head. Who is to say?

I like a certain unpredictability. IMO, changing factors = replay value.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
That would open the game up to massive exploitation by humans. Keep your neighbours polite while you build your economy and no military, then once you are in the lead whack 'em with your suerior units. Game over. Yawn.

Hmm you're right there. I didn't think about that angle.

Well I know something should be tweaked a little with the AI in this regard. Maybe ljcvetko is on the right track with his post above. Or maybe the AI should take into account the human players economy as Daz suggested...
i.e. not wanting to "wake a sleeping giant".

I simply want Civ4 to have the capability for a peaceful game. Civ3 is quite war-based; chances are, you'll have to fight sooner or later whether you want to or not, due to the way the AI is programmed.

[Xorbon]

Well, unwanted wars are a fact in real life too. All through history, wars have been fought over simple misunderstandings and stupid pretexts. Live with it. Or else, select the least aggressive AI setting possible on the start-up screen. In addition, you can mod all the civs to have the lowest aggressiveness setting.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


Who knows what internal politics are going on in Gandhi's government? Maybe his cabinet has gone hawk and he is appeasing his right wing. Maybe he is starting a war for election purposes. Maybe the military has taken over power from an old, partly senile 5,000 year old man and he is a mere figure head. Who is to say?

I like a certain unpredictability. IMO, changing factors = replay value.

I don't think "Gandhi as a 5000 year old leader" is meant to be taken literally. Having the various leaders for all the civs is just meant to give each civ a recognizable face and a personality, IMO.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said.

[pedrojedi]

Or you can build a defense-only army and only fight on your territory. I made that once, with the Egiptians, and won a lovely diplomatic game. Only 1 or 2 wars in the entire game, only a few of my units ever trespassed my borders. Of course, after I won, I thought to myself: "Man, THAT was boring...".

[Daz]

Maybe he is starting a war for election purposes.

What good will it be if he has no country to run...

And that is exactly my point. There are too much suicide attacks. It seems the AI never goes for diplomatic victory...

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Xorbon

I don't think "Gandhi as a 5000 year old leader" is meant to be taken literally.

Didn't mean it literally. Just making a point.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

QUOTE]Who knows what internal politics are going on in Gandhi's government? Maybe his cabinet has gone hawk and he is appeasing his right wing. Maybe he is starting a war for election purposes. Maybe the military has taken over power from an old, partly senile 5,000 year old man and he is a mere figure head. Who is to say?[/QUOTE]

What you're saying here reminds me of WHY I wish they would bring back the Senate (albiet an improved one) either in an xp or in Civ4 ! I always loved that pop up you got when you finally succeeded in attacking a city you were at peace with-in a democracy. I think it went 'The Hawks have overruled your senate, allowing you to attack', or something like that. That always used to crack me up a bit-even the 'Senate goes behind your back and signs a peace deal' was kind of amusing-if slightly ANNOYING !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[xiaodave]

Just for those who like a little closure with thier threads.

Well the game is over and in the map-replay I noticed that each nation to attack me did so just after entering thier golden age. Carthage refused to part with its rivers and spices precipitating my pre-emptive police action just after its golden age. Iroquois, India and Rome all sneak attacked withing two turns of thier golden ages.

The Roman assault precipitated a world war that lasted from 1951 through the end of the game (at which point Rome had one city left). Unlike the Indian war where I bribed every other nation in the world to attack India, treachery abounded on all sides in the Roman war. Germany and Zululand initially accepted my fine offer of a military alliance only to subsequently declare war on me due to a confusing array of mutual defense agreements. The sneaky Chinese stayed neutral throughout the war, no offer was high enough to get them to attack anyone.

Rome died for want of a rubber tree. They could not build infantry to withstand direct assault by modern armor. And my bombers roamed the land at will. Oddly enough India had given a live demonstration of this not 100 years earlier.

The nation of England gains the tough luck award for the game: no iron, no horses, no coal, no saltpeter, no rubber, no oil, not a single luxury good. It was humorous watching thier military on manuevers along the Korean border, spearmen and longbowmen right into the modern era. And I never touched them, the English just sucked all on thier own.




Xiaodave