Piling on...15 yard penalty!

[shclo]

Does anyone else have the impression that the AI gangs up on what it perceives to be the weakest military target, even on civs that they were buddy-buddy with? Every civ declares war on the weakest one so that they can slice and dice its land between them. This doesn't seem realistic at all to me. Countries don't say, "Ah Russia just invaded Afganistan so there's bound to be plenty of booty to split up. Let's ALL go join in the invasion!"

It seems far more likely that countries will protest the action. I propose that civs with the same form of governments should tend to stick together more and not declare war on each other just to grab land and resources. Also I believe that there should ALWAYS be at least SOME resistance from other countries when a country invades another country. Other countries should first start complaining to the invading country, then make trade deals tougher, then not allow new trade, then create embargos, then finally war -especially from the civs that were (a) on friendly terms with the civ that was invaded and (b) have the same type of government as the civ that was invaded.

I'm not proposing that this game should be a "why can't we all just hold hands and get along" type of game, but would like it to more closely mimick what happens in real life -which to me makes it far more challenging and fun to play, otherwise its just another "take over the world" strategy game.

[uh Clem]

It seems far more likely that countries will protest the action.

Really? "Eat the wounded" is more like it (a principle as old as evolution).

It's possible that the invading country's enemies (declared or potential) won't like the prospect of that country gaining lots of cities and resources, so they might back up the weaker country. But when that cause becomes hopeless, they'll probably just join in themselves. Seems realistic to me.

[Venger]

Take from your friend before your enemy takes it from him. Why not take whole what someone proposes to divide? Eat your young before another animal acquires a taste for your species... Just the way of the world. Yes, the weak will be picked on by the strong...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Take a look at Poland. Or the Ottoman Empire. Or Byzantium.

At any point in history when the opportunity and ability existed to overrun another weaker country, their enemies went for it.

[GePap]

well, but...

Lets look at Cian's examples:
The Poles, well the last time around the French and british tried to help
The Ottomans: It was a long term british strategy to try to keep the Ottomans afloat so that the Russians would not get a big helping
The Byzantines: When they looked to be in their last lap, various wesetrn state tried to help (not much but the sentiment was there).

While I agree that it makes sense for civs directly neighboring a weak civ to decide, hey I want a slice, civs on the outside should be saying- hey, I can't get a slice but if they do, the whole balance of power thing goes down the tubes, and long term, I will be in the toilet, so let me help these poor weak fools. The A.I. is great at modeling the first reaction, but lousy at the second. In general, the A.I. does not seem to grasp the notion of long-term consequences very well yet.

[Dienstag]

I agree with GePap about the balance of power stuff. Well said!

Also, Civ3 has some wierd ideas about power. Has anyone noticed the percentage of your score that comes from land area? (you know, all those really important 1 sheild, 1 gold /turn cities you have) I think the AI is programmed to do anything for land (unless you offer it 99999999999 gold per turn, oddly...) It also has a hard time recognizing long-term threats...like what happens if they don't gang up on the most powerful (non-human?) player.

So while I wouldn't mind the occasional pile-on, it would help if there was more to it than just short-term AI opportunistic greed. Maybe if the soon-to-be decimated civ had committed some atrocity, sure. But I agree with shclo that as it is now the AI behavior in declaring war is too shallow and unrealistic.

[Blaupanzer]

Atrocities appear to affect the willingness of the AIs to make peace. Or so it seems in my limited observation.

Programming the AI to recognize balance-of-power issues seems like a pretty tall order. The short-term feeding frenzy effect feels right. This tendency forces the player to consider setting up entangling MPPs, which inevitably draw the nation into war. Most players would avoid MPPs and trade embargoes like the plague if they weren't vulnerable to being the target of the next frenzy. This is risk-related programming in the game. Great stuff! Be isolated and risk having them all show up at once, or make treaties and get dragged into their squabbles. Sound like a rendition of classic foreign policy questions?

[Kc7mxo]

Yes, in my first game i played into the modern era, i started picking on the iroquois, just wasting a few cities of theres, and within a few turns of their weakeneing the rest of teh ai world jumped in and tried to take a piece of the pie.

I LIKE this about civ3! The ai is much smarter.
Now if only we could show the bugger how to use birth control.

[GePap]

Make a better game

You're right blaupanzer that asking the A.I. to recognize its 'long term' benefits is probably much harder than programming it to look at for short term greed. But we can hope and dream, can't we? Also, perhaps the gamer should be more willing to step in as the outside balancer once in a while. Hey, you never know what may come if the whole map is changed. Who knows, perhaps your arch-enemy will get its hand on the only supply of oil!

[Excelsior]

Re: Piling on...15 yard penalty!

Originally posted by shclo
Does anyone else have the impression that the AI gangs up on what it perceives to be the weakest military target, even on civs that they were buddy-buddy with?

I've noticed this a lot, particuarly in the late game where there are lots of MPP pacts floating around.

One game there were six civs remaining as we entered the late industrial age. The Russians had been annihilated earlier in a 6 on 1 world war leaving me (Rome) and the Americans on the smaller continent. The other continent had four civs, the biggest of which was France.

The French decided that I was a threat to them and declared war on me. By skillfully manipulating treaties, I was able to get all four of the other civs to declare war on France. We eventually destroyed France in its entirety. The very next turn after France was destroyed, the Americans crossed our mutual border with a large force of tanks. I ordered them out, and they declared war. Eventually, I managed to beat off the initial invasion and took a couple of American cities. It wasn't long before England declared war on America and brought in the other two civs (Greece and Japan) by military alliance.

So in that game, there were 3 wars in which all the players ganged up on one civ until it had been destroyed.

[Fleche]

In my last game, every war I fought, it was everyone vs 1 AI.
Either by MDP or Military Alliance.

7 against the Chinese.
6 against the Zulus.
5 against the French.

Hmm, who should I pick on next?

[G.A]

Well, nothing strange then, that with my peaceful scientific/perfect city style I`m usually the one on whom they all gang up then. Though I am always well prepared, and use those all-on-me wars as a valid excuse to clear all their "expansion results" within my continent

[Boracks]

Well, I have no trouble with my pacifist style (I have a large army to keep it that way ).

When the feeding frenzy starts, I build some settlers and send them over with some military escort to aquire some newly available real estate.

After all, when a city is captured, its culture is zeroed so its radius is back to 1, freeing up some good chunks of land.

[Rakki]

Sounds perfectly logical to me. That's what colonialism is all about - vulturing on the carcass of a decaying empire...

[Raion]

Might have to take off the military option type win when the game is started and only allow the type of victory (victories) one is willing to let play.