Does the AI give up?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


That is correct, of course, but I was responding to a post concerning a smaller country attacking a larger one. There are many other examples, probably better ones.

Well I guess these civs that attack your 50 cities, when they only have 3 themselves, are suffering from an over-exaggerated sense of their self importance. Kind of like Mussolini during WWII.

[The Rook]

In this game the size of your empire does usually have an impact on the size of your army. That's what I was refering to. I don't know of any country that has ever attacked another country if they didn't think they could win. It's basically suicide. It's like Haiti declaring war on the US. The only reason a small country like that might ever go to war with a superpower would be if they were allied with another superpower.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
Well I guess these civs that attack your 50 cities, when they only have 3 themselves, are suffering from an over-exaggerated sense of their self importance. Kind of like Mussolini during WWII.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Rook
I don't know of any country that has ever attacked another country if they didn't think they could win.

People miscalculate based on mistaken ideas or limited information. For instance, Hitler thought the western democracies were rotten in their cores, that they couldn't and wouldn't fight, and that the mixing of the races had bred an inferior people. He was wrong on all counts, so blundered his nation into a self-destructive war against a pan-global alliance.

Also, a nation may start a war it can't "win," if it thinks it can make the enemy's cost of victory unacceptably high, for instance, the American Revolution. There was never any chance that the Americans would actually "win" in the sense of invading England, but they did win by accomplishing their goal of independence.

[Elucidus]

Yeah the AI usually sends all its units to your attackers. If they are together then they attack that way, but usually there are large numbers of straglers. So instead of focusing it's forces (not to mention Artillery) it just attacks for the first few turns, as soon as it can get a unit to you. Defend yourself until the units die down, then attack again. I usually take a city I think I can easily defend for a while.

[ZigZac]

I had a little bit of the same problem. I was attacking the Romans and there conscript warriors were killing my Elite knights and Swordmen. The cities weren't all that big to begin with, maybe about 4 or 5. But after a while of attacking I broke through their defences and wiped them off the map.

[linjon]

I have noticed this too. It's probably just an illusion, like if i have a huge battle and barely win on my last 1 or 2 attacks it sticks in my mind, so winning quickly seems unusual and stands out. But yes, i have said to myself " i've got him on the run and his troops aren't putting up much of a fight. " it would be cool to have the opponent burn/raze his city and have the last defenders retreat if he's losing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by linjon
I have noticed this too. It's probably just an illusion, like if i have a huge battle and barely win on my last 1 or 2 attacks it sticks in my mind, so winning quickly seems unusual and stands out. But yes, i have said to myself " i've got him on the run and his troops aren't putting up much of a fight. " it would be cool to have the opponent burn/raze his city and have the last defenders retreat if he's losing.

There is a thread around here about how communists will draft everybody in a city, in effect keeping the conqueror from capturing anything of value, plus replenishing the diminished ranks of the communist army.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by ZigZac
I had a little bit of the same problem. I was attacking the Romans and there conscript warriors were killing my Elite knights and Swordmen. The cities weren't all that big to begin with, maybe about 4 or 5. But after a while of attacking I broke through their defences and wiped them off the map.

It's not that the Civ gives up, but they throw everything they have at the invaders. Once that is gone, they are defenseless, and can rarely produce a second army quick enough.

[Arrian]

I lost two straight elite Cavalry units last night to the conscript rifleman defender of an AI civ's last city, so no, they don't give up.

It does get easier, however, once you have weathered the AI counterattack. Once you get to the core, you've destroyed their offensive units, for the most part. At this point, the AI starts drafting like crazy and destroys its own productivity, so all you see are defenders. Plus, all the drafting drops their cities down to size, removing the defensive bonus.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

I used to read a lot about World War II, especially air and naval aspects, and Japan's basic concept was something like:

1) Hurt the U.S. so seriously we'd get demoralized.

2) Use the time while we were recovering from the initial attack to build up a strong defensive perimeter through the Pacific so we'd have a hard time hitting them back.

3) Hope the U.S. wouldn't have the stomach for a long, drawn-out war.

Fortunately, Japan's initial attack missed our aircraft carriers, and democracies are a lot tougher in a fight than the Japanese realized, at least when they have enough at stake.

A weaker nation in Civ 3 might attack a stronger one with a similar philosophy of hoping it can make some quick gains and then talk the stronger civ into peace before it gets hit back hard. That's especially true if the smaller civ has comparable military forces for the moment but less production capacity. Of course the most likely result of such action is probably more like what happened to Japan in WWII, but if you're desperate enough...

Nathan

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nbarclay
A weaker nation in Civ 3 might attack a stronger one with a similar philosophy of hoping it can make some quick gains and then talk the stronger civ into peace before it gets hit back hard. That's especially true if the smaller civ has comparable military forces for the moment but less production capacity. Of course the most likely result of such action is probably more like what happened to Japan in WWII, but if you're desperate enough...

I have found in Civ3 that it is quite possible to make peace when necessary. For instance, a common strategy is to conquer just one or two enemy cities, set up strong defenses and set the diplomats to work. Once the enemy wastes their attacks on your prepared defenses, they will usually be ready for peace.

As long as you keep your agreements, it is usually fairly easy to convince your adversary to accept a new peace treaty. Always cancel the peace treaty before attacking and never sneak attack. Keep in mind that peace treaties last 20 turns and can then be cancelled without dishonor.

[The Rook]

People are still missing my point. Japan and Germany were not weak countries. They had armies, Navies, modern weapons, and the production capabilities to win the war. They almost pulled it off. If they had a smarter man than Hitler in power, they could have.

But I am not talking about countries like that. I'm talking about little dinky, good for nothing, nations. Three cities is about equal to a small country like maybe Portugal. Now, what could portugal have to possibly gain by going to war alone with the US? What if they packed a 1000 guys on a ship and did a surprise invasion of New York? With those 1000 guys, and a good plan, they could possibly take the city, but they couldn't hold it. The next thing they would know was their country was completely taken over by the US. The government overthrown and they are paying reparations.

When a 3 City civ declares war on you, it is very much like this example.

Hitler and Japan COULD have won the war. Portugal could not.

Why would a civ like Portugal invade the US? I suppose there could be some kind of political nonsense for it, but the game Civ3 doesn't support anything as intricate, so the answer is. No civ that small should ever declare war on a civ so much larger. It makes the game too easy for the human player.

[nbarclay]

I agree that a 3-city nation attacking a 50-city nation is ridiculous. But lest you think such stupidity always benefits the human player, I once cancelled my plans for world domination because the Zulus were crazy enough to attack the much-stronger Egyptians and got themselves wiped out. That destroyed my plan to take out the Zulus myself to give me a relatively secure beachhead through which to airlift troops to attack Egypt. (I was getting close enough to a space race victory that launching a direct naval invasion against a distant significant power directly didn't seem worth it.)

The Japan/U.S. situation in WWII was more like a 25-city nation attacking a 50-city nation where the 50-city nation has a lot more factories, power plants, and railroads (not to mention banks and resources). Japan started the war with a comparable navy, but their situation was totally and completely hopeless in a prolonged conflict barring MAJOR assistance from the Germans. Their only real hope was to convince us to agree to peace before our industrial strength could weigh in. (And Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, knew it, although I'm not sure Japan's top leaders were willing to accept that reality.)

Germany did have some real chances at winning the war in Europe before the U.S. got involved, but if I remember right, by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany had already squandered its really good chances. Granted, Hitler still had some boneheaded decisions left to make, but I'm skeptical that avoiding them would have done more than delay the inevitable at that point.

Nathan