Very sneaky AI sneak attack

[Hurricane]

The AI sneak attacks really cross the line sometimes. During this game, the Persians suddenly decide to ally with the French and declare war on me, even though I already have an alliance with the Persians (against the Iroquois), a ROP and gold/turn trading.

Note that I had never been at war with the Persians or any of their allies at any time in this game.

[Hurricane]

Oops, forgot the screenshot.

[Hurricane]

Here they declare the war.

[rpodos]

After Germany, I find the Persians too be the sneakiest SOBs around.

R

[Capt Dizle]

Another great flaw in the game which does not make sense.

[rpodos]

What flaw?

R

[Purple]

Evidently the French made the Persians an offer they couldn't refuse.

[Rotten999]

The military situation might have played a role. The weaker guy can't stay at peace.

The Persian military outnumbered yours. That's not good.

[Inverse Icarus]

there's no flaw, it was a military alliance, not a mutual protection pact. anyway, you're weaker than persia. persia knows that. is france stronger than you? if so, then it makes PERFECT sense, to strong AIs actually might hurt a human player.

[Jethro83]

Anybody with a superior military is going to want to use it. Even the seemingly passive French and Indians actually launch sneak attacks. The sad thing is that they only look at numbers rather than unit power. I've had enemies declare war using hordes of swordsmen and archers against my small, but powerful numbers of riflemen. Of course, within a number of years, I had built up transport loads of tanks and infantry, shelled their coastal settlements to nothing with a fleet of battleships, and built up a huge air force.

Anyway, they don't need to be advanced to be convinced of their superiority. If they have huge numbers of military, then they'll be itching to use it against the human (since they are quite simply programmed to stop the human from winning). Even then, they'll drag their AI brethren into it (I paid huge price for everyone to declare war on the zulu, including the Germans. Within five turns the Germans signed a peace treaty. Two turns after that, they joined the Zulu against us. Unfortunate for them that even Shaka's Axis forces didn't stand a chance against my Allied forces.

I just live with the notion that the AI just cannot be trusted, and brace myself for the worst all the time.

[Inverse Icarus]

if i ever see the message "The xxx Army outnumbers ours... That's not good..." i immediately start building up more units and/or declare war on them. it's just the only way you can ensure that you'll have the best first strike

[rpodos]

I agree, that's no flaw, it's good AI.

Yet another argument for early war... build a strong / large military, and you'll be the one pulling off sneak attacks.

BTW, I suspect that the AI desire to take advantage of military superiority is acting in concert with their agression rating. In other words, if a Persian AI builds up a large force on a relative basis to a neighboring civ, that gets modified by their aggression, and the attack decision is made.

Thus:

Relative Strength X Aggression = Likelihood of Attack

So the question is, especially for early war, which AI civs build a lot of military units? Of those, who has an aggression rating of 1 or 2? Do expansionist civs build fewer? Do non-expansionist civs with a Swordsman-level UU represent the greatest threat?

Aztecs (1) - They don't build enough JWs early enough (maybe because the JW is great for exploration), and by the time they have enough to "feel" relative strength, it's too late.

Japan (1) - I have yet to see Jap Chariots, which makes no sense to me, as they would ultimately upgrade to Samurai. They don;t seem to sneak attack much, but maybe that's because I take'em out before they get to Samurai.

Germany (2) - 'Nuff said.

Russia (1) - They're Expansionist, so they probably don;t build too many Warriors. I haven;t been sneak attacked by'em, but they do seem to fight the other AI civs a lot.

Zululand (2) - I actually don;t find them that aggressive... maybe, with both Scouts and Impis as fast-movers, they just never get to relative strength.

Babylon (1) - They are busy building, and probably don;t build enough Bowman (unless attacked) to feel relative strength.

Rome (1) and Persia (1) - I think these are the guys to watch out for. Neither is expansionist, so they both build a lot of Warriors. Both have an early Swordsman-level UU, and post-1.17 Soren says the AI is much better at upgrading.

You know the feeling... all of a sudden, a stack of 3-4 Legionnaries or Immortals show up, and they ain't there to dance.

R

[Coracle]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there's no flaw, it was a military alliance, not a mutual protection pact. anyway, you're weaker than persia. persia knows that. is france stronger than you? if so, then it makes PERFECT sense, to strong AIs actually might hurt a human player.

The "flaw" is that the stupid AI never takes into effect anything other than a strict and immediate numbers count when doing alliances or preparing attacks. Long-term considerations, and human relationships of trust built up for centuries mean nothing to it.

[Inverse Icarus]

since when was trust an issue in world diplomacy?

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by UberKruX
since when was trust an issue in world diplomacy?

Very good point there.

I maintain that you should only expect the worst, then you either get the satisfaction of being the one who is correct, or you end up pleasantly surprised. In this case, expect rival civs to be backstabbing, conniving morons, and you'll be ready for them when they sneak attack you. If they don't, well... wait 'til they do. Or attack them instead (but only if you know that you'll win).