AI and horrible diplomacy

[Balgore]

So the diplomacy seems terrible. Do we not have any influence over what decisions the AI might make?
In a defensive pact with an AI, at 400 positive rep, and when offered an alliance turn after turn, despite also offering 500 energy and removing my casus belli against them (a "very bad offer" for me), they never accepted.

I found a loophole around it, I offered to become their vassal, they accepted, then I offered them to break the vassalage but remain allies for 400 energy.

Why could I not just convince them in the first place?
Some AI will never be friendly regardless of the positive prouncements or gifts given.

My ally completed the domination victory, it popped up a screen saying I lost. Is there not allied victory?

Pretty frustrating doing an entire campaign, and allowing my ally to win, and then being told I lost. Am I forced to betray allies and stop them from winning if I want to win? Why even allow alliances at this point?

Also I notice if AI are at war with each other, they dont usually invade and attack each other. I went to war with another AI that my ally was already at war with. I figured it would be a mop-up because my ally's might was tremendous. Instead he AFK'd at the north pole and didn't send a single unit to invade, defend or anything whatsoever. Meanwhile I had to solo the entire enemy forces on all of my fronts.

[BBB]

Did you set up allied victory enabled at the start of the game?

And I have dropped monitoring stations on AI at war with each other and can confirm they do fight.

Often, in a 12 player map, 4 or 5 AI get killed by other AI, not me.

I tend to wipe out 2 or 3 AI.

Then go for doomsday.

[Balgore]

Originally posted by BBB:

Did you set up allied victory enabled at the start of the game?

And I have dropped monitoring stations on AI at war with each other and can confirm they do fight.

Often, in a 12 player map, 4 or 5 AI get killed by other AI, not me.

I tend to wipe out 2 or 3 AI.

Then go for doomsday.

Damn I must not have checked that box at the beginning, thx. Lame! lol

[easytarget]

I've got diplomatic victory on in the current campaign against 3 other AIs and I can't get any of them past non-aggression pacts.

Here's an example of how little effectiveness there is for the human player attempting to diplomatically isolate one opponent in order to focus on the others (something that would make this game potentially more interesting to play because there'd be another strategic option available to them):

I'm at war with 2 of the 3, the one I'm not at war with I share no common border with and I've maintained a non-aggression with them for going on like 100 turns. They have been in and out of war status with both of the other 2 and I've made a point of offering defense pact with them when they are at war with the others. But here's the punch line, I've offered them this defensive pact and sweetened it with, get this, 400 cosmite. No deal. Then I offered it with 3,000 energy. No deal.

Both of these offers were rated as awful for me, which of course means they were great for the AI I was offering them to. It literally does not matter what I offer to them to improve the deal for them, they reject it. Period.

And no, I don't have any debufs to our relations, If they existed I managed to get those off, that at least works. And I've flattered the hell out of them and gotten our relations very positive, but it makes no difference.

Really basic blocking and tackling of diplomacy is enemy of my enemy is my friend. That does not exist here from my experience. And I've tried every variation I can think of dozens of times in every campaign for 170 hours so far.

My experience: diplomacy simply does not work.

Btw, as insult to injury, I have on numerous occasions offered non-aggression to an AI, been declined only to have them offer up a non-aggression the very next turn. Better yet, I get messages saying they think we should improve relations in a message, I then open up diplomacy and offer such an improvement and they decline it. This sort of behavior makes me laugh at how diplomacy simply does not work.

[snuggleform]

Diplomacy is a mess. One thing I learned is don't bother with rep; it certainly does NOT affect their willingness to change their diplomatic state with you. I've had +800 rep guys not accept NAPs, and -800 rep guys offer ME a NAP. Which is 100% opposite of what one would expect.

As far as I can tell, rep only changes the rate at which they're willing to exchange energy with other goods with you, and not by very much. I would only consider raising rep with a specific commander if I need something with them right away and I don't have enough energy and they're hostile towards me; in that case you mjight save just enough energy to make a trade go through but that's a rather extreme case.

[Balgore]

Damn hearing all this isn't very promising. I really hope they recognise this, and do something about it in coming updates. And I'm not talking about the next DLC, im talking about a patch ASAP.

[easytarget]

Here's the thing about it, I'm mostly playing this like I did AOW3 as a game of war rather than diplomacy, so it's not like I can't make it work. And not that I'm not having a blast playing it.

It's more just disappointment because I thought this was supposed to be one of the things they worked to improve on from AOW3, only I'm just not seeing any real world in-game evidence anything much has changed.

[Stardustfire]

you guys have intetresting hopes, taking into account nothing has changed in AI diplomacy behaviour since AOW 1 (yep 1, not 3)

[easytarget]

Doesn't have anything really to do with hope so much as the fact this was marketed as having improved diplomacy. And no I'm not surprised it hasn't panned out that way yet (if ever).

What I do however find interesting is that a single guy developed Aggressors: Ancient Rome and the diplomacy in that game actually works.

[Motherball]

Diplomacy is much more rigid in the campaign. I’ve had more success buttering up other factions and having them help me with wars in the scenarios. Sometimes they dont ally with you because of your diplomatic state with others, your rep, tech, etc.

[Akazury]

Hmm interesting to read this. In most of my games I tend to have 1 or 2 Defensive Pacts/Alliances and the rest at Neutral or War. Though I do think I play less aggressive compared to you guys. The only time I really had trouble with AI not accepting my pacts was when it was determined to start a War with me, only using the NAP as stop gap.

[The Numi]

I don't think diplomacy or AI is broken, depends a lot how you play, who are the commanders you face, what traits you commander has and how things go in the map.

I aimed for a diplomatic victory in my first scenario and was on my own continent, I managed to almost get an alliance with every AI by mid game (8 player game), even those who hated me at first, and I was more disappointed none ever declared or dragged me into a war, but my only continent neighbor was my first ally so he protected me from any claim problems.

Otherwise it was smooth yet the AI was at war with eachother a ton, and by the end 3 had been wiped out, 1 was too weak to do anything, my 2 allies were super powerful and the last was a Dvar that didn't like anyone.

Either way, I never found diplomacy hard, even in campaign I managed to get alliances before finishing quests to reach it. It's just a matter how you play. If you're warmongering and not buttering up to AI it'll be rough. I tend to need to have a relation of 800 or more to get an alliance, rep don't mean much other than it being less likely they'll go to war with you I found.

[Star Paladin]

As I wrote in another forum: The AI rolls a die every turn, and on a 6 stops taking it's meds.

[easytarget]

Some of these responses suggest to me you've not read what I wrote because I provided specific examples of the AI simply refusing defensive alliances when offered a lot for them. And it has nothing to do with being aggressive, the AI I was offering it to I had not been at war with ever and inf act had been in a non-aggression pact the entire campaign. And this btw is a scenario, I never bother with the campaign in this or AOW3.

[Balgore]

Originally posted by easytarget:

Some of these responses suggest to me you've not read what I wrote because I provided specific examples of the AI simply refusing defensive alliances when offered a lot for them. And it has nothing to do with being aggressive, the AI I was offering it to I had not been at war with ever and inf act had been in a non-aggression pact the entire campaign. And this btw is a scenario, I never bother with the campaign in this or AOW3.

Yep I agree with easytarget. I too have experienced this, as my original post states as well.

[Star Paladin]

Why I almost never agree to defensive pacts is because you pretty much have to do it blind. Am I missing something, or does it show who they are at war or def pact with when they ask you? I see nothing but "pin the tale on the ally". I need info before I agree to that. They could be at war with everyone BUT you.