irrational AI behavior

[Spicy_Satoshi]

This is really annoying. I'm trying to be a very good neighbor and try not to do anything that could annoy my good allies. There are 90% potitive things over 10% of old and faded bad things.

We're following the same policy my neighbor asks me to join him in war against the other player, I gladly agreed and one turn after I did that - he disrespected me and told the world that I'm not worthy of any trust and 10 turns later he declared a war on me. Why and what for?
This is really stupid, where's the logics... I don't know. I was trying to be a good ally and suddenly got this. Another game... the same scenario repeats itself.

Making any diplomacy with the AI is like siding with a psychotic paranoid that ran of of medication. I realized that best solution is to crush them as soon as possible.

[Captain Nerdiepie]

Never join a war with an AI.

It's not worth it unless you are planning to wager war anyways.

The "we have a common enemy" bonus is big but fades over time pretty quickly.

No penalty for not agreeing.

Warmonger penalty for wager war.

And hopefully you didn't declare war with another civ who is also a friend. Because the whole world hates you FOREVER when you declare war on your friend.

[zxcvbob]

Always join a war with an AI if it's against someone that is hated by everybody. Or if you don't mind fighting the whole war yourself (sometimes the AI that instigates it never shows up to fight) You don't have to capture any cities just fight battles to level-up your units, earn great generals, and pillage everything in sight for the gold. After 10 turns you can settle for peace.

[m.d.nealy]

The most rational thing to understand about the AI is they are irrational.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Captain Nerdiepie:

And hopefully you didn't declare war with another civ who is also a friend. Because the whole world hates you FOREVER when you declare war on your friend.

That was my thought. If you were playing nice and all you did was simply declare war on another faction, it should barely provoke a reaction. Especially since they've cut the warmonger penalties in half.

Either you declared war on a friend, or the post isn't telling all and you've already had penalties stacked up from before. Just the declaration shouldn't make others instantly DoW 10 turns later.

[Captain Nerdiepie]

Originally posted by zxcvbob:

Always join a war with an AI if it's against someone that is hated by everybody. Or if you don't mind fighting the whole war yourself (sometimes the AI that instigates it never shows up to fight) You don't have to capture any cities just fight battles to level-up your units, earn great generals, and pillage everything in sight for the gold. After 10 turns you can settle for peace.

Even if you wager war against Public Enemy #1. You will still get the warmonger penalty.

I mean, sure if you have superior military, you can do whatever you like and still get away with it. But from my understanding of this thread, it seems that the OP only declare war to appease his neighbor.

This is almost always a bad idea.

[zxcvbob]

The penalty for declaring war (unless it's against your friend) seems to be minimal unless you capture cities. Taking cities in a peace deal when you've not captured any by force doesn't even bother Gandhi. And you get a bright green diplo modifier for whomever's war you joined.

You do run the risk that they plunder all your trade routes...

[wyseln]

The Ai could also have a high warmonger hate flavor, and could've also had a high deceptive flavor

[xycotta]

That actually is perfectly logical.

Every civilization is out to win, sure you are good friends but maybe either you are winning or you have something that will let them win.

So they convince you to go to war and annoy other civs. Now he acts and takes advantage of your decreased world appeal and the fact you are already engaged in a war to open a second front.

Remember, each civ isn't there to be your ally or friend, they are there to win. They will be your friend as long as it suits them.

It isn't that the AI lacks logic, it just lacks any since of morality.

[Segovax]

Originally posted by xycotta:

That actually is perfectly logical.

Every civilization is out to win, sure you are good friends but maybe either you are winning or you have something that will let them win.

So they convince you to go to war and annoy other civs. Now he acts and takes advantage of your decreased world appeal and the fact you are already engaged in a war to open a second front.

Remember, each civ isn't there to be your ally or friend, they are there to win. They will be your friend as long as it suits them.

It isn't that the AI lacks logic, it just lacks any since of morality.

No, it's actually more insane than Civ 1. It's completely irrational and stupid. You just play the game assuming a 5 year old is at the helm of the other civs. it doesn't lack morality, it lacks reason and constancy.

[zxcvbob]

I've got one for ya. (I was about to start a new thread for this, but it fits here too)

I've won a science victory, and as is my custom I "just one more turn" and try for domination also. China and I are both at "Future Tech", and had similar sized militaries. Hers was much larger throughout the game but I caught up and passed her up a little before I declared war. I've taken all the capitals except Beijing and Shaka's capital that Wu captured a long time ago.

As I'm advancing on Beijing (I have to take several other 250-strong cities first) and killing all of her units, instead of bombing me with her stealth bombers, she is bombing the crap out of a little island city state. About 7 or 8 stealth bombers -- the CS is down to 0 health but she can't capture it because she has no destroyers or marines (etc) nearby. I should give that CS one of my spare missile cruisers...

[Okeyeg]

You probably sided with leader who is just a warmonger and wants to achieve domination victory. If you have the smallest army from all civs or you are a neighbour of warmonger, you are going to be attacked, no matter how peacefully you play.

Try having a average number of soldiers (you can check it in demographics). Utterly destroying aggressive civ can help, this can be done by playing them to attack someone, whose location is remote from you . How much they want will depend on: military force of both civs, relationship between them and aggressiveness of a leader you are trading with. Sometimes paying them a few horses will do. Anyway, once they move all their troops to attack, simply denounce them, then declare war on them and start capturing their cities, which won't be well defended. If they get back to their territory with bigger army, play defensively and wait for them to offer some gold or resources for peace treaty. Other civs will probably turn a blind eye to it due to reputation of civ attacked by you.

[xycotta]

Originally posted by HerrComrade:

Originally posted by xycotta:

That actually is perfectly logical.

Every civilization is out to win, sure you are good friends but maybe either you are winning or you have something that will let them win.

So they convince you to go to war and annoy other civs. Now he acts and takes advantage of your decreased world appeal and the fact you are already engaged in a war to open a second front.

Remember, each civ isn't there to be your ally or friend, they are there to win. They will be your friend as long as it suits them.

It isn't that the AI lacks logic, it just lacks any since of morality.

No, it's actually more insane than Civ 1. It's completely irrational and stupid. You just play the game assuming a 5 year old is at the helm of the other civs. it doesn't lack morality, it lacks reason and constancy.

I disagree, given the OP situation, a real person would of done the same thing. It's about winning, not coming in second place.

It has plenty of reasoning and consistency, it's all based on assigned values given to the software. That makes it a whole lot more consistent then a random human player. Just because you disagree with what it decides doen't make it insane (though in some cases insanity is what it is assigned to do).

Civ 1 was likelier just much more simplified and predictible. That doesn't make it more logical or well reasoned. Just simpler.

[Lokidoki]

AI's definately don't recognize you being kind to them. I'm a real softie and always feel sad for the civilizations doing badly, so I will donate gold per turns to them. Egypt and Brazil were both being bullied by Attila, so I donated both 7 gold per turn to be able to fight back. Brazil remained weak and grateful, but Egypt decided to declare war on Brazil and anyone weaker than himself, so eventually he ended up in a war with me and Russia.

It's why I never help AI's more than a few golds per turn. In my recent game, Isabella tried asking me for 50 golds per turn. Hell no! You know that as soon as they do better, they will start denouncing you and declare war on you.

[St3amfails]

Its Civ, Don't bother to work hard at being allies. Some will naturally be friendly, some hostile, but none of them are your friends. They are enemys involved in diplomatic relations.
What Yeager is saying has its uses though. Fighting proxxy wars against the powerful by helping the weak can, if done right, be more cost effective then your own inevitable war.

[xycotta]

Originally posted by St3amfails:

Its Civ, Don't bother to work hard at being allies. Some will naturally be friendly, some hostile, but none of them are your friends. They are enemys involved in diplomatic relations.

Exactly