Will the AI be able to grovel?

[Seraphim]

I'm one of those people who always opt for the military victory, simply because its so much FUN. Amassing armies, crushing fledgling nations under the heel of my boot---what more could an aspiring despot ask for?

Well, an AI with at least some sense of preservation would be a good start. In my experience with Civ2 I found the AIs to be extremely haughtly, even though I'm far ahead in the tech curve and have an unrivaled amount of firepower. Without fail, one of these surly computers would foolishly attempt to steal technology or attack my cities, or declare war for stupid reasons, and in return I'd send my armies to obliterate them from the map.

There have been games where I've isolated the last vestige of the remaining AI to one lone decimated city, dangerously encircled by my forces. I'd generously off them a peace treaty one round--and on their very next, they'd try attacking my forces with their last rifleman. Or refuse to give tribute, though I could just send my tank in and take what's left of their treasury by force.

So, I want to know: if you're the unrivaled ruler of the map in Civ3, can you use the threat of force to subvert civilizations to your will? Or will they act like jerks to the very end?

[genghisvick]

d

[genghisvick]

I hope the AI is alot more savvy this go around, the AI in CIV II was just plain stupid.

[Seraphim]

Anyone else have an opinion?

[Footie Mad]

If im gonna shell out my money I want groveling!

[Wittlich]

Hopefully, with the new and improved diplomacy interface, the AI's will be more realistic in their dealings with human players. But you are right, the over-all diplomatic attitude of the AI in CIV2 left a lot to be desired!

[red_jon]

I was playing a scenario in Civ2 in which I was the weakest civ. I talked to the strongest civ, who offered me all their gold (around 20,000) to make peace with them!

I do hope the AI isn't as stupid in Civ3.

[Colon™]

Jon, what level were you playing?

[Martinus]

The "grovel" feature was quite well implemented in SMAC. When you were clearly dominant in some conflict and the faction you were after was very weak, you could offer them giving you all their techs, gold and signing a permanent alliance.

After that they always voted for you in the council (even for your ultimate victory) and agreed to all your (reasonable) demands. Unless you were really abusing them by demanding free cities and such, you could have your personal toady for the rest of the game

[Provost Harrison]

If there is imminent defeat looming for an AI civ and he is out of options, chances are (s)he will surrender and go down and kiss your arse for leniency. In SMAC, when this occurs, they are counted as having surrendered, and they are obliged to form a pact with you and be at your side, your little b*tch if you will

It was well done in SMAC and I hope it is carried over to Civ3...

[Inverse Icarus]

oh yes. im sure the ai will grovel.

my only fear is that when 6 of them are grovelling to me they will band together.

[TechWins]

my only fear is that when 6 of them are grovelling to me they will band together.

What's wrong with that? It would be great if the AI would do stuff like that. If you're at your peak of your empire and everybody else is suffering from that in more ways than one then they should team together to stop you. Just as you should be able to team with other AI civs against another AI civ if it were the same situation.

One thing I would like to see from the AI is well planned attacks. Such things as them trying to bombard city walls first then attacking the city. Having defence units to come in and protect the captured city immediately.

IMO the SMAC AI was good and Firaxis will only go up from there which leads to the Civ3 AI being very good (this is for AI standards not human desired AI).

[TechWins]

my only fear is that when 6 of them are grovelling to me they will band together.

What's wrong with that? It would be great if the AI would do stuff like that. If you're at your peak of your empire and everybody else is suffering from that in more ways than one then they should team together to stop you. Just as you should be able to team with other AI civs against another AI civ if it were the same situation.

One thing I would like to see from the AI is well planned attacks. Such things as them trying to bombard city walls first then attacking the city. Having defence units to come in and protect the captured city immediately. Etc...

IMO the SMAC AI was good and Firaxis will only go up from there which leads to the Civ3 AI being very good (this is for AI standards not human desired AI).

[Provost Harrison]

You can say that again

[Kc7mxo]

I also found the various ai's suicidal diplomatic strategies annoying. most especially i disliked how your most beloved allies would turn on you for no reason towards the end of the game.
Their fool hardy attacks against me could be likened to Canada attempting to invade the US.

[Wojit]

The most annoying thing the computer has ever done to me in CIV 2, is be a republic, start a revolution, declare war on me in the anarchy (Who is declaring war when there is no government?!?) despite my United Nations AND Great Wall, then become a democracy.

[Grim Legacy]

I think that in many instances in which the AI broke down in Civ2 the power scales were so out of balance that any reasonable strategy became impossible anyway.

And to quote the example of the lone rifleman attacking the all-powerful enemy: you could also interpret this as a heroic attempt to thwart the Evil Empire. A last act of resistance.

I for one would not like to have all my enemies grovelling at the end...some just need to act haughty so I can feel justified in bringing them the ultimate punishment...annihilation.

[TechWins]

"A last act of resistance", you have to be kidding me. One riflemen trying to take over a whole empire is not heroic, it's suicide. When the AI is at this point they should be sucking up (groveling) to you with full force. Which brings me to your last topic about you not wanting all your enemies to be groveling at the very end. You don't have to accept the groveling the AI presents you, you only have to be aware that the AI will try groveling to you in order to save it's ever dying empire. When a nation surrenders in war the opposition usually accepts this token. When this token isn't accepted there is usually some sort of diplomatic penalty. Meaning that if you don't accept the groveling from the AI there should be some type of diplomatic penalty, either people denying trade with you, breaking treaties on you, demoting alliances to peace treaties only, poor repuatation, etc...

The AI needs not to change govs. so often. They need to become a more stable empire rather than having many forced revolutions. In one game I played the Japanese changed their gov. over 20 times in a 100 year stretch (all by forced action). Why would this be neccesary?

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by Wojit
The most annoying thing the computer has ever done to me in CIV 2, is be a republic, start a revolution, declare war on me in the anarchy (Who is declaring war when there is no government?!?) despite my United Nations AND Great Wall, then become a democracy.

Hehe, I also used that strategy sometimes. Usually when I got sick with an other empire who indeed had United Nations or Great Wall (if you have UN, Great Wall has become obsolete) and would do all sorts of nasty things, like stealing tech, moving units in my territory, etc. But you cannot declare war on them, cuz you're a democracy. So, you turn over the gov and declare war on them.

Now why can't this be done? I can imagine such a situation, where a general does a coupe and puts the democratic gov aside and takes over and declares war on a hated enemy.

[TechWins]

Now why can't this be done?

Please name one historical case where a nation was in anarchy/revolution when they decided to start a war. Even if there were some events like that it still doesn't add fun to the game. You shouldn't be able to declare war when you're in anarchy. For some simple reasons, who is going to fight this war? Will it be your rabid citizens or your non-existing gov? How is this war going to be supported enconomically? By your small treasury that is losing money by the day? I could go on and on how a nation in anarchy can't declare war but I think you get the point.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by TechWins
"A last act of resistance", you have to be kidding me. One riflemen trying to take over a whole empire is not heroic, it's suicide. When the AI is at this point they should be sucking up (groveling) to you with full force.

Which brings me to your last topic about you not wanting all your enemies to be groveling at the very end. You don't have to accept the groveling the AI presents you, you only have to be aware that the AI will try groveling to you in order to save it's ever dying empire. When a nation surrenders in war the opposition usually accepts this token. When this token isn't accepted there is usually some sort of diplomatic penalty. Meaning that if you don't accept the groveling from the AI there should be some type of diplomatic penalty, either people denying trade with you, breaking treaties on you, demoting alliances to peace treaties only, poor repuatation, etc...

You seem to adhere a very simplistic model about defeat. I stand by my view that grovelling is something that may happen occasionally, but not consistently, and certainly not all the time.

In history, there are very few instances in which one civ begged the other to spare them, and entered an everlasting alliance as compensation. Of course, civ's have been beaten, and many have turned into vassal states, or subjected provinces, but the crucial point is that this...
1) is not something that came about by begging for mercy in the face of extinction, and
2) never resulted in friendly relations or durable peace.

Instead, vassal states have a reputation of being unreliable and of a backstabbing nature.

Why is this so?

Because there is a simple factor involved: hatred. The warring nations are akin to mortal enemies. Even when one is completetly overpowered by the other, the people continue to put up resistance to the oppressor (see pretty much the whole recent history of Europe for an example of what I mean), no matter how futile.

The longer I think about this issue, the more I frown upon the notion of a default begging for mercy. As the Sardaukar warriors from a well-know strategy game would say: Death before dishonour!

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by TechWins

Please name one historical case where a nation was in anarchy/revolution when they decided to start a war.

I cannot recall any historical case. But that is not the point. I think there could have been such a case. Just because it isn't done, doesn't mean it couldn't be done...

Even if there were some events like that it still doesn't add fun to the game.

Well, one can argue about that. It is great fun being able to fight the irritating AI who is stealing my tech, founding cities near mine, sending troops in my territory! The will pay!

You shouldn't be able to declare war when you're in anarchy. For some simple reasons, who is going to fight this war? Will it be your rabid citizens or your non-existing gov?

Well, it will be your soldiers with whom you put the democratic gov aside!

How is this war going to be supported enconomically? By your small treasury that is losing money by the day?

Well, it is simple to answer this one: by raising high taxes!

I could go on and on how a nation in anarchy can't declare war but I think you get the point.

Have you ever seen countries which were really in anarchy? In one day a gov can be taken over and a militaristic regime can be installed, so would you call a period of 4 years of anarchy realistic?

But anyway, I get your point. It shouldn't be as easy as it is in civ2 to change govs and returning to the same one.