"Peace in our time": The downside to AI appeasement

[Leonid]

Hmm, Does appeasement work if the AI percieves its military to be larger than yours?

I know it didn't work for Neville Chamberlain with Hitler. But, Does appeasment ever pay vs enemy AI? IN 2 games that I have played after I appeased Rome I was attacked 2 turns later and troops poured across the border. Seems like they are gonna get what they want and launch a sneak attack anyway.

SO in my current game China is slightly bigger army than I have and I was wanting to hold off until I got Samurai to go to war. Well, he demanded my map or lese. I refused and then he declared war. I just wonder id he woudl have did a sneak attack anyway. Since right after he declares over 10 swordmen come pouring across the border, so he had them massed there anyway.

Granted we are natural enemies sharing the same large continent and it was gonna come to a head sooner or later.

[Martinus]

Yup, appeasment doesn't work - at least not with agressive civs. (Which btw is pretty realistic). All in all, your cultural development is only worth as much as the army protecting it

[FeathersMcGraw]

I can't really remember who picked most of the fights I've been in (it's only rarely me -- honest), but it really seems like the "perception" of your civilization's military might is all but nonexistent, as in a Chieftain game in which I dominated half of a continent and outstripped all of my enemies in technology and culture, I was sneak attacked by the Egyptians, who invaded with a huge army of bowmen and spearmen against my slightly fewer (but still numerous) infantry and cavalry.

I also note that no matter how wealthy/powerful/cultural your civilization is, rival civilizations never offer anything resembling parity in diplomacy, and blow off demand threats with impunity (it is a good way to provoke a war, though), which means that they think appeasement isn't a worthwhile strategy either.

I suspect the power of appeasement lies in early contribution to build up your relationship with rival civilizations and engage them in diplomatic alliances. The AI seems exceptionally adept in securing multilateral alliances to crush an enemy (i.e. you), so being nice to all the little guys might make it easier to keep them all from backstabbing you en masse.

[eMarkM]

I've used appeasment if only to keep everyone on my continent from ganging up on me. I'm the Persians sharing land with the aggressive Zulus and the Babylonians. I've already been at war with both simultaneously and lost a couple of cities to their superior numbers. I sued for peace with Babylon and had to give them tech. This way I was able to concentrate on the Zulus, retook my cities and gained one of theirs.

Later, when Babylon masses 20 Archers on my border I knew they were going to invade. The Zulus were "furious" with me, so I figured they would join the fight as they were also massing on my border. So I gave the Zulus furs for nothing and they went to "annoyed". I think they have to be furious in order to start a war. Can anyone confirm this? So I figured I could count on them to lay back--at least while I dealt with Babylon.

They did lay off. Appeasment worked well in this case allowing me to concentrate on one enemy at a time. I was able to defeat the 20 Archers and take a Babylon city in the process. The Babylon threat is gone for now, but I know those treacherous Zulus will stab me in the back. But at least I've had some time to secure by borders waiting for the inevitable confrontation. I'm planning to rain Immortal death on the Zulu capitol and split their empire in half. But that's another story.

e

[solo]

"Furious" a not needed to start a war, because I was attacked by "gracious" Zulus on a tiny map where we were the only two on the same continent. The AI have an instinctual urge to expand, so if you are the only one around you will be attacked sooner or later, but if there are more than one AI nearby appeasement can be successful, as they are bound to irritate one another and pick fights, allowing you to watch, trade and expand as they weaken each other's cities.

In my current game, I got a free city behind the adjacent Zulus, who were also bordered by the Germans. That city had so much corruption it was not worth supporting, so I quickly traded it to the Germans, who used it as a remote base to tee off on the Zulus. As Germany prevailed, and the Zulu's got weaker, I was able to absorb a few nearby Zulu cities through culture, even at deity level, where the AI get a great headstart in everything, including culture.

Now the Germans and Persians are going at it and I am picking up more cities as they weaken each other, but I am way behind in techs, and am still galloping by German Panzers with my ancient horsemen, and am somewhat leary of what might happen when I am the last opponent left on my continent. However, so far appeasement has worked, and I am about even now with Germany on culture.

[Quint]

Appeasement seems to be a temporary fix at best. In my current game all the other cultures are at least annoyed with me (hmmm something about wiping out the Romans I forget heh heh.) I have been holding off the English/Russian alliance by taking minor cities from them and then giving them back when their hordes come streaming across my borders. The AI will pretty much give you anything for a city, even a worthless one you just captured. I don't see this strategy holding up long term, but to hold off a known enemy while you build your forces up it can work.

[mharmless]

I have had some success giving in to demands from various civs on regent level. Last game the egyptians moved a bunch of spearmen and archers onto my only iron deposit and demanded two techs and some cash. I coughed up, and they left to go harrass annother civ. I also paid off russians, germans, english, even the french in that game.

Ultimately I was attacked by germany (all other wars I started heh) when we were the only two countries remaining. They didn't bother to issue demands first, however.

[G.A]

Well, it`s pretty realistic.
If you are a problem for someone, sooner or later someone will try to "fix" you, however hard you try to appease them.

That means if they want your land, you won`t stop it by giving them your money. They`ll still want to take your land.

[The ANZAC]

Whenever I meet a Civ they always demand stuff in order to sign a peace treaty! This is pathetic. I should be able to when I first meet a civ in 3000 BC sign a peace treaty without giving them stuff!

[nlmalph]

ANZAC, peace treaties only come up if you are already at war. The AI sizes up your army, the reason they are forcing you to pay up something is because they know their army is much larger than yours.

Build more defenders (and/or more advanced units) and you'll see even peace deals. Build better attackers and take a city or two of theirs, and they'll hand you stuff.

You can see on the military advisor screen how your army compares to others.

[fstkfstk]

The AI responds badly to appeasement because its standard war procedure (especially in the early games) doesn't involve gaining or losing cities. It seems to just slug it out for 10 turns, and declare peace. There is no gain for its normal mode of warfare, so appeasment doesn't mean much to it. A better strategy is to exploit the following bug when it attacks:

The AI's terms for peace tend to be based on what you have done to them. They aren't impressed by destruction of their infrastructure, the massacre of cities by bombardments or the killing of huge numbers of units. But march 20 cavalry through 2-3 cities, and they have an odd reaction in peace negotiations:

Offer lots of gold for the peace treaty, and at the same time demand cities. I have gotten 12+ cities three or four times doing this (small new cities, but still cities).

The AI is badly coded for territorial integrity, and doesn't understand when peace is a good option for itself. So make the decision for it, and profit through smart peace-bartering. To make sure you don't get trapped in the "everyone attacks player" mode when you get powerful from all the new cities, just get one military agreement. Once thats done, they tend to be too busy attacking each other to bother with the player. Rather like the stone thrown to the dragon teeth warriors...

[Felch]

I don't think the level of advancement has much to do with how they percieve your army. Right now I'm playing at regent and have an army composed entirely of artillery, mech infantry, tanks, bombers, battleships, submarines, and destroyers. It's not the largest military in the world, (I changed democracy around so that maintainence is free, but units cost two per turn and you can't hurry production.) but all my competitors have large numbers of frigates, spearmen, musketmen, cavalry, et al.

Still in spite of my high quality army and navy, the mere fact that another civilization has a bigger number of units than me makes them "stronger." It's led to some pretty irritating wars where I have to sweep in and take as many cities as possible before war weariness takes root. Appeasement doesn't really work in my experience.

[Spartan187]

The AI is pretty ridiculous in its negotiations. Unfortunately I often find myself wanting whatever I asked for enough to give in.
(I think I once gave 500 gold and a territory map for an early industrial advance.
And the AI makes it sound like its doing me a favor.

[Leonid]

Speaking of high gold payments I have a long porous border with the english in my current game. The russians are on the other side with the germans. I was expanding and had 8 cities then germany demanded literature, I refused. They declared war. I paid the English 260 gold and the Russians 260 gold to declare war on the germans. This did a couple of things. It made them happier towards me and took the focus off me onto the germans.

If i hadnt have done that I think the english might have gone to war with me soon. It was a diversion. But I turned my science off and got the great library and when i built it I got like 10 advances in one turn. All along I was stockpiling gold I have about 1,000 gold now in 40 bc. on regent. Also have about

[Diety]

Stockpiling gold is NOT a good thing, I think : they ask more gold when you have more...

[Easy Rhino]

I've noticed them asking for more gold if you have more gold as well.

In a way, this can be used slightly to your advantage if you're flat broke. Because offering YOUR ENTIRE TREASURY of 8 gold may actually get you some traction in negotiations.

ER

[LaRusso]

hm
i noticed that appeasement with persians worked
plus i saw horde of barbarians approaching my undefended city so i gave persians almost 70% of my gold (that would be lost anyway) so they were gracious for many turns. appeasement works sometimes