Piling on...15 yard penalty!

[shclo]

Does anyone else have the impression that the AI gangs up on what it perceives to be the weakest military target, even on civs that they were buddy-buddy with? Every civ declares war on the weakest one so that they can slice and dice its land between them. This doesn't seem realistic at all to me. Countries don't say, "Ah Russia just invaded Afganistan so there's bound to be plenty of booty to split up. Let's ALL go join in the invasion!"

It seems far more likely that countries will protest the action. I propose that civs with the same form of governments should tend to stick together more and not declare war on each other just to grab land and resources. Also I believe that there should ALWAYS be at least SOME resistance from other countries when a country invades another country. Other countries should first start complaining to the invading country, then make trade deals tougher, then not allow new trade, then create embargos, then finally war -especially from the civs that were (a) on friendly terms with the civ that was invaded and (b) have the same type of government as the civ that was invaded.

I'm not proposing that this game should be a "why can't we all just hold hands and get along" type of game, but would like it to more closely mimick what happens in real life -which to me makes it far more challenging and fun to play, otherwise its just another "take over the world" strategy game.

[uh Clem]

It seems far more likely that countries will protest the action.

Really? "Eat the wounded" is more like it (a principle as old as evolution).

It's possible that the invading country's enemies (declared or potential) won't like the prospect of that country gaining lots of cities and resources, so they might back up the weaker country. But when that cause becomes hopeless, they'll probably just join in themselves. Seems realistic to me.

[Venger]

Take from your friend before your enemy takes it from him. Why not take whole what someone proposes to divide? Eat your young before another animal acquires a taste for your species... Just the way of the world. Yes, the weak will be picked on by the strong...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Take a look at Poland. Or the Ottoman Empire. Or Byzantium.

At any point in history when the opportunity and ability existed to overrun another weaker country, their enemies went for it.

[GePap]

Lets look at Cian's examples:
The Poles, well the last time around the French and british tried to help
The Ottomans: It was a long term british strategy to try to keep the Ottomans afloat so that the Russians would not get a big helping
The Byzantines: When they looked to be in their last lap, various wesetrn state tried to help (not much but the sentiment was there).

While I agree that it makes sense for civs directly neighboring a weak civ to decide, hey I want a slice, civs on the outside should be saying- hey, I can't get a slice but if they do, the whole balance of power thing goes down the tubes, and long term, I will be in the toilet, so let me help these poor weak fools. The A.I. is great at modeling the first reaction, but lousy at the second. In general, the A.I. does not seem to grasp the notion of long-term consequences very well yet.

[Dienstag]

I agree with GePap about the balance of power stuff. Well said!

Also, Civ3 has some wierd ideas about power. Has anyone noticed the percentage of your score that comes from land area? (you know, all those really important 1 sheild, 1 gold /turn cities you have) I think the AI is programmed to do anything for land (unless you offer it 99999999999 gold per turn, oddly...) It also has a hard time recognizing long-term threats...like what happens if they don't gang up on the most powerful (non-human?) player.

So while I wouldn't mind the occasional pile-on, it would help if there was more to it than just short-term AI opportunistic greed. Maybe if the soon-to-be decimated civ had committed some atrocity, sure. But I agree with shclo that as it is now the AI behavior in declaring war is too shallow and unrealistic.

[Blaupanzer]

Atrocities appear to affect the willingness of the AIs to make peace. Or so it seems in my limited observation.

Programming the AI to recognize balance-of-power issues seems like a pretty tall order. The short-term feeding frenzy effect feels right. This tendency forces the player to consider setting up entangling MPPs, which inevitably draw the nation into war. Most players would avoid MPPs and trade embargoes like the plague if they weren't vulnerable to being the target of the next frenzy. This is risk-related programming in the game. Great stuff! Be isolated and risk having them all show up at once, or make treaties and get dragged into their squabbles. Sound like a rendition of classic foreign policy questions?

[Kc7mxo]

Yes, in my first game i played into the modern era, i started picking on the iroquois, just wasting a few cities of theres, and within a few turns of their weakeneing the rest of teh ai world jumped in and tried to take a piece of the pie.

I LIKE this about civ3! The ai is much smarter.
Now if only we could show the bugger how to use birth control.

[GePap]

You're right blaupanzer that asking the A.I. to recognize its 'long term' benefits is probably much harder than programming it to look at for short term greed. But we can hope and dream, can't we? Also, perhaps the gamer should be more willing to step in as the outside balancer once in a while. Hey, you never know what may come if the whole map is changed. Who knows, perhaps your arch-enemy will get its hand on the only supply of oil!

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by shclo
Does anyone else have the impression that the AI gangs up on what it perceives to be the weakest military target, even on civs that they were buddy-buddy with?

I've noticed this a lot, particuarly in the late game where there are lots of MPP pacts floating around.

One game there were six civs remaining as we entered the late industrial age. The Russians had been annihilated earlier in a 6 on 1 world war leaving me (Rome) and the Americans on the smaller continent. The other continent had four civs, the biggest of which was France.

The French decided that I was a threat to them and declared war on me. By skillfully manipulating treaties, I was able to get all four of the other civs to declare war on France. We eventually destroyed France in its entirety. The very next turn after France was destroyed, the Americans crossed our mutual border with a large force of tanks. I ordered them out, and they declared war. Eventually, I managed to beat off the initial invasion and took a couple of American cities. It wasn't long before England declared war on America and brought in the other two civs (Greece and Japan) by military alliance.

So in that game, there were 3 wars in which all the players ganged up on one civ until it had been destroyed.

[Fleche]

In my last game, every war I fought, it was everyone vs 1 AI.
Either by MDP or Military Alliance.

7 against the Chinese.
6 against the Zulus.
5 against the French.

Hmm, who should I pick on next?

[G.A]

Well, nothing strange then, that with my peaceful scientific/perfect city style I`m usually the one on whom they all gang up then. Though I am always well prepared, and use those all-on-me wars as a valid excuse to clear all their "expansion results" within my continent

[Boracks]

Well, I have no trouble with my pacifist style (I have a large army to keep it that way ).

When the feeding frenzy starts, I build some settlers and send them over with some military escort to aquire some newly available real estate.

After all, when a city is captured, its culture is zeroed so its radius is back to 1, freeing up some good chunks of land.

[Rakki]

Sounds perfectly logical to me. That's what colonialism is all about - vulturing on the carcass of a decaying empire...

[Raion]

Might have to take off the military option type win when the game is started and only allow the type of victory (victories) one is willing to let play.

[Dan Baker]

Maybe some more basic rules of history should be followed:

There has never been a war between two democracies.

The price for a democracy to initiate an unprovoked war with another democracy should be astronomical - instant riots in every city, rebellion of cities, etc. After a few turns the computer would have to either cease the war or descend into Anarchy. This should be one of the major disadvantages of being a democracy.

Additionally, Mutual protection Pacts should be just that, and invalid if one country initiates the conflict. Non-Aggression pacts might make things more interesting as well.

You can use both to your advantage, however. A convenient way to rid yourselfs of your foes is to create a mutual protection pact with several countries, and then declar war on a third country that you want to war with. Do nothing - eventually the computer attacks - and instantly he's at war with a bunch of other players.

There does not seam to be any real coallition building either - after you make peace, quite often the embattled countries fight on.

[Terser]

The game certainly could benefit from non-aggression pacts and cease fires. The lack of the latter is particularly puzzling to me since even the AI often used it in CivII to regroup and encroach on my cities. Most importantly, these diplomatic agreements would go a long way toward ending the "Sign a peace treaty and then redeclare war two turns later" syndrome that seems to currently plague the AI.

As for being dogpiled...seems to happen to me each and every game I play. Even if I expand rapidly and build a military equal to every other civ I encounter I still find myself fighting wars against two (or more) civs early in the game. Just as frustrating is the fact that when I watch the histograph later I don't see any conflicts between AI players. I know that the Firaxians claim that the AI can't distinguish between a human and an AI player...but I sometimes still wonder

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Dan Baker

There has never been a war between two democracies.

What???
World War 1, anyone?
USA-Iraq (wait... er... this one is a bad example, right?)
USA attacking Canada (which was a British colony but still had its own elected representatives)
Israel-Egypt?

OK, there are not that many examples, but the real problem is that the only viable gov in Civ3 is democracy, while it is NOT the case in real life. Give Communism a real punch, and maybe add Fascism, and then maybe history will repeat.

[Pyrodrew]

In my current game the Japanese were the pie everyone was dividing in the ancient age... however there were no other wars... even through the Middle Ages & my military was the weakest. I had to build up & be a bully to China (taking 1/2 their land) just to see some action. But no AIs jumped in on either side. When I built the Great Lighthouse & sent Columbus & Ponce De Leon to discover the 2nd continent (filled with 7 other AIs) not 1 AI had even conquered 1 foreign city. So this doesn't happen all the time.

For the most part my game was VERY peaceful... until Nationalism! Only the AI Civs who learned Nationalism seemed to lose their mind... 1st turn with Nationalism - Embargos on me from 2 AI Civs who I never caused any problems with, I even traded with 1 earlier. 2nd turn - those 2 AI Civs declare war on me. 3rd turn - 2 more AI Civs declare war on me, both which I had active trades with! I was leading superpower at the time, so it wasn't a case of "eat the weak/wounded". 3 of 4 of the AI Civs were superpowers as well (2nd, 4th, & 5th place). Currently the English, Zulus, Japanese, & China are still all very weak, but no one is preying on them... in fact England (the 2nd weakest) recently took a city from mighty Egypt (4th place superpower)... for a little awhile anyways.

The AI Civs could be improved tho. When I had 5 AI Civs, 2 on my continent, at war with me (Iroquois joined in later too), "furious" China definitely could have got some of their land back from me. When Egypt brought them on against me, they not only agreed to peace the 1st second I talked to them, but PAID ME HANDSOMELY to make peace! As I've said before, if I'm contacting an AI Civ for peace... that should be a hint that I might be the one in trouble... the 2nd is how many other wars the player currently involved in.

[G.A]

Though, they couldn`t implement such a historical phenomenon as imperialistic wars (World Wars) better than this. WW1 was a war out of nothing seemingly too...

[Dan Baker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

What???
World War 1, anyone?

Uhm Neither Germany nor Austria were democracies at the time. To be even more ironic, the Czar of russia and the Keizer of Germany were cousins, and very good friends (they conversed with letters in English).

USA-Iraq (wait... er... this one is a bad example, right?)

Yup, that is a bad example.

USA attacking Canada (which was a British colony but still had its own elected representatives)

-Again, Canda was a colony of the British, which was not a democracy at the time (more of a republic). Since this happened as part of the war of 1812, it can be enterpretted more as a war between the UK and the USA.

Israel-Egypt?
Don't know if Egypt really counts as a democracy either... another 'paper' democracy.

Point is, if you sift through history, its very hard to find any signifigant conflict between democracies. I'm not saying its impossible (there have been a few close calls, esp last century), its just hasn't happened. Democracy implies Freedom of the press - (pretty much a requirement) which is going to mean that unjustified wars are not supported for very long. In order for a war between democracies to happen, both sides would have to feel justified. It just ain't that easy for this to happen.

Ironically, the closest ('democracy') war happens to be the American Cival War - if You count the Confedracy as a real country. But then again, can you really count a state which endorses slavery as a 'democracy'?


Anyway, back the point of the thread - I think that countries shouldn't be allowed the benefit of being democracies and allowed to initiate Wars against other democracies without an extremely heavy price.

Additionally, there should probablly be a 'democracy expectation' rating on your cities that with culture, grows with time. Therefore, switching to a more brutal form of government will cause long-term problems. The democracy expectation number could also grow in the cases where the rest of the world is a democracy and you are not - thereby causing domestic, revulutionary problems.

The best way to avoid gang up problem in Civ III is
1) Don't ignore your militrary
2) Get in at least one alliance with someone
3) Pick a few countries and be extra 'nice' to them, give them techs etc.

This is the standard divide and conquer approach. Also, defensive wars are far easier then offensive wars. Basically, in a pro-longed war, the cost of the computer to launch a war against you is far more then your cost to defend. Due to a flaw in the AI, the computer often will not make peace until he is on the defensive, so the best sollution is to make a token raid on his teritory eventually - he'll make peace.

However, i do find it usefull to be stuborn and let the AI tire himself out launching a war against me. This is especially easy to do when he must use sea vessels to invade and you have railraod/artilary to instantly pound his landings.

[Oncle Boris]

OK Dan Baker.
The central powers were democratic. Not as we know it now, but they had "kind of" a suffrage for everyone - even though there was an emperor.
Canada was democratic - the colony was ruled by elected representatives. The fact it was part of the British empire does not mean it was not democratic.

Egypt-Israel? You are somewhat right. But then again, there is no "real" democracy.

My point: citizens in a democratic government don't give a damn who they are attacking. They just want peace.

[Dan Baker]

Sorry, I don't like to get into historical debates on public forums.

I'm not really compitent to argue what classifies a democracy (considering the experts consitently disagree, and the considerable distinction between democratic tradition and a 'paper' democracy). Most of my knowledge comes from 3 or 4 courses on Eurepaon pre-WWI (i.e. causes of) history and an asortment of political anthropogy and philosphy classes, so I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I admit I'm quoting alot of others here. (And, btw, there is no way that you can tell me Austrian Empire was a democracy in 1914.)


Personally, however, I can't think of a single signigant conflict between things I consider democracies. Clearly, the creators of CIV-III put in a strong reluctance in democracies to fight wars. But I think the reluctance and War Waryness should be expontially greater the more 'democratic' the forien government is.

The most likely scenario for a democracy clash is really a 'Clash of Civilisations' (yeah I know, quoted ad Nausam these days), that is the notion of incompatible cultures. There really isn't a notion of cultural compatability in Civ-III, perhaps it should be broken down into sub-traits. There is very little information to know if Cultaral incomatible democracies might war with one another since until recently, all democracies were culturally compatabile... We'll see, if (Equader and San Salvador?) can fight a war over a soccer match, I'm sure other wars can happen. (aka Pakistan and India).

[Zizka]

Oh yes I have seen this. I call it the rotating gangbang. Ive seen thsi in far too many FtF and online wargames as well. Everyone decides to gang up on one person.. then another. Sorta like Survivoresque alliance.

I think the MPP need some tweaking right now .. under certain circumstances you could end up being DoW by your own allies if they are allies with your eenemy (strange but true). I think the game should allow for true "pacts" not asymmetrical alliances where defence is mutual. Now I know history is filled with examples of various secret and not-so secret alliances. As it stands an MPP is not really and MPP in the modern (20th century sense) and doesnt deserve the name it acts more liek traditional alliance only with an "automatic" war declaration

what we need to modify thinngs to:

1) Current 'alliance" .. rename war pact .. gameplay unchanged as it only last sfor duration of war
2) Alliance -- OPTIONAL trigger to DoW on a civ that has DoW on your ally - access granted only while at war (not automatic for human or AI).. This would give us some peace-time bloc but one that is less certain
3) MPP .. full access even during peacetime, automatic map / intelligence sharing .. automatic DoW


Z

[JMan]

I agree with Dan Baker's points on World War I.

The Central Powers were certainly not democratic. I can't speak with certainty about all the minor players in the war like Serbia and Montenegro, but Austria-Hungary was a monarchy through and through.

With respect to Germany, my reading has given me the impression that the Reichstag was generally a rubber-stamp body. If this is incorrect, I would welcome evidence to the contrary.

Contrast this with Britain and France, where there were vigorous parliamentary debates about entering the war at all (especially in Britain, where the decision to get involved almost brought down the government). Certanly many in the United States saw the conflict as democracy versus despotism, which is a major reason the U.S. eventually entered the war.

[Easy Rhino]

I like the idea of an additional "binding" peace treaty. One which has severe repercussions if you start fighting that person before it expires, unlike normal "peace".

ER

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dan Baker
Sorry, I don't like to get into historical debates on public forums.

I'm not really compitent to argue what classifies a democracy (considering the experts consitently disagree, and the considerable distinction between democratic tradition and a 'paper' democracy). Most of my knowledge comes from 3 or 4 courses on Eurepaon pre-WWI (i.e. causes of) history and an asortment of political anthropogy and philosphy classes, so I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I admit I'm quoting alot of others here. (And, btw, there is no way that you can tell me Austrian Empire was a democracy in 1914.)


Personally, however, I can't think of a single signigant conflict between things I consider democracies. Clearly, the creators of CIV-III put in a strong reluctance in democracies to fight wars. But I think the reluctance and War Waryness should be expontially greater the more 'democratic' the forien government is.

The most likely scenario for a democracy clash is really a 'Clash of Civilisations' (yeah I know, quoted ad Nausam these days), that is the notion of incompatible cultures. There really isn't a notion of cultural compatability in Civ-III, perhaps it should be broken down into sub-traits. There is very little information to know if Cultaral incomatible democracies might war with one another since until recently, all democracies were culturally compatabile... We'll see, if (Equader and San Salvador?) can fight a war over a soccer match, I'm sure other wars can happen. (aka Pakistan and India).

No debates over history in a civ forum? why not?

Actually, we've been through this one before. The notion that democracies (real world dont attack each other is called "democratic peace" it is ultimately Wilsonian point of view and is bitterly contested by "realist" school of international relations. We actually have an International relations on these boards, "Roman" from Slovakia. He is a "realist" and definitely did not want Civ to reflect demo peace. I think it is hard enough arguing for historical realism in areas where there is little debate. in the case of as controversial a position as demo peace, i think it is just as well to bend to gameplay, or better yet, to make it possible to edit the rules. Which maybe someone will find a way of doing.

LOTM

[Gromit]

Being highly uneducated (and no I'm not American), the term 'Wilsonian' is new to me. However, the Idea that Democracies don't attack eachother? - well, we'll just wait 'til one does something that gets up the United States government's nose. I see a Unified 'Europe' doing just that in the not so distant future (if we are not too deep into the assimilation process already)

Hershey Bar anyone?

P.S. I thought Cadbury's Chocolate was bad 'til I tried one of those...eww

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gromit
Being highly uneducated (and no I'm not American), the term 'Wilsonian' is new to me. However, the Idea that Democracies don't attack eachother? - well, we'll just wait 'til one does something that gets up the United States government's nose. I see a Unified 'Europe' doing just that in the not so distant future (if we are not too deep into the assimilation process already)

Hershey Bar anyone?

P.S. I thought Cadbury's Chocolate was bad 'til I tried one of those...eww

To translate from American to British: Wilsonian = Gladstonian. IE liberal, high-minded, emphasizing morality in foreign policy and the link between domestic and foreign politicy. For Wilsonian add multilateralist, pro-disarmament, pro-international organization, etc. As opposed to "realist", unilateralist, national interest, foreign policy determined by security concerns, distrust of international organizations and disarmament treaties.

LOTM