opponent attitudes

[Stuff2]

In civ2 your oppnents attitude against you is quite simpel. If you are nice your opponents will love you more and more until 1750 AD when they all suddenly starts to hate you (if you are the strongest civ, which is the case almost everytime), then if you get nukes they get really ambivalent and love you one turn and the next they start a war with you.

And the poor weak nations build up their armys as much as they can instead of building up their infrastructure wich (in my opinion is much more important, beacouse it's the only way to get stronger). I usually don't totally defeat all my enemies beacouse the trade boost i can get from a few foreign big cities. I think that if a nation is weak it definitely should try to get an alliance with a strong neighbour.

I think attitude and reputatuin is not enough when Ai-players deal with you and each-other.

I suggest some more variables.
- Trust (your 'reputation' depending in behavior against that singular civ)
- Fear (a measure of how much damage your army can do to them)
- Envy (a measure of your growth versus their growth)
- goal (a measure of what the Ai sees as most important for it's civ at the time. This can be food-output, trade, money, a certian wonder e.t.c.)

[Dom Pedro II]

I think your right. Whats the deal with those tiny civs being too afraid to ally with the bigger ones? And why are the little guys so aggressive?! They know that their doomed if they don't make peace and maybe even an alliance, and they continue to be hostile anyway. The fact is, if they can only improve one area of the AI, I want it to be the diplomatic area over the military.

I think Government should be added to the list of attitude factors. Because countries with similar governments tend to come closer. The Communists should feel a certain kinship with one another. The Democracies in a world of Monarchies should too. And Republics should always have trouble with Monarchies.

Unfortunately, many of the finer points of diplomacy can never be appreciated by the computer, at least not with current technology.
For example, another civ's proximity and strength to the outer extremities of their empire. Also where they want to expand to is another point that would be hard for a computer to take into account when dealing with its fellow civs.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

[rremus]

I totally agree! I hate those treaties they sign to stop your agression even when you never declared war to any of them! They call agression you natural expansion Even if you play on a huge map and more than half of it's still uncolonized, they still consider your expansion a form of agression!
And I think the form of government should be a major factor in AI attitude, specially in the modern age. Democracies should always support each other when attacked by a non-democracy. But I'm pretty sure in Civ3 they will have something similar to the Social Engineering of SMAC, so how could you define a democracy or a non-democracy?

[rremus]

BTW, trade should be taken into account too. The more trade you do with a civ, the more positive should be its attitude towards you. War should also brake any trade routes you estabilished.

[Tiberius]

This is definitely one of the most important factors that need improvements in the diplomacy model.

The actual model is too dumm. I hate especially the fact that if you are the most powerful, they always hate you. And when the AI is enthusiatic and the very next turn he nukes me, I feel that my head is going to blow up!

I agree also with the "more trade -> more positive attitude" idea.

[Az]

I can't say anything but this:

You're all absolutely right !