Very sneaky AI sneak attack

Hurricane · March 24, 2002, 06:45

The AI sneak attacks really cross the line sometimes. During this game, the Persians suddenly decide to ally with the French and declare war on me, even though I already have an alliance with the Persians (against the Iroquois), a ROP and gold/turn trading.

Note that I had never been at war with the Persians or any of their allies at any time in this game.

Hurricane · March 24, 2002, 06:59

Oops, forgot the screenshot.

Hurricane · March 24, 2002, 07:00

Here they declare the war.

rpodos · March 24, 2002, 14:01

After Germany, I find the Persians too be the sneakiest SOBs around.

R

Capt Dizle · March 24, 2002, 14:44

Another great flaw in the game which does not make sense.

rpodos · March 24, 2002, 14:45

What flaw?

R

Purple · March 24, 2002, 14:55

Evidently the French made the Persians an offer they couldn't refuse.

Rotten999 · March 24, 2002, 17:38

The military situation might have played a role. The weaker guy can't stay at peace.

The Persian military outnumbered yours. That's not good.

Inverse Icarus · March 24, 2002, 17:48

there's no flaw, it was a military alliance, not a mutual protection pact. anyway, you're weaker than persia. persia knows that. is france stronger than you? if so, then it makes PERFECT sense, to strong AIs actually might hurt a human player.

Jethro83 · March 24, 2002, 17:56

Anybody with a superior military is going to want to use it. Even the seemingly passive French and Indians actually launch sneak attacks. The sad thing is that they only look at numbers rather than unit power. I've had enemies declare war using hordes of swordsmen and archers against my small, but powerful numbers of riflemen. Of course, within a number of years, I had built up transport loads of tanks and infantry, shelled their coastal settlements to nothing with a fleet of battleships, and built up a huge air force.

Anyway, they don't need to be advanced to be convinced of their superiority. If they have huge numbers of military, then they'll be itching to use it against the human (since they are quite simply programmed to stop the human from winning). Even then, they'll drag their AI brethren into it (I paid huge price for everyone to declare war on the zulu, including the Germans. Within five turns the Germans signed a peace treaty. Two turns after that, they joined the Zulu against us. Unfortunate for them that even Shaka's Axis forces didn't stand a chance against my Allied forces.

I just live with the notion that the AI just cannot be trusted, and brace myself for the worst all the time.

Inverse Icarus · March 24, 2002, 18:01

if i ever see the message "The xxx Army outnumbers ours... That's not good..." i immediately start building up more units and/or declare war on them. it's just the only way you can ensure that you'll have the best first strike

rpodos · March 24, 2002, 21:39

I agree, that's no flaw, it's good AI.

Yet another argument for early war... build a strong / large military, and you'll be the one pulling off sneak attacks.

BTW, I suspect that the AI desire to take advantage of military superiority is acting in concert with their agression rating. In other words, if a Persian AI builds up a large force on a relative basis to a neighboring civ, that gets modified by their aggression, and the attack decision is made.

Thus:

Relative Strength X Aggression = Likelihood of Attack

So the question is, especially for early war, which AI civs build a lot of military units? Of those, who has an aggression rating of 1 or 2? Do expansionist civs build fewer? Do non-expansionist civs with a Swordsman-level UU represent the greatest threat?

Aztecs (1) - They don't build enough JWs early enough (maybe because the JW is great for exploration), and by the time they have enough to "feel" relative strength, it's too late.

Japan (1) - I have yet to see Jap Chariots, which makes no sense to me, as they would ultimately upgrade to Samurai. They don;t seem to sneak attack much, but maybe that's because I take'em out before they get to Samurai.

Germany (2) - 'Nuff said.

Russia (1) - They're Expansionist, so they probably don;t build too many Warriors. I haven;t been sneak attacked by'em, but they do seem to fight the other AI civs a lot.

Zululand (2) - I actually don;t find them that aggressive... maybe, with both Scouts and Impis as fast-movers, they just never get to relative strength.

Babylon (1) - They are busy building, and probably don;t build enough Bowman (unless attacked) to feel relative strength.

Rome (1) and Persia (1) - I think these are the guys to watch out for. Neither is expansionist, so they both build a lot of Warriors. Both have an early Swordsman-level UU, and post-1.17 Soren says the AI is much better at upgrading.

You know the feeling... all of a sudden, a stack of 3-4 Legionnaries or Immortals show up, and they ain't there to dance.

R

Coracle · March 24, 2002, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
there's no flaw, it was a military alliance, not a mutual protection pact. anyway, you're weaker than persia. persia knows that. is france stronger than you? if so, then it makes PERFECT sense, to strong AIs actually might hurt a human player.

The "flaw" is that the stupid AI never takes into effect anything other than a strict and immediate numbers count when doing alliances or preparing attacks. Long-term considerations, and human relationships of trust built up for centuries mean nothing to it.

Inverse Icarus · March 24, 2002, 21:54

since when was trust an issue in world diplomacy?

Jethro83 · March 24, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
since when was trust an issue in world diplomacy?

Very good point there.

I maintain that you should only expect the worst, then you either get the satisfaction of being the one who is correct, or you end up pleasantly surprised. In this case, expect rival civs to be backstabbing, conniving morons, and you'll be ready for them when they sneak attack you. If they don't, well... wait 'til they do. Or attack them instead (but only if you know that you'll win).

Felch · March 25, 2002, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
since when was trust an issue in world diplomacy?

Joking aside, this has been an issue for players since Civilization II, which forced human players to avoid getting black marks on their reputations if they intended to be able to enter into peace treaties and alliances. The computer is always allowed to bend the rules though.

Carbon Copy · March 25, 2002, 02:27

Looking at your ongoing deals screen, it looks like you just made a spice for 22 gpt deal. Look at Xerxes' treasury: only 29 coins in his piggy bank. I may be way off on this (I know I've been sneak-attacked when they perceived one of my cities as weak, like only having a pike in it during modern times, despite being surrounded by cities stocked full of infantry and tanks), but it may be what prompted him to backstab you was a deal that he couldn't (or wouldn't) continue to pay.

Hurricane · March 25, 2002, 02:45

Good discussion, guys. I agree that my army was too weak (I tried a builder strategy), and I quit shortly after the Persian attack.

In fact, Persia acted very logically (from their point of view). I had earlier been attacked by the English (to the East) and Iroquios (to the South). I couldn´t fight a two-front war, so I had Persia ally with me to fight it out with the Iroquis, while I took care of England. My war with England went smoothly, but I hadn´t expected Persia to be so successful. While I had my entire army busy with England, Persia overran the Iroquois. The Iroquois last city was right next to my South border, and I saw about 10 Knights, 10 Immortals and some Pikemen starting to move against me. They declare war, and the next turn the rest of the world (except Russia) join them. I had a ROP with Japan, and their army was on their way through my territory, so when they declared war they had about a dozen Samurai just beside one of my core cities.

This was on Emperor level, by the way.

Cookie Monster · March 25, 2002, 09:26

This sort of thing happens to me all the time. It is important to maintain a fairly large army to ensure against an attack. However, this is a balancing act for any builder because the infrastructure takes a hit. The AI will beat the human player at wonder producing as well. The human player is faced with quite a challenge. The classic "guns or butter" decisions are always being made.

One could argue that military production must be a constant part of one's build strategy to ensure the peace. Unfortunately this means the infrastructure and science take a back seat. Hence frequent tech buying/trading is required of the human player to keep up. What do you do however when you have no saltpeter and no one is willing to trade any to you?

Chronus · March 25, 2002, 10:09

I don't see this as a flaw either. I see this as the beginning of a great chapter in this particular game.

Sorry, Hurricane, but I think by quiting you may have done yourself a diservice. Hang in there the next time . . . it's amazing how good a game can get with things like this happen.

Spec · March 25, 2002, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Chronus
I don't see this as a flaw either. I see this as the beginning of a great chapter in this particular game.

Sorry, Hurricane, but I think by quiting you may have done yourself a diservice. Hang in there the next time . . . it's amazing how good a game can get with things like this happen.

He's right. This one time, at band camp.....ummmm...no. This one time I was getting over run by the japaneese and the whole world joined them vs me and the french. (I was Babs) I fought it out for a couple of turns and was losing badly. Then after about 5 turns of getting ripped to pieces I made the other civs joins me vs the Japs for techs and money. The japs died about 25 turns later and I ended up winning the game with a space race win. One of my best games ever.

Spec.

nbarclay · March 25, 2002, 14:30

After what I've read about the AI's willingness to violate Right of Passage agreements, my general rule is never to sign them. I'd have to be pretty desperate before I'd be willing to make an exception.

One major advantage of not having ROP agreements is that without them, it's a lot safer to strip the interior cities bare of defenders to achieve local superiority on the front lines. The AI always adopts a highly conservative troop mix and deployment strategy, so an offensive-minded troop mix and an aggressive deployment can almost always beat it in the "rock-scissors-paper" game of choosing the right approach to counter an opponent's strategy. If I can achieve local superiority on the front lines early in a war and keep up in the troop-building contest, a higher overall unit count at the beginning of a war won't do the AI a huge amount of good.

Nathan