Diplomacy Strategy?

[XOR]

I am playing as a technologically backwards Civ that has been betrayed and sneak attacked and still has never betrayed it's attackers in return (I did eliminate their Civs for that anyway, because I dont "end" wars that I did not start... unless war wariness forces me) the thing is that all Civs I have contact with are fourious at me.

It always goes like that on my games anyway but I'd like to know if there is a posibility to have friendly relations with the AIs (or some of them).

Is there a way to intimidate the AI? Without necessarily going to war with them first? The AI never seems to be intimidated w/o a war.

Is there a way to have friendly relations with it? What makes them friendlier towards me and what makes them more hostile towards me?

Is there something one can do to calm an overwhelmingly powerfull AI Civ that seems to be wanting to engage in a long and costly war (as I said, I dont end them, and large Civs last long...)

What other things can one do/get when having diplomatic relationships with the AI?

[vmxa1]

You can have friendly relations with some. Start early with trading and bribes. When they contact me to ask for some goofy deal, I just give them a few bucks or if my maps are worthless, I give it to them instead. If I am not too lazy, I give the map to all after I give it to one.
Furious is not really what we think of (IMO). It does not so much mean, I hate you as it means, you are weak. If they think of you as weaker they start to work up to abusing you. Check you Military advisor to see if he thinks you are storn or weak vs them.

[jabberwockysr]

20 turns of a luxury as "A gift to the ____ people" gave me polite relations with everyone. Of course the aztec still sneak attacked...

[XOR]

Originally posted by vmxa1
You can have friendly relations with some. Start early with trading and bribes. When they contact me to ask for some goofy deal, I just give them a few bucks or if my maps if worthless, I give it to them instead. If I am not too lazy, I give the map to all after I give it to one.
Furious is not really what we think of (IMO). It does not so much mean, I hate you as it means, you are weak. If they think of you as weaker they start to work up to abusing you. Check you Military advisor to see if he thinks you are storn or weak vs them.

The demographics say that I have the most military service. The Mili advisor says I have an average army when compared to one of the civs and strong when compared to the rest. It also tells me I cant support more units unless I get more gold. I am the one with most territory (I have completely conquered 3 Civs already (China, Japan, and the Aztecs during THEIR own golden age). The 3 declared war on me at the same time and I was at a continous war against them until now. I have the thickest bar at the bottom of the histograph in power and the second thickest in culture.

Im behind in tech but not so far behind. I am, at least, competing the same wonders with the more advanced Civs, it's not like I am their "easy victim".

I have done nothing to them as I still dont have a decent naval transportation unit and they are in a separate landmass, the worst thing I did to them was to terminate the Civs that were supplying them with Wines and Ivory (they were, I could see it how some would have access to Ivory and Wine when I got hold of the lands and tried to trade it).

So now tell me, what are your strategies to get a better treatment in diplomacy from the AI? I always end up having to carry my diplomacy by the point of the spear. The cheapest way to "buy" luxuries, techs and resources is to offer them a peace treaty in exchange for their stuff. It never seems to fail, but it requires of me to stay in a gov type that does not suffer from War Warines (rite now: Monarchy) and that isnt very good for science.

[vmxa1]

Once you have had wars with them, you can only do so much. After things go bad the sword is the only way to keep them in check. If you are strong, they would be inclined to leave you alone. Other factors come into olay such as do you have something they need. Do you have any allies, get some to keep down the number of foes. Are your units the latest? If not upgrade. In the end once all lands are claimed they have to come for you. All you can do is delay that.

[jabberwockysr]

Originally posted by XOR
Is there a way to have friendly relations with it? What makes them friendlier towards me and what makes them more hostile towards me?

Trade with them - the more favorable the deal is to them the better, DON'T try to wring out every last gold piece.
Give them maps/techs/resources
Being allied/having ROP/MPP with them
Long term trading relationships
Attacking their enemies
Have an embassy


Trading with their enemies
Razing cities with their citizens in them
Refusing to talk
Not accepting their offers without offering something else/giving them a gold or two
Detected espionage attempt (including expose enemy mole)
Using nukes against anyone (except maybe their enemies?)
Breaking agreements (worse if against them, but they don't seem to trust so much afterwards )

Fear:
Having nukes/having more nukes than they do
Having a larger army


They might still attack you even if you have friendly terms if they see that you are weaker, or that there is nice land/resources on the other side of your land and you refuse to let them through (so just build cities there first )

Edit: Added info from Arrian's post

[vulture]

My last two games, I've had almost everyone else be polite with me for the whole game.

The first one, with 16 civs, I was fortunate enough to wipe out the 4 other civs on my continent before we made contact with anyone else, and I only fought one war after I met the rest of the world. The Zulu's (who I attacked) were furious with me until they disappeared completely, and the rest started off with the usual range of polite and annoyed civs. By not starting wars and being prepared to trade world maps, luxuries and techs quite happily, everyone else became polite and stayed that way. When the Aztecs went on the warpath, I gave resources to the defending countries for free, which they liked and didn't even bias the Aztecs against me. When Babylon lost its last port, and my gift of Iron was terminated before 20 turns were up, they became annoyed, but later worked back up to being polite, and would even trade lumps sums of cash for per-turn deals again (after a while).

The key, I think, is in not starting too many wars (although anyone you've fought against will never like you again), not razing cities, and trading a lot. I was trading something with every single civ, even if I was only selling worthless techs to civs that were a long way behind. And despite some people's claims that the AI always hate you when you get too powerful, I did this despite being the leader in every signifcant area for pretty much the whole game. Trade and lack of agression are the keys.

One last thing - I have a suspicion that involving other civs in alliances when you are attacked will worsen your reputation in the end. In games where I've never made alliances, and traded a lot, it is easy to get everyone polite. When I've made alliances, and stayed with them for the required 20 turns or more, the other civ still develops a bad attitude after a while, especially when it is losing the war. I haven't tested this rigorously, but it is the impression I've got in my games. Honouring all your agreements is important, but you can get everyone mad at you despite that, or have everyone polite with you despite breaking a few treaties.

[XOR]

Razing cities, but I NEED to raze cities, I attack some weak sucker and raze a few cities each time I need more workers every now and then. I also raze cities for population sometimes (even knowing people seem to dislike having foreign nationals in their cities so much that some starve the cities to grow them again).

[jabberwockysr]

I think that the "weak sucker" probably objects to this, no?
In all likelyhood though, anyone weak enough that you'd declare war on them for the slave labor probably hadn't taken the city from anyone else, so only the victim would be mad at you.

On the other hand, maybe no civ likes a slave trader... Does anyone happen to know if it affects all civs mood towards you?

[Arc]

Goal 1 of the AI: Expanding,

Goal 2 of the AI: Techs,

Goal 3 of the AI: Wonders,

Goal 4 of the AI: Strategic Ressources.


*A civilization equal or superior in power to you will become furious as time goes by, whatever your efforts are to be friendly toward it.
*A civilization you declared war to and from which you took a few cities will be furious till the last turn, or until you "wipe them out, all of them" (c)
*When an AI civ has reached a point where your borders are close, and its military power is far superior, it will attack without warning.
*Cases of a Civ attacking you for no damned reasons:
-refusing to honor a deal ("give me strategic_ressource_052 you scum or you shall regret it!")
-being on the "expansion" way
-having a superior/inferior culture and being military weak

How to keep the AI calm?

Trade goods, trade techs, give money, bow to their treats. Refusing constantly to cooperate will grant you with wars, wars and wars!
As coward as it can seems, give away goods but try to sell techs. Ai just love techs and often goes bankrupt to get them.

On pangea maps it is impossible to keep your neighbors from attacking you on the long term. They WILL attack at one point, it's up to you to guess when.
A little hint: make a trading deal with a civ close to you (say the biggest and most dangerous, aka the one who may want to beat the crap out of feeble neighbors) and check the diplomacy screens one in a while. Later, you will notice your big neighbor is furious or embarassed. Whatever you give him, the mood won't change.
->Conslusion: he will attack in 3 turns maximum. Be prepared.

On island/continents maps it is easy. stay on your island(s) and be a gentle trader.


The AI very rarely tries to invade other continent/island. However if you don't want to respect a dela the AI tries to force you to accpet, war will be declared in 5 seconds... and expect at least 2 15+ stacks of unit to land on your territory.

Weak civs are not a problem when taken alone, unfortunatly weak civs tend to ally with stronger (but still weaker than you) civs, and when you have 3 or 4 civ against you it can get REALLY ugly.

There is only one way to counter the Military alliance against you: sign some MPP with the most powerful weak civs, but only if you smell the entire world is going to attack you soon...

Civilizations who INTEND to attack you soon (but didn't enter the conflict yet) will never accept a MPP or a military alliance. Be prepared here again.

Back to playing.

[Arrian]

Civilizations who INTEND to attack you soon (but didn't enter the conflict yet) will never accept a MPP or a military alliance.

Nope, not true. The last game I finished had a perfect example:

I, mighty Egypt, had cleared my continent of the silly English, Iroquois and Russians. I then made contact with the other civs (Aztecs, Greece, Rome, China) who shared the other landmass. I noticed that the westernmost tip of their continent was outside of anyone's cultural boundaries, and so was the source of gems directly adjacent to the NE. So I built a city there.

Nearly immediately (1-2 turns) I saw 2 stacks of troops form up and move my way. Both China and the Aztecs were coming for me. I got my defenses in order just in time, and when China hit me, I bought off all of the other civs to ally with me against them. This includes the Aztecs.

The very next turn, the Aztecs hit me. Their stack of knights had been beelining straight for my city, so this was a no-doubter. The AI went straight for me, but didn't turn down my alliance offer vs. China.

XOR,

The keys to establishing at least decent relations:

1) establish embassies
2) trade
3) depending on the situation, possible gift something (a luxury is perfect for this)
4) DO NOT break your 20-turn agreements, such as trade deals or peace treaties.

-Arrian

ps It sounds like the ratio of your military units to your population is a bit too high. Focus a bit more on growth.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arc
*A civilization equal or superior in power to you will become furious as time goes by, whatever your efforts are to be friendly toward it.

I find the opposite. It is when I become the largest, most advanced, most powerful civ that others' attitudes become harder to manage. If I am somewhat inconsequential in terms of power and resources, I find it pretty easy to maintain my AI foes' attitudes in Polite or Gracious.

*A civilization you declared war to and from which you took a few cities will be furious till the last turn, or until you "wipe them out, all of them" (c)

It is certainly much harder to secure the respect and trust of a nation from whom you have taken land, cities, citizens, etc., but is not impossible. I have had AI civs that I used as punching bags in the early game vote for me at the UN in the late game (without employing the many exploits to secure a favorable vote).

*When an AI civ has reached a point where your borders are close, and its military power is far superior, it will attack without warning.

Yup - sensing weakness, the AI is much more likely to attack.

. . . . Conslusion: he will attack in 3 turns maximum. Be prepared.

I don't think its quite so etched in stone. I have experienced Furious neighbors who are larger and more powerful but who don't attack. And I have experienced "low aggression" Gracious neighbors, currently in an MPP and RoP with me, attack without warning. There are a variety of factors that influence an AI attack decision - attitude is but one of them.

Civilizations who INTEND to attack you soon (but didn't enter the conflict yet) will never accept a MPP or a military alliance.

I (as Japan) shared a longish border and a mid-sized island with the Chinese. Mao and I were constantly trading goods, and renewed our MPP. Gracious Mao attacked me (abusing his RoP to attack an inland city) onyl 3 (could have been 2) turns into the MPP. He was more than willing to sign an MPP even though he was ready to attack (his attack was not due to his inability to pay gpt - I'm pretty sure he simply sensed my military inferiority and decided to expand a bit at my expense).

Catt

[Theseus]

I've gotten much better lately at achieving a killer tech lead in the mid-game, usually enhanced by or stemming from ToE, furthered by researching whatever is NOT suggested by the advisor, and clinched by getting into the late Industrial research corridor.

I usually wait 4 or so turns after getting a new tech to sell it off to all the AI civs.

I've noticed that, almost invariably, different AI civs are able to afford big gpt deals at different times. Meaning, not just rich versus poor, but even the rich AI civs are sometimes just tapped out.

Why is this important?

Well, if Persia and the other rich AI civs each offer me the World Map, >100gpt, and >100g for Atomic Theory, and America and the poor guys can each only offer me the World Map and 20g, I'll sell it off to the rich guys, and then present it as a gift to the poor.

A little bit later (as in the turn before my pre-build completes Hoover ), when selling off Electronics, I'll follow the same pattern of selling to the rich and gifting to the poor... but this time, one or more of the previously rich will now be poor.

Do this over 6-8 techs... almost everyone, except those that you have recently and egregiously damaged or betrayed, will be polite or gracious.

On top of which, you'll have picked up any stray techs the AI might have researched, any and all luxuries avialable, and you'll be rich as Midas.

[Arc]

I find it hard to respect the 20 turns treaty when you need to wipe the world of civs
I often break peace just to expand asap before infantry-age.

What i said in my post happens quiet all the time, mainly the "i dont wanna hear anything" attitude from the AI, meaning its going to be war very very soon.

Maybe the AI treats all of us differently

[XOR]

K, and why does the AI sometimes give a negative value to luxuries?

Sometimes, with some AIs, you can put a deal on the table with some exchange that the advisor says will be "acceptable" and when I add some of my luxuries to it wothout changing anything else the advisor says they will be insulted by the offer. So it's like the action of ofering an extra luxury for free _worsens_ the deal. It seems that AI's with this attitude are persistant on this attitude and dont trade with anyone at all, it does not seem to be really a bug, the rest of the Civs in the same game wont be as uncooperative.

[Catt]

Originally posted by XOR
K, and why does the AI sometimes give a negative value to luxuries?

Sometimes, with some AIs, you can put a deal on the table with some exchange that the advisor says will be "acceptable" and when I add some of my luxuries to it wothout changing anything else the advisor says they will be insulted by the offer. So it's like the action of ofering an extra luxury for free _worsens_ the deal. It seems that AI's with this attitude are persistant on this attitude and dont trade with anyone at all, it does not seem to be really a bug, the rest of the Civs in the same game wont be as uncooperative.

What you're experiencing is the AI's response to a per-turn deal offer (a luxury) when you have a bad reputation -- if you have developed a reputation for not honoring your 20-turn treaties, the AI will refuse to deal with you in 20-turn trades (like luxuries) and your advisor will highlight this fact for you by informing you that they will be insulted. Notwithstanding that the luxury is a "freebie" on top of an otherwise acceptable deal, the AI will simply not deal with you when you've been untrustworthy. You can choose to look at it as a flaw in the game (maybe it is) or as a simplified but justifiable answer to a complicated and challenging AI decision problem.

But your above point and your post to start this thread indicate a bit of confusion on your part -- there are two distinct but related concepts at play here: reputation and attitude.

Reputation is driven by your diplomatic and trading history. Made a peace treaty and then declared war again with 20 turns? Bad. Made a military alliance and then made peace with the enemy within 20 turns? Bad. Agreed to a gold-per-turn trade deal and then had the deal broken? Bad. Attacked a civ without first declaring war and/or declared war with any of your units inside the enemy civs territorial borders? Bad. Basically, not honoring your commitments results in a black mark against your reputation. Black marks may prevent you from entering into any per-turn deals in the future -- break a treaty in the Middle Ages and you may still have trouble in the late Industrial Ages trading with a civ for that extra supply of oil that they have within their borders and/or for that extra luxury which could mean so much to your larger, marketplace-equipped industrial cities - they "would never accept such a deal" with someone known for breaking his / her word in the past.

Attitude is simply a civ's current state of mind regarding your civ. Develop your empire into the world's dominant civ? Expect some negative attitudes. Hold a seemingly insurmountable technological / military lead? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to trade with your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to ever grant an RoP and insist, at the first opportunity, on expelling interlopers? Expect some negative attitudes. Fight wars against your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Rule your empire under a government that is a "shunned governement" for the AI civ? Expect mildly more negative attitudes. I don't fully understand the implications of a negative attitude - I'm pretty certain that it strongly affects an AI civ's decision regarding a UN vote; I suspect it makes certain trade deals harder to strike; I suspect that it makes alliances against you easier to secure; and I suspect that it makes war more likely. In at least certain circumstances, I have noticed that attitude does not affect the price of trade deals, but it certainly could in other circumstances.

Reputation and attitude are not joined at the hip -- you can have a sterling reputation and still have the entire world furious with you; and you can have a despicable reputation, but still have the world Gracious to you (I really enjoy seeing "Gracious" Elizabeth, in her most charming and gracious manner, say "We couldn't possibly accept that deal after the perfidy you displayed in your dealings with the Aztecs").

Catt

[Theseus]

One subtlety: All of the above only applies if your prior actions are KNOWN. What I call the Arrian Deception is doing baaaad things to AI civs on your home continent, but destroying them before they can ever tell anyone else. Mucho satisfying.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
I find the opposite. It is when I become the largest, most advanced, most powerful civ that others' attitudes become harder to manage. If I am somewhat inconsequential in terms of power and resources, I find it pretty easy to maintain my AI foes' attitudes in Polite or Gracious.
Catt

I can not agree with this perception. It really does not matter about your size as much as where things are in the game. If all lands are basically settled, they have to come for somebody. If you are weak or in the wrong place or many other things, guess what, you are it. Getting large can be used to keep them in check. Being small and keeping them appeased is going to be expensive, one way or another.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
It is certainly much harder to secure the respect and trust of a nation from whom you have taken land, cities, citizens, etc., but is not impossible. I have had AI civs that I used as punching bags in the early game vote for me at the UN in the late game (without employing the many exploits to secure a favorable vote).

Sorry don't mean it seem I am picking on you, but an exception, only proves the rule. The original point is still essentially valid. The AI will stay unhappy with you till the end, unless you take masive efforts to change it. Not attacking it any more will not cause it to change. If I get to 100 cities and leave it with one and make nice, sure, it can be done.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1


Sorry don't mean it seem I am picking on you . . . .

Don't worry - I can be picked on! (Seriously, I know you're not picking on me and the free flow of differing opinions is one of the things that make the forums interesting).

I can not agree with this perception. It really does not matter about your size as much as where things are in the game. If all lands are basically settled, they have to come for somebody. If you are weak or in the wrong place or many other things, guess what, you are it. Getting large can be used to keep them in check. Being small and keeping them appeased is going to be expensive, one way or another.

I think AI decision-making on going to war or not is influenced by a large number of factors (and randomness is one of them) some of which you touch on - relative weakness, geographic or resource issues, etc. - it is very hard to isolate one particular fact from a game and extrapolate underlying game rules from them -- but that's what sharting our opinions on forums tries to advance!

I still believe that being large and powerful is a factor that increases the likelihood of wars of aggression from the AI. I have seen too many times that the largest, most powerful civ (even if AI) is often the target of the other civs. I have also noticed a repeated and repeatable tendency to face more negative attitudes from AI civs as my power grows. Although I'm not an avid gamer, others have reported that the "bring down the leader" proclivity is a hallmark of Sid Meier's games (don't know if this is accurate or not).

I also don't agree that being small and keeping them "appeased" is going to be expensive. I have played many a peaceful game where I have to do nothing to appease anyone - a decent military force is defintiely necessary so as not to appear weak and ripe for the plucking, but a smallish empire need not be an appeasing empire. Regular trade and honoring obligations goes a long ways towards completing a peaceful game (and being a smaller empire has many trading advantages - you don't have to put up with the "I'll give you my wines for your gems, silks, spices, 100 gold and Combustion" offers you deal with when you're the biggest kid on the block).

. . . . but an exception, only proves the rule. The original point is still essentially valid. The AI will stay unhappy with you till the end, unless you take masive efforts to change it. Not attacking it any more will not cause it to change. If I get to 100 cities and leave it with one and make nice, sure, it can be done.

I just don't agree. I rarely make massive efforts to change anything - it's just not usually worth it - I would just as soon wipe the civ out than ply it with gifts or other bribes in an effort to improve its attitude towards me, and I am generally not too concerned with attitude anyway, certainly not the attitude of civs whom I have (hopefully) punished in one or more wars.

I cited the one example as an illustration, but it is by no means an exception to a rule in my experience. I often fight numerous wars against a civ in the ancient and early Middle Ages, and simply through later trading luxuries or resources, selling techs, entering into RoPs, etc. their attitude improves over time. Entering into an MPP or military alliance does wonders as well. I don't do any of these things in an effort to improve the AI attitude - I do them becuase I think they make sense for my civ at the time of the deal.

I have ended numerous games where my empire is 2x or 3x bigger than a particular AI civ (i.e., not 100 to 1), where during the course of the game that AI civ unwillingly provided me with lots of productive cities, lots of slave labor, and valuable real estate, and where, at the end of the game that AI civ's attitude toward me was Polite - all without making any conscious effort to take action to improve the AI attitude.

Catt

[Theseus]

Well, how can someone not like Catt?

[vmxa1]

I guess that is what makes the game work, that it is not always the same. In my current game all that I have ever fought with are not favorable with me, only the French are polite. Some, such as Japan, I only fought one war early and have saved them several times, by attacking their enemies, that were pressing them hard and they are still furious. So in short, I accept what you say, but it is not my experience.
BTW, I played this one as a mild manner person, with only a few short wars. That is not much fun, back to scorched earth. Only 3 GL's and the game is nearly over (China).

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by XOR
Razing cities, but I NEED to raze cities, I attack some weak sucker and raze a few cities each time I need more workers every now and then. I also raze cities for population sometimes (even knowing people seem to dislike having foreign nationals in their cities so much that some starve the cities to grow them again).

Thanks for starting a great thread, XOR, and applause too for Catt for a fine contribution .

The problem here seems to be an attempt to secure a diplowin via aggressive warmongery. Did you not know that you can build your own workers?

Using variants of the Peace Dividend Strategy it's possible to stroll diplowins at Monarch almost every time. This is quite a strict approach, with a rule of never starting a war, and a 'meta-goal' of avoiding all war, but it is possible to be involved in wars (defensive and MMP-drag-ins) and still secure the required votes.

Players who are frustrated by their poor rep after "only starting a few wars" are missing the point. Exploits aside, a diplowin should be a peace-play win, and if you think you 'need' to be aggressive for this then I'd suggest that alternative methods have not been fully explored. It is possible to get a bad rep through no fault of your own, but this risk can be minimised if understood.

I'm currently playing the Peace Dividend strat on Emperor, Standard Pangea, 5 civs. It's early industrial and my twin-core 20-city civ is right on the pace. Researching the AI-shunned Printing press (40 turns) then Democracy (10 turns with Uni's up-and-running) netted me SEVEN top-end Middle Age techs and parity through trade. Joy of Joys - the 2 top civs are now at war and I'm watching them grind each other's cavalry on my turf whilst I build factories... All civs are Gracious, and the TOE pre-build is on the stove. I'll probably get attacked eventually, but I'm close now to Sufficient Power, and really enjoying the game.

(thanks to the mighty Aeson for encouraging me to try this )

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by XOR
So now tell me, what are your strategies to get a better treatment in diplomacy from the AI? I always end up having to carry my diplomacy by the point of the spear. The cheapest way to "buy" luxuries, techs and resources is to offer them a peace treaty in exchange for their stuff.

If I've interpreted this correctly, your solution to the problem of expensive luxuries is to 'offer them a peace treaty' in return for their stuff. I assume you weren't at war when offering this treaty, otherwise you wouldn't have been trying to buy the goods. This implies you were at peace.

Now, extorting goodies out of rivals by renegotiating peace is a classic warmonger tactic known in the real world as 'gunboat diplomacy'. I won't raise political hackles by quoting real examples of this, but it's not a way of making friends, and is effectively an act of war. Likewise in Civ, and it will hit your reputation.

If you want to be a warmonger, XOR, be a proper warmonger and read threads and posts by Arrian, Theseus, Vel and others.

If you want a diplomatic win, learn how to play Civ without requiring war, learn to live without its fruits, and learn how to grow the fruits of peace .

Quickie example : war-weariness requires luxuries, and the more lux you have, the more expensive they become. If you've built cathedrals and colliseums instead of knights then they can keep their stinking overpriced furs - you can do without them. Or, with plenty of marketplaces and banks you can afford them.

I posted you a link to one diplowin strat, but ISTR that Aeson, Txurce and Catt have also at times discussed peace-play on this forum.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Catt
I have also noticed a repeated and repeatable tendency to face more negative attitudes from AI civs as my power grows.

I can confirm this. In the Emp game I mentioned above I was trading up to parity, when Joan, after trading a tech deal switched from Gracious to Polite. I flashed her a smile and a few GPT and she was alright again though.

At higher levels you can just tuck in behind the leaders, keeping your head down but maintaining adequate military and cultural strength, while waiting for them to kick off on each other during industrial, while you're less of a target. By the time they've noticed you're on top, it's too late for them and the UN is yours.

Originally posted by Catt
Although I'm not an avid gamer,

Aw c'mon. A well-repected Civ 3 analyst and writer on two strat forums and you're not an avid gamer? Well, maybe the avid Civvers aren't generally avid gamers because there's no need to play any other games!

Originally posted by Catt
others have reported that the "bring down the leader" proclivity is a hallmark of Sid Meier's games (don't know if this is accurate or not).

Yep. In Civ 1 and Civ 2 your could build your way to a big lead then they'd all declare war at once - nothing you could do about it. Civ 3 offers more levers to avoid or minimise this.

[vmxa1]

I played all of the victory conditions, but I found them to be boring. I only allow conqest now. Darkside is action. I hate the other civs, they are barbarians. I played with no wars other than defence. I let the AI roam all over my land fighting each other. Once they had so many troops that I could not sent a unit to another point in my land in one turn as my rails were blocked by them. I did not notice and the unit ended in Russian land. They decalred war for that even though they had troops in my area and I was stronger. My favorite games are when I am at war from first contact to the end, preferably with all known civs.

[XOR]

I'm not trying to diplowin, maybe I'll try it out at my current game because I have never seen it except in SMAC (In which I usually won by being the only person that votes for me, I just had more population than the rest of "Planet").

I just want to know how to get the AI attitude in better towards me because it seems to dramatically affect their likelyhood of doing things for me or against me. When they are fourious towards me it seems impossible to get them to join in a 20 turn crusade against a third civ. I have done many of the things I read here and I am getting a few civs to be more agreable towards me, they are charging me a rather low price for alliances so I think I'll destroy the ones that dislike me and try the UN for once...

[quote]The problem here seems to be an attempt to secure a diplowin via aggressive warmongery. Did you not know that you can build your own workers?[quote]

No, I am not trying to win trough diplomacy, in fact, I am responsible for sabotaging, razing, conquering, massive shelling or bombing until the population points fall to 1 against any city that attempts to build it, I have always seen it as an "evil" thing since the day I read the description in the Civilopedia, which was in my first Civ game. But their being fourious or polite seems to dramatically affect how much they will do for you or against you. I have followed many of the things I have read here and now almost all Civs are cautious or polite towards me. It makes the price of alliances against a 3rd civ much cheaper, makes RoPs and similar things also easier to get, and removes their refusal to trade that happens sometimes.

As for the workers, it's a commercial problem, slaves dont cost me money, so I just secure massive numbers of them trough wars with weak Civs that have a few large cities I can raze. Sometimes I get such large amounts of them that I can road-ize, de-junglize, mine and irrigate an entire continent in very little time.

What you're experiencing is the AI's response to a per-turn deal offer (a luxury) when you have a bad reputation -- if you have developed a reputation for not honoring your 20-turn treaties, the AI will refuse to deal with you in 20-turn trades (like luxuries) and your advisor will highlight this fact for you by informing you that they will be insulted. Notwithstanding that the luxury is a "freebie" on top of an otherwise acceptable deal, the AI will simply not deal with you when you've been untrustworthy. You can choose to look at it as a flaw in the game (maybe it is) or as a simplified but justifiable answer to a complicated and challenging AI decision problem.

It was with only one of the AIs, in that case it was the Americans, my reputation was fine and I could easily trade with anyone, but I couldnt trade with the Americans and they couldnt trade with anyone either. Could it be it was the American AI the one with the bad reputation?

If I've interpreted this correctly, your solution to the problem of expensive luxuries is to 'offer them a peace treaty' in return for their stuff. I assume you weren't at war when offering this treaty, otherwise you wouldn't have been trying to buy the goods. This implies you were at peace.

Now, extorting goodies out of rivals by renegotiating peace is a classic warmonger tactic known in the real world as 'gunboat diplomacy'. I won't raise political hackles by quoting real examples of this, but it's not a way of making friends, and is effectively an act of war. Likewise in Civ, and it will hit your reputation.

Peace treaties can be cancelled or re-negotiated after 20 turns. When a Civ that is close enough for me to attack is becoming annoying about trading costs and prices I just cancel the treaty (not "break" it as in violationg it, just cancel and choose to "renegotiate" peace, that's how the foreign advisor calls it). Then I offer them peace in exchange for what I want, if they give it to me we get peace, if they dont I just take what's rightfully mine along with anything I find in the way. I also do this for tech, I know I cannot steal a tech trough war, but I can conquer half of their land and offer peace in exchange for a tech, if they dont give it, I still get to have more land, and a lot more workers.

[XOR]

BTW, someone said the AI is intimidated by ones number of Nuclear missiles. Do Tactical nukes and ICBMs intimidate just the same or are ICBMs more intimidating than Tactical nuke?

I ask because so far I only build ICBMs and only build Tacticals when I still dont have the tech for ICBMs. I usually build like 1 ICBM per city in like half of my cities, and leave them there to rest until I decide I want to trash that savegame and start over. :P

[Catt]

With a better sense of play style, I can see how it would be hard for some of you to maintain positive attitudes .

I don't usually play for a diplomatic win, but I do think I make war less often than most. And I fully agree that if you are constantly at war with someone, and/or you like to renegotiate peace every 20 turns to get something more from them, then you pretty much should resign yourself to having a lot of furious leaders around the table -- it's tough to make them like you if you exert your significant power advantage at every opportunity. But why worry about attitude in a game like this - as long as there is no risk of losing the race to the UN, don't worry - you may have a few more alliances made against you over the course of the game, but you're looking to leverage your relative strength anyway, right? Build the UN and never call a vote (assuming the game makes it to Fission).

Attitude is, IMHO, over-rated (but reputation isn't ) -- I just haven't seen enough negative consequences associated with negative attitudes to change my play style in any significant way in an effort to secure more favorable attitudes.

Catt

OT: Thanks, Cort Haus! Civ 3 is about the only game I play and I never played Civ or Civ 2, so, while I spend (waste, according to my wife ) an awful lot of my scarce free time playing Civ 3, I really can't be considered an avid gamer.

[vmxa1]

Yup, so true. I tend to not allow diplo. If I do, I take your advice and build the UN and never have a vote. I ignore all attitudes, who cares. I do that even if I do not have an edge in power. I do try not to get into war with my neighbor if they are capable of hurting me. I will prefer to war with some one who will trek long distances so I can thin them out some. I have played some builder games, to see what it was like, boring.