Diplomacy...GR!

[kgoodrid]

I'm starting to remember why I stopped playing Civ III last year. Take my most recent game as the Vikings on Monarch. I'm off to an incredible start thanks to my Scouts finding some great city spots and even a village that joined me. I have a very large empire before 0 C.E., and am ahead of the French, Russians, Celts, and English, the other civs in close proximity to me. Russia decides to go declare war out of the blue, which is bad for me since I have a fairly weak military due to my rapid growth. I have horses and iron and start building up my military. Soon, however, the other three civs have joined the war against me. By this point I have built up swordsmen and plenty of defenders.

The thing that annoys me is that these civs had been trading heavily with me and were all polite. I was no longer in the lead (Russia sneaked ahead of me by about 10 points), and had built up a decent military. Thus, I see no logic for the sudden AI gangup. I didn't look weak. I hadn't been breaking deals. I wasn't the top dog/target. And the other civs would not join me against Russia for any price. But they would join against me...why?

On a side note, despite my heavy tech research and larger empire size, based around several rivers to help fund tech, the other civs continued to beat me in research. Even with tech trading, I was getting smoked. The AI tech trading and research is unrealistic and unfair. They are not held to the same rules and treat the player differently than the other AIs. If I was vastly ahead, that would be one thing. When we are the same or I am below, why continue to gang up on the player?

I have had a great start ruined, and none of the usual explanations for the AI behavior seem to be applicable.

[Swissy]

First point, you admitted to being weak in military. this is a war magnet to the AI. Add to this the tendency for the second placve AI to almost always attack the top-dog human player. You basically invited the Russians to declare war.

As for why the others would not join you, you probably had no ROP treaties with them and Russia did. The ROP is a building block to getting good relations with the AI civs. Previous trades have liitle to do with alliances, the ROP is the main measure of alliance decisions. All else being equal, them it will look at what it can get off you for the alliance. On monarch the AI will ask for the world from you, and if it sees you can't even come close to giving it to them you will be on your own.

[kgoodrid]

As I said, I understand why the first empire attacked me. A weak military and first place status will do that. That wasn't what I was talking about.

The annoyance is when empires that you are perfectly at peace with and have built up good relations through trade with, suddenly attack and go from polite to furious. That isn't the way things work in the real world, at any point in history. Two empires/nations that have been getting benefits from trade and get along well do not throw that out for a sudden delcaration of war. I can't think of a signle time in history when a war started in that way. I would challange any fo you two think of a signle time when a nation decide to backstab a trading party with whom it had good relations and a compatible culture / society. There are plenty of examples of former friends going to war, but never just at the drop of a hat.

[Chuckles]

I have had to quit several games around the gunpowder stage because 5-10 civs have declared war on me within 3 turns. No matter what I do I can not fight off the excessive computer production of 5-10 civs who send in 20-35 units each into my territory. It kind of pisses me off that I just wasted a couple of weeks on a game to get nowhere.

[vmxa1]

kgoodrid if in real life they would die if they did not expand, they mite behave that way, in the game that is what happens. Any 4x game will come to a point where the AI must take land from someone, if it is to expand. I seem to recall a few case in the last century were a country joined in a war with another country against one it had good relations with up to that point. When a larger gov that is in close proximity with them says join us they are between a rock and a hard place and do in fact join.

[vmxa1]

Chuckles post a save.

[vondrack]

Well, guys, I think you are forgetting of a very important thing - bribery. If your enemy has something valuable to offer to your "friends", they may (and often will) change their minds and sides, because getting a shiny new tech or two is a better deal than keeping trade going (unfortunately, the AIs are not programmed to understand what loyalty means...).

I have done this countless times to AI civs... say, somebody declares war on me and I am not 100% sure I can handle him or I just want to force him fight a multi-front war. The first thing I do is to talk to all the other leaders and check if there is a convenient way to get them into alliances or at least into trade embargoes. Usually it is rather easy to get them on your side, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING VALUABLE TO OFFER. And I have no reason to believe that it could be different when AIs negotiate among themselves.

The remedy to your diplomatic failures is to actively seek allies. No matter how strong you feel you are, if you can get others on your side, do it. You may not need their units, but your enemy might...

Being almost simultaneously attacked by 5-10 other civs means that you are either very very weak, or that you have seriously screwed your diplomatic relations before (don't forget to establish embassies, make fair trades etc.).

[kgoodrid]

Being almost simultaneously attacked by 5-10 other civs means that you are either very very weak, or that you have seriously screwed your diplomatic relations before (don't forget to establish embassies, make fair trades etc.).

Not true. Sometimes it happens even when you are in a position of strength, rated high, but not on top. In the game I was playing, I had not broken a single deal and had given the AI civs many profitable, favorable trades. Heck, in a recent game I even gave into an AI demand for a tech because I didn't want war right then. I also traded and gave it a per turn gold deal. The next turn, that AI declared war on me, thus losing the gold it would be getting and making its previous trade utterly worthless. This sort of behavior has no logical explanation. It is simply a poor diplomatic model.

I would also like to raise a disagreement with the AI need to expand being justified. Empires don't have to expand to survive. Sometimes expansion can actually be harmful. If nations had to expand to survive, then small states like Belgium and Luxumberg would be invading France.

The bottom line is that Civ III had made some great additions to the diplomatic modeling in games. The bargaining table is done well. But it isn't perfect.

[wilbill]

Originally posted by Swissy
First point, you admitted to being weak in military. this is a war magnet to the AI....
As for why the others would not join you, you probably had no ROP treaties with them and Russia did. The ROP is a building block to getting good relations with the AI civs....

It's hard to overstate these two factors' importance in maintaining control of your diplomatic game. Even if you're playing a builder game or just in a builder mode for the time being, you can't let yourself get too far behind militarily.

ROP's can be a balancing act. But they really are the key to peaceful relations with AI civs. I know, Persia has used ROP to rush attack with Immortals - it's happened to us all. But generally speaking when you're dealing with AI civs of approximately equal or slightly greater strength, an ROP will keep them from attacking. If a much stronger civ asks for excessive consideration to extend an ROP, it's time to start building defensive units.

[vmxa1]

kgoodrid get a grip, it is a game and they do have to expand in it. If they sit on those original core cities they will not be around at the end. Any number of things can trigger it. THey need oil, they need rubber or they got a fat offer to jump you. I do it all the time, not becasue I need help, but I would rather not face all of them at once. If I do not get them to join me in the the others may. Any resemblance to real live is nice, but not to be expected.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by kgoodrid
Not true. Sometimes it happens even when you are in a position of strength, rated high, but not on top. In the game I was playing, I had not broken a single deal and had given the AI civs many profitable, favorable trades. Heck, in a recent game I even gave into an AI demand for a tech because I didn't want war right then. I also traded and gave it a per turn gold deal. The next turn, that AI declared war on me, thus losing the gold it would be getting and making its previous trade utterly worthless. This sort of behavior has no logical explanation. It is simply a poor diplomatic model.

By "screwing diplomatic relations" I meant primarily an improper or insufficient diplomatic reaction when the first AI declares war on you (even though I mentioned general diplomacy improving activity examples, which might have been a bit misleading... sorry).

By caving to the AI demands you've shown weakness (you even state you did not want a war). The AI does understand this principle, so don't be surprised.

As far as the logic of the declaration of war goes, there is always some reason (just like in the real world, I might add). A resouce or luxury AI can take from you, territory control/denial, even the fact that an AI has many units that must be put into some sort of use not to be a waste of shields... If you think that it's nonsense "real-world"-wise, just think of Germany in 1939. What "reason" did they have to attack Poland?

Originally posted by kgoodrid
I would also like to raise a disagreement with the AI need to expand being justified. Empires don't have to expand to survive. Sometimes expansion can actually be harmful. If nations had to expand to survive, then small states like Belgium and Luxumberg would be invading France.

As vmxa1 correctly pointed out, this argument is totally irrelevant. This is a game, not real life. In Civ3, a bigger generally means better. The territory you control is the territory your enemies do NOT control. Even if the only reason to occupy an area is to deny it to your rivals, it is worth considering. I would be inclined to agree with you that there should be a more sophisticated approach to the "size matters" principle, but that is a question of the fundamental game mechanics, victory conditions (in the real world, nobody is trying to "win by 2050AD") etc. , not of the diplomacy model.

Just as so many other aspects, Civ3 diplomacy is a very simplified one. However, instead of thinking "how come they declared war on me, I did nothing bad to them, that's so unfair!", it's better to learn how the Civ3 AI diplomacy works. It's not that complicated and when you get a grasp of it, you will be able to use it to your advantage quite easily. If you still believe that what happened to you could not be explained by what me and other posters here mentioned, post a savegame. We may be able to find out what the problem was...

[kgoodrid]

kgoodrid get a grip, it is a game and they do have to expand in it.

Ok, I don't care about anything else you have to say after starting your post like that. Try to be a little more mature when you join a discussion.

However, instead of thinking "how come they declared war on me, I did nothing bad to them, that's so unfair!", it's better to learn how the Civ3 AI diplomacy works. It's not that complicated and when you get a grasp of it, you will be able to use it to your advantage quite easily. If you still believe that what happened to you could not be explained by what me and other posters here mentioned, post a savegame. We may be able to find out what the problem was...

Don't assume I don't understand the system. I already acknowledged the reasons for the original attack. I had a weak military. I know how it works. The problem was when a bunch of others jumped in AFTER I had built up a larger, tech-superior military. As for the bribery issue, I of course tried that right off, but the other three civs would not join me for any price, even when I offered multiple useful techs, maps, and large sums of gold. However, they were all willing to join my weaker opponent, who could not possibly have paid them as much as I could. The only explanation that I can apply here is the AI gang up on the Human thing. But that ussually happens towards the end of the game. This was in the Ancient Age...so I'm still not sure.

Thanks to most of you for the insight into possible explanations. Its always good to see the situation from a few other viewpoints. Vmx, you have been around long enough to know how to engage in a good discussion, so drop the attitude.

[vmxa1]

I did not realize I had an attitude. It is just funny to hear about real life in context with a game. Perhaps you should not be so sensitive. I am not sure what the mature factor is as I will be 57 in Jan and just had a melanoma remove Friday, so I am quite sure I do not need to be more mature. In any event, I surely had no intention of being hurtful or demeaning and I think my statement was fair. You are free to dismiss it or anything I say. The fact remains that they went to war against you and you say you do not see why. I offered a possiblity. So if I did so in some offensive way, I apologize. It was not my intent.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Had to chime in here Kgoodrid, the fact that you told vmxa 1 off the way you did only reinforces the point that you need to get a grip here.

I dont know the guy personally but I regulary see his name here replying to peoples posts offering tips and advice to many people and taking part in many debates.

It is unfortunate that you felt offended by his remarks and I see he has apologised however his post was correct, it is only a game and this is the way the game works. I myself have had the AI gang up on me many times but I have also seen them all gang up on another AI. The ROP thing may have something to do with it but in my mind there really is no set reason for anything especially in the early game.

The AI are all backstabbing devious sons of B*****s, but will look most favourably on those who give them the most during trade. One other option is to get them to gang up on someone else first before they target you. I dont think you are right to say that they always gang up on the human at least not from my experience of playing hundreds of civ3 games to date.

You said you had stopped playing some time back, well if you persevere and take the advice offered by the many veterans of the game on these forums then you will soon know for yourself the wide variety of possible routes for different games to take. Civ 3 can most definitely not be summed up from one or two games.

[Boracks]

Having run into this problem my, I think that part of the issue is with the name of the game, "Civilization".

When you try and play a 'civil' game, it doesn't work. I wonder if the game should be called 'warfareization' or, given some games I've had, 'Survivor'. Oh, wait, they already did that last one.

In a sense, I wish that they had the people who did the diplomacy in SMAC do the diplomacy in CIV3. I had some great games of SMAC from a diplomatic perspective, even had a computer player give me units when I was invaded.

However, this is CIV. Keep bribing the close big guys. So far, 24 gold evey 5 or 6 turns seems to work good. (Oh, did I mention he's giving me 33 gold a turn on another deal so its his money anyway? )

Little bribe effects may not last long but they last long enough. Its just a cost of running an empire.

[aahz_capone]

On this note, SMAC kept it real on diplomacy, however, no need to fear, for becaus eot he drastic "ganging up" thing (which I also have experienced, aqsside from not having ROP etc which shouldn't be so important even if I do admit it is a building block), on MP that won't happen because you are dealing with real humans. All the more reason to keep playing civ.

P.s. sorry about any speliijng mistakes I'm pissed drunk

[miike]

I have to agree with Vondrak. I also, had the exact same problem with the AI ganging up on me, most of the games that I play. I love to expand fast and far. The only units, I build are settlers and workers. So, I am usually a target for an AI invasion. And it will usually happen. Or, I attack some other civ because they are in the way of my expansion. I did a couple of things. First, right when the AI declares with me, I try to get the neighboring Civs, to go to war with the attacking civ. Giving them whatever they want, just to get involved. Then, I don't consider it a big loss to lose a few cities, on my "frontier" or on the edge of my civ. Knowing, that if the city was not razed, I will probably get it back through culture. Also, knowing that those cities were not producing that much anyways. I use my culture borders to my advantage. I stay inside my own borders and attack their attackers. Because, if my culture is good enough, they can not enter my territory and attack a city in the same turn. So, I can "see them coming". This is where having roads, really comes in handy. Also, I will take a city that is quite a few tiles away from any border and leave it undefened. Most of the time, the enemy civs will move past other cities just to attack an undefended city. This gives me time, to continue to attack them. Try to attack their attack units and leave their defensive units alone. Hopefully the defensive units, will attack something and die. Really, this problem is not the end of the world. Keep playing the same game, to see what happens. Sometimes, losing a few cities is not the end of the world or game.

[Zero]

Kgoorid, as to why you were attacked by 5-10 civ even when you had considerable military strength is actually answered by the second post.