Worshipful Status and Declaration of War

[kdunphy]

This is a question relating to the dimplomatic statusses (worshipful, angry, etc)

I'm in the middle of a lengthy bloodlust game, and at war with several countries, but I have managed to get peace with the Spanish. My country is highest in score and number of units, and I was trading technology ith the spanish

I traded several things, and as a result their stance was worshipful, so I requested that they remove their troops from y territory (they had a lot of old units that were in my way where our borders met), and they declared war


Why would they declare war after a simple request even though they were worshipful at the time? They were the spanish, Im not sure whether they count as agressive, expansionist, or whatever else.

I'm curious if anyone else has seen such a big swing from worshipful to war, during a single diplomatic session.

[finbar]

It's not uncommon, particularly in the MGE version of the game. The AI is programmed to be incredibly aggressive. I've had instances of a worshipful relationship with an AI civ, we're trading techs during a turn, they will demand a tech, I'll refuse, and they'll declare war. It's stupid programming and renders things like alliances (with AI civs) an utter waste of time.

[kdunphy]

Well this was in 2.42 but my empire was powerful enough that they were signing those pacts to contain agression

Spanish and English sing pact to contain Dwarven agression and all that, most of them signed a pact against me, so I guess they thought I was to powerful

[Wiglaf]

Sounds like MPGE..weird that it isn't.

I traded several things, and as a result their stance was worshipful, so I requested that they remove their troops from y territory (they had a lot of old units that were in my way where our borders met), and they declared war.

The worshipful status only goes so far. Finbar espeically, alliances aren't a waste of time with the AI as they provide a "barrier" of diplomacy. The computer must first cancel the pact, and then cancel the treaty, to attack you, giving more than ample warning to the player.

Kdun, peace treaties aren't stable. Stick to alliances in 2.42.

[fittstim]

This is comparing two different things.

1. The way a civ views you depends on you not pissing off the civ in question (i.e. getting black marks against you). Their attitudes towards your civ affects whether or not they will form alliances with your civ (plus some other things).

2. The AI civs are programmed to try and win the game. So even though they might think your civ is great, they'll go to war in order to prevent your easy win. When a civ gets any of the spaceship related techs, the first thing the AI does is produce lots of diplomats and/or spies in order to steal these techs. If your civ is too big and powerful, all the other civs will form alliances to "stop [place civ name here]'s aggression". It's the only way that the AI civs can have a chance against an intelligent and creative human player.

[Edward]

Very true, fittstim. Discovering Space Flight or passing a certain date flips some switch in the game that makes the AI want nothing to do with you. At that time (unless you're "pitiful" in power) you just have to assume that they'll sneak attack you at any moment and give up on diplomacy. They'll certainly accept your gifts, but don't expect anything in return. I'll agree that is was very misleading of kdunphy's Spanish to feign worshipfulness.

One note: the AI civ can get pissed of at almost anything (you walking on their land, you becoming powerful, you asking for them to remove troops, you declaring war on them, you not giving in to their demands, etc.). You need not get any black marks to become disliked - even in the early game. It's quite possible to have a spotless reputation and be hated world-round. ("Those Mongols killed our caravans, poisoned our water, stole our advances, and destroyed half our cities, but I'll have to hand it to them - they never broke a treaty.")

[Ecthy]

I find it amusing how ironical a diplomatic status can influence your peace/war status with another civ.

There really are game phases where, when "uncooperative", a civ will LESS likely declare war on you than a "receptive" one. Generally, receptive state means quite positive leaning towards you, yet a modern civ, especially in a stalemate, can be more 'dangerous' for you than an uncooperative one. this seems to be connected to 'forced' stalemates (or peace treaties) though, as I never noticed it in early games

(forced - as in using UN or GW)