When does the AI ask for peace(Soren?)

MarkG · February 9, 2002, 09:08

your experiences on how the AI "values" war and peace?

Ironwood · February 9, 2002, 13:30

The AI generally asks for peace once it's been defeated. What I mean by this is that it has no present capabiliy of maintaining an offensive.

For example, in a recent game, I played the Chinese on a tiny map. The Babylonians were the only great power still standing, and surprise attacked me. I only had a small force of swordsmen and horses, and so fought a defensive war, destroying their attack force, but not confident enough to go on the offensive. The Babs, not being terribly agressive, sued for peace, and, not prepared to continue the war, I agreed.

Later on, in the same game, they were trying to wage war against the Persians (who had only one city) across my territory. Every turn it was, leave or declare war. They leave. Leave or declare war. They leave. Finally, after a good period of time, they finally got it through their thick skulls that I wasn't going to allow them to attack the Persians, and they declared war. My first few riders eliminated their attack force, and the Persians managed to capture a city that the Babs had captured from me. They then sued for peace. I refused, since they weren't yet ready to hand over all their tech, and I was still ready to go (as were the Persians).

It was actually kind of cool seing Chinese Riders and Persian Immortals fighting alongside one another. The Persians gave a good account of themselves in that war, though I managed to culture absorb all their gains later on.

Finally the Babs sued for peace, and gave me everything, including their one remaining non-capital city on a nearby island. Later on, when their former capital (Babylon) revolted (that was unexpected, considering I was at peace with the Babylonian Government, had a few Chinese citizens in Babylon, no happiness problem, etc.) I declared war to retake Babylon, and proceeded to eliminate them (having already eliminated the Persians and the Japanese the main continent), thus achieving military victory during the middle ages.

I've found the Germans to be much more agressive, and I need to capture a few cities before they sue for peace.

Overall, I am pleased by the present model. It seems to make sense, and, unlike in previous games, it is actually possible to leave a city or two unconqured and still have a relatively stable situation (so long as no betrayal occurred). In Civ2, I pretty much had to eliminate anyone who shared a land mass with me, since if I didn't, they'd build up a horde and proceed to flow over the border (and no option to demand that they leave). In Civ3, the AI seems content to accept defeat, and pursue any ambitions elsewhere.

EDIT: I should mention that I play at Reagent. Having beaten a game at this level, I will soon begin playing at Monarch.

Harovan · February 9, 2002, 14:23

By my experience, the AI often asks for peace (or is ready to see my envoy), when it has no offensive units left.

Also, there seems to run a turn counter. After it reaches a certain number (could be the famous 20 turns...), the probability for the AI peacemaking seems to increase.

But there are exceptions: sometimes the AI does neither sue for peace nor even wants to talk with me, if it has only 1 city left and I have a bunch of attackers at an adjacent square. I have to completely destroy it. This prevents often my attempts to "vassalize" an AI civ.

But all that are just my observations. It seems not to be predictable. I think that's ok, because a predictable AI would make the game boring.

Dida · February 9, 2002, 15:23

Sometimes the AI will refuse the peace talk even if it has nothing left. I attacked the Indian with 100+ tanks, 60 bombers and 60 Mech. Inf and took most of their nation in 2 turns. They got only 1 city left and still refuse to see my envoy. So I destroyed them. Maybe if I wait a few more turns, they will finally agree to talk.

Alex · February 9, 2002, 17:08

Quote:

By my experience, the AI often asks for peace (or is ready to see my envoy), when it has no offensive units left.

I have to agree. I was playing as the greeks and decided to start a war against the aztecs. I signed a military alliance with the romans against the aztecs, and I took over three of their cities (the romans took over another one). I was satisfied, and tried to make peace with the aztecs. They refused to see my envoy. Instead of trying to conquer more aztec cities, I decided to settle down and see what would happen. A few turns later, after bloody battles against the romans, the aztecs contacted me and asked for peace. I can only imagine that they were in a short of offensive units, and tried to calm things down on one front, in order to relocate all their resources to the other front. But that would be a frightening human behavior for a computer...

player1 · February 9, 2002, 17:13

Maybe too much of razing or nuke using can make AI civs less likely to sue for peace, even if almost destoryed.

Dida · February 9, 2002, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
Maybe too much of razing or nuke using can make AI civs less likely to sue for peace, even if almost destoryed.

Maybe that is true. In the case I talked about, I razed every single one of his cities because his culture is 3 times higher than mine.

Harovan · February 9, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
Maybe that is true. In the case I talked about, I razed every single one of his cities because his culture is 3 times higher than mine.

No. In my current game I razed the whole Zulu coreland (leaving Shaka only a few cities that were former English, Russian and American) and Shaka came personally to beg for peace. I refused.

Ironwood · February 9, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida

Maybe that is true. In the case I talked about, I razed every single one of his cities because his culture is 3 times higher than mine.

I have a feeling that the culture difference is rather important, as well.

solo · February 9, 2002, 17:44

The number of turns since a war starts is definitely a factor. No matter how well or poorly a war is going for the AI, it looks like a certain amount of time must go by before they will talk or negotiate for peace. Before the patch, they would talk much sooner if losing badly, and would give up just about everything to negotiate peace, something players noticed and started to exploit. Now the elasped time figures more into the equation, perhaps as a way to limit the effectiveness of this tactic. This would explain why an AI that is quickly crushed refuses to talk, or why another that is on the verge of crushing a human opponent will stop and talk peace. The "refuse to talk" turn counter has crossed the necessary threshold to cancel that AI mode.

Willem · February 9, 2002, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by solo
The number of turns since a war starts is definitely a factor. No matter how well or poorly a war is going for the AI, it looks like a certain amount of time must go by before they will talk or negotiate for peace. Before the patch, they would talk much sooner if losing badly, and would give up just about everything to negotiate peace, something players noticed and started to exploit. Now the elasped time figures more into the equation, perhaps as a way to limit the effectiveness of this tactic. This would explain why an AI that is quickly crushed refuses to talk, or why another that is on the verge of crushing a human opponent will stop and talk peace. The "refuse to talk" turn counter has crossed the necessary threshold to cancel that AI mode.

I'm not so sure about that. I've had a couple of wars now that I was able to enlist 2 or 3 allies, and it wasn't to long, maybe a few turns, before my enemy was willing to negotiate a treaty. It seems to make a real difference having more than 1 ally fighting with you, and the more the merrier. At least from what I've seen.

solo · February 9, 2002, 18:18

Willem,

Perhaps I should clarify by saying time is not the only factor in the equation. I'll stick to my opinion that there is a countdown, but that the number of turns may not always be the same in each situation, being subject to modification by such things as alliances, etc.

A hypothetical example: Suppose the standard waiting period is 10 turns. It may be shortened by dividing it by the number of opponents, making it last fewer turns, as observed in the example you provide.

Encomium · February 9, 2002, 22:52

I am the Iroquois. I have higher scores, culture and power, than the nearby Aztecs.

For some bizarre stupid reason, an Aztec border flips over my mines, roads, and even a garrisoned fortress within one of my city's boundaries. Stupid Culture Flipping. Or cheating AI??

I refuse to leave. The Aztec AI is so dumb he claims I moved onto his terriitory and I will be blamed for any war. So be it. He being, as I said, smaller than me, eventually is crushed militarily. So he never should have went to war in the first place, or immediately made peace.

As I take town after town and city after city he does not come to me to make peace. When I go to him, after he FINALLY sees my envoy having refused to several times, he will only make peace on a Peace Treaty to Peace Treaty basis - no money, towns, techs, resources, etc. NOTHING. He refused a deal for peace with a huge force of Mounted Horseman two tiles from his capital. All I wanted was one small town near my border for peace. Meanwhile, I got a notice that "The Aztecs are building the Hanging Gardens"!!

I am overruning his civ but he's building a happiness Wonder!!

Well, I eventually had to conquer every city and town on the continent, and when he only had one island town left I agree to Peace for Peace.

CONCLUSION: Culture Flipping is nonsense; and the Diplomacy AI is either retarded or suicidal.

Willem · February 10, 2002, 02:20

Can anyone tell me what play that passage from Shakespeare comes from? The part about "strutting on stage" and "signifying nothing". For some reason that always comes to mind after Encomium has his say around here. I believe it was Hamlet, but I'm not entirely sure. It's a little out of context, but it seems to fit.

Dienstag · February 10, 2002, 02:54

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.

from William Shakespeare's Macbeth Act V, Scene 5

I don't think this applies to Encomium half as well as it does to the "retarded or suicidal" AI, especially the "And then is heard no more" part.

Willem · February 10, 2002, 03:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Dienstag
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.

from William Shakespeare's Macbeth Act V, Scene 5

I don't think this applies to Encomium half as well as it does to the "retarded or suicidal" AI, especially the "And then is heard no more" part.

Well at least the AI has an excuse. The human brain is still light years ahead of what a computer is capable of. With one exception.

Thanks for the passage, I made sure to save it. There's a few people around here that it might come in handy with sometime. I'll just have to change the first word, and it will fit right in.

Harovan · February 10, 2002, 09:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Can anyone tell me what play that passage from Shakespeare comes from? The part about "strutting on stage" and "signifying nothing". For some reason that always comes to mind after Encomium has his say around here. I believe it was Hamlet, but I'm not entirely sure. It's a little out of context, but it seems to fit.

Is there really somebody left who does not ignore this guy?

As for your posting about allies, yes, it seems true that the AI has a horror of a multipe front war. But on the other hand, making peace with the AI while in an alliance makes you break a treaty. May it be the AI offers peace to you not only to have one less enemy, but also to drag you in other diplomatic trouble?

Willem · February 10, 2002, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Is there really somebody left who does not ignore this guy?

What gets me is that I can insult and belittle him and there's never any rebuttal. He just keeps coming back with the same drivel, over and over again, like a broken record. Some people are just suckers for punishment I guess.

Quote:

As for your posting about allies, yes, it seems true that the AI has a horror of a multipe front war. But on the other hand, making peace with the AI while in an alliance makes you break a treaty. May it be the AI offers peace to you not only to have one less enemy, but also to drag you in other diplomatic trouble?

I've never had any repercussions by doing that though, at least none that I've noticed. It's something to keep in mind however, next time it happens. Not that it makes much difference, all the other civs are generally furious with all the time anyway.

Harovan · February 10, 2002, 11:35

IIRC you get in trouble, if you try to make another alliance. They say then "You have already stabbed us in the back, we won't trust you again" or something like that.

Ironwood · February 10, 2002, 12:31

Actually, good Sir Ralph, that happens because you stabbed them in the back in the past, not because you made an alliance.

As the KING of honorable play, I can honestly say I have only had trouble with this once: First, I declared war on Egypt. Then I brought the world into it. Then, after punishing Egypt not quite thouroughly enough, I allowed for peace, and made a "Mutual Proetection Pact" as a condition for peace. Then, my allies in war attacked Egypt, triggering a war in my own kingdom. Then Egypt attacked Germany, another group I had MPPd after a war, thus triggering another forced war. France was also a MPP of mine (they came and asked, and like an idiot I accepted, despite the fact that they were the #2 power, behind me). They got attacked by my longtime allies the Americans. Yet another MPP was broken by MPP requirement. The world slowly began to go mad, and I quit that game as the turns began to surpass the 10 minuite mark. I think I'll keep that savegame, so I can continue playing it once I have a more powerful computer.

In short: NEVER sign an MPP with a power that is still at war with other allies. It is a guarenteed black mark on your reputation. I'd say it would be nice if MPPs could include some sort of "Bloc" arrangement by which you can direct the foreign policy of another power, but due to the fact that historically, this has not really been the case (pre WWI Europe is a case in point, as Bismark really didn't have the authority to direct the foreign policy of both Austria and Russia, his MPPs). Of corse, one might make a case for such things as NATO and such, but I really consider such groups to be CIVs all their own.

nato · February 10, 2002, 13:01

Heh, in Civ2 NATO was my custom civ to play as. The first city names were the member countries.

West unite!

Harovan · February 10, 2002, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironwood
Actually, good Sir Ralph, that happens because you stabbed them in the back in the past, not because you made an alliance.

What do you mean by "stabbing in the back"? Attack them? No.

I had game, where the Americans were in a long war with the Iroquois, and losing it slowly. I (Germans) had to secure an Iroquois coal deposit (my only own had just expired), landed a bunch of Cavalry and supporters and took an Iroquois city with 2 coals. Of course, the Iroquois didn't want to see me for a while. Meanwhile, the Americans asked me to join an alliance against the evil Iroquois. I agreed (foolishly) and continued to bomb the Iroquois with my ships. After a time, the Iroquois sued for peace, and I agreed. I had forgotten, that I still have an alliance with the Americans. Now, many turns later, the Americans were about to be wiped off. They had only 1 city left. I wanted to save them (just wondered if I can complete a game with all civs surviving) and offered them a MPP. I had a landing fleet nearby, what would have, no doubt, saved them in the last minute.

Abe refused, because "I had stabbed him in the back". He was wiped out 2 turns later. I had not a single war with America for the whole game. It must have been the alliance.

Ironikinit · February 10, 2002, 16:27

Quoting Willem:

Some people are just suckers for punishment I guess.

End quote.

Heh, I like you well, Willem, but not ignoring Ecomium puts you in the glutton for punishment category.

Ralph, I think what Ironwood is talking about with "stabbing in the back" is that making peace with the common enemy before your alliance (and, I suspect, an MPP) ends is a grave insult to your ally. The AI does it a lot, tho.

Willem · February 10, 2002, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Heh, I like you well, Willem, but not ignoring Ecomium puts you in the glutton for punishment category.

Well that situation has since been remedied. Besides, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I was hoping that he might actually say something meaningful eventually. I guess I was wrong.

Harovan · February 10, 2002, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Ralph, I think what Ironwood is talking about with "stabbing in the back" is that making peace with the common enemy before your alliance (and, I suspect, an MPP) ends is a grave insult to your ally. The AI does it a lot, tho.

Well, that was exactly what I said a few posts before his. I can't understand why he complained. I didn't write that you get in trouble, because you make an alliance, but because you break it.

Ironwood · February 11, 2002, 01:38

I just re-read your post, Ralph, and finally saw the word "another" in "another alliance." Sorry for the misunderstanding.

What I want to know, now, is what posesses the AI to declare a war, particularly when I just finished demonstrating my absolute military hegemony, and honorably so. In my current game, I am the Babylonians, on a small world, against the French, the Iroqois, the Japanese, the Americans, and the Persians. The way it started, the Americans and I were second and first, and then the Americans declared war on France. France asked for my aid, I agreed, and then enlisted the help of the other three. The Americans were wiped out, and the Japanese were the new #2.

Then the Japs declared war after I demanded they stop trespassing. I enlisted the help of the rest of the world, and France, Persia, and I eliminated the Japanese. I took a good amount of territory, and was even further ahead.

I can understand why the French declared the next war. They sneak-attacked us, and war was joined, once again. I suppose they thought that, with their communist government, they could cavalry-rush my democracy. Unfortunately for them, I'd just built a very large number of tanks (they hadn't been used in war, just yet). So I steamrolled the French out of the way (used a wartime footing to get a real momentum effect going) and after taking a good 3/4 of their empire, they finally begged for peace. They gave me two minor villages for it, too (they have only two left).

Now, here's what I don't get. Throughout the game, I had the Iroqois, the lowest man on the totem pole, in a MPP with me. I never had to come to their defense, though, because I was generally already at war with their nearest threat. But, a few turns before I signed a treaty with the French, they asked to terminate the agreement. I let them, since I pretty well had the game in hand, anyway. Two turns after I sign a treaty with the French (I still have a *massive* force of tanks and Mech Inf), the Iroqois sneak-attack me.

Admittedly, I did leave some rather juicy targets. The two coastal bases the French ceded to me for peace were poorly defended (only one Mech Inf in each, one of which was overrun by Iroqois cavalry), and there was another great city that, in the chaos, I'd accidentally leff undefended (a good size 12 or 13, which would've been larger if not for the nearby jungle). That was burned to the ground in that initial assault.

The stupidity of that assault is glaring, but I suppose it's understandable, given the temptation I left them. Fortunately, the fact that they sneak attacked me ensures I don't have to switch governments (fought the whole French war as a Democracy, though by the end I'd doubled my unhappiness through war-wearyness).

Soren Johnson · February 11, 2002, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
your experiences on how the AI "values" war and peace?

The AI's willingness to discuss peace terms depends on
a) how long the war has lasted
and
b) how much it is winning or losing the war.

In other words, the longer the war has lasted and the more battles/cities/whatever the AI has lost relative to you, the more willing it will be to go to the negotiating table.

As postulated somewhere in this thread, the length of time factor is there to prevent people from war-jacking the AI by continually declaring war and then agreeing to lop-sided peace agreements.

dac · February 11, 2002, 16:30

I agree that the AI pre-patch could easily be tricked into handing over way too much in order to achieve peace. However, currently, the behavior just becomes suicidal. I like to play as a Democracy, hence, I usually only want to fight a limited war for specific objectives. Having achieved those, I then start trying to talk to the AI. However, it rebuffs me. Now I'm stuck. I need to get out of this war, because war weariness, regardless of how happy I keep my people, will eventually collapse my Democracy. Before it does that, it plays havoc with my cities, due to my having to bend more and more of my effort into keeping people happy. So, rather than face a long war waiting for the AI to decide that enough time has gone by to declare peace, I go on a rampage, aiming to eliminate the AI as quickly as possible, which ends up making for a boring end game. In my current game, only me (the Persians) and the Germans are left. I've had to kill 3 civilizations because they wouldn't talk to me, and I couldn't handle the war weariness. Usually, I just want to grab a key city, or a luxury, or a resource. Not take out an entire civ.

Maybe they could just use the time factor to limit how much to offer for peace? If the war has been short, just offer peace, not the kitchen sink. Only offer the kitchen sink after you've really gotten your nose bloodied. If the human has only taken 1 out of 20 cities, offer him peace and 5 gold and leave it at that. If he's taken 12 out of 20 cities, maybe you need to be a bit more generous. If he took those 12 in one turn, well, you're kind of stuck there.

Harovan · February 12, 2002, 04:59

While understanding the need of the time factor, I agree with dac, the current state makes limited wars (as most of modern wars are!) impossible and decreases the "fun factor" of the game.

A possible solution would be, let the AI talk sooner but not give in to extortions by the human player. Let it rather demand a compensation for the lost cities/units etc. and decrease this demand slowly till the former time limit is reached. Most human players (especially in Democracies) won't mind to pay a compensation and games would certainly become more fun.

Ironwood · February 12, 2002, 12:26

That, good Sir Knight, sounds like a good idea. It would remove the exploit, but would also allow the idea of the limited war.

I am, however concerned about the realism factor. How often have nations been willing to give up territory lost in war for monetary compensation? Perhaps at times, through gritted teeth, but it almost guarentees renewed war in the future, so long as the defeated power acquires the ability to do so (and will do so, if permitted).

I think it should be tied to relative culture. If the player has high culture, the opponent low, the AI should be willing to accept compensaion for a factus accompli (grudgingly). If, however, the culture gap is considerably closer, if not higher on the computer's side, there's no way in hell they should accept such an agreement. After all, their people in the defeated territory are fighting too; why should they give up? Why should they bow to these barbarians?