I hope they get rid of the random DOW's

[Didz]

I sincerely hope that CA remove the random DOW routine in the next patch because its ruining the game for me.

I'm in a stupid situation now in my French Campaign where the Dutch declared war on Spain, my ally, and rather than break the alliance I declared war on the United Provinces. Fair enough, I know the Dutch want Flanders so it made sense and they immdeiately invaded Flanders and French Guyana, also logical.

But now, having managed narrowly to defeat their army in French Guyana, I find that before the end of the same turn Wurtemburg have declared war on me, and Poland together with all its allies. Wurtemburg, is just a suicide DOW (as it has no allies and was friendly prior to the end of turn, plus my main northern Army is in Lorraine), and Poland can't even reach me let alone do anything sensible. The problem is that in order to avoid these random events I have to replay the end-turn and refight the battle with the Dutch in South America, and quite honestly its just a damned pain.

So fingers crossed that CA finally get rid of this piece of useless lazy programming.

[Daveybaby]

Out of interest, how would you like the AI to play the game?

Do you want it to role-play each nation as though it were a real country? Or do you want it to emulate a real player as closely as possible and try to win the game? Or do you want it to try to provide the player with a challenge throughout the course of the game?

Because those three options tend to be mutually exclusive. Basically the AI behaviours will be very different based on what it's trying to do - and also on the way the human player decides to play the game (some people roleplay, some people rush, some people take their time and pick enemies off one by one).

I only ask, because you complain about this DOW thing an awful lot, but there isnt really a simple solution. The cause of the problem is a bit more complex than 'lazy programming' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

[AussieGiant]

Basically the only way some people are going to be happy is if they are able to read the "technical requriements" document that has been drafted and is used to code the system in this particular area of AI.

Without reading this, somethings, in fact many things, can seem strange and illogical.

It's a bit like the artillery situation. People started saying they weren't happy about this or that, then Lusted gave some insight and many issues died down based on a few pertinent comments.

In the end...random DOW's are probably going to stay in order to ensure replayability, and randomness reasons. The extent to which they are reduced will likely determine if the issue goes off the boards or not.

[Didz]

Out of interest, how would you like the AI to play the game?

Personally, I would want it to play each faction in the best interests of that faction.

So, basically it should assess the situation of whichever faction it is currently dealing with and make the best decisions it can for that faction to:

a) acheive that factions goals.
b) to keep that faction viable and in the game.

It should adhere to sound principles of statemanship and strategy. e.g.

- It should not go to war unless it is certain of victory.
- It should first seek to improve its position through diplomacy and trade.
- It should seek to undermine its enemies through diplomacy before military action.
- It should always demand what it wants through diplomacy before going to war.

Finally, it should assess the success of its strategies and respond logically to failure and reverses, seeking peace or allies to counter the impact of failure.

I only ask, because you complain about this DOW thing an awful lot, but there isnt really a simple solution. The cause of the problem is a bit more complex than 'lazy programming' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

I complain about it a lot because its the worst shortcoming of the game. Its effectively a game killer and it needs to be resolved urgently.

The reason it's just lazy programming, is that its nothing more than a random event, there is no logic behind it, its just a random number generated each turn and when the magic number comes up the 'screw the player' routine kicks in a chooses a faction completely at random to declares war on the player.

Other strategy games have shown there are better ways of doing this but CA, just couldn't be bothered to programme something that worked properly.

In the end...random DOW's are probably going to stay in order to ensure replayability, and randomness reasons. The extent to which they are reduced will likely determine if the issue goes off the boards or not.

Unfortunately, they are going to have the opposite effect. Strategy gamers want to be able to play strategically, and these random DOW's destroy the credability and playabalilty of the game.

Just read all the complaint's, and the number of campaigns that have been abandoned because of them. Not because the player could not win, but just because the situation had got so damned stupid that the player was no longer interested in continuing.

So, forget replayability, random DOW's are destroying the game and need to be replaced by a properly thought out and programmed AI to handle diplomacy. It should be that diplomacy engine that drive the action, not a mindless random number generator.

[Daveybaby]

Personally, I would want it to play each faction in the best interests of that faction.

Trouble is, as soon as the player (or another AI faction for that matter) starts to gain an advantage, it's in every other faction's best interest to gang up on them and take them down again. Certainly once the player gets to a size where theyre in danger of winning the game, all of the other factions should unite against them. Trouble is, people will criticise this for being unrealistic.

I complain about it a lot because its the worst shortcoming of the game. Its effectively a game killer and it needs to be resolved urgently.

Hmmm... i find the failure of the AI to actually act on these DOWs and turn them into any kind of threat to the player far more annoying. If the AI was actually capable of putting up a fight then i would agree that endless DOWs would start to become a problem.

So, forget replayability, random DOW's are destroying the game and need to be replaced by a properly thought out and programmed AI to handle diplomacy. It should be that diplomacy engine that drive the action, not a mindless random number generator.

Fair enough, maybe i've just been conditioned to not expect much from TW games on the diplomacy front, but i dont really mind too much as long as i get a challenging game.

I guess as the TW strategic game has become more complex over the years its started to head into Civ/Europa Universalis territory - but it still quite a way off having the economic and diplomatic depth of either of those games - the campaign map has always been first and foremost about an excuse for getting into fights. If CA want to steer the TW series into a full-on civ style game, theyre gonna have to completely change the entire focus of the game - it certainly wont be total war any more.

[Didz]

Trouble is, as soon as the player (or another AI faction for that matter) starts to gain an advantage, it's in every other faction's best interest to gang up on them and take them down again.

That would depend upon the goals of each individual faction surely. A more likely result would be that factions with a common interest would ally with each other, so there would be a logical division of the games factions into several power-bases.

Certainly once the player gets to a size where theyre in danger of winning the game, all of the other factions should unite against them.

Thats what happens now, regardless of how well the player is doing.

Hmmm... i find the failure of the AI to actually act on these DOWs and turn them into any kind of threat to the player far more annoying. If the AI was actually capable of putting up a fight then i would agree that endless DOWs would start to become a problem.

Well thats cause and effect kicking in.

The reason the AI can't act on these random DOW's is because they were nonesense in the first place.

In one game Poland (which was land-locked with no navy) declared war on New Spain (which it had probably never even heard of) and it was hardly surpising when it failed to act on its DOW.

Fair enough, maybe i've just been conditioned to not expect much from TW games on the diplomacy front, but i dont really mind too much as long as i get a challenging game.

Well I suppose it depends what you define as challenging. I don't consider it challenging to spend 200 turns swatting mindless lemmings.

I guess as the TW strategic game has become more complex over the years its started to head into Civ/Europa Universalis territory - but it still quite a way off having the economic and diplomatic depth of either of those games - the campaign map has always been first and foremost about an excuse for getting into fights. If CA want to steer the TW series into a full-on civ style game, theyre gonna have to completely change the entire focus of the game - it certainly wont be total war any more.

Then I think is about time they made the change, this is by far the worst effort so far and its only going to get worse if they try and push forward into even earlier historical periods. Its time to employ some people who know how to programme a proper AI I think.

The saddest thing about this whole mess is that it looks as though they started out planning to do it properly and then at some point just gave up. For example: There is a 'Friend-o-meter' system which it looks like someone put a lot of effort into, its not quite right but its almost there. Then of course there is the 'Present State Gift' option which was clearly intended to provide the player with some options to influence inter-faction relationships. These things might have been really useful if the AI actually took any notice of them, but at some point the whole concept got dropped in favour of a random number generator and a 'player hate' routine.

[MilesGregarius]

...this is by far the worst effort so far and its only going to get worse if they try and push forward into even earlier historical periods.

I'm not going to defend ETW, but the diplomacy is at least as good as, if not a little better than, M2TW. At least thus far, alliances seem to actually count for something. Ally with a faction in M2TW and your guaranteed to be backstabbed exactly fifty turns later, like clockwork.

And it's not as if there aren't random DoWs in M2TW. They're less irritating in M2TW because only the other major factions can DoW. If you replaced all the M2TW rebel factions with ETW-style minors, I have little doubt that you'd see the same BS.

Complain all you want about ETW, but the first six months of M2TW was as bad or worse. And I still have a full stack of Milanese just meandering around Zaragoza without doing anything but getting in the way.

[Yun Dog]

Id like to see CA provide a savegame with no Human player where one of the AI nations is actually going to win the game.

I dont believe the AI in ETW is actually capable of winning or completing a game - this is how it plays out - none of the AI nations actually looks like winning - they mearly are there to try and impede the human player.

In Civ4bts - the AI can and often does win defeating you and the other AI nations.

There appears to be inherent design flaws here (and has been since STW) basically the AI was never actually programmed to win/complete the game but to provide a challenge for the human to win against

prove me wrong

I dont think the ETW AI can win its own game with/without a human

and if this is the case... then the game will never provide a challenge for a human, because its not trying to compete its just trying to obstruct

how many years and they have not been able to get their heads around this fundamental concept


first make a game where the computer can complete the game and win its objectives, then add room for a person

what sort of a challenge can a AI put up that cant even win its own game where it sets the rules

[Sheogorath]

I would, personally, not mind the occasional random DoW from the larger nation. That's how things worked back in those days. Sometimes you just ran over and smacked your neighbor around because he looked at you funny.

It's the ones from the tiny one-province nations that get me. When Dageistan inevitably declares war on you as Russia or the Ottomans (no matter how good your relations, how much tribute you've sent them, etc.), it generally takes approximatly three turns at most for their armies to lay in ruins and for you to sack their capital.

One time, I took an experimental approach. I ran to Dagestian with a large force, thrashed their armies, sacked everything but did NOT take the capital. The AI refused peace even on FAVORABLE TERMS FOR DAGESITAN. I recall that I offered them a nice chunk of money, a few techs and even, at one point, Georgia. No dice.

The first and foremost goal in the campaign AI department should be the elimination of 'berserker states'. Countries that will pretty much automatically declare war on you no matter what, and will never, ever, make a lasting peace.

As I said, the occasional random DoW between two states of equivalent power is fine. Good, in fact. It keeps gameplay interesting, since, after all, it shouldn't JUST be the player going around attacking people.

Of course, I'm speaking from the Patch 2 standpoint. If something changed in patch 3 I'm sure people will be sure to correct me :P

[Prodigal]

I've not had the opportunity to play as much as I would like since the patch, however as Prussia I was pleased to see that Poland who would simply not ally with me did so as soon as Austria started invading them. Poland gave me military access to get an army to support the town under attack.

All of that is good imo, too late though, the full alliance options do not seem to kick in until the next turn, so Austria took the city without my being able to help. This led to Poland cancelling our trade agreement. I guess due to the loss of the city reducing their trade routes.

Now why on earth was I desperate to ally with Poland? Simply to see if it would make Courland behave like the peon village it is, rather than a rambo packed super power with deployed intercontinental nukes.

Still allied with Poland so we shall see what happens.

I'm not too freaked about small regions declaring war, but I am very interested in seeing if factions will stop being at war with one another, & ally against other threats.

This is very important, historically during this period factions were fighting, then promptly allying against the next perceived big threat. Historically doesn't hold much water which is fine, its a game, but lets face it if the AI did follow this pattern it would make the game vastly more enjoyable.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Id like to see CA provide a savegame with no Human player where one of the AI nations is actually going to win the game.

I dont believe the AI in ETW is actually capable of winning or completing a game - this is how it plays out - none of the AI nations actually looks like winning - they mearly are there to try and impede the human player.

In Civ4bts - the AI can and often does win defeating you and the other AI nations.

There appears to be inherent design flaws here (and has been since STW) basically the AI was never actually programmed to win/complete the game but to provide a challenge for the human to win against

prove me wrong

I dont think the ETW AI can win its own game with/without a human

and if this is the case... then the game will never provide a challenge for a human, because its not trying to compete its just trying to obstruct

how many years and they have not been able to get their heads around this fundamental concept


first make a game where the computer can complete the game and win its objectives, then add room for a person

what sort of a challenge can a AI put up that cant even win its own game where it sets the rules

Actually, what a lot of these TW games start to feel like is one of those really predictable novels. You start off weak or wimpy, but you know, that somewhere down the line you are going to win. On the way there are certain "challenges" which you will have to endure on your way to greatness. And frankly, it gets kind of boring after a while. That's the great thing about Civ 4 is, as you say, you don't really gonna know what's gonna happen. Going into a game, you usually have no idea if you're gonna win. You could be the most powerful nation in the game, and still lose to a cheesy cultural win, or AP/UN win. It's frustrating, but it's what keeps people coming back and playing the same games over and over and over again.

[Didz]

I'm not going to defend ETW, but the diplomacy is at least as good as, if not a little better than, M2TW. At least thus far, alliances seem to actually count for something.

I don't recall 'random DOW's' being a problem in previous TW titles, and certainly in MTW2 the 'Pope-O-Meter' worked and did what it said on the packet.

Perhaps the real problem is trying to export a medieval diplomacy system into the 18th Century, but whatever it is, its killing the game for me. I'm fed up with being railroaded into an early recreation of World War I by a random number generator, and the constant roll-backs to avoid it ruin the immersive aspects of the game. I had to refight the same battle three times last night just to avoid Poland declaring war of France, even though Poland was nowhere near France and friendly at the time.

I think Lord Yunson makes a very good point, I too would like to see an AI faction win the game. It used to come close in some of the earlier titles, but I've not seen anything close to it in ETW. It seems to concentrate on 'player hate' activities instead and certainly pre-patch it didn't even understand the concept of trade.

[Yun Dog]

Actually, what a lot of these TW games start to feel like is one of those really predictable novels. You start off weak or wimpy, but you know, that somewhere down the line you are going to win. On the way there are certain "challenges" which you will have to endure on your way to greatness. And frankly, it gets kind of boring after a while. That's the great thing about Civ 4 is, as you say, you don't really gonna know what's gonna happen. Going into a game, you usually have no idea if you're gonna win. You could be the most powerful nation in the game, and still lose to a cheesy cultural win, or AP/UN win. It's frustrating, but it's what keeps people coming back and playing the same games over and over and over again.

Exactly

to put it more eloquently than my first post

ETW is centred around the player losing - not the AI winning

[johnhughthom]

Now why on earth was I desperate to ally with Poland? Simply to see if it would make Courland behave like the peon village it is, rather than a rambo packed super power with deployed intercontinental nukes.

Tried the same thing, for the same reason. First of all Saxony attacked me, and Poland sided with them. So I destroyed Saxony and allied with Poland again. A few turns later and Courland DOWed me and Poland have sided with them. I was looking at this patch as a last chance for ETW (and ever buying a CA game again) , not looking good so far.

[Krusader]

I seem to recall random DoWs in M2TW too, albeit much more in M2TW.

M2TW AI though was programmed to attack the human player if the player was at peace. Which meant that the reputation system wasn't good for anything as your nearby friendly nation or even ally would declare war on you because of AI programming. Case in point was me having a very good reputation with Milan, who despite being at war with four other nations still sent 2 half-stacks to take Zaragoza from me and having friendly relations.

[Luddite]

ETW is supposed to be a strategy game. If you can't influence reliably the diplomatic relations then you lose alot of the aspects that make it a strategic game, the strat map simply becomes an environment for resource collection and unit production.

Trade nations especially need to be able to rely on logical AI in order to manage their economy, unlike previous titles a state of splendid isolation can really impact these factions financially.

I am not saying that the AI should be leashed, there are plenty of options for factions to create rivalry through expansion and clashes with friendly partners, but make these transparnet so that the player can respond to them enhancing the game depth.

[Didz]

I seem to recall random DoWs in M2TW too, albeit much more in M2TW.

That may have been true, in fact it probably was, but in MTW2 it wasn't a problem because the diplomatic system worked.

The 'Pope-o-meter' actually responded logically to the actions of the player. If you did something to upset the Pope it dropped, if you gave him a gift it rose. And because the Pope dictated whether a faction was in favour or excommunicated he policed the 'Random DOW's' forcing catholic factions to back-off and leave you alone or get ex-commed, and as getting ex-commed effectively meant everyone jumped on you most AI factions played by the rules. The few that didn't didn't last long.

Unfortunately, ETW doesn't have a similar mechanism and the 'Friend-O-Meter' is just a waste of space thanks to the 'Random DOW' events.

[Husar]

I just started a campaign with Spain on hard campaign and Normal battle difficulty and it's a bit weird, it's now winter 1701 and Morocco, Westphalia, Genua and the Italian states have all declared war on me, weirdest was Morocco since it was turn one and they are considerably weaker than me from the start...
What the game tries is to constantly keep you in war mode, I obviously don't like that because it means my own diplomacy has absolutely no impact, it's freaking useless as has been said, the AI doesn't seem to "think" any more about declaring war in 1.3 than it did in 1.2, this is the single big gripe I have left, the strategic AI and how it goes to war, not only are the declarations stupid but they often also lack an army to enforce anything or just sit around anyway afterwards.

I must say that takes a lot of the immersion out of the game, compared to knights of honour or Europa universalis, the diplomacy here is pretty much a joke.

[al Roumi]

I think this issue needs to be broken down a bit more than just writing off the whole diplomacy mechanism. Some DoWs are acceptable, and some aren't -for a variety of reasons.

The DoWs that are "unsatisfactory" are those (please correct me or ammend this list) which:
1. Go against the run of relations, e.g. when a "friendly" ally or trade partner reneges on your agreements and drops a DoW
2. An overstretched or ill-prepared faction DoWs -examplified by a complete lack of aggresive military action following the declaration.
3. When being a solitary belligerant against the player (or another faction), is not a sound option for the longevity of the given faction -i.e. they are outclassed.
4. Inter-AI, apparently random DoWs, between factions accross the map, with no contiguous territory or conflicting trade interests (e.g. Poland and Malta...).

So what "should" be happening in these instances?
1. It's fine for a faction to backstab you, but not so for them to do so when Friendly or Very Friendly. It would be more understandable for the player to see their changing attitude, concern or other, expressed in relations shifting towards at least "indifferent" before DoWing, with an increasing factor (e.g. territorial expansion) determining the change.
2. Factions already at war should not make DoWs that they cannot act upon. e.g. If the UP are at war with France and Spain, what is the point in them DoWing on Prussia?
3. Small or impotent factions, should seek the protection of others -small or large, against their greatest threat. Then, as a credible block, stick together and stand for their mutual interest and survival.
4. As I'm sure has been coded into the diplomacy mechanism already, Economic and strategic greed and concerns should drive the policy of AI factions. Quite how these sorts of events happens is a mystery -unless they are symptoms of a minor grievance overlayed on a "indifference" between the AIs -i.e that there is so little going on between the 2 factions to influence their dealings that for whatever reason, it seems reasonable for them to DoW. Perhaps this relates to point 2, but with the added requirement for Factions to have the means or possibility to commit troops against each other.

[Didz]

I think this issue needs to be broken down a bit more than just writing off the whole diplomacy mechanism. Some DoWs are acceptable, and some aren't -for a variety of reasons.

The problem is that knowing that all DOW's are random, discredits those that make sense. After all the ones that actually make sense e.g. The Dutch declaring war on Spain and invading Flanders, are probably just lucky dice rolls.

As for your list of 'unsatisfactory DOW's', I think its reasonably solid, but personally I would prefer to look at it from the other angle.

For me its not a case of saying 'The AI should not declare war under these circumstances', its more a case of looking at when the AI ought to consider a declaration of war.

So, from that angle I would argue that an AI faction should only declare war when:

1) It has a clear goal that it must achieve.
2) It has exhausted every other avenue of diplomacy in an attempt to achieve that goal.
[As you say I would expect diplomatic relations to get steadily worse over this period, as the AI has its requests ignored.]
3) It has assessed its ability to secure its goal and knows it can win.
[e.g. If the UP are at war with France, can they really start a war Prussia and still hope to prevail?]
4) It has prepared and is ready to execute its strategy, where necessary allying with factions that have similar or complimentary goals.

Thus as a player I should see a clear logic to what the AI is trying to achieve, and I should have had the option to satisfy the AI's goals without forcing it to go to war.

Likewise, on a turn by turn basis an AI faction at war should re-evaluate its goals and strategy and conduct a 'How Goes The War?' assessment. If the result is that things are going tits-up,(e.g. it has suffered a major reverse, or its opponent has increased its strength through recruitment or alliances, and it calculates that its goal is no longer viable. Then the AI should sue for an honourable peace, not fight to the last onion seller.

[Husar]

Pretty much that.

Now I'm in 1710 in my game and my starting ally france just declared war on me. Why? I got no clue, relations were really good, I stayed with them when UP and the UK declared war on them which was just one or two turns ago. Now they declared war on me for no good reason, this is what really annoys me about the strategic AI, there's absolutely no point in anything, might just as well declare war to every faction right from the start since that's what most campaigns will inevitably result in anyway.

This needs a fix and I hope it will come soon, 1.3 obviously didn't do anything about it, despite the changelog saying so.
This DoW by France just sort of killed this campaign for me, it's no fun like that...

[Zenicetus]

Actually, what a lot of these TW games start to feel like is one of those really predictable novels. You start off weak or wimpy, but you know, that somewhere down the line you are going to win. On the way there are certain "challenges" which you will have to endure on your way to greatness. And frankly, it gets kind of boring after a while. That's the great thing about Civ 4 is, as you say, you don't really gonna know what's gonna happen. Going into a game, you usually have no idea if you're gonna win. You could be the most powerful nation in the game, and still lose to a cheesy cultural win, or AP/UN win. It's frustrating, but it's what keeps people coming back and playing the same games over and over and over again.

Yeah, GalCiv2 is like that too. You can lose to the AI, and in several different ways. However, there are some structural differences between these games. In GalCiv2 your espionage will eventually tell you which of the several available win conditions a rival is shooting for. You you have charts that show the progress of each faction. By mid-game on most maps, you've got up-to-date info on what's going on (fog of war removed) through trade runs, station placement, and military movements. Your ships are fast, and even though some maps can be very large, there are no geographic barriers to movement, and no need to negotiate right of passage. You can respond and do something, if you have to, when another faction gets close to a win.

With the Total War series, you just don't have that much information on what other factions are doing. Even if you could cover the world with agents to remove the fog of war, the movement speed is too slow to act quickly and send an army halfway across the globe to block your closest rival faction. That's especially true with the scale of Empire... it was easier to see who was the strongest neighbor and the biggest threat in a smaller scale game like RTW. Aside from generally poor AI programming, I think that's one reason why the game isn't set up to have the AI "beat" the player. It would be frustrating in a short campaign, for example, to be a few turns away from your 15 provinces and suddenly hear that a faction halfway across the globe had won the game. In GalCiv2, I would know why that happened and what I could do better next time. Not so much in Empire.

So what we have in TW is a sort of local challenge system; can you dominate part of the world and reach a certain size empire within a certain time frame. You're not required to worry too much about what the other factions are doing, except insofar as they're an obstacle to your immediate expansion plans.

BTW, I'm not saying the AI does especially well, within these limits. Like most players, I want diplomacy to make sense. DOW's should be logical, at least most of them. There should always be room for the occasional mad monarch with delusions of grandeur, but not all factions should act like that. They should only come from factions with a strong enough economy and military to support warfare, and they should never feel random. Just ramping up the hostility towards the player when the player starts to do well in the game, is a poor excuse for real strategic "thinking" by the campaign AI.

[al Roumi]

Good point(s) Didz, the focus on assessing the chances of achieving goals based on resources and strategic landscape is key.

Quite how that could be coded -or how far the current code goes to emulating it already, remains to be seen however. :(

That said, I guess the quick and dirty way of "cleaning up" diplomacy (in the sense of removing spurious DoWs) would be to do away with the campaign AI. Quite why it was implemented is not clear to me, maybe only due to its current short-commings. It's only contribution to the game that I am currently aware of is just this, the implausible DoWs. The rest of the game would make more sense if it were to run with faction centric priorities.

[Owen Glyndwr]

In Civ4, you can get a very good idea of what a nation is doing without needing espionage. That game has a victory conditions screen which will tell you when a nation is closing in on culture or space race victories.


Backstabs also occur in Civ4. In fact some of the personalities are notorious for being backstabbers, such as Alexander, Catherine, or Shaka. However there is also a system in place where certain nations will not declare if they are at pleased relations with you, meaning that once you get that nation to pleased you no longer have to fear an attack from them.

Also in Civ4 AIs DO make a build up for war before the DoW, and you can tell when this is ghoing to happen. On the trade screen in-game, if you ask the nation preparing for war to declare war on someone else, and it is redded out saying "We Have Enough On Our Hands Right Now", then you know that the nation is preparing for war, and the DoW will come in somewhere down the road.

One thing that I find really cool in Civ4 is that if you play the diplomacy part of the game very well, you can progress through a whole game very well. By pitting nations against one another, and keeping buffer states between the danger nations, you will never get that DoW (For in Civ4, a nation won't declare war on you if it can't get to you, unless they are bribed to by someone else.)

I'm not saying that the TW series should make it so you never have to fight a war, I love the pretty battle scenes as much as the next guy, but I still think the guys at CA could stand to learn a thing or two from firaxis. What I want to see is a game where the wars actually have a meaning, and you can clearly see what they are after. Whether it may be to block your expansion, to inhibit your economy, to take a piece of land they are after, and consider to be "theirs", and then of course, once they have acheived the means of the game, or you have caved to the pressure, they will negotiate peace, and, more likely than not, some sort of reparations payment for it. Similar things should happen when the player DoWs on the enemy.

***

Although, as I said, I believe a lot of that stuff above occurs in Civ4 simply because warring itself in Civ4 is ruinous to an economy. I recently played a game where my GNP sank tenfold during a war because I wrecked my cities to finish a war. And, a prolonge war in Civ 4 can spell disaster to a weak civ for decades or even centuries to come. Because of this, wars are not declared lightly in-game, and when they do, both the player and the AI (with exception to some select Civs, such as Shaka and Montezuma) have a clear plan, and are usually willing to accept peace, and whatever they can get for it, as soon as they have what they want.

[Yun Dog]

Last night I saw the first DoW that made sense. In my vh/vh game as prussia I had easily taken moscow and kiev (both of which were undefended and they had Dow on me) anyway since the patch, Russia comes to me with an offer - Techs, money etc etc for Moscow - I 'tell im Hes' dreamin' then he Dows me.

Credit where credits due

He wanted moscow - I refused - war

this makes sense

now we see if he has an army to back up his threat

[Didz]

Yep! that made sense. My French games gone very quiet after the patch, I've only had one DOW from Austria which actually couldn't get to me anyway so I reloaded and it went away, but apart from that its been peaceful.

The really strange thing is that even the pirates have gone quiet, both the Barbary one and those in the Caribean.

[FactionHeir]

The problem is that the people who now work at CA seem to have the opinion that the game is all about ruining play for the human player. Just going through the recent patch notes confirms that AI is supposed to be there to hinder the human, not actually try to win the game or achieve anything.

Similarly, run the game, end your turn 5 times and you'll be at war with just about anyone who is not your ally and borders you. Never happens to the AI factions, just to the human player.

It makes the game utterly pointless IMO and CA have gone off the deep end this game. In previous games like MTW, the AI actually could and would win. Ever since, its been going downhill.

Its also interesting that CA never seems to reply coherently on these issues either, and that's rather disappointing.

[Husar]

I reloaded my spanish campaign, broke the alliance with france and that haven't attacked me for many years now, morocco attacked me again and was easily crushed though but everybody else has been rather quiet, some of them I appeased by giving them some of my european starting provinces which I was too lazy to babysit as they're isolated anyway.
I must say though, what surprised me is that some AI factions actually do go on a conquering spree now and become really powerful, Austria, Sweden and Prussia have all expanded quite a bit, now Prussia is expanding into Austrian territory which goes all the way down to Constantinople or whatever it's called in the game.
The bad side of this is that they are all engaged in neverending wars, I haven't seen a single peace treaty signed between AI factions and as I said earlier, at some point everybody will be at war with everybody else...
I'm still surprised my neighbor France hasn't declared war on me again, I wish they had kept the peace while we were still allied before I reloaded an old game.
Now if the expanding factions won't always be the same ones and the diplomacy gets fixed to be reasonable and AI factions make peace with one another, I will be kinda happy in the campaign map departement but diplomacy is still a big issue as the AI either refuses everything or wants loads of presents even if it's almost crushed and doesn't make peace with other AI factions either.
And then the random declarations of war, even from your close allies, they need to go, never to return, that would improve the game a lot as far as I'm concerned.

[Zarky]

All I would want is reasonable diplomacy... Poland-Lithuania won't accept peace unless I return everything, and because I'm not going to do that they stay at war with me, sure I could take over their territories but I hate fighting Russia, too damn wide border and too much resistance to foreiqn occupation.
Why can't AI accept it has lost when half of its provinces are mine, all allies destroyed and literally no army left... I have to put groups of at least 2 line infantry to every farm and factory to avoid raiding by single units, which really costs money that could be better spent.

[A Very Super Market]

Refusal to submit under great pressure isn't that hard to believe (Just look at the Great Northern War) but it shouldn't apply to every single faction.