Roman AI..too agressive

[lancelot]

Does anyone else get this? within 10 turns or so, the senate and often the other romans have declared war on virtually everybody.

And then every other faction seems to get the bug and go nuts, declaring war on everybody. Is this normal?

And I often find the AI will often agree to trade rights only to attack the next turn.

I was hoping the diplomacy would be an improvement over MTW but it seems any agreement is as worthless in RTW as it was in MTW.

Me no like!

[Odysseus]

In my game, they are more epaceful then Ghandi.

[Orda Khan]

And I often find the AI will often agree to trade rights only to attack the next turn.

I was hoping the diplomacy would be an improvement over MTW but it seems any agreement is as worthless in RTW as it was in MTW.

Me no like!

Yes, it's utter garbage. I have already shelved the game and I can honestly say I was very disappointed with stupid diplomacy. I simply got fed up with weak factions declaring war on me....so unrealistic. This was the reason I never really took to SP in either STW or MTW, such a pity to find all that changed in RTW was a pretty campaign map. Unfortunately RTW offers even less on MP. All in all, I think I wasted quite a bit of money

......Orda

[GFX707]

Yup, doesn't matter if they are half as strong as you and your ally....sooner or later they all declare war in turn and then won't accept peace no matter what you offer....it's one aspect of the game that's really disappointing.

[Bhruic]

Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.

The diplomacy in this game works extremely well, and is quite versatile, as long as you understand the underlying premise - the other factions aren't going to trust you, and they are going to want to expand. I've made numerous long-term (50+ turns) alliances, signed numerous ceasefires, and made quite effective use of diplomacy.

A "for example": I was playing Carthage, and was taking over Sicily. I attacked the Scipii first, and took their city. This weakened me, so the Greeks declared war and attacked. I managed to fight them off, and take their city. After that, I didn't pursue the war with them, as the rest of the cities were too far away. About 10 turns later, I got a ceasefire with them. Why? Because they didn't have any cities near me, and I didn't have any cities near them. They knew that I wasn't in a position to attack them, and they realized that being at war was foolish, as they weren't in a position to attack me either. So ceasefire and trade agreement, and we were at peace for the rest of the game.

Second "for example": Same game as Carthage. Everyone claims that the Numidians will attack. However, I notice they are at war with Spain. I go to war with Spain. I make an alliance with Numidia. They drag me into a war with Egypt (I was supporting their ship), I drag them into a war with Gaul (again, ship support). Net result? We are both at war with the same 3 factions. Despite being neighbours, we have a solid alliance that lasts the entire game.

What's the point of these examples? They show that, just like in real life, if you want something, you have to give something. Making an alliance with another faction where you have no common interests or enemies is not going to make for a lasting alliance. If you are neighbours, they will attack you. However, collaberate on a war against a mutual third party, and the alliance will stand. The same goes for ceasefires, if your armies are all stationed near their cities, and your territory surrounds theirs, they aren't going to want to make a ceasefire with you. It just wouldn't make sense for them to do so.

Bh

[GFX707]

Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

How about NOT commiting suicide by DECLARING WAR on a country that is 50 times stronger than them?

And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

No, perhaps because they stupidly declared war on you and should realise that otherwise they'll just get crushed.

I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.

Then you are an imbecile.

The diplomacy in this game works extremely well

That's the best joke I have heard all week.

and is quite versatile, as long as you understand the underlying premise - the other factions aren't going to trust you, and they are going to want to expand. I've made numerous long-term (50+ turns) alliances, signed numerous ceasefires, and made quite effective use of diplomacy.

If the AI shares a border with you they will declare war whether you are their ally or not. It's always the same. Then everyone else who shares a border with you will declare war too. It doesn't matter if they are 1/100th your size, they will still do it.

A "for example": I was playing Carthage, and was taking over Sicily. I attacked the Scipii first, and took their city. This weakened me, so the Greeks declared war and attacked. I managed to fight them off, and take their city. After that, I didn't pursue the war with them, as the rest of the cities were too far away. About 10 turns later, I got a ceasefire with them. Why? Because they didn't have any cities near me, and I didn't have any cities near them. They knew that I wasn't in a position to attack them, and they realized that being at war was foolish, as they weren't in a position to attack me either. So ceasefire and trade agreement, and we were at peace for the rest of the game.

Try the same thing with an AI faction that borders you and stupidly declares war.

What's the point of these examples? They show that, just like in real life, if you want something, you have to give something. Making an alliance with another faction where you have no common interests or enemies is not going to make for a lasting alliance. If you are neighbours, they will attack you. However, collaberate on a war against a mutual third party, and the alliance will stand. The same goes for ceasefires, if your armies are all stationed near their cities, and your territory surrounds theirs, they aren't going to want to make a ceasefire with you. It just wouldn't make sense for them to do so.

Bh

Not true. I was allied with Egypt who I joined because they were at war with everyone I was at war with, and scythia too because so were they. About 10 years later while STILL sharing common enemies and allies they decided to just declare war on me as soon as we shared a border. Play the game more, and stop assuming

[Tzar Kaloyan]

Excellent points Bhruic! I can confirm your examples by own experience playing Spain -- after taking the Carthagenian city on the peninsula, they signed a ceasefire. On the other hand, Gauls never signed an alliance with me and soon after I took the Carthagenian city, they attacked me.

The only sore point for me are the Romans. They don't have any cities on the Iberian peninsula, but yet continue to disembark near Orsa. Unfortunately for them, there is an 8-star, +5 Attack, +5 Command general waiting for them there. You would think that after losing dozens of thousands of men and after buying many maps from me, they will decide to invade a less guarded city or take ceasefire, regroup and come in force. Instead, they keep sending stacks of 400 or so men, that get slaughtered by my 700+ elite force in the area. That I call unrealistic and utterly unlike the Romans in real life.

One final point: I wish the AI will handle bribes better. From my many hours of playing this game, I have seen the AI bribe an army of mine only once! And I always play on vhard/vhard. I have also noticed that the AI will NOT remove rebels from its path -- it is riduculous seeing a 4-unit rebel army block the passage to Orsa, forcing a 20-stack Gaul army to go all the way around! And the Gauls have 2 diplomats sitting right there!

Compared to prior TW games, this AI is definitely improved. Is it perfect? No, but that's why there will be more TW series!!!

[Colovion]

I've yet to be impressed with the AI diplomacy - Rome is always your enemy and I seem to always attract everyone as my enemy. Now this would make sense if the computer teamed up against me but the only factions that do that are the Roman ones. Everyone else seems fine to declare war and keep warring with you until they're dead. It would deffinately make sense if everyone around you sees you getting strong and declare war - but it makes a lot less sense when they never admit defeat. I mean I want to Ceasefire and Trade with them - you'd think a losing side of a war would be all for this.

It's a 3D Diplomacy model with a 2D AI reacting to your demands/offers.

[Slaists]

Well, historically, Rome was everyone's enemy in those times... So, the game is kind of historically correct in that sense...

[Bhruic]

How about NOT commiting suicide by DECLARING WAR on a country that is 50 times stronger than them?

To what point? They might as well just surrender and give up. Maybe you'd be entertained by a game where all the small countries just spontaneously surrendered, but I doubt most people would be.

No, perhaps because they stupidly declared war on you and should realise that otherwise they'll just get crushed.

And they aren't going to get crushed if they do give up? "Oh, wait, they agreed to a ceasefire, I can never attack them again!" Get real.

Then you are an imbecile.

Ah, yes. Funny how in your other thread you're getting your panties in a twist because people accused you of being insulting. No, you're oh-so-obviously never insulting.

That's the best joke I have heard all week.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

If the AI shares a border with you they will declare war whether you are their ally or not. It's always the same. Then everyone else who shares a border with you will declare war too. It doesn't matter if they are 1/100th your size, they will still do it.

Uh, yeah, thanks for completely missing my example. You know, the one where I was Carthage, and allied with the Numidians (who share multiple borders) and they never attacked. Or my current game where I'm the Armenians, and am allied with the Seleucid, who have not attacked me after more than 50 years of play.

What you don't seem to "get" is that just because it happens in your game doesn't mean it has to happen. Learn how diplomacy works, and you can make use of it. Continue to whine about how it's broken (when it's not), and you'll get nowhere.

Try the same thing with an AI faction that borders you and stupidly declares war.

Of course it's not going to work. They want to expand, you're a neighbour, they will try and take your provinces. That is the point of the game. But even still, if another faction declares war on them, and I go to war with that faction, I'm sure I could get a ceasefire. Common enemy.

Not true. I was allied with Egypt who I joined because they were at war with everyone I was at war with, and scythia too because so were they. About 10 years later while STILL sharing common enemies and allies they decided to just declare war on me as soon as we shared a border. Play the game more, and stop assuming

Just having mutual enemies isn't a guaruntee they won't attack. It's a huge motivator. If the faction feels strong enough to fight multiple enemies, then yes, they may go to war with you. In the same way as when I'm the strongest faction in the game, I'm going to go to war with multiple enemies because I can support it. Again, they want to win. They can't win if you do. So they have a built in motivation to want to attack. You have to give them a good enough reason to not do so, or they will.

And considering that it's me who has been successful at keeping alliances, and it's you that hasn't, perhaps you should look into who it is between us that is assuming things.

Bh

[Akka]

Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.

No offense, but that's one of the most stupid posts I've read on this board.

What you describe is good for Risk. It's good for non-immersive, shallow, unidimensionnal games that would, in fact, deserve the "Total Boredom" title, yes.
But then, I expect a bit more of such a game, a game which bathe in culture, history, details, descriptions... All in all, a game that is built for immersion, for you to take the place of a ruling family, to change history and carve your own empire, and which bother to have a very developped diplomatic system.

In one word, a game a bit more fleshed-out, deep, and IMMERSIVE than one-dimensionnal binary system the like you praise.
I am the player. I know I'm in a game, and I can react as if I'm playing a game. But to have the AI acting like it, like if they were playing a game, is NOT good.
I'm not interested in playing against "player B, using the faction named 'Greek Cities' ", which will think "oh crap, he's got advance on me. I'm no more strong enough to win the game now, so at least let's annoy him to busy until the game is over".
I'm interested to play against Minaxetes the Greek, heir of a millenia-old civilization that is on the sunset of its grandeur, and that attempt to rule an actual COUNTRY who he's the king. Someone who has his dreams of reviving the legendary empire of Alexander, and bringing again enlightment to the world with cultural advances, but who HAS a lot to lose at stake.
Someone who has his COUNTRY at stake, his position of leader, the future of his family and his people.
Not someone who see "oh crap, I've only three provinces left, bah this game isn't worth playing anymore, I can't win". Or some binary AI who compute "human player strong, so me need to attack else human will win".

It's awful for realism and immersion to have AI reacts like players. They should react like kings. After all, they are supposed to be kings in the game, right ? I mean, the point of having troops fleeing, is that they are emulating how soldiers would react under a lot of stress. The very POINT of the game is to simulate the situation it presents. And it's totally STUPID for a king to refuse a ceasefire when he lose a war and his kingdom is on the verge of extinction.

Additionnally, there is more than one hundred provinces. I can perfectly make peace with someone, and NOT ATTACK HIM EVER AGAIN. I can grab all the necessary provinces required to win from others. So even in game terms, it still makes more sense to recognize a defeat than to continue.
And even, accepting to be a protectorate make his territories count for me in the count for victory, so I have even less reasons to attack him if he accepts to become a protectorate.

[GFX707]

At that point I was FAR stronger than Egypt. It just doesn't make sense for them to declare war when they know they will get beaten.

[Bhruic]

No offense, but that's one of the most stupid posts I've read on this board.

No offense taken, because I find your response to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

I mean, your main point seems to be "The AI shouldn't actually play the game, only I should". Maybe you find the idea of a hopelessly incompetent AI entertaining. I certainly don't. I want an AI that is designed to provide for a challenging game. I want an AI that is actively trying to beat me. How you can possibly manage to try and twist "immersion" into meaning the AI players should be idiots, I can't comprehend.

As for the whole "there are 100+ provinces" concept... Do you really think that has an bearing at all? If you've spent the past X turns conquering a factions cities, and they are down to a few left, is there any reason for them to think that you wouldn't want to conquer them? I mean, if you truly don't want to, you'd go for protectorate status.

Sure, in terms of realism, in that situation, it would make sense to make a ceasefire. Because you've actually got to worry about your people and their future. But this is a game. There is no future. Putting that into the game when the player isn't going to play that way would be stupid.

Bh

[Ktonos]

Well I am sure that if someone did a poll with "Does Diplomacy needs to get more realistic"....well...I am sure of what the results would be.

[Bhruic]

Well I am sure that if someone did a poll with "Does Diplomacy needs to get more realistic"....well...I am sure of what the results would be.

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?

Bh

[Sethik]

I've noticed that the only time I get attacked by allies is when I share a border with them AND the city has a very weak garrison. If you're keeping a couple peasents and town watch next an enemy stack of 12 units then you're begging for it. Put yourself in their shoes. If you see a chance for a quick grab at territory and the possiblity of inflicting major damage before the enemy can regroup troops to fight then why not take the chance?

I think that if you war for a certain country for so long, the AI develops a great hate for you and would rather fight to the death then sue for peace. I remember sacking tons of Macedonian cities and them refusing to sign a ceasefire after a couple cities. This is also the case if you broke your agreements with them or other factions in the past.

Although there are cases where they are just retarded.

[Ktonos]

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?



Well, eventhough Akka has already answered your question, I will add that a Civ-like AI behaviour would be realistic.

[Akka]

No offense taken, because I find your response to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

I mean, your main point seems to be "The AI shouldn't actually play the game, only I should". Maybe you find the idea of a hopelessly incompetent AI entertaining. I certainly don't. I want an AI that is designed to provide for a challenging game. I want an AI that is actively trying to beat me. How you can possibly manage to try and twist "immersion" into meaning the AI players should be idiots, I can't comprehend.

Whose king is the idiot ?
- The one who save his country, his throne, his family and his soldiers by making peace.
- The one makes his kingdom disappears, his family lose all power, his soldiers die and his people be conquered, by stubbornly refusing to accept the ceasefire proposed, reasoning that the faction he's at war will come back in fifty years to finish him off, because it's the rules of the game ?

And YOU are the one saying I twist a principle into meaning AI players should be idiots

As for the whole "there are 100+ provinces" concept... Do you really think that has an bearing at all? If you've spent the past X turns conquering a factions cities, and they are down to a few left, is there any reason for them to think that you wouldn't want to conquer them?

I may be wrong, but the very point of proposing a ceasefire, is to end a war.
So if I'm proposing a ceasefire to the AI, they should reject it because they consider that I've no good reason to end the war, and as such my peace proposition is inacceptable ?

I mean, if you truly don't want to, you'd go for protectorate status.

Well, they refuse as much to be a protectorate as peace.

Additionnally, why should a war necessarily ends with the complete conquest or the reduction to protectorate status to one belligerant ? Is it how you see the game ?
My, how shallow.

Sure, in terms of realism, in that situation, it would make sense to make a ceasefire. Because you've actually got to worry about your people and their future. But this is a game. There is no future. Putting that into the game when the player isn't going to play that way would be stupid.

Well, that's a reasoning good for Risk and one-dimensional players. You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games. In fact, you don't even need diplomacy in such games, as diplomacy is something that existed BECAUSE our lives aren't a game.
But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options. So dumbing them down back to the Risk level, is a waste and is what is actually stupid.

All in all, your reasoning is "what is realistic is stupid, because it's not reality, it's a game". Well, that's your loss, but there is plenty of people that actually see that the point of having an immersive game full of such historical, cultural and realistic detail, is precisely to make use of them and to try to emulate the situation the game itself pretends to be in.
There is no point in pretending you're impersonnating the ruling family of an historical empire, with a bountiful of realistic descriptions and details and mechanism, if it's to throw all this out of the windows and go back to a Pacman-like reflexion-level.

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?

All these players that see the point of having these features in the game.
And all those who have more immersion abilities than an amoeba, and are able to simulate like if they "were there".
Which means, quite a lot in fact.

[metatron]

Agression was a martial mindset prised in the days of the Republic. When Augustus took control, there was some complaint over the "restrained" practices of the new army.

[DisruptorX]

The AI is bad, even by TW standards. I have never had the enemy accept a cease fire, ever. I can destroy their armies, sack their cities, and nope, they will not agree to cease fire.

...

In most cases, I do not want to conquer them, as they are off in some far-flung province that is far too distance from the rest of my empire, so if they surrendered, they would be safe. But no, they keep sending armies at me..

Diplomacy is completely useless, I do not use it. There is no point, even if you do manage to get them to agree to something, they will literally attack you the next turn. Oh, and to add insult to injury, diplomats take upkeep. Oh well, at least you can use them to mass bribe entire legions, just like they did in real life.

[Colovion]

Usually the only reason I train diplomats to get better is for bribing at lower prices (I assume that works). There aren't many intricacies in the diplomacy model which the AI can be depended on to logically choose when they are at an advantage/disadvantage. It's a good thought, but there aren't many tangible results. I've had a few alliances last for a long time - yes - but how is that a grounds for claiming the AI/Diplomacy is great? I'd say that means it's just bare minimum (I mean I had alliances in MTW that lasted for the same length of time....)

[soibean]

The AI is bad, even by TW standards. I have never had the enemy accept a cease fire, ever. I can destroy their armies, sack their cities, and nope, they will not agree to cease fire.

if I want to get a cease fire with an army I just stop attacking them and play the defensive until they agree to it... so far it has worked well for me but its not 100%

[Bhruic]

Whose king is the idiot ?
- The one who save his country, his throne, his family and his soldiers by making peace.
- The one makes his kingdom disappears, his family lose all power, his soldiers die and his people be conquered, by stubbornly refusing to accept the ceasefire proposed, reasoning that the faction he's at war will come back in fifty years to finish him off, because it's the rules of the game ?

The first one is the idiot in this game. In this game the only purpose is to expand your empire. If you're not doing that, then you will lose. Plain and simple.

Instead of looking at it from the "you'd be stupid to refuse a ceasefire" point of view, look at it from the other side. You've got a powerful country that is trying to make a ceasefire with you. Why would they do that? If they had the military might to conquer you, they'd be foolish not to. The only reason they would want to make a ceasefire is if they are over-extended, and need the time to recover. If that's the case, why would you possibly want to accept? You'd want to attack, as the other country is signalling to you that they are weak.

Additionnally, why should a war necessarily ends with the complete conquest or the reduction to protectorate status to one belligerant ? Is it how you see the game ?
My, how shallow.

And what other purpose is there? The game is designed so that the only way to win is to conquer provinces. I can only win by either getting 15 or 50, depending on which I choose, and by eliminating a specific faction. There is no "make an alliance with X factions" victory condition. There is no "gain X protectorates" victory condition. There is no "be nice to your neighbours" victory condition.

If you want to pretend there is, by all means, go ahead. But the rules and the mechanics of the game are designed to support the condition that does exist - conquest. With that in mind, no, there really is no reason to make peace with another faction unless you have to, or you can use the troops better in some other location. Anything that isn't moving you to the victory condition is (relatively speaking) a waste of time.

Well, that's a reasoning good for Risk and one-dimensional players. You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games. In fact, you don't even need diplomacy in such games, as diplomacy is something that existed BECAUSE our lives aren't a game.
But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options. So dumbing them down back to the Risk level, is a waste and is what is actually stupid.

Actually, there can be a great deal of diplomacy take place in a game of Risk. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You've apparently decided that you've got the elistist "high ground" here, so far be it from me to suggest otherwise.

What you don't understand is that the historical and cultural background of the game have nothing to do with the way the game is played. If you changed all the unit names to orcs and goblins, and changed the city names, and placed it on a fantasy map, the underlying gameplay would not change at all. I put that in bold, just so you wouldn't miss it. You see, the rules the game uses do not take any advantage of historical or cultural backgrounds. I'd be happy if it did. I'd love to see a game where diplomacy could have a big impact on things. But as long as the only victory conditions for TW games is militarily, TW will not be such a game.

With that being the case, the diplomacy system as it exists in the game, fits it perfectly.

There is no point in pretending you're impersonnating the ruling family of an historical empire, with a bountiful of realistic descriptions and details and mechanism, if it's to throw all this out of the windows and go back to a Pacman-like reflexion-level.

All these players that see the point of having these features in the game.
And all those who have more immersion abilities than an amoeba, and are able to simulate like if they "were there".
Which means, quite a lot in fact.

Please, stop with the idiotic strawman fallacies. It's quite obvious that I've never said anything about "pacman-like reflexion-level", so arguing about it is absurd. I can understand if you can't actually argue my points, but creating your own simplistic ones to argue against doesn't help you in the slightest.

Bh

[DisruptorX]

Your argument hinges on "its a game". I didn't play MTW like a game. I built up my empires and didn't go out on world spanning conquests. I want a ceasefire because I am sick of paying money for cannon fodder instead of buildings.

And yes, if they didn't attack me, most of the time, they would not be attacked unless they were in a strategic position in the area of my expansion. Usually it is some idiots who start a war with me, and then continue fighting after I have taken everything I want. So yes, if they agreed to peace, they would be spared.

[Colovion]

Bhruic I get where you're coming from but I come from somewhere else.

I like it when people can play games differently. I don't want to always have to beat the game before 150BC - i want to maybe have the first 100 years to be nice to most of my neighbors, maybe send a few stacks over the seas to invade some other faction - do it slow and methodical. As it is and in teh play style you have it's just conquest after conquest until you're done. I mean this is fine and all and sometimes that is all I want to do - but other times I want to sit back and play the diplomacy game.

[Bhruic]

Your argument hinges on "its a game". I didn't play MTW like a game. I built up my empires and didn't go out on world spanning conquests. I want a ceasefire because I am sick of paying money for cannon fodder instead of buildings.

And yes, if they didn't attack me, most of the time, they would not be attacked unless they were in a strategic position in the area of my expansion. Usually it is some idiots who start a war with me, and then continue fighting after I have taken everything I want. So yes, if they agreed to peace, they would be spared.

No, my argument hinges on "The developers designed a game". See, you want to do something outside the scope of the rules of the game, and you expect the game to cooperate. But the game doesn't know that you are sick of paying money for cannon fodder. The game doesn't know that you aren't out for world spanning conquests. The game knows that in order to win, you need X provinces. Therefore, the game is going to try and stop you.

I mean, how exactly do you expect another faction to know if they are "in the area of your expansion"? How do you expect them to know that you think their last province is too far away, so you have no interest in capturing it? As far as they are concerned, you are going to want all the provinces you can get. And, in general, they'd be right, for the majority of players. So that's how they should react.

Now, obviously, I'd prefer it if they waited, and built a large army instead of trickling out small groups, but that's quite outside the scope of diplomacy.

Bh

[DisruptorX]

Bhruic, decent AI would very easily be able to tell that I was not out to get them if I only sacked and took their cities in retribution after crushing their invading armies. A decent AI would be able to see that they have gained nothing, and lost territory and men in a war that they started.

I would understand this sort of behavior if they were fighting for survival, but that is not often the case, as the player does not ask for peace in that circumstance. When I am out to conquer a troublesome power (read: egypt), I do not give quarter or offer peace, I annihilate them completely.

[Bhruic]

Bhruic, decent AI would very easily be able to tell that I was not out to get them if I only sacked and took their cities in retribution after crushing their invading armies. A decent AI would be able to see that they have gained nothing, and lost territory and men in a war that they started.

Wait, so you're telling me that they attack you, you destroy their armies, march into their lands and take their cities, and they are supposed to believe that you have no further intentions of attacking them?

Heck, I wouldn't believe that. I don't know why you'd expect an AI to.

I would understand this sort of behavior if they were fighting for survival, but that is not often the case, as the player does not ask for peace in that circumstance. When I am out to conquer a troublesome power (read: egypt), I do not give quarter or offer peace, I annihilate them completely.

And how does the AI determine what you consider a "troublesome power"? And how are they supposed to know what you do when you are out to conquer one? I mean, sure, you don't give quarter or peace, but what if Joe Smith does?

If the AI only had to be designed to fit your exact playstyle, I'm sure they could do a decent job of it. But they have to (try to) fit everyone's playstyle.

Bh

[troymclure]

i don't mind the ai in RTW it's not always great but sometimes it feels like there is a purpose behind it. :)
Perhaps if we had more info about how factions viewed us it would all make more sense, right now you have to talk to them and try and gauge by their tone of conversation. While this is kind of cool im sure back in the day you could have had an advisor with up to date information on how various factions feel about you.
Something akin to the diplomacy system in EU2 would be awesome with the rest of RTW behind it.

[DisruptorX]

If the AI only had to be designed to fit your exact playstyle, I'm sure they could do a decent job of it. But they have to (try to) fit everyone's playstyle.

Bh

Well, that is exactly the problem right there. The AI does not react at all to the actions of the player. The AI factions feel very, very hollow as a result.