Results 1 to 30 of 102

Thread: Roman AI..too agressive

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #6

    Default Re: Roman AI..too agressive

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    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
    Last edited by GFX707; 10-17-2004 at 23:04.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO