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?

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.