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

[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.

[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

[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!!!

[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.

[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