Simple changes by CA that would improve the AI

[The Mad Scandinavian]

You're right. Alliances did shift since nations tend to look out for their best interest. But I was thinking more about the beginnings of conflicts. Alliances were often kept at that time, unless it was likely that one's ally would fall. They are made, most often, because one or both countries believe that they will have a better chance of winning a war allied with the other.

Even in cases where defeat seems likely there are cases of allies staying true. Much of Rome's Italian allies did not defect while Hannibal was destroying the countryside nearly unhindered. I don't know if they expected Rome to win in the end, but the situation was pretty bleak for some time. Perhaps a form of Italian nationalism was starting to take place. Still, we are both making generalizations. I concede that alliances could shift and be broken, but believe that they often were not at the beginning of the conflict.

Perhaps you read part of what I wrote on Carthage and Rome wrong. I did not say they stalemated each other nor did I mean to imply it. I understood that Rome won all the Punic Wars. Forgot about the 3rd one. My mistake.

I stand corrected about wars often being started at the start of a new season or after only a few years. I made a generalization that is not accurate. The situation is more variable, but I do believe that some countries were almost preordained to start fighting again, either because they hated each other or for more logical reason: economics, politics, etc.
Mad Scandinavian

[Red Harvest]

The Mad Scandinavian,

Your post was not unreasonable, which is why I focused on some clarification. (Welcome to the ORG by the way. ) The Carthage/Rome bit is one of the reasons I have not complained as much as others about diplomacy. Mainly, I don't have an easy solution. Why? Diplomacy has a lot to do with the "personality" of the culture itself in a historical context.

Let's take Rome for example. During both Pyrrhus' invasion and Hannibal's invasion, Rome refused to negotiate. (They only accepted an agreement with the Samnites because their field commanders had acquiesced after being trapped, and therefore felt obligated...and that only was allowed to stand a few years.) By normal measures they had been soundly defeated and should have been seeking to cut their losses with a favorable treaty, rather than risking absolute defeat. However, they were more beligerent than ever. It was a defining characteristic of Rome, and a very important part of their strength. Other cultures should respond differently, again depending on how they typically regarded friends and enemies.

To be sure, there are aspects of diplomacy that are whacked. I learned to wait, never offering treaties myself, and instead waiting for enemies to do the logical thing. I did play on VH so that most likely made the diplomacy model more challinging.

[The Mad Scandinavian]

Thanks for the welcome Red Harvest.