|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
The thread entitled something along the lines of "Strategy for war with America" or whatever no longer exists as far as I can tell.... I was in the thread, ready to post my replay, and the thread CLOAKED!? I went up and down the list of threads for the past 5 DAYS and was unable to find it anywhere...
So, anyways...
Here's the response I had *intended* on posting in that thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Honor
I should have been little more clear about what I meant: the AI govs rarely fight meaningful wars that don't include the human player... once in a while, they'll declare war on each other without your inolvement, but usually those wars end with a maximum of one or two small cities changing hands. If you want to have a decisive war, it seems like you need to be in the middle of it. (For example I did set up a 3v2 war once, where I was one of the 2 and watched as my Zulu ally lose 3 of 6 cities to the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.) |
Actually, I've seen (rare) cases where this has not been true. One example is that I played a game on a huge map where I (China) was the dominant power on one continent and Persia and Greece were the dominant powers on the other continent. Persia completely annexed Egypt and Russia while Greece mostly annexed Babylon and was fighting Rome - this throughout much of the late middle age and early industrial age. Later in the same game, the Aztecs (on a third continent with America, Germany, and England) invaded America and took much of it over before I (China) intervened and took over the aztecs. On that third continent, the Germans and Americans had been at war with the English and Aztecs (both sides allied against their opponents).
I could go on, but that one game had an absolute TON of AI-vs-AI wars where they seriously devoted to the conflicts.
This said, however, I will agree that this game I played a few months ago is notable because it is such an amazing exception. I have also noticed that MOST games go by where the AI players NEVER fight one another throughout the entire game unless YOU are the cause of the conflict. My most recent 2 games are good examples of this.
I honestly don't know what leads the AI's to go to war... it would be interesting to figure out (or simply hear from Firaxis or whatever...) what the algorythm is behind whether the AI goes to war... would be VERY interesting to learn that. I suspect, from my own experience, that at least part of the algorithm must have to do with whether a hegemonic power exists (typically the human player). For instance:
IF human player is hegemonic power THEN AI players will refrain from fighting one another (in order to aggressively trade techs with each other and hopefully catch up to the hegemon or at least keep them in check)
IF no hegemonic power exists or especially if the human player is not hegemonic THEN AI players may feel free to invade one another as they see fit.
Anecdotally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Firaxis had in mind...
|
28-09-2002 07:26
|
|