AI CONSTANTLY declaring war

I actually can somewhat agree here. I don't think the system is terrible, I would just tweak it a little. Playing a Classic 22 Clash of Nations, I had Greece, Turkey, Caucasus, and Ukraine all declare war on me within 24 hours. Now, granted, I had 3 wars going at once (1 against AI, 2 against players), but I gave ROW to other countries and always declared war first, so I'm not sure if my 'aggression' warranted 4 AI declarations in less than a day.

Then, after I took out Greece and Caucasus, my ally Italy (who controlled Tunisia, all of France, and part of Britain) who had just recently gone AI attacked me out of the blue. Communist Russia, Ireland, Russian Empire, and Greater Finland all followed suit within the next 3 days. Every time I would clean up one AI nation, two were waiting just around the corner!!! It was impossible once this cycle started to improve global popularity because I was always fighting three wars or more at a time.

To conclude, I do love the elite AI that is now in the game. However, perhaps we could tone down the aggression measure for players who fight more than one war at once, or remove the aggression measure for countries who get declared war on instead of declaring said war?

purplepizza117 wrote:

I actually can somewhat agree here. I don't think the system is terrible, I would just tweak it a little. Playing a Classic 22 Clash of Nations, I had Greece, Turkey, Caucasus, and Ukraine all declare war on me within 24 hours. Now, granted, I had 3 wars going at once (1 against AI, 2 against players), but I gave ROW to other countries and always declared war first, so I'm not sure if my 'aggression' warranted 4 AI declarations in less than a day.

Then, after I took out Greece and Caucasus, my ally Italy (who controlled Tunisia, all of France, and part of Britain) who had just recently gone AI attacked me out of the blue. Communist Russia, Ireland, Russian Empire, and Greater Finland all followed suit within the next 3 days. Every time I would clean up one AI nation, two were waiting just around the corner!!! It was impossible once this cycle started to improve global popularity because I was always fighting three wars or more at a time.

To conclude, I do love the elite AI that is now in the game. However, perhaps we could tone down the aggression measure for players who fight more than one war at once, or remove the aggression measure for countries who get declared war on instead of declaring said war?

@whowh Yes this is a possibility. The way I remember it from a few years ago, one could change the relation with another country to 'Peace' and after a certain time. the AI nation would agree. I'm not so sure it works that way anymore since I've tried it numerous times lately without success.

I don't think I've ever used the 'Ceasefire' option though. Lol

The process keeps getting disrupted when you have active fights, I think. So it only really works with someone who is far away, without a common border anymore.

And that's 1.0 knowledge as well, haven't seen it since elite AI was introduced.

Yes this is right and this is the way I remember it as well. Key points of trying to sue for peace were having lands far from each other, no touching borders, and no longer having active fights. Perhaps this is something that would be attractive to players if it was brought back.

It would be nice

There is no artificial intelligence in this game, but artificial nonsense

By constantly "improving" the "AI", we just are in this point. I think that the graduates of today's social universities, who have no idea about pure history, politics and the military, are mainly involved in the development of this game. That could explain it.

The issue with the AI is not only that it's unrealistic for random countries to declare war on superpowers because they're 'unpopular.' Just from a gameplay standpoint, having to deal with something that is actually pretty hard to predict and avoid, alongside the stress of dealing with both allies and enemies is extremely off-putting.

In my current Clash of Nations match as Finland, I first declared war on Sweden and took his land. Then did the same for Estonia, Latvia, and Germany within the next few days. Then, Romania attacked me, so I took his land. Then Turkey attacked me, so I took his land as well. Now, Ukraine the AI has declared war on me, after I fought one war at a time, with the most recent two being the result of players attacking me first. The main problem isn't just that it doesn't make sense for a weaker nation to attack me no matter how you spin it.. nah.. the problem is that AI don't sleep, and they don't stop. They don't have factors that would normally limit a human, including fear or hesitation. Normally in a 1 on 1, it's inconsequential. However, if they simply declare war on you while you're in the middle of a literal WORLD WAR, it's borderline cruel. It's senseless and unfair that we have to deal with this, on top of the stress of pvp. Honestly one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced in any video game.

I'm TIRED of hearing people say "one war at a time" and " give the right if way" and "it's ReAlISTIC!" I did the fist two, and the last one isn't true so stop saying it. In fact, let me put the nail in the coffin for the whole argument for AI declaring wars that make no sense:

AI's don't understand context... Upon me saying that, I'm sure many examples come to mind where you technically started a war against a player, but it was actually a preemptive strike to prevent him from obliterating you when he wakes up. Or maybe you sank a huge convoy headed for your coast, but technically you fired the first shot. In my case, invading Germany prevented Romania from grabbing it, as he was expanding to the point where I felt threatened. The examples are endless, but the problem is that none of this can be understood by or explained to AI. Therefore, 100% of the wars they declare are built off severely incomplete pictures of situations. Sure, all wars are declared with incomplete ideas of the enemy, but I said severely incomplete, meaning they lack all other knowledge except who fired the first shot, and the size of the enemy, with the second fact being something that should prevent declaration, not cause it. If AI can declare war, we should be able to communicate context with them, or offer things that appeal to them, not the players. Right of Way and Share Map are for military info and units, so why would AI want those things based on the way they're behaving towards militant nations?

Nations like the US in real life can declare war on nations and justify it with propaganda like "WMD's", but that's not the same as having ZERO idea about the enemy besides the wars they 'started' and the size of their land. Besides, my point is that nations like the US can afford to be wrong about a country they attack, because they're the superpower. But do you really think say Portugal would declare war on the US for invading everyone around them? especially with incomplete info about motives and context? I don't want to hear the 'realistic' argument again.. please spare us all. In fact hopefully this post makes it crystal clear for everyone that there is no good argument for AI to declare war on players, at least not the way it currently operates.

Couldnt agree more.

For exactly the same reason I had to quit America scenario with nukes as a clear leader with one more ally JUST B/C while I was busy expanging the way I wanted (dealing with REAL players), I got ednless wars declared on me by AIs who, wait for it, were ex real players that amassed nukes simply by not using them while they were inactive. So u end up being weaker than them in terms of nukes - and is that the reason enough to be defeated!? SILLY.

And my ally quit, too, probably got bored / frustrated for the same reason.

On top of that, the new look (with no option of playing the old one) in unplayable. OK, smooth zooming is nice, but u cant tell what your units are doing, eg. where theyre going unless u check the actual box with written info. Stupid. And the landform cant be told quickly, either. The worst is when lots of units stack - then it is real mess.

All in all, discouraging to the point that my CoW mates refuse to play on.

Now, when is Bytro going to wake up?

MZM7 wrote:

In my current Clash of Nations match as Finland, I first declared war on Sweden and took his land. Then did the same for Estonia, Latvia, and Germany within the next few days. Then, Romania attacked me, so I took his land. Then Turkey attacked me, so I took his land as well. Now, Ukraine the AI has declared war on me, after I fought one war at a time, with the most recent two being the result of players attacking me first. The main problem isn't just that it doesn't make sense for a weaker nation to attack me no matter how you spin it.. nah.. the problem is that AI don't sleep, and they don't stop. They don't have factors that would normally limit a human, including fear or hesitation. Normally in a 1 on 1, it's inconsequential. However, if they simply declare war on you while you're in the middle of a literal WORLD WAR, it's borderline cruel. It's senseless and unfair that we have to deal with this, on top of the stress of pvp. Honestly one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced in any video game.

Tajojta X wrote:

For exactly the same reason I had to quit America scenario with nukes as a clear leader with one more ally JUST B/C while I was busy expanging the way I wanted (dealing with REAL players), I got ednless wars declared on me by AIs who, wait for it, were ex real players that amassed nukes simply by not using them while they were inactive. So u end up being weaker than them in terms of nukes - and is that the reason enough to be defeated!? SILLY.

And my ally quit, too, probably got bored / frustrated for the same reason.

Tre wrote:

MZM7 wrote:

In my current Clash of Nations match as Finland, I first declared war on Sweden and took his land. Then did the same for Estonia, Latvia, and Germany within the next few days. Then, Romania attacked me, so I took his land. Then Turkey attacked me, so I took his land as well. Now, Ukraine the AI has declared war on me, after I fought one war at a time, with the most recent two being the result of players attacking me first. The main problem isn't just that it doesn't make sense for a weaker nation to attack me no matter how you spin it.. nah.. the problem is that AI don't sleep, and they don't stop. They don't have factors that would normally limit a human, including fear or hesitation. Normally in a 1 on 1, it's inconsequential. However, if they simply declare war on you while you're in the middle of a literal WORLD WAR, it's borderline cruel. It's senseless and unfair that we have to deal with this, on top of the stress of pvp. Honestly one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced in any video game.

At the beginning of the game make your relation right of way.

MZM7 wrote:

You're completely missing my point. Did you not read the rest of the post? We shouldn't have to use right of way for AI, since not only is it unreliable, but the AI shouldn't be declaring war on us in the first place. I refuse to repeat myself when people fail to actually read what they're responding to.

Wow, I have good relations with AIs every moment.

The AGGRESSIVENESS of AIs are pretty much mode-dependent. Compare an Arms Race with a classic 10p blitzkrieg map. If you really got an obnoxious popularity with the AIs be prepared to fight a bunch of them.

Give Share Map.

Trade more often in Market.

ALWAYS GIVE EMBARGO, THEN DECLARE WAR.

Don’t actively declare war too often within 24 hrs.

Don’t ‘violate the puny-AI borders’, that is don’t drive armies into neutral AI territory. Elite AIs and certain other small-map AIs treat The Border Right very seriously!

Don’t ‘surprise attack’ others.

Finally you have high popularity, AIs will now give RoW and often Share Map!

I will not repeat myself. I've made my points, so I will only respond when my points are actually addressed.

The Elite AI have been nerfed up to the point where they basically aren't doing anything anymore. If you aren't able to handle the downgraded Elite AI then maybe it's time to make a switch towards SimCIty If you as a country go rogue on invading all countries by surprise attack and without using all diplomatic channels the remaining world countries would form an alliance against you. I'd say that the mechanics as they are, are pretty realistic.

Surely wouldn't it be better to make bots that fight well and have well organized stacks as opposed to bots that are overagressive?

just saying ai never dec on me.

BMfox wrote:

If you aren't able to handle the downgraded Elite AI then maybe it's time to make a switch towards SimCIty If you as a country go rogue on invading all countries by surprise attack and without using all diplomatic channels the remaining world countries would form an alliance against you. I'd say that the mechanics as they are, are pretty realistic.

If you'd seen the point I was making, I never said I wasn't able to handle the AI. I never even said the AI pose a danger of actually taking me or anyone else over. What I actually said was that in a 1 on 1 it's usually fine, but if you're already at war with other players, and some AI (perhaps an inactive player who had built up a quite dangerous army) declares war on you, the situation becomes quite problematic. The AI itself won't kill you, but it puts you at an unnecessary disadvantage against players who will.

If you actually read my post, you'd know that in my Finland game, I used the diplomatic channels, never engaged in any surprise wars, and was actually attacked by two players in a row.. yet AI's declared war on me.

If you read my post, you'd see the part where context was mentioned. The point was that AI have no understanding of context, yet they declare war on powerful nations. Examples were given that show when the size of a nation, and even who fired the first shot are not enough information to know what the real situation was at all. So are you sure it's realistic for weak nations to form loose alliances against powerful enemies they know little about?

Is it even good gameplay for a former ally to suddenly switch sides without having to be cleverly persuaded or forced by enemy players? I'm talking of course about a coalition mate (perhaps even a fellow alliance member) goes inactive, and the AI proceeds by declaring war on their former ally. Sure, much of the responsibility falls on the guy who went inactive, but the person receiving negative consequences for the inactivity is the one who's still active, and has to fight enemy players, and a perfectly placed AI enemy.

This isn't about handing downgraded Elite AI, so I'm not sure why the insult was seen as clever or necessary. It's about the fact that players should be guiding how matches flow, not AI. Players don't need AI to attack aggressive enemies for them, as they should be doing it themselves. It makes the game more authentic and fun.

Even if your post was meant as a response to all points made by my side of the fence in addition to mine, it missed the mark, especially with that insult.

MZM7 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if this is meant to be a response to my points or not, but I'll continue as if it is, since it seems to be directed at those who hold the same position as me:

MZM7 wrote:

Is it even good gameplay for a former ally to suddenly switch sides without having to be cleverly persuaded or forced by enemy players? I'm talking of course about a coalition mate (perhaps even a fellow alliance member) goes inactive, and the AI proceeds by declaring war on their former ally. Sure, much of the responsibility falls on the guy who went inactive, but the person receiving negative consequences for the inactivity is the one who's still active, and has to fight enemy players, and a perfectly placed AI enemy.

MZM7 wrote:

If you actually read my post, you'd know that in my Finland game, I used the diplomatic channels, never engaged in any surprise wars, and was actually attacked by two players in a row.. yet AI's declared war on me.

MZM7 wrote:

This isn't about handing downgraded Elite AI, so I'm not sure why the insult was seen as clever or necessary.

You can find out more about popularity with AI in this guide: Popularity with Elite AI