AI CONSTANTLY declaring war

BMfox wrote:

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.

The behavior of other players toward you has no impact on your popularity with AI.

^ To have an ally turned inactive to go to war against you means that you did not really do well in diplomacy while you conduct your military maneuvers. For you to reach that point means almost all other AI countries have imposed a trade embargo against you. I like that this game really emphasizes on the importance of diplomacy, and only not just moving your troops here and there on a whim without some sort of consequences.

MZM7 wrote:

That's not what I was talking about. My example is about when you happen to be at war with another player or coalition, and your ally goes inactive, and the AI proceeds to attack you. I made no mention of popularity in this case, I'm just giving an example of when an AI declaring war can be seen as extremely damaging to someone's playthrough, through no fault of their own. My point ultimately is that AI declaring war is an unnecessary feature, since players can attack aggressive nations themselves. Having AI attack people does more harm than good to the experience, regardless of the so-called realism it invokes.

The balance between realism and fantasy

Ultimately, accounting things like realism such as resource upkeep, industry, and diplomacy and fantasy being floating convoys and units not having encirclement attrition along paper projects.

If we tip the balance on fantasy too much, then players would be complaining about immersion and how this doesn't equate to the actual war. Though we have cold war and project planes, if we went to the realm of modern day or have redundant units, then it would cause unnecessary complications. The same thing could be said if we have too much realism, then it would be more of a chore to play this rather than actually having fun. Thankfully, things like logistics and attrition have been simplified just by industry alone.

Gameplay and how players could pull off such countermeasure

AI, in a way, counts as a new player on the block that just picked up on a round. The Coup d'etat implies that the ministries are a separate entity than their head leader, meaning new leadership per se. We could see this historically in Italy. Anyways, I've seen players go inactive and get crushed by their allies from 1 second to another. Why you ask? Because of observing production and construction. Normally when you build a new level of a building, you would see that the building is "damaged" and "repairing". Production of units would also come into mind, as you could also watch for newly created routes and new units as well. If they don't build anything within the first 24 hours, you could possibly build the units that could easily counter against. Not only can it help you and your teammate synergize your armies (if they're active), but in case of emergency, use his weakness against them.

If you're early game, you could use RoW on day 1 and then Share map on day 4 only on AI. Markets are also another way to boost your global popularity as well; either selling resources or buying them. Then, if you want to declare war on AI, you could trade embargo and wait for a single day change to happen. That won't affect your global popularity, as this is basically "justification of war".

Anyways, thank you for your time and I hope for a response soon

Yeah, Its petty stupid and its getting very annoying. Im sick and tired of it.

Its not like some small country would attack Germany in WW2 they would have been invaded. Right?

Yeah... like Luxemburg is very afraid and upset about Germany invading Poland, and deciding it is time to march on Berlin...

First of all, let me get a few things straight. If you're losing to AI nations, there's a problem going on here. Small nations that have less than the 50 VP required to make it a playable nation (standard games) usually don't have entire battalions of nukes and heavy tanks raining down on you, possibly a few medium tanks and infantry at the most are warranted for. If you are losing to that, you are doing your border defenses wrong. Even if you are not on hostile terms with a nation, or possibly even have right of way, you should never leave any area of your provinces undefended, with anti air and defensive units in urban provinces that can be reached by aircraft or paratroopers, artillery and stealth units defending all border lines (at least so they can't reach far into your mainland without a fight) and backup units, usually tanks, or arty, along with naval defenses, usually a light ring of destroyers in the front, followed by battleships or cruisers. If Luxembourg somehow ends up in Berlin, you're doing it wrong. That goes for any human nation as well. Usually, AI nations won't just embargo and declare war on you, they must be provoked first. If you are attacking nations without declaring war and doing the slow process of trade embargo, that will make you lose popularity with AI. That goes for wars, durations of wars, and many different factors. If you want to improve relations with AI nations, you can give them right of way, fight nations the right way that the AI want, post offers on the markets, and generally try to maintain a peaceful rule. I would rather suggest taking out AI nations on your borders within 5 days of a game, before they become too powerful, or at least enough to inflict causalities, and/or to prevent bases for enemies overseas, such as the UK. There are more threads related to popularity with AI, please check those if you need more information

Alexandera Nevsky wrote:

...

On top of that, keeping good relations is incredibly difficult. Even if you declare war before invading and generally play nice, you lose popularity for having a strong military and being a large country. You lose popularity for war period, whether you declare war prior or someone else attacked you first. You lose popularity for having multiple wars at once, something that is inevitable in a game where coalitions are a garunteed thing, and also a feature that snowballs as more and more ai declare war on you. Giving RoW and/or share map have relatively little consequence on popularity when you factor in everything else.

What people are trying to get at is that the ai only sees that you are at war and that you're big and strong. They don't see that other nations have attacked you first, or that because you got into a war with one player, you've gotten into a war with the entire coalition. They dont see that they currently control a country that used to belong to your ally. They dont see other ai nations as potential enemies, only as allies.

newbgamer101 wrote:

The Luxemburg v Germany example isnt something that happened in game

Nice. It's always great to see small little Luxembourg running over useless noobs.

whowh wrote:

Nice. It's always great to see small little Luxembourg running over useless noobs.

Lol

I agree Please fix this AI takes over and builds. I think once you take a capital city or at least all cities the country should become yours and all remaining troops should surrender.