Question on refusing Treaties.
 

In an effort to make the AI more aggressive, I am going through the 'AI_Anger' file. In there, I see an entry for the AI's anger to increase (by a fairly significant amount) if a treaty is refused.

My question is: What happens if the treaty request is just ignored instead of refused? There doesnt seem to be any penalty for that and that defeats the purpose of that particular 'Anger Mod' IMO. Would it be possible (or does it do it now and I just dont notice) for the AI to treat any ignored treaty request as refused?

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Am I misremembering or aren't ignored treaties "withdrawn" (disappear from the diplomatic screen) after a while? Maybe that counts as a refusal.

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

I would say the AI should get more upset if a treaty is ignored then if it's rejected. I would be anyway. And it shouldn't be too upset if it is rejected. After all it's no big deal really.

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

I did some experimenting and there is definately a 'diplomatic penalty' associated with responding with a refusal. There does NOT appear to be any penalty for just not responding at all.

I think this amounts to a pretty major flaw in the diplomacy model and probably accounts for alot of the reason why the AI is so darned peaceful. I think that is really the only thing I find severely lacking in this game...CONFLICT! Very few demands for gifts...very few ultimatums. Very little of anything except treaty requests actually.

Maybe my play style is completely different than most, but I feel like the AI is always wanting treaties. I miss the surprise of a quick AI war/attack as in MOO/MOO2. Even in SE3 you could tailor the AI players so as to have 'Conquerors' or 'Xenophobes' or 'Marauders' etc. This made for conflict and unpredicability in the game and greatly added to the game experience.

Nearly every game I've played of SE4 so far (Max AI players, Hardest Level, Low Bonus) has resulted in HUGE stretches of peace punctuated by my extermination of one race at a time.

Even when the race is listed as 'berserk' or whatnot, its still the same old thing...treaty request after treaty request.

I've tried to edit some of the AI files to make them more aggressive but have had little success as long as the player plays it cool.

Anyone else have any success or experience AI player warlike tendancies?

Talenn

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Anyone else have any success or experience AI player warlike tendancies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be well known to the more experienced, players, but ...

I was trying to play a peaceful game, with a "tiered" approach to allies (one partnership, one military alliance, etc.). I was refusing treaty "upgrades".

Then, all of a sudden, after a long stretch of peace, where relations were all very warm and brotherly, within two turns all of them declared war on me. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif I believe that this may have been precipitated when my score became greater than 500, does this sound correct?

So, no warlike tendencies, just a strong, unified reaction to the perceived strength of my empire. FWIW, my counter-intel did stop an attempt earlier by one empire that I had no treaty with.

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Mithras:

Yes, that is the 'Mega Evil AI' kicking in. It is set for the 500 mark in your score. All AI players will hate you, but I've found that there is usually not a lot that they can do at that point. Its just mop up anyways in my games.

What I am looking for is instances earlier in the game where the AI is the aggressor for seemingly little or no reason...ie a THREAT.

Thanx though, at least we know at SOME point, the AI will fight back. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Talenn

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

FWIW, the AI always gets mad at me after a year or two. But then again...I don't really know why. I do refuse a treaty now and again (which I am sure annoys them) and never ignore them. Maybe that is why I have such a hard time.

Most of the time I play (I have yet to complete a game) the AI eventually declare war after the first year or two of contact. What am I doing that ya'll aren't? I always seem to piss off the computer and you guys always are upset at the peace. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Ironic.

All I do is build my fleet, and increase the population, but I have been recently playing with small galaxy, medium to low players and low player difficulty. Pretty soon the AI goes ballistic and the game drags on in stalemate. I end up bottled inside my own systems too busy fending off attacks to expand or attack them.

Oh, well...the grass is greener...

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

If you are looking for a game where the AI is a threat, check the 'Team Mode' box in the game setup. That makes all computer players irrevocably hate all human players...and you'll have a galaxy at constant war.

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Ebonyknight -- try playing in a Large universe instead. When an AI feels it has sufficient lebensraum it may be less belligerent; perhaps the galaxy is so small that they feel they have to wipe you out in order to have room in which to grow.

I normally play Large, and until I hit 'MegaEvilEmpire' status, most AIs haven't been *that* quick to anger without provocation.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Maybe you should try it out and see if makes the AI as aggressive as you want it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

I know that even with a three good planet head start, I can only hold them off. By the time I start taking systems, it's too frustrating and I spend so much time producing ships for defense, that my R+D falls behind. With such a limited amount of planets, you won't have to worry about out researching the AI, I'll bet you will have a challenge just keeping up.

It is a VERY similar experience to the island hopping campaign the US Marines did in WWII. It is very difficult to dig the enemy out of a system, then keep it. As soon as I would take a system, the AI would push me out or I would have to abandon it to get my battle fleet repaired (hanging around with a damaged fleet will get your *** kicked on a small board). Many a crippled ship was left floating to be later destroyed by the enemy. I even returned to the system after limping home and repairing to be greeted by a minefield. A very surprisingly, unplesant surprise. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Maybe you guys should stop playing on YOUR terms and see if you can play on it's terms. The AI seems to like the small Boards. The medium was okay, but it got a little tedious by the time I met up with them. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Large Boards in any 4X games, give us anal retentive humans too much time to plot.

I hear so much "back off and let me build up my empire", then challenge me AI. Then you are dissapointed when it can't. I like the small Boards and apparently so does the AI. You want an "aggressive" AI, I just gave you the formula. It isn't so much a plea for help as it is an argument for masochism. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif Try it, I am sure you will like it.

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Ebonyknight:

Oh yes, the Small Map is far more interesting against the AI. I play it on Small, with Max Number of AI players. I dont add in the Neutrals on Small anymore as I found that it tended to stifle the AI players expansion too much.

They would end up with too few planets colonized and this led to unbalanced Econs that hampered their ship production. I think the Neutrals work out better on the Medium+ maps.

And yes, the AI can be pretty bloodthirsty in the opening stages of the game. I think there is a negative modifier to its treaty acceptance logic for the first 50 turns or so. On a small map, that can seem like forever when you are engaged in an Escort and Frigate war from about turn 5. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also, if you give it the 'Low Bonus' it can definately outproduce you in the early stages and everything else being equal, numbers will tell. Its not entirely fair to a HUMAN player in these early stages, but it sure does make it tense. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif Also, there is a pretty large feeling of accomplishment when you finally DO beat it down and stomp their Homeworld. Of course just about that time, another AI race come waltzing in with Tech that is MILES ahead of your cuz all its been doing is expanding while you've been fighting for your life!

But overall, I think this makes for a far better game than the typical 'build until I'm ready to come out and play' that tends to happen on the larger maps.

Talenn

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

I also enjoy the small map games. Aside from all the excellent points y'all have made, I also find it makes each and every planet worth something. Even those tiny domed worlds can be important refuelling points.

It also adds spice to the stellar manipulation and planet utilization fields. When there aren't so dozens and dozens of systems to choose from, you need to pay more attention towards improving what you've got!

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Heh, yes, I've even gone one better than simply playing on small map...I've actually reduced the number of facilities that each planet can hold. I am currently at 4,8,12,15,18 and it seems to be working out pretty well. The Domed Colony amounts are unchanged.

My primary motivation for doing this was to flatten the luck a bit in early colonization. Some of our early games were easily decided by one or two players getting a fantastic starting system with a Huge planet or two of their atmosphere type. This lead to blow out games that werent interesting for all parties to continue playing.

Since reducing the number of facilities a planet can hold, we have mitigated this a bit. Its also made expansion more important. This in turn leads to competition for more limited resources and hence, more conflicts. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Of course I had to modify the AI a bit so that it made more efficient use of the planets etc, but I've been very pleased with the results so far. I think I have the AI tweaked nicely enough to provide a good challenge when given a 'Low Bonus'.

Talenn

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

I'm playing a game now in small quadrant with max AI's and neutrals on max difficulty and bonus and It's a walkover for me. 3 starting planets per player. Then again, the first thing I built was 2 bases with space yards per planet and proceeded to kick the *** of the first AI I met. Took some time and they actually killed quite a few ships for me and I had to glass 2 of their homeworlds before they surrendered, but now it feels like a walkover with me firmly in first place allied to almost every other AI. Sailed into a Neutrals system with a scouting fleet of 7 destroyers and one light cruisers, kicked it's fleets *** and demanded their surrender. They did. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif First time I met them. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Getting ready to repeat the process to another neutral. Think I'll try this setup again but without neutrals.

[This message has been edited by Jubala (edited 28 November 2000).]

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

On balancing starts -- wouldn't it be possible to edit the SystemTypes.txt file (IIRC) so that every system that has planets, has an identical or nearly-so setup? It'd be a bit more... dull, but if you really want to make the map more egalitarian, that plus ensuring a decent map geometry (there's a Grid option IIRC). Could be termed a Tournament map, basically.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: Question on refusing Treaties.
 

Jubala, if you want to boost the challenge, try starting with only 1 planet per side. The AI seems to handle starts like that a bit better, from what I've seen.