Impact of economics on decision to go to war

from GalCiv2 Forums
After playing many games it is apparent that you must maintain a strong military to prevent an agressive civ from attacking you. This is just part of the game. No matter how high you diplomacy or influence. No matter how much tribute you dole out, you will eventually be attacked if your military is weak. It makes it impossible to pursue a purely peaceful strategy.

However, I think that economics should play a greater role in the AI's decision of when (or if) to attack. If a weak player or AI (militarily) has a strong economy and/or many trade routes it can reasonably be siad that the elimination of the player would have a rippling effect on the galactic economy. As such, an aggressive AI might think twice about attacking an economic superpower. Not only will its economy suffer, but the economy of its allies will suffer too. (e.g. There are a lot of countries that don't like the U.S, but only a few would be willing to "shoot themselves in the foot" economically by attacking the U.S.)

At the very least, the attacking AI should suffer political consequences from its decision to be agressive. (Regardless of whether or not the attacked civ had alliances)

Thoughts?

B.
4,759 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
When I saw the subject, I thought this would be about what kind of economy a *player* should have going before casting the first stone at an AI. This is an even more interesting thought:

the attacking AI should suffer political consequences from its decision to be agressive


If you're including diplomatic relationships, I believe I agree. But some AIs, like the Drengin, should be getting internal pressure to attack and clean the economy up later, while the Arceans, say, should be much less inclined to attack a key economic power without provocation and should suffer morale-wise if they are aggressors.

Anyone else out there able to confirm Borg999's impression that the game is fundamentally peace-averse? I think I'm on the way to being forced to quit or conquer even though I started out dead set on a diplo win. The only diplo wins I've ever had have been by accident, and that usually when I was ranked in the middle of the pack.

Can you get a diplo win if you've been the strongest power by a big margin for a half-year or more?
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Some of the civs could be too intimidated to ever ally while others like a strong millitary power. If i was you i would conquer them, you would get the most points that way.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have found if you get about double the AI's military rating they get friendlier out of intimidation. Getting close though can still be near impossible.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
get the most points that way


I'm one of those "Points, what stinkin' points?" people

But I think The Great Emporer might be right that I'll have to give up or start cracking heads. Although I *am* starting to build an outrageously strong military rating thanks to having been forced to break the second strongest fleet and absorb some major industrial centers.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I smiled when I read this thread... one of my concerns is that the game becomes impossible to lose when you max out your trade routes with the stronger civs.

I play at maso level with 1.4x and I still can't lose even with with a greatly weaker military position.

By the time they finally do declare war I'm moping them up with high teched tiny hull fighter fleets.

My advice: rush the neighbouring civ with troop trans at the initial phase of the game. Let them colonise for you then walk into their undefended worlds with your troop trans. After you wipe out one civ go straight for the trade techs and max out your trade routes. No-one will attack you.

It's a little depressing just how easy the game is. I hope the DarkAvatar option to give the AIs more CPU time to look "ahead" makes them smarter...
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am right there with you, I think that the AI should suffer for attacking economic super powers, that gives the race a chance to survive by using its economy and changing it to military. That is why AI suffering is GOOD....
Yes......... I am evil.   
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
SithUK,

The game mechanics do not seem to work the same way for me. I play on challenging with a medium map.

No matter how many trade routes I have, if I'm on the bottom of the military strength list, I get attacked.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Trade has only helped me stabilize relations if I'm in a middle-area military wise. It keeps the stronger civs off my back and gets me a couple bucks too Its only enough to buy time until I can beef up my military and get in position for war.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Don't forget that how smart the AI behaves will depend a lot on your CPU power.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My favorite "peaceful strategy" is to buy combat ships and transports from the other civs and send them out on good will tours.

Of course, I'm one of those wimps who isn't good enough at the game to play above "Normal". heh.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Anyone else out there able to confirm Borg999's impression that the game is fundamentally peace-averse?


Although I don't have solid evidence to back it up I am pretty much certain that this game is based on a colonial/imperialistic design, where warfare is going to pretty much be the inevitable outcome, even from those considered "good" civilizations. I believe it is the Drath, who are depicted as being neutral to good, who almost always start a war somewhere in my game because they are busy land grabbing for the sake of increasing their numbers. So, my conclusion is based on actions such as that... it seems that whether good or bad, any actions that are for the good of the civilization will amount to war. Did I word that right? It is still too early on a Monday.    
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Conflict seems inevitable in this game. I've only won one game as an Influence victory without any battles, but it was due to extremely good luck in planet placement.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks Evil S and Telefrog. I still haven't given up on that huge game, but I'm now trying to go for an influence win b/c I can't see a way to get back to Close w/ the Terrans after they made me break them and the Yor have never budged above Friendly. I'm just hoping no one forces me to flex the fleets again...
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Even if you want to play with a goal of cultural victory, you can be forced into a war via random events. A strong military is necessary to prevent neighbors from trying to bully you. Use these as opportunities to grab a few good planets and then make nice with the other civilization if you want to.

There are also some potential penalties for war during the game. The galatic council can set a war tax of up to 20% for all nations involved in war. Trade is another relationship factor but it's a double edged sword. If your major trading partner declares war. The sudden loss of revenue can severely impact you ability to fund a strong war effort.

Just my thoughts
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In my experience, the game breaks down into three parts.

The first part is all about the land grab. Everyone sends out colony ships and tries to claim as many planets as possible, preferably those with a better quality but I'm not sure to what degree the computer makes a distinction there. I think he's just colonizing from his own position outward, rather than looking for good pickings. Once all planets have been colonized, this phase ends. Avoiding war is easy here as you normally don't have weapons yet.

The second phase is where the wars start. The empires are roughly cut out, initial research has been done and the first fleets make their appearance. Here, the computer gets pretty darwinistic on the galaxy and the more AIs are present, the harsher it becomes.

From my experience, it attacks the weakest members of the galaxy first unless it has a very good reason not to such as another direct threat to itself, close ties because of alignment, trade or alliance. I have the impression that civs value reasons to go to war differently but I also believe the military might will have pretty much the final say in whether an AI will declare war or not. Depending on the layout of the empires, they might gang up on one at a time or several wars could run through the galaxy.

The second phase will continue until all imbalances are solved, meaning empires are either allied or roughly the same size and they aren't being suffocated by another one's influence/have colonies within another one's borders. Periods of (relative) peace could exist in this phase but it is rarely stable unless you're playing with few races.

The last phase is one of consolidation. Here, civs commit to their winning strategy such as spreading influence. Wars can still occur but they are more geared towards elimination of the opponent rather than a land grab or setting an imbalance straight. AIs can get pretty complacent/peaceful here in the right conditions.

I think the mean reason why you don't find many completely pacifist games is that the game is not a sim but a 4X. The AI doesn't just try to exist, it tries to win and it will use military means to get there. You can dodge wars if you make sure you don't antagonize your neighbours and keep your military up.