Peace-mongering to Victory

I don't know if this is all that uncommon of not, but I just won the game without ever having been at war with any of the other player factions.

This was a 10 player game on a medium map (I created factions for Capitar and Umbar, and played Umbar), Difficulty levels were Challenging, all other settings the normal defaults.

In a nutshell, the game went as follows: In the initial scramble for territories, I found myself next to Krax. I was closer to all the city sites in the area, and I grabbed them all; I was able to form three new cities, and he zero. So, I had a large and continuous power advantage over him early in the game, and he never gave me any trouble. We were always Close, and eventually tech permitting, Allies.

I discovered I had Gilder as my neighbor to the northwest, and behind him on a larger subcontinent were all the other players except Yithril (and Altar, which I'll get to in a bit). None of those ever were able to get a power advantage over me, so they all drifted in to a Close relationship, after the usual routine of signing non-aggression pacts and trade treaties with them at every opportunity. All became Allies as soon as we got the ability.

They warred in desultory fashion amongst each other throughout the game, and although a city would change hands on rare occasions (maybe about three times, the entire game), no player eliminated another player. We began with 10 factions, we ended with 10 factions.

Yithril was interesting. They were large peninsula to the south of me, reachable only through a long and narrow isthmus. And the north end of the isthmus was my territory, so the only way they could reach the other players was to go through me. Early on, when we were close in power, I got a non-aggression pact and trade treaty with him. But then he got his Juggernaut technology, and his power began to skyrocket. When the NA pact lapsed he had a 2-1 power advantage over me (and 4-1 to 10-1 over all others), and it became cost-prohibitive for me to have any more diplomatic dealings with him.

But he never declared war on me, oddly enough. He did declare war on every other player while we had our NA pact in force, and did at one time send a tiny force (his Sov and one warg unit) through my territory as a scouting force I guess. But after our NA pact lapsed he neither declared war on me even though we became Unfriendly), nor prosecuted the wars vs. all the other players (which became impossible due to the lack of access through my territory). He basically just sat in his two-city peninsula (there was a third city, but it looks like it got destroyed by monsters early on and never rebuilt) and did nothing.

(I think maybe the fact that he had all these other pending wars on his plate discouraged him from declaring war on me ... ?)

Anyways, eventually Gilder and I managed to clear a big swamp wilderness to the north, and I was finally able to plant new cities. Then my growing army overtook whittled down Yithril's power lead, and finally surpassed him. He quickly drifted to Close, then I was able to Ally with him and win the game.

But not quite. The game did not end. Puzzled, I began to check and make sure everyone was Allied ... and discovered that there was one player I never encountered, and thus I had no relations with - Altar. I searched the entire contiguous land mass, and they were no where to be found.

It turns out they were hidden on an island far to the northwest (!) and I only found them by laboriously searching the seas with Raise Land and Ogre scouts. Once I did, I immediately intimidated them diplomatically; they went from Neutral to Close in one turn, then next turn they were my Ally. Boom, game over.

The search for the Lost Civilization of Altar was the only real frustration in this game, which wasted about 20-30 turns. It was a completely bloodless victory (if you don't count the non-player monsters and quests).

On one hand, it feels like this was too easy. But OTOH, I'm sure without Diplomatic victory on, I would have eventually won via one of the other methods, I managed to get that much of an expansion advantage over the other players in the early and mid game, such that if I did have to slog it out via wars I would have prevailed (unless they would have all ganged up on my at once, which I notice the game does not tend to do to the front-runner ... there does not seem to be any "Bad Boy" concept in this game). The Diplomatic victory was a just a convenient recognition of that reality.

 

20,398 views 17 replies
Reply #1 Top

there does not seem to be any "Bad Boy" concept in this game

There's warmonger, but you did not start any wars. If you are talking about a 'Big Man' penalty, that's another matter.

By the way, I like bloodless victories.  I had one on ridiculous/ridiculous, by exploiting Altar's quest loop, and intimidating everyone into submission.

Reply #2 Top

Yeah the latter is what I mean, some sort of a jealous desire for the AI's to unite against a front-runner, even a nice and peaceful one.

As things stand now, your power rating is the most important number in the game. Once you are on top, and can stay on top, you can totally dominate diplomacy and eventually get an easy alliance win.

Reply #3 Top

I do recall in previous games the AI sending me polite messages that I should attack another top player who they said was a threat. They never came accompanied by any incentives, however.

Reply #4 Top

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

 

You make me sick.  :annoyed:

Reply #5 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 5
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power?"

Power.  Then it makes him go evil.  The sad part is, if you ever let a chance to grab power pass you by, you regret it for the rest of your life.

Reply #6 Top

"I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me."

Reply #7 Top

I just finished another game using the same strategy. I was Ceresa, 10 players, medium map, Challenging/Challenging. And same result, I won w/o ever gotten in a foreign war.

This time I got a Spell victory rather than Diplomatic, in 55 years, and my score was a perfect "Draginol".

Ceresa was great for this strategy because of all the free demons she gets. I was very careful not to lose any of them (I lost only one, to amazingly bad luck) thus keep my power rating on top. And that's the key to winning this way. 

As a result, I'm beginning to think diplomacy is broken in this game, as things now stand. Generally speaking, the AI will not attack you if you have even the slightest power advantage over them. Not only that, they will gleefully pay you for the privilege of signing a non-aggression pact every 30 turns, for doing exactly what you want them to do ... leave you along while you build up your initial land grab into an unassailable position, and one of the 3 non-conquest victories.

OTOH, these was only two games, so maybe these were flukes. Does anyone else feel there's a problem here?

Reply #8 Top

I would love an AI that goes after the leader rather than the little guy.  I'm sure the AI will evolve.

I do not consider this a serious problem.  Increase the difficulty to the point where you stop having fun winning this way, then look for another strategy.  It CAN be done even on insane, but for that you will need the Altar quest loop (At least, that's the only way I have won on Insane without fighting)

Reply #9 Top

Really the AI needs to behave like that of the Settler's of Cataan AI. It should always always always harsh on the leader to prevent them from winning. Scooping up little guys can work early on, but late in the game it just won't pay off as much as it would to attack the leader. 

Reply #10 Top

All of the above are valid posts; but I always disliked the fact that in the Civ series, other nations declare war on you once you start to pull ahead of the second place player. I understand the game mechanics, but all diplomacy comes to an end once you get far enough ahead. So I thought the OP game sounded kinda neat...Just my 2 cents.

 

Goes to show you can please some of the people some of the time...

Reply #11 Top

FE has a reasonable mechanic to deal with this, if a kingdom player seems to be going for a peace victory then the empire factions could get upset about (and vice versa). Having said that I think there should also be a negative diplomacy modifier to even the same kind of faction BUT not a big enough one for someone who is close with you to suddenly decide they hate you.

The modifiers should get much bigger for everyone once you start spell of making.

Reply #12 Top

Sounds like you had a fun game, I can't see much of a problem except the AI being slightly silly when your territory encloses them and "prisons" them on the peninsula (they need to deal with that!)

The AI should always consider hitting the winning faction, the AI should try to win, currently the AI is only going after beating off small factions...
But it helps when the AI actually knows how to do combat.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #13 Top

 

Victories different than conquest seems to be hard to deal with. If faction power is the main (and only?) way the AI measures the behavior towards player, it leads to these strange situations

The diplomatic options are still very weak, and they are very rigid. Very few treaties, they have a determined duration, and there is nothing you can do against, but wait untill they expire.

I don't see prestige effects clearly, although they might be there, just hidden. Anyway, prestige is a rare rare resource you have no control of it (only gain with techs, maybe in another dark way too).

Influence is just a coin in exchanges (yeah, buy henchmen and little more).

Buildings that might improve relations are so far in the Civ tech tree, that I'm not sure if actually there is any.

Kingdom/Empire is just a little factor in diplomacy. It seems not to play a significant role.

 

So, in overall, apart from conquest, what do we have?

- Allied victory. The winner is the player, but in fact, all allied factions win. If AI is low powered and player is peacefull, should AI try pursuit it? Then, a full peace victory.

- Spell of Making. As far as I know, player is the only one who can cast it. And AI do nothing. So this is crippled too.

- Master Quest. The same?

So SOM and MQ are independent of AI. I used them when conquest was long and tedious. Actually, they seem to be out of the game.

SOM could at least be reintroduced, if AI reacted to it, or even if it tried to cast it. That would show interesting game situations.

MQ, I really don't know what do with it and the AI or not. But for me, it is fine. Is just another option you can use if you want, or not. It doesn't bother.

In a game, I switched off MQ. I found the same wildlands, and when I cleared it, the lands remained wild, and know what? assasin demons started to spam each few turns.

That would be a good way to improve the MQ: after XXX turns, it starts to spam monsters, with progressive strength that eventually will conquest all the land. That would encourage player to find allies, and you should finish the MQ to win.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting SOLOSOL, reply 14
I don't see prestige effects clearly, although they might be there, just hidden. Anyway, prestige is a rare rare resource you have no control of it (only gain with techs, maybe in another dark way too).

Influence is just a coin in exchanges (yeah, buy henchmen and little more).

Prestige is gained through:
Technology.
Levelling your sovereign.
Special buildings.
That one silly spell.

Having lots of Prestige boosts relations a tiny bit, but mostly prestige determines the base growth of each of your  cities in a very crude manner (prestige divided upon your cities, 10 prestige to 3 cities gives 10/3 = 3.33 growth in all your cities).

Influence is gained through:
Buildings.
More silly buildings.
Those monuments (pick one, if you picked right, thats the one).
Some faction traits.

Influence is really a stoic resource, you use it really much as altar, but else you shouldn't use it much.
Having lots of influence boosts relations a tiny bit too, but mostly the more influence you have, the better your trades with opposing factions is, to the point where you can rob the AI factions by continuously clever trading.

Quoting SOLOSOL, reply 14
MQ, I really don't know what do with it and the AI or not. But for me, it is fine. Is just another option you can use if you want, or not. It doesn't bother.

I would really wish the master-quest would include the trading of a certain piece, say there are 25 fragments throughout the world, and each faction would pick up a fair share each, then they would be used for the master quest, you either have to trade to get these fragments, steal them from the opposing factions (have to implement something new for that part), or conquer them off the AI's hands.

Just a few thoughts anyways.

I am happy someone saw how they could do allied victory, I have NEVER been able to do the allied victory, the AI usually cramps up being mad in a corner, and at that point I might as well get them to surrender.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #15 Top

On a related note, I have found passive-aggressive victory rather easy: do not declare war, trounce krax when he declares war, give peace when it is offered, ally with him, then let him deal with the other AIs...

 

Actually, it might not be fair to call that game a win, it crashed before it ended and I had way too much of a power advantage to bother starting it up again.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 15
I am happy someone saw how they could do allied victory, I have NEVER been able to do the allied victory, the AI usually cramps up being mad in a corner, and at that point I might as well get them to surrender.

Thanks to OP, I got an allied victory last game. Instead of kicking last AI city, I accepted peace, and bought the alliance pact (it took me >400 gildar!).  That way, I got the Alliance achievement, and saw the end screen. If not, I would never tried. Try it next time.

And thanks for prestige and influence notes.

Reply #17 Top

Quoting SOLOSOL, reply 17
Try it next time.

I dont really care much for the acheivements, I do want a proper diplomatic game (where its possible to have proper diplomatic allies), I find this currently way off in the current elemental (and I go to play endless space instead, where I can actually have a peace treaty without having to conquer my enemies first ^_^).

Non aggression pacts and alliances becomes extremely prohibited in this game mostly because its all dependant on power rating, and power rating is mostly dependant on standing amount of units, and I just don't care to spam useless militia.

I would love to see the AI pick up "concerns" in this game, find out which enemies concern them the most (usually the closest), and then try to pick up trade treaties and trade agreements with players not in immediate "I want to kill" zone... So you cannot box in warlord verga in a corner, and just ignore him because he really don't want to do combat with you.

The AI should also go less by power rating, and more by scouting too, if they can easily grab 2-3 cities within the first 2-3 turns of war, they should recalculate the power rating dependant on this fact.

Oh, and someone FIX THE POWER RATING.

Quoting SOLOSOL, reply 17
And thanks for prestige and influence notes.

No problem!

Edit: Here I go rambling again ;)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej