Badboy value

[unmerged(924)]

I've noticed that when you have big badboy value than probability of someone declaring war on you is increased. I think that this is not correct. Actually nobody wants to mess with 'bad boy'.

However, what should be higher is probability to declare war when you declare war to someone else. Even if they are not in alliance with that 'someone else', they still should try to stop your conquest. But only if you go first!

MxM

 

[Oranje]

I disagree.
And as you gave no explanation why you think it should be the way you proposed, I don't feel like giving any either.

greetings, Oranje

 

[BiB]

Isn't that the way it usually works ? If ur the bad boy and u declare war on someone, then nearly everyone else will attack u in the back.

 

[unmerged(924)]

Oranje,

What part you disagree? That nobody want to mess with big and powerful 'badboy' or with fact if this 'bad boy' attacks someone then everyone understand that you might be next and you better stop that one.

Here is gameplay example: as Russia I needed to find way to the east, so I have to annex Astrakhan, Gold Horde and Kazan. An I become a bad boy! Now Poland, Crimeria and Sweden regularly declare war at me. I do not see reason why they do it! I do not want to conquer them and they just spend their recourses trying to conquer me. If I started to attack them, they should respond, but if I would like to have peaceful future they should not attack me any more than other countries!

MxM

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by MxM
Oranje,

What part you disagree? That nobody want to mess with big and powerful 'badboy' or with fact if this 'bad boy' attacks someone then everyone understand that you might be next and you better stop that one.

Here is gameplay example: as Russia I needed to find way to the east, so I have to annex Astrakhan, Gold Horde and Kazan. An I become a bad boy! Now Poland, Crimeria and Sweden regularly declare war at me. I do not see reason why they do it! I do not want to conquer them and they just spend their recourses trying to conquer me. If I started to attack them, they should respond, but if I would like to have peaceful future they should not attack me any more than other countries!

MxM

In just this case it seems very reasonable, if Russia is allowed to expand they will becaome stronger and take out Crimera, Poland and Sweden, very nice that the AI try to stop the historical Faith of those coutries by keeping Russia from expanding.

'Badboy' have nothing to do about being strong or notis not, its based on expansion (fast expanding nation is a danger), and warmongers.

 

[Rio]

Okay,

I think I see the parting of communication here...

There are two issues:

ONE
MxM is saying a BAD BOY would be more effectively punished if he were declared war upon AFTER he has declared war on someone (anyone). This makes some sense since the BB has then expended his stability, and 'punishers' at least will be no more unstable than the BB... Otherwise the BB can just wait and save his stability expanding at the expense of those who DoW on HIM.

TWO
I think Oranje and others will argue that 'punishers' should declare war even when the BB is NOT declaring war on someone simply so the BB has no time to restabilize, re-arm, re-finance, or what heve you. The point being that BB's DONT get to have peaceful futures until they are no longer determined to BE BBs.

I haven't played the game enough myself to know about BB status, but the sneaky AI seems to declare war on me with some odd-ball-backwater alliance I never even thought about just about every time I declare war on anyone anyway (and I AINT no BB neither!)

 

[unmerged(924)]

Originally posted by Janbalk


In just this case it seems very reasonable, if Russia is allowed to expand they will becaome stronger and take out Crimera, Poland and Sweden, very nice that the AI try to stop the historical Faith of those coutries by keeping Russia from expanding.

'Badboy' have nothing to do about being strong or notis not, its based on expansion (fast expanding nation is a danger), and warmongers.

Sorry if it is not clear. I agree that it is reasonable WHEN you expanding. What I argue is that it is not reasonable AFTER you expanded and for say 5 years did not try to attack anyone.

What I would prefer to see is that DURING expansion or even 1-3 years after last annexation, AI would declare war. But even after 5 years this should be returned to normal. BUT! Even after 20 years if you where bad boy, then if you declare war THEN everybody else try to stop you. And this should be remembered long time, somewhat 100 years or so.

And to all:

The difference of this game with practically all other CIV type games is that AI in this game should imitate historical opponents rather than to imitate human player. So the goal of AI is not to win over the player, but to achieve maximum prosperity for its country. This is different thing!

I agree that it is more effective for AIs to win over player if all of them declare war to him. However this is probably not the same if AI try to maximize its own wealth, trade or in other words VPs, which more or less corresponds to 'historical' view. Thus for AI it should be probably more beneficial to stop attacking 'bad boy' if it does not make attempts to expand for 3 years. And renew attics only if 'bad boy' start being bad boy again.

 

[JScott991]

I think the 'badboy' value is a bit too sensitive right now. I agree that countries should look disfavorably on expansion, but I don't think they should sacrifice their own geopolitical ends just because a couple of minor countries were annexed 50-60 years ago. Right now, as Austria (annexing only Bohemia and a few provines from Venice and Poland) I can't get anyone to ally with me outside of the alliance I made in the first few years of the game. Spain has NO allies and has been practically partioned by the huge coalitions that keep declaring on them. Will they ally with me? Nope. My relations with Spain are nearly -200, for no reason at all. I have never fought them. I had a Royal Marriage with them until a few decades before current time (1600). My relations with Spain simply detiorated over time. The only explanation is that Spain believes I am a warmonger in Central Europe. Why the heck would the King of Spain care? He's about to be eaten alive, but he turns away and Austrian diplomat saying 'Sorry, we're extremely upset you annexed Mantua from Venice sixty years ago.'

 

[unmerged(548)]

Why the heck would the King of Spain care?

Historically they DID!
There are numerous threads about this, do a search. I'm too tired right now to try to explain (again), sorry.

 

[Yasko]

One of the good parts with the badboy, is that you can expand without declaring war and loose stability. Let the other suckers declare war on you, and then crush them! As Sweden i managed to take all the russians provinces north of moscow thanx to badboy rating.

 

[Oranje]

Actually I do agree that the AI reaction to high badboy values could be tweaked somewhat, so suicidal missions by AI countries would diminish, but I would oppose changing it in such a way that you would be able to know exactly how they would react every time.
Strategies can be built around (and against) any recurring behaviour by the AI, so let's please keep it a little random.

 

[Hartmann]

Yes, and let´s not forget that before the introduction of the badboy concept the game was a cakewalk even on highest difficulty level as soon as You got the upper hand. It was too easy exactly because nobody wanted to mess with a big thug no matter how bad the relations were. Btw: I for one made the experience that alliances tend to declare war on a badboy just when he´s most occupied elsewhere. Coincidence?

Hartmann

 

[BiB]

The BB value is a good addition, just needs some tweaking IMO. My first game I played a bit too expansive and I got ticked right off, which was very nice (well, not at the time ). Now I take a more diplomatic approach.

It can be a bit annoying though when u play with a country that needs to expand (like Russia) to get anywhere. Even if u just atack the Khanates. Other major countries can get along just fine without expansion in Europe so if they choose to expand it isn't really cuz it's necessary. I don't see how for example France can object to Russia taking some (Orthodox) Provinces from Poland. Poland which is closer to them gets weaker and the Russia that is now a bit stronger is no threat to France whatsoever. So basically unless Russia expands West a lot more the geopolitical situation for France is actually improving.

 

[Pan Zagloba]

Well, I just played my first game as Poland-Lithuania. Russia naturally declared war on Kazan, but then mysteriously made white peace with them after destroying all their armies. Naturally, I swept in and annexed them. They (and the Horde and Kurland) were the only countries I DoW'd and the only countries I annexed. Suddenly, though, two weeks after annexing Saratow in 1568, every bugger in the game declared war on me in the space of ten days. Suddenly, I was facing:

Russia
Sweden
Teutonic Order
Pskov
Denmark
Austria
Brandenburg (with a vast army - 400 cannons attacking Krakow)
Saxony (with 60,000 men)
Hansa(with 100,000)
Milan
Bohemia
Persia
Georgia
Crimea
Lorraine
France
England
the Netherlands

and about a dozen other minors, *and* three rebel armies of more than 60,000. And I only had Moldova as an ally to keep me warm.

I mean, I take the point, guys! Really!

I think I'll try an easier nation next.

Zagloba

 

[unmerged(234)]

So you only declared three wars, two of them without CB? And 'only' annexed three contries, one of them catolich and almost doubled the size of your empire in less than 75 years?

I think it seems quite resonable for all your neighbourghs and any major power to gang up to stop that monsterous expansion.

I think you have to sacrifize some provinces to get out of this.

 

[JScott991]

Originally posted by Huszics
Why the heck would the King of Spain care?

Historically they DID!
There are numerous threads about this, do a search. I'm too tired right now to try to explain (again), sorry.

I don't think that Spain would decide to go it alone in the world, turning down an alliance with Austria, just because Austria had expanded at the expense of Venice and annexed Bohemia. I think the badboy value is extremely sensitive. I knew about it, I played the game with it in mind, and I have only fought about a half dozen wars over the first 100 years, trying to avoid it. Still, that meant nothing. If the badboy value is going to be that sensitive, then the effect should wear off within a reasonable (not 50 years) amount of time.

And on the historical point, I don't think that the Habsburg King of Spain would develop a hatred of the Habsburg Archduke of Austria because Austria used its permanent CB to gobble up Bohemia in 1493 and had fought several wars against Venice resulting in Venice losing three provinces over a fifty year period. I'm sorry, but that's hardly warmongering and its hardly likely to attract the notice of a nation who is at war with either the French or Dutch alliance every year.

Jeremy

 

[BiB]

I have to agree that Austria taking Bohemia (which it has a permanent CB for) and some provinces from Venice over such a timespan should be considered a big powermonger. Maybe he should have waited till Bohemia had turned Lutheran (which they tend to do later on). Basically he just got his homelands united and got himself a coast. IF it stays at that, it sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

[JScott991]

Ally Relations Decay

To be perfectly honest, the biggest problem with all of this is the decaying of my relations with my allies. They simply get angrier and angrier with me over time, which is in direct contract to what the manual says.

 

[unmerged(924)]

Originally posted by Oranje
Actually I do agree that the AI reaction to high badboy values could be tweaked somewhat, so suicidal missions by AI countries would diminish, but I would oppose changing it in such a way that you would be able to know exactly how they would react every time.
Strategies can be built around (and against) any recurring behaviour by the AI, so let's please keep it a little random.

Oranje,
When I said that it should return to normal in 3 years, it does not mean that it is predictable. Normal relations ARE unpredictable in the game. It is reaction to the bad boy predictable.

MxM

 

[unmerged(924)]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Yes, and let´s not forget that before the introduction of the badboy concept the game was a cakewalk even on highest difficulty level as soon as You got the upper hand. It was too easy exactly because nobody wanted to mess with a big thug no matter how bad the relations were. Btw: I for one made the experience that alliances tend to declare war on a badboy just when he´s most occupied elsewhere. Coincidence?

Hartmann

In my opinion this should not be just 'tend to', but rather the only reaction of alliances to the bad boy value. Because it is reasonable that nobody wants to mess with big bad boy if this bad boy become peacefull.

MxM