How do you prefer the AI to treat alliances?

[caralampio]

As a major AI overhaul is in the works for SS version 6.2, and people are trying it, some are all praises, others feel the game not so fun anymore. Especially regarding the recovered ability to backstab the player even if they are allies. Maybe the AI is being geared towards the tastes of a vociferous minority? Or maybe those who don't like the new AI are naught but wimps?

To help Gracul make some decision regarding the AI, I thought it would be a good idea poll the players, to see what they would prefer from the AI.

[Caesar Clivus]

I agree most with number two (breakable alliances if relations go sour) but I also think the AI should be able to backstab a little bit to keep it interesting, preferably when the AI has something tangible to gain from it rather than just because...if that is possible.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I like wars to be limited, decisive and few. And I dislike overly-aggressive, backstabbing AI's; often due to their own ineptitude they are unable to defeat me or make crippling advances and I wind up annihilating them, as I did back in the rough days of RTW and unmoddable, aggressive AI. With a less aggressive AI they at least don't hurt their own reputation by breaking alliances, and can still be quite aggressive on their own right. Besides, they often give themselves time enough to build up before facing other factions and me on the field, resulting in better and higher quality armies.

[django333]

I think somewhere in the middle would be good. I want my alliances to mean something but I would also like the chance of being backstabbed. The whole problem with allies backstabbing you is that they usually don't do it effectively.

[Caesar Clivus]

I like wars to be limited, decisive and few. And I dislike overly-aggressive, backstabbing AI's; often due to their own ineptitude they are unable to defeat me or make crippling advances and I wind up annihilating them, as I did back in the rough days of RTW and unmoddable, aggressive AI. With a less aggressive AI they at least don't hurt their own reputation by breaking alliances, and can still be quite aggressive on their own right. Besides, they often give themselves time enough to build up before facing other factions and me on the field, resulting in better and higher quality armies.

Couldn't agree more. Also to add to that, when the AI has better reputation and are less likely to backstab each other, when you do start attacking an AI faction, their allies (should) jump into the fray as well. Makes you have to think more about who you're attacking if you are also attacking their friends too...do you attack Venice as Milan knowing that the Venetians are allied to the HRE and France too?

[mikil100]

I like wars to be limited, decisive and few. And I dislike overly-aggressive, backstabbing AI's; often due to their own ineptitude they are unable to defeat me or make crippling advances and I wind up annihilating them, as I did back in the rough days of RTW and unmoddable, aggressive AI. With a less aggressive AI they at least don't hurt their own reputation by breaking alliances, and can still be quite aggressive on their own right. Besides, they often give themselves time enough to build up before facing other factions and me on the field, resulting in better and higher quality armies.

I have found the AI to make a crippling move against me a few times.. Once I was allied with the Hungarians and my forces were in Italy, fighting a long drawn out war with Sicily- well Hungary was opportunistic and sent two full stacks to attack Adrianople and Thessaly (sp?).. I won obviously, but those two attacks forced me to use all my resources, and a hard fought war afterwards. I was impressed.

[Gnostiko]

often due to their own ineptitude they are unable to defeat me or make crippling advances and I wind up annihilating them...

As Caralampio has noted, I've also seen factions destroying themselves due to sheer stupidity; current Roman game - Hungary is at war with all it's neighbours and declares war on me, throws a couple of full stacks at my settlements that are destroyed, AI takes advantage, Hungary is reduced to two provinces, and they won't accept a ceasefire to preserve their miserable kingdom. Aragon declared war on me (while neutral) and have been pushed out of Spain by the Portugese via the same game flow.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Caralampio....

Thanks for the poll and the opportunity of input. +Rep

[delra]

But there's no Milan no more.

Also, I like the thrill of possibility that AI will backstab me. Too cowardly AI makes it too easy to focus on one front and thus game becomes boring.

[axnsan]

But there's no Milan no more.

Also, I like the thrill of possibility that AI will backstab me. Too cowardly AI makes it too easy to focus on one front and thus game becomes boring.

no but there's genoa and in the game files it's still used as milan

[Emperor VI]

Second option... when relations worsens below good not only ally should attack but it must attack...

[kosmosje1]

Second Option. I like the secure borders you can create with the appropriate alliances. I think that is a logical step for any faction. I do think there should be some tension, or otherwise you become careless. I sometimes broke an alliance with a nice all-out assault and found myself facing half a stack in 5 regions... barely worth noting...

[lordextra0]

3rd option
some surprises

[Deadly Rabbit]

Definately the second option. If I have a strong relationship of marriage alliances and trade with a faction I think it's pretty crap when you get backstabbed. Otherwise there's no point in having diplomacy at all.

[Gorrrrrn]

Christian factions should be able to backstab allies if the ally has been ex-communicated.

Pope should be stopped from attacking any christian faction until 1 turn after it has been ex-communicated (stop him ex-comm'ing and attacking same turn.)

Allies should break alliance if relationships get to "very poor" status.

[Calamarain]

I'm not sure what to vote for.
Would it be possible to tie the AI behaviour to the difficulty level? So at hard the AI does betray allies, and at medium honours them?

[Faramir D'Andunie]

I would personally prefer allies to backstab you only if relations fall below a certain point (very good for example).

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Not only that, but I like a "balance of power" approach. Often my own conquests are limited and gradual, so expansion takes a long time and diplomatic peace is important. I dislike rushing through the enemy and I have a particular distaste of mindless attackers that don't get to look at their own situation and are annihilated, as mentioned. It also doesn't help when you seal a strong alliance with Aragon and then they keep attacking you while the Moors roam freely in Iberia, a situation that should not happen at all.

[Callawyn]

The AI really doesn't take too much account of how dominant a player is in the world. As a player takes over more and more of the world relations should deteriorate much faster with all AI factions, resulting in breaking of alliances due to bad relations. Until/unless this happens, the AI should be allowed to occassionally backstab even if relations are good.

[Musthavename]

I agree with somewhere between option 2 and 3, but voted 2.

An ally with good relations should still be able to backstab you if there's something in it for him. If you've got plenty of provinces on the border barely defended and they could take them, and you're in war with someone else already, even an ally with "good" relations would be tempted to backstab you. Likewise, if the human player is too powerful, the AI should seek to backstab and gang up on you.

What's not right is the extremes of no-one ever backstabbing you, or the vanilla AI where you would get randomly backstabbed for no reason.