I don't quite get why this hasen't ever been brought up before (or so it seems), but maybe it's because the Civ games do the same thing? I've never played the Civ games.

One thing that I find to be both annoying and almost pointless is the AI's "attitude" towards you. It is a very simple system: for every turn you're at peace or in an alliance with an AI, you gain "AI love" points. For every turn you're at war with them, you lose "AI love" points. Of course, this can vary based on the AI's goals. Clearly, this system is an attempt to emulate human behavior to an extent as well as give the AI a reason to attack you, and on the surface, it seems like it would be very effective at the task.

But the truth is, the system more often than not just creates a World War II state that lasts the entire game, where there are 2 or three giant alliances constantly fighting each other. This is not fun at all; it is a mind-numbingly predictable, boring game.

In addition, gaining "AI love" points just for being at peace with them and losing "AI love" points just for being at war with them is absurd. Human players would only become distrustful towards another player if something was done to them (i.e. actually being attacked, or an enemy taking over your city).

Some changes need to be made to the system: First, "AI Love" points should only be gained or lost based on what you do, not based on what diplomatic state you're in (and the Eiffel Tower wonder should be discarded). Second, AI players should consider more factors than just their anger level towards other civilizations, with their own gains and survival in the game being their top priorities. Third, and this kind of ties in with the last one, AI players should not refuse a cease-fire treaty based on anger. They should only refuse a cease-fire treaty if, after analyzing the situation, they find that destroying you is in their immediate best interest (and that they can destroy you).

75.45.183.93 11:45, November 10, 2010 (UTC)