Geoff the Medio wrote:As a temporary adjustment, AIs ganging up on the leader is OK, but it's probably not good to assume / plan for it to be used long term. Generally people want relationships with AI players throughout a game to have some weight, which in this case might mean an AI not declaring war on the leader just because they are the leader, but instead maintaining a game-long alliance.
That said, if the goal of AIs is to win (or stop other players from winning), it makes sense for them to do this.
Which behaviour / goal is preferable / chosen by AIs might be a matter of the personality of the AI scripts being used.
I think for the type of relationship players want... ie "the AI is my friend, they won't attack me"
Essentially you need a way to "conquer" someone diplomatically... make it so that your empire and theirs act like one.. if one of you wins so does the other.
Now to prevent everyone from instantly allying and saying "Everybody wins"... this should be an Expensive and Time consuming process... costing a lot of influence or trade and taking at least 100 turns. So that if 2 empires decide to 'properly align' they might be easy prey for someone who wants to outright conquer them.
Of course the process should Also have some intermediate benefits... but at any point (until full union), if you start thinking its not worth it... you can begin to 'unwind' the alliance. but after it is full you are permanent allies.
So when someone became the leader, her friends would seek full alliances with her, and her enemies would seek temporary alliances with each other.
This 'permanent alliance' could then also be a solution to small player.. either ally with a big one, or each other to become a big one.