I've been playing the World scenario and am amazed at how busy the AI's are at going to war for all the wrong reasons. I keep thinking of the story of David and Goliath and it wasn't little David traipsing around other hoods looking to pick a fight, that was the big bully Goliath's M.O.. So why are the little AI's picking on the big AI's or big humans? I'm playing North America and waited a good two years before suckering South America into attacking me. Those treaties S.A. had with several other regions were worthless because S.A. attacked me. It was funny to see it's allies actually become more peaceful towards me than the non-allies.
If the AI's followed the scenario's script then it would be rather interesting. That begs the question of why go to war in the first place. It should be for some kind of economic gain, getting resouirces a region is short on or more population. It should not be solely based upon build cap or some such nonsensical motive as is currently driving the AI's to ruin. Why on earth does every AI jump on Europe? It's rather stupid to have India or Asia or Oceania declaring war on Europe when they have no common borders and can't possibly attack. Why aren't they attacking other regions they are adjacent to? Why doesn't India attack the Middle East when they are chronically short on petroleum? Why doesn't Asia attack Russia for the same reasons?
The rationale for AI's attacking other regions, AI or human, needs to be corrected to reflect the proper reason for war, to gain something of value. Buildcap is the wrong reason for making AI's go to war. Economic gain should be the reason for AI's to go to war and if that becomes the reason then the AI's will do better.
In my games I've noticed that the AI's that go to war soonest end up the brokest. I've seen how war drives them to low treasuries and big debts while they gain nothing of benefit. The one AI that stayed out of attacking Europe the longest, South America, has the best treasury and no debt. It managed to accumulate a nice big $1.2 trillion treasury which I'm now looting and adding to my $2.5 trillion treasury. My war with S.A. will more than pay for itself even though I'm running a $5 billion daily deficit.
The other thing that the AI's need to learn is the old sage adage of "Get there firstest with the mostest". I've watched the AI's play sitzkrieg fighting Europe for almost two years. The Middle East has gained some territory as well as Russia, but they haven't really been able to gain enough to get ahead for victory. The AI's need to keep less units in backwater reserves doing nothing and get more troops to the front to actually win battles and gain large tracts of land. South America is playing defense in depth but all that ensures is that I get to defeat it in detail in short order.
I sure hope that BG will fix the AI's to go to war for the proper reasons, not bogus reasons like buildcap which just is suicidal. The AI's need to be less likely to declare war when they have alliances or else their diplomatic efforts are wasted. Little AI's should lay low, be peaceful and try to build up their economy. Let the big bullies, like humans, be the agressors so the little AI's can take advantage of those alliances they forge. The game would be much better if the AI's go to war for the proper reasons and don't be little Davids picking on big Goliaths.