I will totally second this. Even in 1.4 DL the AI could sometimes be very opportunistic. The very last game I played before switching over to DA, I was the second most powerful militarily next to the Drengin, who were a very real threat I had to deal with now. I had commited nearly all of my forces to the Drengin front and was a few turns into a pretty tense fight with them, when all of a sudden...Treachery! Two of the Three remaining powers in the galaxy both declared war on me simultaneously from the other side of my empire...and I had been at "neutral" or better relations with both of them. Some of my few remaining obsolete ships fought valiantly to delay them while I redeployed.
This does not show that AI gang up on stronger opponents. If ot would then it would make more sense that they attacked the Drengin since they was the most powerful. This was probably just a coincidence.
It doesnt happen "often", but it does happen. Two races, at neutral or better relations, do not "coincidently" both declare war the same turn, right after youve started an invasion against someone else. Races in good diplomatic standing generally dont declare war on you at all, baring some diplomatic doublecross (payoff). Surely in your dreadlord games, youve gotten the Diplomatic message from someone youre one your friendly neighbors about the "growing threat" of race X, and how you should "work together" to combat their power. So clearly its something the AI is aware of, and the potential is there.
The "most powerful" statement was based on my own approximation, and not what the game was ranking military strength at, which I mostly ignore as being wildly innacurate. Its entirely possible I was the #1 military. Its also possible the Drengin just paid them both to attack me. Maybe they were allied ( though I dont think so..it was a bit early for that).
Either way, it just shows that all sorts of stuff can and does happen. It may not have happened precisely with the AI motivation of "weaker races ganging up against you", but the net result is the same. Certainly it could improve, but I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to some of the more "overstated" points that were made, and show that not all game experiences are the same. There are many well documented Galactic events and phenomena that I have never experienced in all my games.
Im all for continuing to improve the AI, as are Stardock. I too would love to start seeing more diplomatic events like explicit military alliances formed against nation x. But a sense of perspective is neccesary. There is no turn based strategy ( or probably strategy game in general) game in recent memory with a better "overall" AI, and that was true of Dread Lords, even with its vulnerabilities, let alone DA.
Agressiveness does not equal intelligence, or you have a situation like in M2TW, where even the puniest nation will attack your vastly more powerful nation without provocation, and not accept a free ceasefire even when you have reduced them to a single minor city. And if you ARE the most powerful military force in the game, depending on force comparison you may not even blink at two minor races declaring war on you, and they'd still be destroyed. In which case the smarter thing for them to do would not be to hasten their destruction, but change tactics and start aggresively pursuing a diplomatic or tech game victory (which also could stand to happen more often).
