Brave new world Ai too peaceful.

[sats]

I first had vanilla civilization 5 and the ai was very aggresive its a challenge to defend your cities.i enjoyed that challenge.but the ai in brave new world after the fall patch was installed it was ok in my first game emperor difficulty on huge world map america and maya declared war on me early and it was a nice game alexander declared war on me two times and finally when i declared war on russia to prevent them from winning diplomatic victory.catherine nuked 3 of my cities.its was a great game.After that i have played 3 games 2 on emperor and 1 immortal all games past 200 turns i am not getting dow from other civilization.but the ai's fight between them from turn 50.the ai's near me only build wonder not creating new cities and focus on expanding only their capital and getting gold.civilizations far away from me gets crazily expanding.it was so boring.i lost the thrill in the game will the ai declare war on me later on in the game or the chances are very low even on the immortal diffulty level?

 

[reddishrecue]

The ai does attack sometimes and ends up attacking other ais sometimes. The ai could sometimes invite you to join their war against other ais.

 

[sats]

The ai does attack sometimes and ends up attacking other ais sometimes. The ai could sometimes invite you to join their war against other ais.

The ai always attack other civilizations but not me.does most of the civilizations (except some like zulus,greeks and huns)never attack me?

 

[reddishrecue]

The ai always attack other civilizations but not me.does most of the civilizations (except some like zulus,greeks and huns)never attack me?

The ai does attack sometimes. If the Ai is too close to you then it'll most likely attack if you seem inferior.

 

[Helmling]

I find it varies widely now. There are a lot more factors in BNW and sometimes these new variables push AIs away from warfare--i.e. early money troubles, shared religions, etc.

They could easily inject more conflict by adding the negative diplomatic flag for divs with different religions that we had in Civ IV. Maybe even make it worse if you have Piety filled in (or even opened up) but with a different religion.

 

[PhilBowles]

The AI can be aggressive on higher difficulties if you really upset them - it is, I think, just too easy to get static positive modifiers with the AIs that deter aggression (themselves added as a response to complaints in vanilla that diplomacy was too hard to manage).

 

[Barghaest]

I tend to find the AI aggressive when I haven't upset them. Since I concentrate on empire management over military early in the game, I often get "covet lands you possess" from neighbors since the AI sucks at managing a decent empire... so they lust over my well-developed cities and my weaker military makes them froggy enough to jump (only to be easily decimated by my "inferior" army).

 

[Helmling]

I tend to find the AI aggressive when I haven't upset them. Since I concentrate on empire management over military early in the game, I often get "covet lands you possess" from neighbors since the AI sucks at managing a decent empire... so they lust over my well-developed cities and my weaker military makes them froggy enough to jump (only to be easily decimated by my "inferior" army).

The AI lusts after good land close to it, regardless of how well you've developed it.

 

[AiTenshi1]

Civ is not a wargame. Some people approach it as a wargame and it wound up being one in prior versions, but it was never intended to be that way.

People complained about the fact that constant war was the primary / easiest approach in past games as well as prior versions of Civ V, so Firaxis addressed this problem.

AIs will still DOW you if the situation is right, but there are many other elements to the game and constant warring is not what the game is supposed to be about. AIs are more likely to taunt / tempt you into DOWing them now, which is probably more realistic and certainly allows for more player choice about how to pursue victory, or even just playing and developing their civilizations.

If you want war, then DOW an AI and go for domination.

 

[EulerMcE]

Spawning near Spain who found El Dorado has assured me the lack of early war is mostly down to lack of early money.

 

[Magean]

AIs will still DOW you if the situation is right, but there are many other elements to the game and constant warring is not what the game is supposed to be about. AIs are more likely to taunt / tempt you into DOWing them now, which is probably more realistic and certainly allows for more player choice about how to pursue victory, or even just playing and developing their civilizations.

The thing is that you can survive the entire game with almost no military provided you don't start near a true warmonger. Everybody is friend with everybody else baring Shaka, Genghis or Montazuma.

This is a bit too much peace in my opinion.

 

[Loucypher]

The thing is that you can survive the entire game with almost no military provided you don't start near a true warmonger. Everybody is friend with everybody else baring Shaka, Genghis or Montazuma.

This is a bit too much peace in my opinion.

Really? Then I wonder what the hell Pacal and Ashurbanipal were smoking in my last game. Not to mention the sudden naval invasion Rameses launched against me.

Really, it all depends on playing style + the layout of the map. I play on relatively crowded maps, leading to a lot of war due to the close proximities. Even more peacefully inclined civs will still war if you set things up like that. Furthermore, your own behavior helps as well. If you stay mostly out of politics, you don't get nearly as much hate as when you actively DOF, Denounce and such when neccesary.

Civ isnt a wargame. But you can make it as wargamey as you want yourself.

 

[Magean]

I don't want Civ to become a wargame.

Actually, I was satisfied when I heard before BNW's release that wars would be less harassing. I've also the mind of a builder who likes to be able to build without constantly producing new units.

But the devs clearly went waaaay too far with BNW, and I didn't notice any change with the fall patch. The game also became much easier, at least for me since I was sometimes struggling with King difficulty back in G&K. With BNW, I quickly jumped to Emperor and didn't have much trouble, to the point that I'm now trying Immortal.

My tradition-tall empires usually cross the entire game without a single DoW upon them. A few ranged units and the last military power of the world are enough to maintain eternal peace. The military pressure is almost gone, unless I start near Genghis or so. Most AIs simply let me build wonders and cruise to victory. They don't fight much with each other either.

Before BNW we had a bunch of psychos (Genghis, Monty...) that would wage war all the time and sacrifice internal development of their empire, while other leaders had a little bit of understanding of Realpolitik. They were friendly when aggressiveness offered no advantage in comparison to peaceful collaboration, otherwise they could attack.

Now the clan of the psychos has grown (hello Shaka) while other leaders simply forgot the bit of Realpolitik they could use. They're so tame. They remain friendly even when it would profit them more to destroy a peaceful and weak runaway.

EDIT : with the exception of Bismarck. This guy remains an aggressive competitor without being completely mad like Monty.

 

[Kaxen]

The AI wont attack you if theres still room to expand and there always seems to be room when you play with the default settings. If you play with 22 civs you will see plenty of war.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

My tradition-tall empires usually cross the entire game without a single DoW upon them. A few ranged units and the last military power of the world are enough to maintain eternal peace. The military pressure is almost gone, unless I start near Genghis or so. Most AIs simply let me build wonders and cruise to victory. They don't fight much with each other either.

One of the things that really screws up the balance between liberty and tradition. Since liberty is pretty weak without expansion they're almost always fighting more wars.

I know Civ isn't supposed to be a wargame but the lack of aggression just allows players to all but ignore military, settle 2 or 3 cities and rush to philo, then education and win a pretty boring game by rushing the next tech on your path to victory (dynamite for dom, scientific theory for science etc.) On immortal and deity all that's necessary is to fit construction in between philo and edu and you'll usually be safe too.

Being able to just build, build, build without any threat makes emperor and down super cheesey. You should enter the medieval era and say "Oh man, I need a medieval army soon if I'm going to survive." not "Meh, my warrior, 2 scouts and 5 comp. bows should get me through, let's spam wonders!!!"

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Clearly he has not met Shaka

 

[njmfff]

Civ is not a wargame. Some people approach it as a wargame and it wound up being one in prior versions, but it was never intended to be that way.

Yeah, it's not, but war is still part of the game, so it wouldn't be bad if things go crazy sometimes. In BNW AI can sometimes get too passive, so you'll need to manually cause problems, usually by bribing different civs fight each other. Sometimes 3 luxuries and small GPT is worth giving to AI to attack someone else - if they succeed in war, like capturing other AI's capital, that AI (including some others) will usually hate it for the rest of the game.

People complained about the fact that constant war was the primary / easiest approach in past games as well as prior versions of Civ V, so Firaxis addressed this problem.

Yeah, agree. Domination was the easiest pre-BWN (especially vanilla). You can war now, but you'll have to put up with consequences... which makes sense.

AIs will still DOW you if the situation is right, but there are many other elements to the game and constant warring is not what the game is supposed to be about. AIs are more likely to taunt / tempt you into DOWing them now, which is probably more realistic and certainly allows for more player choice about how to pursue victory, or even just playing and developing their civilizations.

If you want war, then DOW an AI and go for domination.

AI loooves to taunt. Too bad you can't do that too. I especially love when AI starts taunting me that my culture is terrible, while my culture is dominant over his.

Let's face it, how many of us wanted to tell Alex to go ride a donkey?

Clearly he has not met Shaka

When those guy do, they usually complain Shaka is too hard. He definitively spices things up, but ends up being crushed by other civs around Industrial era because he has dozens of cities and still attacks with rocks.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ is not a wargame. Some people approach it as a wargame and it wound up being one in prior versions, but it was never intended to be that way.

Actually, it was originally intended that way. It evolved into more of a management game as time went on, but Civ 1 was essentially a wargame. The original game had more units than buildings (albeit only by 1 or 2), and micromanagement was very limited - it was the later incarnations that fleshed out the non-combat game. Even so - and coming from Civ IV fans many of whom originally complained about earlier versions of Civ V being a wargame - I've seen comments on the Civ IV forum, the game that departed most from the original in terms of the extent to which it permitted peaceful gameplay - I've seen Civ V described as being better for peaceful play and Civ IV for warmongers.

AIs will still DOW you if the situation is right, but there are many other elements to the game and constant warring is not what the game is supposed to be about.

Constant warring, no - however even though the name was coined for the even more combat-focused Master of Orion, two of the xs in 4x (eXterminate and eXpand) entail aggression. You should not be able to play wholly peaceful games - it's one of a number of areas where, while BNW improved the game mechanically, Civ V was closer to the optimum balance (peace vs. war, tall vs. wide) in G&K, and BNW generally went too far in the other direction.

AIs are more likely to taunt / tempt you into DOWing them now, which is probably more realistic and certainly allows for more player choice about how to pursue victory, or even just playing and developing their civilizations.

The denunciation system is - or at least was - great, but in BNW AI leaders just don't seem to care if someone else has denounced you, so why should you? In G&K and vanilla denunciation could be fatal if not properly managed - it would lead to chains of denunciations from people who liked you less than the denouncer, and eventually someone would go to war. Now if Elizabeth denounces me, it's a case of "that's nice dear, now go away and let me carry on with my turn".

It's an unfortunate case of Firaxis pandering too much; rather than just listening to and evaluating fan criticism on its own merits, they just write out or marginalise systems that fans moan loudest about. They did the same with the XCOM expansion. Panic is a key part of the game, both in its original and new forms, but players were complaining vocally about it so in the expansion Firaxis added a whole slew of effects that meant that, past the very early game, no one was ever going to panic again.

 

[isau]

I think more than anything that the early game economy is too unforgiving. The cost of early units and the penalties for capturing an early city make early war impractical, both for the player and the AI. Perhaps the Honor tree is supposed to allow you to launch early wars, but its really bad at it.

This is not a "war" game but it is also not supposed to be Sim City. The AIs should be more aggressive, but to to do that, building an early army needs to be viable. The "rush to National College" every single game strategy should not work as reliably as it does. Other civs should be putting more pressure on the player. And tall empires in general need balancing.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think more than anything that the early game economy is too unforgiving. The cost of early units and the penalties for capturing an early city make early war impractical, both for the player and the AI. Perhaps the Honor tree is supposed to allow you to launch early wars, but its really bad at it.

This is not a "war" game but it is also not supposed to be Sim City. The AIs should be more aggressive, but to to do that, building an early army needs to be viable. The "rush to National College" every single game strategy should not work as reliably as it does. Other civs should be putting more pressure on the player. And tall empires in general need balancing.

I tried a domination game as a random warmonger (rerolling until I got a warmonger). Turned out to be the Huns.

I don't think the economy limiting early-game warfare is necessarily crippling in general, but the Huns no longer work as the civ they were meant to be - taking free Animal Husbandry and extra production from horses and running with it to play a peaceful trader game is a better option for them.

Also, it's a symptom of something Civ V now suffers from in more than one of its game systems - the city strength/garrison system was designed for a different game, with a different economy. BNW's economic system is great, and can readily support enough early units to fight a small war - but it won't support enough to take cities with the current mechanics and the strength of city defence. Reducing the combat strength of ungarrisoned early cities would help a lot. Honor does help, but even with the numbers of barbarians around (early civs and CSes don't have enough units to farm for culture), you don't get through the tree fast enough to get the finisher at a good time for truly early war.

EDIT: Returned to that game today. The Persian attack swiftly took Cape Town (Trebuchets deal an insane amount of damage to technologically inferior civs' cities), entailing a second EXTREME warmonger penalty when I took it back a couple of turns later (not sure if it was deliberate cleverness by the AI to liberate Cape Town rather than keep it - I'd probably have only got a Major one for taking a Persian city. It seems to have been Darius' original objective, since he withdrew as soon as Cape Town was liberated). That still wasn't fatal - it did lead to denunciations by the other two civs immediately afterwards, but Boudicca was still willing to be bribed to go to war with Darius.

Got dispirited by that session after sacrificing too much development on an attempt to take Persepolis, which was surrounded by Celtic ranged units and so very hard for me to get close to - I lost my final melee attacker with a Celtic musketman poised to take the city next turn. That was more of a hit than either the warmonger penalty or slow economic development.