If one guy plays a a partial game and decides the game needs a major patch, it's enough for me.
If AI is going for a science victory, war doesn't help unless victory is guaranteed.
If AI is going for a diplo victory, war doesn't help unless it's against the goat (which doesn't happen early game).
If AI is going for a culture victory, war doesn't help since it lowers your rate of influence (exception being to take out the lone high-culture civ or w/ Autocracy's cultural tenant), but early war may help if you're out of land, but ONLY when you're out of land.
So, if you're looking at it this way, only 1/4-1/2 of the time, will it be beneficial to the AI EVEN IF they win an early war. Add in the situations where AI has no other trading partners, thus no gold for an army, or where AI has a ton of space to expand... where it would totally DUMB for the AI player to declare war on anyone early.... and you get a relatively peaceful early game.
So, from the perspective of I'm competing vs. 7 other civs, so if they all attack me that would make the game harder... yes the AI should be aggressive.
But, from the perspective of EACH AI, who is trying to win the game for itself, it is almost never the correct choice to try to take out a neighboring civ early. Especially with the new World Congress, being a warmonger has never hurt so bad.
So yes, the AI got SMARTER about winning the game. And by getting smarter, the AI got more peaceful in the early game. This in turn lowers the difficulty for the human player as an indirect result, because while your neighbor's % chance to win the game went up, so did yours, and it was all directly at the cost of the far away runaways' % chance to win the game.
This is called balance, and a more intelligent AI.
I mean, you can complain about it, because being attacked early DOES make the game harder, but you can't argue with the AI's better decision-making process.
at this point, I think this argument is dead
If AI is going for a science victory, war doesn't help unless victory is guaranteed.
If AI is going for a diplo victory, war doesn't help unless it's against the goat (which doesn't happen early game).
If AI is going for a culture victory, war doesn't help since it lowers your rate of influence (exception being to take out the lone high-culture civ or w/ Autocracy's cultural tenant), but early war may help if you're out of land, but ONLY when you're out of land.
.
However, if two civs are trying to achieve the same victory, shouldn't they be inclined to wage war upon one another to eliminate the competition?
I was just coming on these forums to say how much I enjoy the fact that DIPLOMACY seems to actually matter when it comes to war.
Now, this thread is all just anecdotal evidence, so I will add mine.
So I went back and loaded a saved game and played it a bit differently:
- When he asked me to join in a war agianst a mutual neighbor I said 'no' (I had joined him before, although offered very little help)
- I turned my trade routes internal, so we didn't share as many trade routes
- when a different neighbor asked me to stop spreading my religion I told him to stick it, and subsequently got denounced by several civs (but not the Ottomans)
Then he launched a massive surprise attack against me (despite us still being at 'friendly' status).
Really, this experiment made me very happy. It showed that global diplomacy and interconnected trade routes appears to impact AI agressiveness, and that makes sense.
It's just weird for me to play a game of Civilization where the United States would invade Canada because 'it's trying to win.' I get that it's a game with end conditions, but it's still a simulation game, I enjoy it when it simulates a bit.
I also find that having extended periods of early peace is the only way to have a competitive end game. When my AI neighbor launches its 'sneak' attack (entirely predictable in previous versions) it means I either get smashed and lose, or (more often) repel the attack, capture almost all of their cities and become a runaway global power.
In my peaceful game I able to not go warmongering, keep the game competitive, and then make a move in the modern era for a particular victory condition, if I'm setup right.
Rather than winning an early war or two leading to an end game of 'pick the goal to slog to in obvious victory' - I can play a peaceful game and actually have a competitive heat at the end.
So it seems in my optimistic assessment.
I've played 7. please don't spam 1 liners trying to be cool.
THis is emperor level too.
I was just coming on these forums to say how much I enjoy the fact that DIPLOMACY seems to actually matter when it comes to war.
Now, this thread is all just anecdotal evidence, so I will add mine.
On King difficulty I have been able to grow in complete peace with my two neighbors until the Modern Era, no war. So this seems to support the AI being too passive. I am playing as Brazil and the Ottomans next to me had an enormous army of Jannisaries, while I had minimal defenses.
So I went back and loaded a saved game and played it a bit differently:
- When he asked me to join in a war agianst a mutual neighbor I said 'no' (I had joined him before, although offered very little help)
- I turned my trade routes internal, so we didn't share as many trade routes
- when a different neighbor asked me to stop spreading my religion I told him to stick it, and subsequently got denounced by several civs (but not the Ottomans)
Then he launched a massive surprise attack against me (despite us still being at 'friendly' status).
Really, this experiment made me very happy. It showed that global diplomacy and interconnected trade routes appears to impact AI agressiveness, and that makes sense.
It's just weird for me to play a game of Civilization where the United States would invade Canada because 'it's trying to win.' I get that it's a game with end conditions, but it's still a simulation game, I enjoy it when it simulates a bit.
I also find that having extended periods of early peace is the only way to have a competitive end game. When my AI neighbor launches its 'sneak' attack (entirely predictable in previous versions) it means I either get smashed and lose, or (more often) repel the attack, capture almost all of their cities and become a runaway global power.
In my peaceful game I able to not go warmongering, keep the game competitive, and then make a move in the modern era for a particular victory condition, if I'm setup right.
Rather than winning an early war or two leading to an end game of 'pick the goal to slog to in obvious victory' - I can play a peaceful game and actually have a competitive heat at the end.
So it seems in my optimistic assessment.
No. As a builder, I don't start wars. But there is no fun if the early game AI is so paralyzed that it is almost certain there that will be no threats. Even worse, sometimes the AI does not even expand and you can take all the land. This is just wrong.You want early wars? You can start them yourselves.
I allow myself speaking here for many players of the German community. With help of VPNs, we are constantly playing since Tuesday, and almost all of us have the same early game experience that a guy just described this way:But really, how many games have any of you played yet? Perhaps need a slightly bigger sample size?
I'm sure we all remember earlier builds when the AI would throw everything he had at you, leaving you an easy waltz to take his capital as soon as you had dealt with the rush. Perhaps, just perhaps, the AI has realized that an early war without a great chance of victory will gimp them for the rest of the game, and therefore are more cautious.
Game's ben out, what, two days now?No. As a builder, I don't start wars. But there is no fun if the early game AI is so paralyzed that it is almost certain there that will be no threats. Even worse, sometimes the AI does not even expand and you can take all the land. This is just wrong.[/COLOR]
Do you actually read what others are posting?There are and always will be people who see Civ as just a war game. They will be disappointed to see fewer early rushes.