Sick of people making excuses for 2000 years of peace

Going to make an emperor pangea with 16 civs. Epic speed.

I will CHOOSE


Monty
Catherine
Wu
Rome
Bismark
Zulu
Assyria
Khan
Atilla
Greece
Boudicca

Victims will be

Siam (to piss off Greece)
America (they love expanding and Catherine will hate him for it)
Ghandi (everyone hates ghandi)
Brazil ( laughably no army)


If a war doesn't break out before the medieval era with a cramp huge pangea and EVERY SINGLE WARMONGER IN THE GAME COUPLED WITH EVERY PEACFUL PATHETIC ARMY WIELDING CIV then the game is completely broken.


You can say it isn't "smart" but I stacked the deck to make sure they have to fight. Cramped the map, gave rivals to end game objectives.


I will build no more then 2 archers and 3 scout. I will expand very lightly. I will expand into people but then follow my promise to not do it again. (in GnK this was an automatic backstab if the person you expanded into was a RAXer.


I will stream this on Twitch with commentary and everything.



I have had no agression in any games I played and this will be the PROOF you need that they need to make some serious adjustments.


If I make it to medieval period without someone sticking a fork in me, the game is broken. If I make it to the medieval period and NO ONE WENT TO WAR ON THE MAP, IT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DESTROYED.


This will completely remove the trolls that will say stuff like "sample size" or other ******ed comments. If a war doesn't break out with all these early game civs then even 1 out of 1000 times is unacceptable.
Moderator Action: Calling people that doesn't agree with you "trolls" is not acceptable here, there are other (and less aggressive) ways to make your point.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I stacked the deck HARD and i am purposely making myself an easy target. Emperor is suppose to give the AI LARGE BONUSES to compete with you.

http://www.twitch.tv/godman85 at 6:00 EST


Alright. After 150 turns, i hit the medieval period. No one declared war on anyone or any denouncements. I agressively blocked boudicca and had a bunch of negative things on her. She then became friendly to me.

I then went apehorsehocky denouncing everyone and demanding stuff. Only 2 civs went to war. None actually attacked. I had to disband my army of 1 warrior, 2 archers, and a chariot to get them to attack.

They attacked with 4 composites, swords, siege towers, and warrior spam.


Guess my 4 units were too intimidating.

I had a complete monopoly on incense and we the richest in the game due to incense trading. No one wanted my lucrative monopoly I guess...


Bottom line is this game was definitive proof that the AI is ******ed early game. You might as well start in the renaissance because everything prior to that is .

Try immortal.

Well, I've had wars in the three games I've played. Napoleon, Kamehameha, Attila, Ramkhamhaeng, Casimir all declared war at various times in my last game. And Pocatello acquired a couple of Incan cities somehow, although I didn't know him at the time.

dexters said:

Try immortal.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to go all the way up to immortal to get a balanced game.

Try standard immortal. Epic emperor is like King level.

I am gonna bet that Zulu declare war on someone early.

godman85 said:

Going to make an emperor pangea with 16 civs. Epic speed.

I will CHOOSE


Monty
Catherine
Wu
Rome
Bismark
Zulu
Assyria
Khan
Atilla
Greece
Boudicca

Victims will be

Siam (to piss off Greece)
America (they love expanding and Catherine will hate him for it)
Ghandi (everyone hates ghandi)
Brazil ( laughably no army)


If a war doesn't break out before the medieval era with a cramp huge pangea and EVERY SINGLE WARMONGER IN THE GAME COUPLED WITH EVERY PEACFUL PATHETIC ARMY WIELDING CIV then the game is completely broken.


You can say it isn't "smart" but I stacked the deck to make sure they have to fight. Cramped the map, gave rivals to end game objectives.


I will build no more then 2 archers and 3 scout. I will expand very lightly. I will expand into people but then follow my promise to not do it again. (in GnK this was an automatic backstab if the person you expanded into was a RAXer.


I will stream this on Twitch with commentary and everything.



I have had no agression in any games I played and this will be the PROOF you need that they need to make some serious adjustments.


If I make it to medieval period without someone sticking a fork in me, the game is broken. If I make it to the medieval period and NO ONE WENT TO WAR ON THE MAP, IT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DESTROYED.


This will completely remove the trolls that will say stuff like "sample size" or other ******ed comments. If a war doesn't break out with all these early game civs then even 1 out of 1000 times is unacceptable.


I stacked the deck HARD and i am purposely making myself an easy target. Emperor is suppose to give the AI LARGE BONUSES to compete with you.

http://www.twitch.tv/godman85 at 6:00 EST

Click to expand...

You better listen to this man Firaxis.

The last game I played, I only experienced 1 war, and it was only because I had a defensive pact with another civ that was attacked. Why the hell should we even bother with building a military? I understand there needs to be balancing to make these new functions work, but it is utterly stupid to reduce the importance of military in a strategy game to this extent. And of course, it absolutely kills any kind of realism.

Rather than trying to pick a fight with everyone maybe the reason people are saying the AI is okay is because they are actually seeing wars and conquests in their games? Rather than trying to make excuses perhaps its because the AI is fighting?

I downgraded to King for my game, and had wars on my own continent that were started against me by the Shoshone and Egyptians, whilst the other continent was consumed by massive wars. Ghengis Khan was eradicated by the Portuguese, who then embroiled the entire continent in a four way war. Numerous civs were eradicated over time.

I think the OP has enough aggression to go around.

But even peaceful civs should declare war sometimes.

I am playing my first game on Warlord (I usually play on Prince, but I wanted to "take if for a spin"). In my game I started (as Zulu) on a landmass (Continents Plus map, Marathon game speed) with two other AI: Mongols and Ottoman. The other major landmass had the other five (standard size map, 8 divs): Denmark, Assyria, Iroquois, Ethiopia, and [unknown]. That last one is "unknown" precisely *because* there has been war in my game. The [unknown] nation was put out before I even met them. Assyria has subsequently steamrolled the Iroquois out of the game and has turned up the heat on Ethiopia. Denmark is safe, for now, as they are rather isolated on the far side of a thin strip of land.
So, in my game, way down on Warlord (with 12 City-States), there has indeed been war. I only have my one game to go on, but I'm not sure that the game is broken. Let's all just give peace a chance <grin>.

MantaRevan said:

You shouldn't have to go all the way up to immortal to get a balanced game.

Click to expand...

Define "balanced game".

Passive-aggressively provoking AI's into DoW'ing you so that you can kill off their armies in a leisurely defensive war where all you field are ranged units isn't balanced. It's exceedingly convenient and exploitive. And really, that's all we're talking about here. People got acclimated to the AI letting them have their warmongering cake and eat it too.

Emperor Giulio said:

You better listen to this man Firaxis. .

Click to expand...

His peevish tone and attitude of entitlement ensures he will be dismissed by readers in general.

Maledict said:

Rather than trying to pick a fight with everyone maybe the reason people are saying the AI is okay is because they a actually seeing wars and conquests in their games? Rather than trying to make excuses perhaps its because the AI is fighting?

I downgraded to King for my game, and had wars on my own content that were started against me by the Shoshone and Egyptians, whilst the other continent was consumed by massive wars. Ghengis Khan was eradicated by the Portuguese, who then embroiled the entire continent in a four way war.

Click to expand...

when early game civs are competing for with late games civs at the beginning, then its all troll. early gme civs opting to not take advantage of their UA and UU means the game is by definition broken.


It's like playing dota and farming all game as zeus. You better put a dent in the enemy while your shining or you will be distant memory when their late game UU and UAs come into effect.

Or at least have defensive units at all times. I am concerned of reports describing very few units when they should have a dozen. This was similar to the concern of weak, lightly defended capitals in vanilla, which they did address to some degree.

It may be that there is a problem, but I am definitely not seeing it in my game. I think it has to do with the map settings. I'm playing standard King continents and war is everywhere. I've seen multiple naval invasions even.

I think most people were saying wait for more testing. We can assume that Firaxis will indeed wait for more testing.

The last thing we need is firaxis making a premature change based off less than a week of release. You can be sure, if there is a real problem felt by a large part of the community, that it will be looked at. So relax, and keep testing. Happy civing.

Polisurgist said:

I think the OP has enough aggression to go around.

Click to expand...

This.

steveg700 said:

Define "balanced game".

Passive-aggressively provoking AI's into DoW'ing you so that you can kill off their armies in a leisurely defensive war where all you field are ranged units isn't balanced. It's exceedingly convenient and exploitive. And really, that's all we're talking about here. People got acclimated to the AI letting them have their warmongering cake and eat it too.



His peevish tone and attitude of entitlement ensures he will be dismissed by readers in general.

Click to expand...

So having 1 archer and the enemy having 16 classical units, they shouldn't attack you? Are you kidding me.

I have only played a few games so far, but I may be able to help with figuring this out.
I habitually build few military units. I was trying out Honour as Rome.

My cities are usually well-defended in terms of terrain and preparation. At some point, I would get bored of sitting around and send my main "troop" (usually 4-5 promoted units in 1-2 groups) to hunt barbarians. As soon as my units would be a few turns away from "target" cities for the AI, the AI player would declare war.

I tested this intentionally, living next to Shaka with a ridiculous number of units. The moment I walked my military away, Shaka declared war. Up to this point, his army spent 50+ turns idling around inside his borders.

My personal guess is that this is a result of the new and improved city siege. The AI sizes up their realistic chances of taking cities quickly, and only attacks if they can.

EDIT: I don't believe trade plays a role. Every time I had war declared on me, the AI player had their most profitable trade routes interacting with me.

godman85 said:

when early game civs are competing for with late games civs at the beginning, then its all troll. early gme civs opting to not take advantage of their UA and UU means the game is by definition broken.

Click to expand...

When you perform your experiment, be sure to either not accept AI embassies, or accept the embassies and then denounce them. Don't provide them the entry point to have peaceful trade relations.

There is certainly a valid question as to why a civ would bother to attack another in Civ V. In a world where going tall is now more effective than ICS, what does expansion get you? Oh look, they have cotton. Wel, is that +3 happiness worth the hassle of warfare? This wouldn't be much of a discussion if the AI actually had the good sense to not even bother with trying to capture a city when it DoW's, but rather harass its borders, attack units escorting settler, raid tiles with cavalry, blockade coasts, and the other tools of harrying the enemy into offering peace concession.

Personally, I'd have capturing a city provide more than just gold, but also a clump of science and culture.