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.
Very nice post, you are one of very few in this thread who made a real attempt of validating your impressions.
And btw I like that change. If you KNOW you will allways be attacked, then having a strong army is allways worth the investment. If you got a realistic chance for a peacefull game, that investment may be a waste that sets you back. The possibility of avoiding war adds strategy to the game.