They need to hotfix AI agression now

It is dreadful. I have seen more agression on the lowest difficulty in G&K then on emperor in BNW.


It is silly how passive the AI is. When I see another person's capital right next to mine with 2 screens, i expected a few skirmishes and denouncements because realistically, no way in hell we can both expand.

I can be next to atilla and atilla can have the biggest army in a 12 civ map while i have an archer unit for the entirety of my military.

NO ONE ATTACKS.

It is basically a passive farm fest up until the renaissance. This has completely ruined the game for me. What is the point of classical/early period powerhouses if they don't declare war on anyone and shake things up a bit.

They need to hotfix this asap. It is way too passive.


I should not be able to tech up with 1 damn archer and not be swarmed by massive armies that COVET MY FREAKING LAND

From another thread.

Buccaneer said:

I guess firaxis can't win either way. First, people whine about mean AI declaring war on you and now that they become more docile, people still complain. Civ is a war game and there should always be wars somewhere, not necessary involving you. There is nothing worse than passive opponents that are not playing aggressive to win (any victories).

Click to expand...

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Never mind please delete this post]

What difficulty were you playing on OP?

I'm gunna be so sad if they have removed the AI's warfaring larks. Guess i'll end up just playing multiplayer and crying in my hands until they fix that too

We really need to put this to rest.

The changed gold game is what control's AI aggressiveness. If the map make it hard to get trade routes, then the AI is less aggressive, if the AI get good access to gold, it spam units and want to DoW left and right.

If you have an early peaceful game, just wait until later when trade route range goes up and they all turn into crazy warmongers.

Edit: They do need to change the range of trade routes depending on map size, this should clean up that the AI is too starved in the early game on some maps.

True_Candyman said:

What difficulty were you playing on OP?

I'm gunna be so sad if they have removed the AI's warfaring larks. Guess i'll end up just playing multiplayer and crying in my hands until they fix that too

Click to expand...

emperor.


I am used to see 3 on 1 brawls all through the early period and lines thrawn in the dirt as alliance actually meant something.


Now it seems like diplomacy is dead until the renaissance where people have the balls to do something.

My last game i killed myself on purpose just to see if the enemy was just being ******ed.

Boudicca had the biggest army in the map on a 12 man pangea. She then completed turrica army and DOUBLED the already biggest army on the map.


She then sat in her base for 60 turns with 2-3 times a bigger army then anyone. I am literally right next to her. 2 freaking tiles away from her second city. I have 3 swordmen.

She refuses to even be a little hostile when she has no where to expand but through me.


After laughing at this stupid crap, i denounced her then declared war. I had 6 swordmen that used to be jaguar warriors. All rank 2. She had 8 of those unique warriors, 4 catapults, 8 composite bowmen, 6 warriors, and 8 spearmen, 4 horsemen THAT I COULD SEE.


Clearly with such a massive advantage......maybe she should have attacked me on her own accord.


The AI is freaking ******ed right now.



BUT on the bright side, the combat is better. they didn't waste a second taking out my capital. It was straight to the business. No moving around like idiots or shooting things out of the way. Their top priority was City>anything directly in the way>stragglers.

Miravlix said:

We really need to put this to rest.

The changed gold game is what control's AI aggressiveness. If the map make it hard to get trade routes, then the AI is less aggressive, if the AI get good access to gold, it spam units and want to DoW left and right.

If you have an early peaceful game, just wait until later when trade route range goes up and they all turn into crazy warmongers.

Edit: They do need to change the range of trade routes depending on map size, this should clean up that the AI is too starved in the early game on some maps.

Click to expand...

but when I have 1 archer for my ENTIRE army and my neighbor 2 tiles away has an army that would wipe me off the face of the earth, maybe they should atleast threaten me like the old days. They are insanely passive. Even with massive advantages, they rather wait.

I've seen plenty of conflict. It depends what civs you're facing and what flavours they roll, as well as how you act and so forth.

waiting for another 14 hours until i can play.

But this is just what i was hoping for the current AI in G&K is way too hostile for my liking.

And if they can actually fight better - great

I do not see the reduced AI aggressiveness at all. It's the same as it was in G&K according to the leader spreadsheets.

As already mentioned, yes, there is more factors, that can reduce the chance of early wars, but it hasn't removed early DoW's. Game has become less predictable, it's not Deity.. wait X turns, get DoW'ed. Now there is a chance you may not be DoW'ed early.

I totally agree with you, I played as Portugal yesterday and I was only trading and building, zero army apart from the warrior and a bowman from the beginning. The AIs never threaten me in any way, they just traded with me like mad (england had 4 naval trading routes to my cities, so they obviously swam in gold) but still nothing happend.

I don't want crazy warmongering in the classical age, but you, as a player, should be forced to actually build a defending army, otherwise it's getting old pretty fast.

Edit: I am playing on emperor aswell.

Miravlix said:

We really need to put this to rest.

The changed gold game is what control's AI aggressiveness. If the map make it hard to get trade routes, then the AI is less aggressive, if the AI get good access to gold, it spam units and want to DoW left and right.

If you have an early peaceful game, just wait until later when trade route range goes up and they all turn into crazy warmongers.

Click to expand...

Which is as it should be, in my opinion.

Shafi-is-back said:

waiting for another 14 hours until i can play.

But this is just what i was hoping for the current AI in G&K is way too hostile for my liking.

And if they can actually fight better - great

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Even though I haven't got a chance to play the expansion yet, I must say I like what I've been hearing:

- the lack of gold early-game essentially makes it harder for the player and the AI, which is good
- barbarians are more of a threat early-game, which is also good
- wars with the AI seem to come into play later than before - which is both inevitable if everyone has less money, and necessary, because if barbarians are more of a handful and you don't have the money to build up your forces, then the AI regularly coming after you early-game sounds more like a headache than a fun experience. As I commented in another thread on a similar issue, I like the idea that you now need to invest in your empire a little bit more before looking to squish somebody else's.

I've also heard enough stories of people having to contend with an aggressive AI pre-turn 100 to indicate that this hasn't completely gone.

Again, I'm basing this on hearsay rather than actual experience with the expansion, but a bit more variety in the early game is a good thing, right?

If the AI still isn't attacking you at all late game, then that does sound like a problem, but it doesn't seem too many people are experiencing that.

The OP has a point, I am afraid.

After fixing the end game tediousness in BNW,
now we often experience an early game tediousness (this is worse).

Miravlix said:

The changed gold game is what control's AI aggressiveness.

Click to expand...

Correct. By intentionally introducing an early game gold drought, Firaxis effectively implemented an early game AI handbrake that can kill the early suspense in many games.

The AI still has the same aggression values, but it just cannot follow the AI path because of a lack of gold. Either the early draught of gold should to be cured, or perhaps the unit costs in the early game should be reduced to free the AI from is agony.

Maybe you guys are just getting lucky? Ashurnibal rushed me before turn 100 in my first BNW game.

War is also less beneficial to the AI now due to added importance of trade routes and gold.

This thread is completely baseless. I've had insane aggression in all of my games, but nobody has any proof in this thread to back claims up.

VirtuallyJesse said:

This thread is completely baseless. I've had insane aggression in all of my games, but nobody has any proof in this thread to back claims up.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, unless you don't trust their recollections of their experiences XD That means this thread does have a base, however it's not really been expanded on and proper sampling has not occurred to evaluate the extent of the problem and establish whether this is an exception or common occurence. But hey, this is an internet forum, what did you expect?

There is as much validity in your post as (some) others in this thread, for both sides of the argument. Clearly that means that the game is a little more unpredictable, or at least play styles have accidentally changed with the new features of BNW with unexpected consequences for some. Either way, clearly there is not a uniform experience of AI aggression in BNW.

Fight against the zulu's.

telekinetic136 said:

Fight against the zulu's.

Click to expand...

It's all very well say the warmonger civs are still warmongering, but regular civs should stll be tetchy with their neighbours, especially over areas they are "competing" for. I'll be really shocked if I can aggressively expand care free towards non-warmongering civs.

Jes lets break the game apart again with a hotfix that makes every single AI rush you I stopped playing gods and king when they made a patch that made the AI beserck.

Warmonger should be agressive other AI don't they should be angry at you if you do something wrong Diplomacy Actually makes sence a lot you can have a peacefull start or a war start if you start next to ghenghis or you do something wrong.

Just like civ 4 some Ai didn't declare war on you even if they are neighbours just because of positif modifiers however monthy and others is a dffierent story

thats what i've heard from steam users and friends that played it.

Some Ai are agressive but not all them.

I've played 2 or 3 games as Venice so far on emperor pangea. Have not been attacked before t250. Last game I was right next to Alex the whole time. When he did attack, it was easy to hold him off. I was also attack by Rome and it was also weak.

I think because of Venice's smaller footprint and lucrative trade routes, the AIs do not want to attack it.