They need to hotfix AI agression now

It does sound very wrong. There is no reason a neighbor with a large army (like Mongols) should sit idly by while we expand into them nor use that army against us or someone else, esp if they got the early quantity. That they can be pacified by one trade route is plain stupid. Congratulations to you peaceful builders, you ruined the game for the rest of it because you were afraid to fight.

Buccaneer said:

It does sound very wrong. There is no reason a neighbor with a large army (like Mongols) should sit idly by while we expand into them nor use that army against us or someone else, esp if they got the early quantity. That they can be pacified by one trade route is plain stupid. Congratulations to you peaceful builders, you ruined the game for the rest of it because you were afraid to fight.

Click to expand...

Huns declared war on me many times in one game despite me doing trade with them. You're misrepresenting how much trade pacifies neighboring civs.

Buccaneer said:

It does sound very wrong. There is no reason a neighbor with a large army (like Mongols) should sit idly by while we expand into them nor use that army against us or someone else, esp if they got the early quantity. That they can be pacified by one trade route is plain stupid. Congratulations to you peaceful builders, you ruined the game for the rest of it because you were afraid to fight.

Click to expand...

Use random personallities and the Ai becomes more agressive problem solved for know.

Olso i've had the zulu's declare war on me on turn 70 they don't need to make every single AI more agressive just change the code because currently its pretty vague how the Ai decides to dow you i've had Ai who i expanded close to and they ddin't do anything about it. and others who declared war

Moriarte said:

so i went liberty, expanded to 4 and puppeteer'ed 2 Portuguese cities with CB's. (t.77) Meanwhile, France and Indonesia stopped warring between themselves only to backstab me ...... Finally, Monty declared from the east on turn 90. Given the amount of units i have (9 CBs, Machinery unlocks on turn 99),

Click to expand...

Slightly off topic I know, but I am in awe. Machinery by 99. Total awe. I watched an LP you posted back in a strat thread where you did 8CB's and NC by turn 70 in G and K and I thought that was fairly darned smart. Currently I'm failing badly at immortal and you're able to pull that off in your first game, and at Deity.Good effort

Is it possible the AI has a sense for how others are playing? For example, if most players are playing peace and one decides to be a warmongerer, the peaceful ones will shut that one down. The opposite is also true; one peaceful civ doesn't do great against a world of warmongerers.

Maybe the AI is setup to go with the flow, so to speak, therefore any game that is relatively peaceful will become increasingly peaceful due to AI civs wanting to fit in.

Or they messed up. I don't know yet.

Apoc, how does random personalities affect aggressiveness? I've turned that on in the past solely because I didn't believe in having predictable AI opponents. But all that did, I think, was to shuffle the same deck. Could it randomize to where no one will be aggressive?

Buccaneer said:

It does sound very wrong. There is no reason a neighbor with a large army (like Mongols) should sit idly by while we expand into them nor use that army against us or someone else, esp if they got the early quantity. That they can be pacified by one trade route is plain stupid. Congratulations to you peaceful builders, you ruined the game for the rest of it because you were afraid to fight.

Click to expand...

Honestly man, your song is getting quite boring. Your only answer to everything is to try and diminish everyone else's argumentation with comments like the above. Why do you feel the need to "demonstrate" how much of a "tough fighter" you are?

I argued to you already that permanent fighting against a crippled combat AI is not "more challenging" as you permanently try to "demonstrate" (without arguments, mind you), but more like beating a toddler. Wow, now THAT is challenging!

The present AI may need some adjustments, obviously (it's an AI), but from my observations it provides a better challenge than before GIVEN the multitude of new systems and how they interact. Honestly, I was expecting less from this AI exactly because of that reason: so many new systems to deal with, and less bonuses. Yet it provides a very good challenge, and the player can see how the AI civs take into account now much more than the simplistic "me big stick he tiny stick go suicide against citadel" approach... how was that a challenge for you, I wonder...

Perhaps the increased number of trade-offs and decisions, factors and counters, and possible strategies are the real challenge for you, but you have a hard time to admit it. I don't know. I don't care. Just quit insulting everyone here that happens to like the new AI.

Random personalities doesn't affect aggression at all, it just randomises the values each AI has. You are just as likely to get an all peaceful game as you are an all violent game.

I generally don't like it because whilst some of the AIs are coded poorly (Elizabeth being my main irritant) i still prefer that to a setting that could have all my civs with peaceful abilities turning into foaming war-mongers whilst Atilla sits in the corner making daisy chains.

Maledict said:

Random personalities doesn't affect aggression at all, it just randomises the values each AI has. You are just as likely to get an all peaceful game as you are an all violent game.

I generally don't like it because whilst some of the AIs are coded poorly (Elizabeth being my main irritant) i still prefer that to a setting that could have all my civs with peaceful abilities turning into foaming war-mongers whilst Atilla sits in the corner making daisy chains.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, that is why I like the option (I use it since Civ4 and never went back). The beauty of it is that you don't know if the Attila close to you is indeed a daisy chainer or the nutcase it can be, until it is too late (if you did not prepare).

Do you think this makes for a better game?

MantaRevan said:

From what I've played, the AI looks like it has the potential to be better, but it's mostly squandered for some reason. The AIs in my game literally just sat there and built wonders in the early game, but after I took those wonders they all kinda gave up. None of them went after a victory, or even made an attempt to take control of the world congress or control any city states whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Just haven't run into this, the AI in my game has declared war plenty of times. In my Venice games I was on the same continent as Shaka, Atilla and Genghis. PLENTY of fighting, I was really sad Montezuma wasn't there though. Fortunately they correctly identified each other as their primary threat and kept declaring war, while I traded with all three. Venice can be a ripe target, but if you're strong and useful they seem to decide to go after other guys.

Buccaneer said:

Do you think this makes for a better game?

Click to expand...

Well, I also don't enjoy the game of waiting until turn 40 or whatever when the closest civ inevitably "sneak attacks" when it doesn't benefit them whatsoever, and swarms me with guys that I can shoot to death with arrows.

I am defensive about this because that is my #1 criticism I had with vanilla and G&K. Too many games (immortal and emperor) where I have seen the AI opponents not trying to win when they could have. These included never seen an AI win culture and simply stop winning space or diplomacy. And I have seen large AI armies just sitting there. (Even having an AI I early DoW or sneak attacks can be effective in slowing you or a runaway down, if nothing else.) The results, oftentimes, is a hollow or unsatisfactory victory - as in no way I should've won this game. There have been exceptions, when I played occ and was next to Greece and a deity game next to Aztecs.

But I have seen an invasion force off my coast just sitting there; AI spaceships part just stop building or not assembled; defenseless AI wonder cities; AI units moving out of a capital when I approached; large AI forces on my borders while I'm scrambling to get parts built; and AI stop getting city-states and become passive when they could've easily won diplomacy.

Now there are more mechanics and allegedly, they're not using them to their advantages either. That is wrong. It doesn't have to be military (even though that should be their easiest way if they have the gold). A good game is one where you win (or lose) by making good decisions in the face of like opponents, not in the face of passive opponents that are handing the game to you, in a manner of speaking.

In my experience, the AI's aggressiveness has been just fine. If anything, it seems like it has been more aggressive than Gods and Kings. In my first game, wars were breaking out all over the place. At one point Greece conquered Carthage, and was the main superpower on their continent for an age or so. Then Carthage came back, and regained their capital and then conquered all of Greece. There was territory being exchanged all over the place.

In my next game, the AI hit me with an invasion force of about 12-15 units on turn 60 or so. I lost my second best city (Ninevah) and it was the closest I ever came to losing my capital. I later managed to regain lost ground thanks to the Assyrian siege tower.

Some people seem like they are playing an entirely different game.

Just finished a culture game as Sweden today. Never ran into a single war. XD

Buccaneer said:

I am defensive about this because that is my #1 criticism I had with vanilla and G&K. Too many games (immortal and emperor) where I have seen the AI opponents not trying to win when they could have. These included never seen an AI win culture and simply stop winning space or diplomacy. And I have seen large AI armies just sitting there. (Even having an AI I early DoW or sneak attacks can be effective in slowing you or a runaway down, if nothing else.) The results, oftentimes, is a hollow or unsatisfactory victory - as in no way I should've won this game. There have been exceptions, when I played occ and was next to Greece and a deity game next to Aztecs.

But I have seen an invasion force off my coast just sitting there; AI spaceships part just stop building or not assembled; defenseless AI wonder cities; AI units moving out of a capital when I approached; large AI forces on my borders while I'm scrambling to get parts built; and AI stop getting city-states and become passive when they could've easily won diplomacy.

Now there are more mechanics and allegedly, they're not using them to their advantages either. That is wrong. It doesn't have to be military (even though that should be their easiest way if they have the gold). A good game is one where you win (or lose) by making good decisions in the face of like opponents, not in the face of passive opponents that are handing the game to you, in a manner of speaking.

Click to expand...

Now I understand your point better; we were on the same page after vanilla release, remember? I was fierce in that respect, in fact, earning myself a lot of trouble in this very forum. Why do I tell this? Because the only thing no one can accuse me of is complacency.

With that said, I don't know what is going on with your games of BNW, but I am not seeing what you allude to in mine. I am not seeing passive opponents as in "immobilized", but more cautious AI opponents that may or may not become more competitive in the mid-late game because of that. I like that, and I find it makes for much better gameplay, including war-oriented gameplay. What sense does it make to have completely aggressive AI's right from the start when they cripple themselves for the rest of the game by doing so? That's exactly what it was before BNWAI; let's be honest. Who couldn't win an early war against the suicidal AI pre-BNW? In fact, it was a certainty, you just needed to know that they would come, and prepare yourself just enough to be able to hold their suicidal rush but still presenting a target of opportunity so that they would carry on with their early suicide plan. I never found challenge in that. Once the initial suicide was over, the whole mid-late game was yours. No challenge.

What I see now is the opposite. You can feel the AI considering a lot of options (the lot that was hugely increased by BNW). You can see them struggle with the human player for early gold, yet they manage the scarcity well; same with happiness (AI really learnt how to deal with their unhappiness, thus the decrease in semi-cheating bonuses in this regard is completely justified). They really build up trying to be a better opponent for the rest of the game, and not only a fake one for the early game.

Perhaps you need to go longer in your games, or play more, if you did not so already, to see the true evolution of the AI's early decisions? I am seeing that (of course, it does not work for them always, as it does not for the human player in many instances, and that is the challenge), and I like it.

I've played into the Renaissance era on an immortal game. There are 4 civs on my little continent besides me. I've had 2 wars declared on me by 3 of the 4 other civs. The first war, 2 civs ganged up on me. The other war was 1-on-1.

My impression is that there has been less warring, but the wars that have been declared on me seemed extremely well timed. Every war was timed by a civ that had a substantial military advantage and their initial offensive thrusts were well-directed at an achievable target.

On the other hand, it seems that the AI is very tentative--sort of a 'jab-and-move' style of war as opposed to an 'all-in' approach. I also note the AI is more apt to retreat when faced with opposition, if the AI advances at all. It seems that the AI is waiting for me to make a mistake.

Still, the AI makes dumb moves: taking to the sea with healthy units within striking distance of ranged units (dumb); failing to pillage in order to gain health or cause problems (dumb); opening up multiple fronts with too few units to sustain the attack, rather than keep a united front (dumb)...

So, I do think some tinkering around remains necessary. The AI remains an issue. The good thing is that the devs continue to work at this game--and--the game is drastically improved overall.

Kudos to the devs--looking forward to more work on the AI!

Remember when we used to complain about pathetic attack forces from the AI? Ok first attack, lame second wave, and then you could conquer then with 10 units.

What we're seeing now is the fix to that. You can have legitimately dangerous but less frequent attacks or you can have lots of ineffective attacks. What you can't have is lots of effective attacks. The gold and production simply aren't there.

This way is better.

Someone posted similar to what I'm about to say in this thread but was ignored. It's the best post it the thread, sorry I can't remember his name.

We've all (ok not all, don't freak out) been using those weak ass early attacks from the AI as crutches. Absorb a week attack, conquer the attacked. Repeat once more and snow ball to victory. We now need totally different stats. Im a bit lost now, but I'm looking forward to learning how to dominate all the important spheres once again.

Aristos, I do (need to go longer and play more). I will report to see if my impressions match others that I'm seeing (particularly a few in strategy&tips).

After having 4 very peaceful games until ideoligies i started a game on diety.
Even thou the map was pangea on quick speed my only border was to japan.
My starting worrier got upgraded by a rune to spearman and i build an additional horse archer to clear barbarians.
After killing 3 barb camps they were done.
I used my spearman, horseman and scout plus an additional tireme for scouting for another 50 turns until i deleted them all.
At this point im left with no military unit and i dont own a single wall or a single great wonder.
Even thou i build no miliatary i am still weak since i am only an emporer player and not diety.
I was to last to pick an ideology and took the one order which made 6/8 civs of order.
My neighbor Japan denounced me immediatly since he was not following order even thou we had been friends all game long.
Japan didnt attack thou he might have had more troubling issues.

Next game i will place rome zulu bismarck etc. in my game and place my cities as near to their capital as possible on a deity game.

is insane for me. I think in every game at least 1 civ has planned numerous time to attack me as far as spies can be trusted.

If it wasnt for the people on this forum telling that the AI did attack them at some point i would have started to believe that in BNW the AI never attacks the player but forces the player to attack them through improved science etc. at least on deity.

My 4 games on emporer i all won without having a war until ideology comes into play.

The ai itself does do wage wars against each others, althou it might be reduced to 50% of what i was used from G&K.

I am close to despair since the only reasaon i started a deity game which i have no hope of winning was to convince myself that my games have been that peaceful just by chance.
I was around 2 eras behind in tech without a single unit or wall and my deity neighbour japan still did not attack.
It might be that i had 2 trade routed to him all the time from the start since he was near (my only neighbour).I quit the game at that point.

I myself have only once won a domination victory since i dislike playing the warmonger, but forcing this " no attack until atomic/ideoligy era" seems a bit forced.

Well i only played 5 games so time will tell.