"Peaceful New World"

mattpilot · Jul 13, 2013

They should change the title of the expansion

Standard map, 12 civ's, everything standard...

0 AI wars.
Everybody loves everyone.
Everyone loves telling them how much they love someone for loving someone else.
No aggression against CS.

I never had a game where no one was angry at someone else. AI told me once they disliked the choice I made for world congress, but hten in the next turn told me how happy they are that we are friends with their friends.

The only war that took place was ME declaring war - and while Gandhi disapproves, he still declares friendship with me. XOXOXO

Other than that, the game's great ;-) :goodjob:

**edit:

played on KING level - and also wanted to add that there's like no negative modifiers for anyone in the game - nobody covets anyones land (Despite being a overcrowded standard map).

Bakspatel · Jul 13, 2013

Was about the post about the same issue. I love the new additions to diplomacy but please bring back the old settings (but with the new stuff). Literally nothing happens until the ideologies kick in and it's increasing the boring factor. Without the new culture/tourism and world congress I wouldn't even had bothered to move on beyond the Renaissance. One game I had to constantly bug and declare war on Shaka because he was just sitting there.

XboxAddict77 · Jul 13, 2013

I don't understand why everyone is saying the AI is peaceful. It seems fine to me I've finished 3 games. One was sort of peaceful but there were only 3 players. The other two had at least 6-7 wars. IN my latest game as Portugal, America DOW'ed me and I fought him 3 times. Meanwhile it was Russia vs. Polynesia, Russia vs France, and Sweden vs both France and Polynesia. All the wars were about opinion on WC proposals and ideologies/religion. The AI could maybe declare war if it is hostile more towards someone but I can't confirm this because in all of my games I have been first in military forces for most of the game and therefore the AI wouldn't have attacked me.

Peng Qi · Jul 13, 2013

My first game had a massive, ridiculous multilateral war. My current one only has Attilla starting a war, and only against me. Alexander's so nice now.

atknowles · Jul 13, 2013

Why would the AI declare war if it dramatically affects its income? The AI is smarter now. Would you declare war on another civilization if you knew you wouldn't have enough gold to support it? Probably not, unless you were the stupid AI that they had in G&K.

Things have changed. And from the sound of all of this, wholly for the better.

JustSpectre · Jul 13, 2013

I guess I've bought different game then. In my first game (which i didn't finish) I spawned next to Shaka, who eventualy eliminated Shoshone, and was obliterated by united forces of Assyria (me), Poland and Portugal.

In the second game (again Assyria) with two more AI on standart map, I've played maybe little too agressively, which led to that everybody hated me and once I was in situation where everybody except Japan, who was my ally, DoWed me.

So I don't know. AI seems to be less agressive in early games, but in later eras, it can be mess. On the other hand it has those awful means of crippling you through the diplomacy (I had 4 of my luxuries baned, and trade embargo and other funny gifts from forever-council-leader Maria of Portugal). Also this was only 1 and a half of a game so I can't jump to conclusions, but I was quite supprised that, despite what others say, AI can be still pretty agressive.

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

atknowles said:
Why would the AI declare war if it dramatically affects its income? The AI is smarter now. Would you declare war on another civilization if you knew you wouldn't have enough gold to support it? Probably not, unless you were the stupid AI that they had in G&K.

Things have changed. And from the sound of all of this, wholly for the better.

REBUTTAL TIME.

Bolded part is OUR argument. If the AI is so smart and calculating, why are they spending all their gold on a huge standing army they never use? Is it because your 2 scouts might dominate them?

The AI makes massive armies, crippling their income, then dances them around their base for the rest of the game, never using them.

Your move bro.

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

JustSpectre said:
I guess I've bought different game then. In my first game (which i didn't finish) I spawned next to Shaka, who eventualy eliminated Shoshone, and was obliterated by united forces of Assyria (me), Poland and Portugal.

In the second game (again Assyria) with two more AI on standart map, I've played maybe little too agressively, which led to that everybody hated me and once I was in situation where everybody except Japan, who was my ally, DoWed me.

So I don't know. AI seems to be less agressive in early games, but in later eras, it can be mess. On the other hand it has those awful means of crippling you through the diplomacy (I had 4 of my luxuries baned, and trade embargo and other funny gifts from forever-council-leader Maria of Portugal). Also this was only 1 and a half of a game so I can't jump to conclusions, but I was quite supprised that, despite what others say, AI can be still pretty agressive.

3 full eras of peace is unnacceptable. Regardless of the late game improvements, if early game civs just recruit their UUs to patrol their own bases, something is up.

Yzman · Jul 13, 2013

godman85 said:
REBUTTAL TIME.

Bolded part is OUR argument. If the AI is so smart and calculating, why are they spending all their gold on a huge standing army they never use? Is it because your 2 scouts might dominate them?

The AI makes massive armies, crippling their income, then dances them around their base for the rest of the game, never using them.

Your move bro.

I have yet to see an AI build so many troops it cripples its income by just having them. The war is what will likely cripple their income.

I keep reading these topics and it seems to me that people always want the AI to start wars. If the AI is not going for conquest, this may not be in their best interest, especially early in the game now. Early game wars now cost you greatly. If you want a war, declare one yourself. Then you can be rightfully the warmonger everyone will claim you are.

Also I have not had this issue. I have played 3 games so far.

First game I was Venice. This was a very peaceful game. I was at peace all game, there was a few small AI wars, but nothing major.

Second game I was Poland. Siam nearly conquered 3 others civs. By the time I won they had taken out Mongolia, Japan, Aztecs and were working on Morocco. On my continent, Carthage declared on Soshone early in the game ( ~ turn 100), I dogpiled onto it and conquered them. This was a very war ravaged game.

3rd game I am not very far into yet and haven't met the second continent. But I planned this one to be a conquest victory for me so I was trying to be a warmonger. Unfortunately for me, Alexander declared war on me around turn 75 before I was ready. I was able to fight him off and then conquered him with my siege towers ( man these are good). I am now working on conquering the rest of my continent.

So I would question as to what you are saying. There is my rebuttal with actual in game experiences.

These are all King difficulty BTW.

Chiatroll · Jul 13, 2013

Everyone absolutely hates me they just won't war with me because I have 3x the pointy sticks of the guy in second place it's a marathon game and I've had to work though so I'm juuust touching the industrial age. They seem to spend a lot of time patting each other on the back for denouncing me though.

My girlfriend was playing a game earlier where she was invaded by three enemies at once.

So I'm not experiencing this super friendly AI everyone else is.

I play King she played Warlord.

ggmoyang · Jul 13, 2013

In my last deity game, I neglected army and pushed tourism and my neighbor(Huns, Carthage, Zulu) never DoWed me.

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

Yzman said:
I have yet to see an AI build so many troops it cripples its income by just having them. The war is what will likely cripple their income.

I keep reading these topics and it seems to me that people always want the AI to start wars. If the AI is not going for conquest, this may not be in their best interest, especially early in the game now. Early game wars now cost you greatly. If you want a war, declare one yourself. Then you can be rightfully the warmonger everyone will claim you are.

Also I have not had this issue. I have played 3 games so far.

First game I was Venice. This was a very peaceful game. I was at peace all game, there was a few small AI wars, but nothing major.

Second game I was Poland. Siam nearly conquered 3 others civs. By the time I won they had taken out Mongolia, Japan, Aztecs and were working on Morocco. On my continent, Carthage declared on Soshone early in the game ( ~ turn 100), I dogpiled onto it and conquered them. This was a very war ravaged game.

3rd game I am not very far into yet and haven't met the second continent. But I planned this one to be a conquest victory for me so I was trying to be a warmonger. Unfortunately for me, Alexander declared war on me around turn 75 before I was ready. I was able to fight him off and then conquered him with my siege towers ( man these are good). I am now working on conquering the rest of my continent.

So I would question as to what you are saying. There is my rebuttal with actual in game experiences.

These are all King difficulty BTW.

http://www.twitch.tv/godman85/b/429609265

emperor/epic/pangea/huge/16 civs/ 11 warmongers/ 5 peacful civs

No wars, no denouncements, borderhumping and aggressive expanding, all friends...

THAT is proof. The video goes through it play by play with commentary and audience questions. Some guys even asked me to prove it was emperor because of how sad the AI was being. My army was inferior to everyone around me and i was hogging wonders yet no one saw me as a lucrative investment. I even had a monopoly in incense and was completely wrecking everyone in economy

Yzman · Jul 13, 2013

godman85 said:
http://www.twitch.tv/godman85/b/429609265

emperor/epic/pangea/huge/16 civs/ 11 warmongers/ 5 peacful civs

No wars, no denouncements, borderhumping and aggressive expanding, all friends...

THAT is proof. The video goes through it play by play with commentary and audience questions. Some guys even asked me to prove it was emperor because of how sad the AI was being. My army was inferior to everyone around me and i was hogging wonders yet no one saw me as a lucrative investment. I even had a monopoly in incense and was completely wrecking everyone in economy

I'm sorry, I didn't realize your game was proof and my experience was nothing.

Unless you are implying that I am lying, which I have no reason to.

If you want an actual good sample you should have a start, load it to the forum and let multiple people play it. See what results different people get.

Or you can just care about your results and ignore everyone else.

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

Yzman said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize your game was proof and my experience was nothing.

Unless you are implying that I am lying, which I have no reason to.

If you want an actual good sample you should have a start, load it to the forum and let multiple people play it. See what results different people get.

Or you can just care about your results and ignore everyone else.

there is a thread i made with the original save. I played over 10 games so far and all have been borefest until the renaissance.

3 eras of peace regardless of civs is stupid. Especially at higher difficulties.

GAGA Extrem · Jul 13, 2013

The AI does certainly pick more sensible wars, but it can also be quite relentless. I was at war with Denmark for roughly ~80 turns because the AI vastly outnumbered my army and refused all negotiations.

Apart from that you have your usual early game warmongers (Attila, Monte) and the sneaky guys that backstab the weak (Napoleon, Catha).

Late game tends to spiral a into a series of bigger wars if the AI adopts different ideologies, so there is still a lot of action.

Overall I'd say I like the changes to AI behaviour.
If you want more early game action, you can add a few warmonger Civs. Apart from that, I am happy that the AI does no longer denounce me at turn 14 and start their first sneak attacks at turn 50 all the time.

mattpilot · Jul 13, 2013

Its interesting that everyone's getting different results.

Edited OP to add I played on King level.

I'm sure in due time i'll get a game when the AI is more aggro, I just found it very odd that there was such a stark contrast to earlier editions of the game.

ALso want to respond to the money part:

I'm the guy with the 4th most pointiest sticks ... The AI's for the most part all have huge GPT (the guy with the strongest army has 250 gpt!!). I'm not saying its 'broke', i'm just wondering what the Civ's motivation is for being so peaceful

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

mattpilot said:
Its interesting that everyone's getting different results.

Edited OP to add I played on King level.

I'm sure in due time i'll get a game when the AI is more aggro, I just found it very odd that there was such a stark contrast to earlier editions of the game.

ALso want to respond to the money part:

I'm the guy with the 4th most pointiest sticks ... The AI's for the most part all have huge GPT (the guy with the strongest army has 250 gpt!!). I'm not saying its 'broke', i'm just wondering what the Civ's motivation is for being so peaceful

they are not gettng different results.

They are using attacks 4 eras into the game as "evidence"

They say "i got attacked at turn 80"

No other details. Turn 80 in quick is like the end of the medieval era. 2000 years of peace.

"the enemy ai fought each other.....right after ideologies"

How does anything past ideologies rebuttal the claim of AIs acting like spineless cowards early game?

its all a play on words. When people complain, they give specifics. When people defend the AI, they give broad statements and use it as hard evidence.

JtW · Jul 13, 2013

I have the feeling that we might be used to just too much warmongering. Civ5 vanilla was lacking depth in the "peaceful" department so it was basically a war game. Which, IMO, a Civilization game shouldn't be.

So I'd say they brought back the Civilization feel to Civ5. I am happy with the changes. There ARE wars but the AI needs a reason to wage them. If you're unhappy with the peace go declare war yourself.

Monster Heel · Jul 13, 2013

Whether or not the map is going to be war heavy depends on the leaders and and who gets strong. The first game I played with the Zulu (had the Celts, Poland, Persia, France and Greece on my continent), in which I intended to be the warmonger, I got DOW'd by Alexander in the Medieval Era. Alex and Napoleon were also spatting before this. Poland warred with the Celts for a while. Poland and The Celts mostly stalemated each other. I eventually conquered Alex. Around the time I finished with that I was starting to pick up a ton of tourism and Poland was pretty miffed at that so they DOW'd me as the Industrial Era was beginning. Of all of the Civs on that continent Darius was the only person who was able to avoid the fighting and was generally friends with everyone. Other games you can be at peace for virtually the entire game. I've got a save going with Ramses like that. The only person anyone on the entire map is warring with is Shaka.

godman85 · Jul 13, 2013

JtW said:
I have the feeling that we might be used to just too much warmongering. Civ5 vanilla was lacking depth in the "peaceful" department so it was basically a war game. Which, IMO, a Civilization game shouldn't be.

So I'd say they brought back the Civilization feel to Civ5. I am happy with the changes. There ARE wars but the AI needs a reason to wage them. If you're unhappy with the peace go declare war yourself.

there are wars.....after 3000 years of peace.

"Peaceful New World"

Warlord

Prince

Wonder Spammer

Emperor

Chieftain

Chieftain

Warlord

Warlord

Deity

Warlord

King

Warlord

Deity

Warlord

Emperor

Warlord

Warlord

Prince

Chieftain

Warlord

Similar threads