They need to hotfix AI agression now

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.
 
I'm on my second game. Both the Huns and Assyrians are warmongering and are runaways. Huns took out 1 civ, Assyria took out 2. I've had two wars with my neighbor China because they dropped their second city right next to my Capital. I'm not sure what you're talking about with AI not being aggressive enough.
 
I allow myself speaking here for many players of the German community. With help of VPNs, we are constantly playing since Tuesday, and almost all of us have the same early game experience that a guy just described this way:

The aggressions level of the AI remindes me of "The Waltons":
"Good night, John-Boy!"

I am part of the german civ community and I tell you you are not allowed to speak for me. You got zero authority. If you can make a valid argument then do so on your own. Dont hide behind imaginary supporters.
 
In GnK, a peaceful victory required effort. In this one, no one will threaten your peace.


How is that strategic? If you build 5 wonders in 100 turns, i am going to send my big ass army to your home to try and claim it. What would compel me not to?

Do you have a standing army that makes me think twice? Oh you have an archer and warrior. Guess my 12 pikes, 6 trebuchets, and 4 knights can't kill you.

I better be friendly next to you while you have completely different policies, threaten my economy with superior trade and wonders, and religion.


I know I have passive UA that is designed solely to dominate in war. I know you lan blocked me into a corner, expanding across my kingdom...

But this is a strategic game now. I have no "reason" to attack you poorly defensed, ridiculously close, lucrative to conquer, roadblocking, player owned, trade dominating, religious spreading cities.

I'll just sit in the corner with a 200 point deficit by the medieval period and wait until the modern era to attack when my UA is completely useless because it was designed exclusively for early agression.


Love the new AI. It's like practice mode even on Immortal

I doubt that you you can provide a savegame that backs up all these claims. I think you are exaggerating because you want to create a problem where there realy is none.
 
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.

the only civs in history that ever had a small army were isolated.

Every civ in the classical and medieval period were REQUIRED to have a standing army regardless of goals because that is the law of life.

M.A.D. mutually assured destruction.

The only time you ever hear of truly peaceful civs is in the modern era where people can become planet enemy no.1 due to mass media.

Take away mass media and people got slaughtered left and right.
 
the only civs in history that ever had a small army were isolated.

Every civ in the classical and medieval period were REQUIRED to have a standing army regardless of goals because that is the law of life.

M.A.D. mutually assured destruction.

The only time you ever hear of truly peaceful civs is in the modern era where people can become planet enemy no.1 due to mass media.

Take away mass media and people got slaughtered left and right.

Are you able to prove your claims?
 
name one major civilization before 1500 that fought no wars and had no standing army that wasn't living on some island, far away from anyone or anything.


name just 1.

But this is part of the struggle between the 'historical setting' of Civ and game balance. You also can't name war mongering civs from before 1500 that occupied enemy terrority and still exist (at least I can't, I guess European colonies could count..?) The point being that ancient war mongering civs, collapsed under the weight of their empires.

So if we look to history as a guide we conclude that:
1. ancient civs must have big armies because war is a way of life
2. ancient war does not lead to long term prosperity of the civilization

seems to me that they conflict.

I suspect there will be continued attempts to balance this.
 
that would make no sense. Why would you ever attack a run away wonder spamming egypt with a ridiculously superior armied greece.

So dumb, totally dumb decision to clame those 7 wonders they spammed in the first 150 turns.

:confused:

So Greece can have them instead of Egypt? I don't know what you meant by this.

But what I actually meant to say was, if you have two civs going for a cultural victory, the AI should be aggressive towards the other culture civ they are competing with.
 
But this is part of the struggle between the 'historical setting' of Civ and game balance.

As much as I enjoy the World Congress, I feel it's kind of ham-fisted into the game when you think about the development of actual historical international relations. For balancing purposes, the game totally ignores the idea of sovereignty. Even to this day, international laws are non-compulsory. But I get why they have to force players into it.
 
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.

Same here. In my first game Rome completely destroyed every civ on his continent and on my own, Dido, Napolean, and Sejong were in perpetual wars. If there's a shortage of AI aggressiveness I've yet to see it.
 
But this is part of the struggle between the 'historical setting' of Civ and game balance. You also can't name war mongering civs from before 1500 that occupied enemy terrority and still exist (at least I can't, I guess European colonies could count..?) The point being that ancient war mongering civs, collapsed under the weight of their empires.

So if we look to history as a guide we conclude that:
1. ancient civs must have big armies because war is a way of life
2. ancient war does not lead to long term prosperity of the civilization

seems to me that they conflict.

I suspect there will be continued attempts to balance this.

Egypt was in perpetual war for 3000 years straight. They prospered. You seem to forget what a successful empire is.

If a world power dominates for 200 or more years, they have gone way over any other.

Rome lasted 800 years. In those 800 years they influenced 2000 years of western civilization.

Egypt was the world's largest power for 2000 years. They were constantly at war.

Ghengis Khan rules for his lifetime, but during his lifetime he conquered as much territory as the roman empire over 800 years while setting up the first international protected trade routes and placing the strongest civilization of all time (china) in chains. He was so successful that 1 out of every 5 people of asian decent have his blood in them. His family then reigned for 200 years.

Greece was your typical american civ. They had democracy, warmongering, philosophy, religion, and interntional trade. They reigned for maybe 300 years.

Reign = most influential.


So let's go through ancient wars. Egypt vs nubia and hittites. Hmm. 2000 years of prosperity, trade routes, and gold from nubia AS WELL as an elite force of nubian warriors.

Guess Egypt didn't benefit from that conflict.

Alexander conquering persia... Hmm.. Guess that didn't spread greek culture or bring amazing wonders to the barbaric west.

mongolians conquering half the world under ghengis causing mongolian laws and ideals spread across the world and unlimited properity and decendents which to this day still exist...

Japan being in perpetual war with themselves for a millienium thus changing their idology to one of unity and less abotu personal gains. Thus making them the most advanced culture once they found out about the rest of the world, doing 3x the work and afficiency of other nations because they WANT to do the work.

Islamic nations conquering most of northern africa and the entire middle east to spread islam within a 100 year window of opportunity. Thus causing 2 billion of today's people to be islamic and leaving legacies all over the world...

Mayan's defeating their tribal rivals that threatened them then settled the lands after having no more enemies to become a 1000 year empire that had the most advanced science the world had ever known or would know for another 1000 years.


I could go on and on but every single great civilization was forged through war. Whether they rebelled and became independent or conquered everything they saw, all of our greatest influences TODAY were from FIGHTERS in the past.


And for the "still exist" claim. Really? Since every civ around today has lasted maybe 500 years, can we use that as the example?


To say "still exist" as in 2014 is ******ed. Nothing that was before 1500 still exist today. Even european nations. Because last time I checked, there were no witch trials or burnings at the stake. Science isn't outlawed, yada yada.


This game bases civs on their PARTICULAR period in time. Not "today"

Because america's UA and UU is based on when we had slaves and were a band of rebel hillbillies.
 
In GnK, a peaceful victory required effort. In this one, no one will threaten your peace.


How is that strategic? If you build 5 wonders in 100 turns, i am going to send my big ass army to your home to try and claim it. What would compel me not to?

Do you have a standing army that makes me think twice? Oh you have an archer and warrior. Guess my 12 pikes, 6 trebuchets, and 4 knights can't kill you.

I better be friendly next to you while you have completely different policies, threaten my economy with superior trade and wonders, and religion.


I know I have passive UA that is designed solely to dominate in war. I know you lan blocked me into a corner, expanding across my kingdom...

But this is a strategic game now. I have no "reason" to attack you poorly defensed, ridiculously close, lucrative to conquer, roadblocking, player owned, trade dominating, religious spreading cities.

I'll just sit in the corner with a 200 point deficit by the medieval period and wait until the modern era to attack when my UA is completely useless because it was designed exclusively for early agression.


Love the new AI. It's like practice mode even on Immortal

You know, you probably need some actual evidence to back up your assertions.

Allow me to introduce you to the good friends I've gotten to know well over my years on the internet: Confirmation Bias and Small Sample Sizes
 
Pretty heated discussion here. :lol:

I certainly didn't like the 100% chance of an early war in G+K. Forced me into the same narrow build order everytime.

So more variety in AI aggression is a very welcome change. As a neutral observer of this thread it's pretty obvious that everybody needs to take a deep breath and play a lot more games before claiming something. ;)
1,5 hours left. Can't wait arghhhhh ...
 
name one major civilization before 1500 that fought no wars and had no standing army that wasn't living on some island, far away from anyone or anything.


name just 1.

You are trying to switch roles here. A very cheap trick. You made a claim, you got to back it up!
 
You are trying to switch roles here. A very cheap trick. You made a claim, you got to back it up!

So you want him to list every civilization that has ever existed and give scientific evidence about their army, wars and conflicts?

That doesn't sound very practical. :lol:
 
name one major civilization before 1500 that fought no wars and had no standing army that wasn't living on some island, far away from anyone or anything.


name just 1.

Medieval Europe didn't have standing armies. Armies were raised by barons in the name of the king whenever there was a campaign needing to be fought. The first standing armies in Europe after the Roman Empire only appeared in the mid 15th century.
 
I'd say the aggression has definitely been turned down, and probably just a bit too far. The 'follow these 8 steps exactly' builds that where nearly required in immortal/diety play to get an army up large enough before the first DoWs wasn't all that fun. And generally as long as you were able to beat and flip those early DoWs you wouldn't have too many challenges left. Now it seems that there's nearly no danger of early war unless you instigate it. It's just a footrace to the ren. to see who has the best situation when the congress stirs things up.

If you have an aggressive neighbor he should make some prelimanary incursions. I just played a game bordered by Alexander, Atila and Siam and never got DoW'd. I'd say the current is better than the hyper-aggressive, but that's just too passive.


Even it is setting based (which it might be. I usually play emperor-huge-marathon) but if those settings are causing the issue, well that's a bug and it needs to be fixed. Or the options removed, but that'd be bad as well.
 
Top Bottom