AI very defensive

I used to play Vanilla Civ 5 and then I played some G&K before taking a break for a while.

I returned to the game with BNW, and I've really enjoyed the new features and improvements.

However, in vanilla and G&K the AI could be pretty aggressive. Certainly if the AI saw ur defences were weak they would try an attack, and the more aggressive civs would attack even if your defences weren't weak.

Now however the AI seems so much more passive, to the point that it is boring. For example I recently played a game where I had Oda and Monty as neighbours. Although they both hated me and had stronger armies, they never tried to attack at all, leaving me to win a cultural victory.

Please Fireaxis, next patch make the AI more aggressive again!

What difficulty are you playing on? If you're playing on Chieftain or Warlord, you're almost never going to get attacked, no matter how hostile your neighbors are.
Perhaps you ought to move up to Emperor or above? Speaking from experience if you neglect your army on that difficulty level (or higher) you're going to get crushed.

I've even seen some pretty aggressive AI on King. Anything above though, you are definitely going to be attacked at some point.

I play on Emporer atm

I would add that in about 12 games (mostly Emporer, a few King) since I got BNW, I have not had single AI DoW.

Have the AI been declaring war on each other? Or have they been completely defensive?

Yes the AI have been attacking eachother but never me

With the latest patch, AI is not as dormant anymore.

If you have the Zulu anywhere around, the war is a must. Monty is calmer now, so is Oda. You must remember that expansion is now much less important than it used to be in vanilla and especially in GnK. AI will not attack you just because they don't like you or can attack you. They will attack you when you are limiting their optimal growth or they have too many troops.

AI civs always try to settle their 2nd city very soon. A few warmongers go for a single city for a long time if they feel threatened, though after the latest patch I seldom see such behavior. The 3rd and 4th cities are settled based on civ's expansionist flavors. It usually happens very early on higher difficulties (emperor and above). If AI civ manages to get their 4 cities going, it's very unlikely that they will attack but if they are unable to settle their optimal number of cities, even peaceful civs may attack. It concludes the 1st phase of expansion.

The 2nd phase comes when AI starts settling leftover land further from their core. It may start in late medieval era or in reneissance, sometimes only in industrial era. Rather sooner than later on immortal. When all suitable land has been claimed, prepare for war. It's inevitable. Wars break out almost instantaneously in this phase when you settle near an expansionist.

It's possible that all civs will have comfortable starting location, will be able to expand a little more in later game and will pursue peaceful victory types. With long history of DoFs it's even more likely. If these conditions are met, there won't be a single war in the game unless you start it. After all, BNW favors trade and cooperation. One can pretty much tell how history will unroll after the 1st glimpse on the map and civs list.

What sort of map and what # of AI and CS on it? it helps to have at least an extra Civ (2-3 on Huge) and a few CS on the map. Archipelago and Small continents seem to cause more peaceful games, or games with "white wars" in which no city gets taken. It's not always true, though, just more frequent than on some other maps.

I've got a few really peaceful games on Emperor/King, but I also commonly get total blood fests.

The AI is not really less aggressive I would say, it's just better at understanding and protecting its own interests in some (alas not all) of the BNW mechanics, which makes it more likely to avoid wars. Its wars make more sense, if you wish.

For e.g. if it cares for its gpt (not all leaders do) and you're the only civ or CS the AI can reach before it gets harbors, that AI is far less prone to DoW and loose the trade routes... or the luxuries from trade that allows it to grow/expand. But if an AI like Oda has two neighbors, it's not rare to see it assingn its TR to one, DOW the other, then wait and re assign the TR to the first while he DoW the second. Similarly in the later game the AI that's signed RA becomes very reluctant to DoW and lose it, which seems to make it less likely to even denounce. Allying a great deal of the CS, leaving the AI with only 1-2 each, also deprive the AIs of the happiness they bring, and slows down their desire to expand.

Some of the AI (not quite all, some simply don't give a damn, especially if they're strong enough) seem reluctant to take actions that would make them lose their trade partners and declared Friends, for instance going to war early and suffering big warmonger penalties.

For all that, I see plently of wars in my games, often enough after Ideologies arrived it's one war after another, with ideological partners goinf after a chained denounced black sheep (there's often more than once by then). I also usually get at least one very expansionist/imperalist Autocrat (very often it's Poland) who wipes out several Civs to take a whole continent then goes for a Culture or Space victory.

Whether I'll be DoWed or not depends a big deal of who's next to me and how much we have to struggle to grab land, but also on what sort of diplomacy I follow. If I use bribes, Defense pacts, protect some CS, agree to go to war with an ally, denounce other Civs, capture a few cities etc. I will end up involved in many wars and get DoWed in turn. If I play to deter aggression by sending many TR, agreeing to trade deals etc. with many AI it's a game in which relations won't worsen until Ideologies and even then the differences over that won't be enough to fully break the friendships.

For sure if you play not to be attacked and give the AI incentives to also be peaceful, while you ignore the AI that denounce or are denounced too much, chances are you get very peaceful games. It's precisely the reverse effect of chained denouncements: the chained DoFs. If you sign too many early on, the AI are positively influenced and tend to sign DoF with each other, and add yet another and another and it becomes a loop of near automatic renewals. Eventually one partner behaves very badly and it turns into a chain of backstabbing and denouncements that create a black sheep, but in many games the "chain of DOF" can get very strong.

In my current game there are two black sheeps and plenty of wars and denouncements on the other continents, but as I've favored peace and trading too much until I got my Winged Hussards up my own continent has never seen any war between the Civs. Maria bullied a CS of mine and I didn't let it pass, but between the TR, trade deals and all, we re signed a DoF. Pacal has taken out 2 CS, and hasn't been denounced for it. We clearly both wish the other's land as we're limited to four cities (thus Pacal going after 2 CS to expand and using me and Maria for trade instead). Maria has simply not renewed her DoF with him after the second capture, so I'm waiting for mine to expire too to see if I get can Maria to DoW Pacal with me to get a city and liberate his 2 CS.

The bottom line is that IMO the new mechanisms encourage the AI to contain its desire for aggression with its neighbors. Wars occur, and sometimes a lot of them, and often as a mean to expand, but otherwise enmities are very often intercontinental between AI that can't have TR with one another. It's often like that until there's a rush of expansion by conquest mid game, or otherwise only after Ideologies come in, or if the human player plays the game either aggressively himself, or more deviously to make the AI dislike one another and go to war.

Well, the AI isn't always defensive as you would think if you would restart and try another game. This is because the AI could attack even when you have a good respectable cultural output that used to make AIs not attack a cultural person while instead attack another AI with a more powerful military. If the AI is close to you and you are wonder spamming, then the AI might attack. The AI might also attack if it has a lot more powerful military. The AI does attack though at times especially in higher difficulties, but not always.

Depends on space. When the map is crammed, there will be lots of wars. Wars are often caused by "covet land you own"

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

I hated how the AI played prior to BNW. Every AI would ICS every game until every 1-tile island was taken, and attack the owner of any city that stopped it from building more cities.

I just played a game on Emp, Dido had control with the most votes (11) due to city states. I HATED whatever she would propose, and would vote it down, going as far to bribe others and place diplomats to stop her from screwing me and everyone else over(side note, America is kind of hilarious, always trying to push their religion as the world religion) but Dido did not like this one bit

it had been a game of very few wars, now understand, a lot of it has to do with the map. if you give more room(take out some city state's or civ's) you may get some room.

but if you constantly vote down a proposal, you will get attacked. I had a well defended 6 city empire, Dido attacked me on three fronts, 1 sea, 1 sneaky attack using land units on my southern most city, and a final stage straight to my capital. I fought her off, only because I had just recently built some units(I like to basically make them think they can attack, then right at that point I start busting out units)

she hated me for awhile, but if you actually overturn a previous passed proposal, that will especially piss them off.


IMO, they FIXED the game. I loved Gods and Kings, and still miss some things from it(such as gold on rivers, I really really enjoyed gold on rivers), but my big issue was that the CPU was irrational, constantly looking to go to war even if I had been their best friend. I understand there is a civ that will backstab you, and some are more prone to it than others...but this is such a better game now that the CPU only attacks when there is a reason for them to be attacking. there used to always be a point where war had to happen, there was nothing you can do. but now? they take everything into consideration, they respect D-Pacts as well, so if you want to be attacked, don't make a D-Pact with anyone.

IMO, this is one thing they have correct. also take into account Research Agreements, and Trade Route's, and allies, and you give up quite a bit going on the offensive. the CPU knows this. Heck, in that game listed above, I had a warmonger concern simply because I took out a city state that was near me who sided with Dido. cause and effect with this game, and there are a lot of variables. didn't even touch Religion, where in that same game, I had America angry for a couple different reasons, but their hatred was kept at a minimum by my move to spread my religion to them before* they attempted to get one of their own

I think the A.I isn't less aggressive, it's just less irrational on how to use that aggression to it's advantage.

In Vanilla CIV V it was too easy too win because the A.I didn't really have any other strategy except going to war so they were so predictable.

In GK they got a little smarter and starting using other methods to obtain victory... but still pretty predictable.

In BNW... I've actually played a few games where the A.I surprised me with moves I did not see coming.

It can most definitely be aggressive. This is pre-Fall patch!