They need to hotfix AI agression now

budweiser said:
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.
Click to expand...

And only warmongers are douches every peson that played it said that good change in my opinion
 
I played a few games into renaissance on the difficulty below deity (7). on pangea map standard size. only 1 DOW and 1 Denounce happened from like 3 games (and between the AI). everyone makes friends and no one attacks. I am mostly playing with new civs though (maybe the problem). still i think it needs fix.
 
I haven't played it yet (downloading), but I'm looking forward to it. I was sick of every civ warmongering all the time. Civilization is not a war game. It's an empire building game. Sometimes war happens but there shouldn't be constant war.

Also I like the idea of gold being limited early in the game. It forces you to make strategic decisions and you aren't able to have everything. Looking forward to trying it out once my slow connection finishes downloading!
 
I'm quite enjoying the more peaceful games, but then again my pet peeve with GnK was always how the AI could tell how much army you had and act like a dick because of it. The "might makes right" approach fits some civs, but they just went way overboard with it.
 
EricB said:
I haven't played it yet (downloading), but I'm looking forward to it. I was sick of every civ warmongering all the time. Civilization is not a war game. It's an empire building game. Sometimes war happens but there shouldn't be constant war.

Also I like the idea of gold being limited early in the game. It forces you to make strategic decisions and you aren't able to have everything. Looking forward to trying it out once my slow connection finishes downloading!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Although if the OP is right and civs like Zulu/Huns etc. just sit there and do nothing, it would suck indeed.

I doubt it's true though. ^^
 
Vanilla CivV and Gods and Kings: Players complain that the AI is aggressive
Brave New World: Players complain about the AI not being aggressive

It was bound to happen, mind you. Instead of toning down AI aggression leader-by-leader, they went with the better path of increasing barb aggression and decreasing the amount of gold available early game. Hence, armies are roughly the same size on the AI's end, but larger on the player's end, decreasing the chance of aggression anyway.

It would get insanely stupid if the AI was Gods and Kings aggressive given how trade routes work.

The idea that the early game is tedious is not very justifiable, but that might be because trade routes and religions haven't disappeared.
 
I olso thinx it is because barbarians are more stronger the AI focus their military at barb camps and trade routes except agressive leaders
 
The lack of surprise early wars is sort of nice. It seems to be a result of a few factors like gold drought, map design, etc. The gold drought inhibits army production so making war is harder, it inhibits sprawl which means less diplomatic friction. If civs are spaced out, it makes trading with them harder, so the gold drought is enhanced.

I don't mind not being denounced and attacked by Alex or Attila before the end of the Ancient Era, but I worry about the effectiveness of civs that are designed for early warmongering. And frankly, it's kind of dull when your neighbors aren't threatening you when you are most vulnerable.
 
Sonereal said:
The idea that the early game is tedious is not very justifiable.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the early game now seems to be just about gold farming. Without gold, there are almost no other options, especially not for the AI. So for the first hour the Civs just farm and farm. This can be so tedious and goes over such a long time, that it could seriously hurt MP...
 
Here's a tip if you want the AI to be more aggressive: turn off Barbarians.

They'll spread like the plague. :p
 
ColdFever said:
Unfortunately, the early game now seems to be just about gold farming. Without gold, there are almost no other options, especially not for the AI. So for the first hour the Civs just farm and farm. This can be so tedious and goes over such a long time, that it could seriously hurt MP...
Click to expand...

Multiplayer with diplomacy what more do you want?
 
I noticed the same thing. I killed an AI in early to mid medieval that was not friends with anyone. I eventually got denounced by 4 different civs. We're already near the end of the Renaissance and 2 of them are still denouncing me. None of the AI have declared war on each other or with me. I've seen both Mongolia and France sitting on 20-30+ gpt at times without attacking anyone. The only AI to have declared war was Mongolia on some city states.
 
I can't play yet but it sounds like BNW hasn't been out long enough to actually draw any conclusions. I neither doubt those that say that they had passive AIs nor those with aggressive ones... both might just be (un)lucky streaks due to terrain, civs or a dozen other factors.

Of course it is prudent to report these streaks just in case there is a trend but it seems a little early to ask for changes in the game.
 
I haven't played enough games to have a good sample size on this. I will say that I've noticed less warmongering by the AIs early on, but like others I think this is mainly tied to lack of gold. For example, Japan just denounced me between turns 50-60, but no war yet. I have been declared on in the mid-game no problem as well. I don't necessarily see this as a problem yet (actually I'm finding it somewhat refreshing), but I can see others points of view, especially on how it restricts early warfare period.

However, I don't think this needs a hotfix absolutely right now. We may only get so many patches until Firaxis support for Civ 5 starts to get tapered off, and I want them to get things right for the long haul. Let's play through more than 2-3 games before demanding immediate sweeping changes.
 
All I know is that they aren't passive if you warmonger. I took out France because he was expanding way too fast and Portugal, The Inca, The Iroquois, The Shoshone, Arabia, and Poland all declared on me within two turns of each other. That is everyone I've met except for Denmark. Normally people are mad about warmongering, but this is ridiculous. Should be fun.
 
I've experienced the same thing here: passive AI, way too peaceful. Nobody in my game declared war until the early Industrial era, and this is on a large map on Prince. Alexander and Bismarck were on the same continent along with the Shoshone and a few other civs and no one declared war or even denounced each other. I find it hard to believe that Bismarck and Alex would tolerate the other civs that long considering they're usually huge jerks, at least in all the Civ games I'd played previously.

I like early game pressure, nothing ridiculous of course but just enough that it gives my military units something to do.
 
Law Lord said:
I haven't played enough games to have a good sample size on this. I will say that I've noticed less warmongering by the AIs early on, but like others I think this is mainly tied to lack of gold. For example, Japan just denounced me between turns 50-60, but no war yet. I have been declared on in the mid-game no problem as well. I don't necessarily see this as a problem yet (actually I'm finding it somewhat refreshing), but I can see others points of view, especially on how it restricts early warfare period.

However, I don't think this needs a hotfix absolutely right now. We may only get so many patches until Firaxis support for Civ 5 starts to get tapered off, and I want them to get things right for the long haul. Let's play through more than 2-3 games before demanding immediate sweeping changes.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly so we don't get a patch that breask the game appart. its only a few days after the release the europeans didn't even played it so lets not say its broken allready
 
Law Lord said:
However, I don't think this needs a hotfix absolutely right now. We may only get so many patches until Firaxis support for Civ 5 starts to get tapered off, and I want them to get things right for the long haul. Let's play through more than 2-3 games before demanding immediate sweeping changes.
Click to expand...

Right. It needs to be studied. The answer is not to make the AI more aggressive. Whatever the contributing factors are, they need to be tweaked just a little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

foreverlost
Need help to advance to beating the AI Civs
Replies
4
Views
516
foreverlost
foreverlost
S
Automated workers are HELL now. Or maybe they always were, and I just never paid attention, dunno.
Replies
2
Views
422
Somebody613
S
K
Developers please add this simple AI script to Red death AI 😊
Replies
0
Views
59
karakzorn
K
C
[GS] AI too passive in Civ VI?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
7K
reddishrecue
reddishrecue
Slyceth
  • Locked
(7-VT) Pledging fealty to an AI player to cure constant frustratingly petty war declarations.
Replies
5
Views
258
axatin
A
Top Bottom