"Peaceful New World"

1200AD first and only war so far between Monty and Washington (playing Poland, 1520AD right now). Not many denouncements too. It's pangaea, immortal, 8 civs, rest standard. The most interesting thing is that i cant make AIs go into war even if i want to throw 2k gold in their faces. In G&K I always had all AIs fighting with each other (with a little help from my side).

Monster Heel said:

Whether or not the map is going to be war heavy depends on how 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.

Click to expand...

So greece, a civ with critical mass before the early period even ends DoWs you in the medieval period and you don't find that off?

godman85 said:

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

Click to expand...

Nuh uh. First game it was 4000. Stuck on an island.

mattpilot said:

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 ;-)

**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).

Click to expand...

Yet another post complaining about the war-shy AI without saying what kind of terrain the map was. I assume you mean Pangaea, but it makes a big difference.

Also, do we really need a new thread about this? There's like 8 of them already.

JustinianIV said:

Yet another post complaining about the war-shy AI without saying what kind of terrain the map was. I assume you mean Pangaea, but it makes a big difference.

Also, do we really need a new thread about this? There's like 8 of them already.

Click to expand...

now now don't get all upset


It was continents+



ANd yes.. we need more threads

I'm more concerned that the battle AI is still somewhat bad. Not horrible, but not good enough for me to still win when a human would have won.

mattpilot said:

now now don't get all upset


It was continents+



ANd yes.. we need more threads

Click to expand...

Ah, I've only played one game on continents (the demo) and it was war most of the time. Emperor difficulty.

It was Shaka who was warring though, and so far he seems to be the only civ which consistently bucks the pacifict leanings of BNW.

Now look what you've done; you've got me contributing to another AI complaint thread! I can't help it!

I think they should change the name of the game to
SimCiv:Kumbya.

In one completed game, and 7 games played through ~0 AD, I have yet to have the AI attack me.
Of the 40s odd leader features how many of them didn't become famous because of their military prowess and/or expansionist tendencies, precious few.

I am sorry but despite BNW nice new additions, and the AI being better about building infrastructure the game is a giant step backwards. It is not at all challenging anymore.

I think they should include a BIG sticker with a warning "The game is broken again; it does not work as it should again"

Plenty of DOWs in my King game despite me being very nice to everyone. Alex just as nasty as ever.

I'm wondering if the BNW players experiencing only peace have not installed the latest patch that came out on July 1st or 2nd. It was supposed to make the AI more aggressive, and this was certainly the case when you played GnK with the patch.

3 starts to 100 turns. All immortal, standard, continents. random civs

2 out of 3 AI DOWed.
Case 1, Casimir at turn 50 with a huge army - because I was a warmonger (I'd stolen a CS worker). I lost the game then and there.
Case 2, Shaka at turn 80 something. I held him off.
Final game was peaceful. I didn't steal workers. ONly had a single covet modifier from Siam. It looks like the AI on my continent are going Culture. I DOWed turn 70 to get myself some breathing space and cut down Siam the runaway. Now the other civs are pissed at me and hiawatha is rattling his sabre.

Really guys, take some chill pills and enjoy the game! All of these opening 100 turns were excellent games. If the dice has rolled you peace, go in peace. If the Gods have rolled you war, then chop them down at the knees. But please lower the aggressiveness of the complaints on these boards, please. There are now three or threads about the same thing, with the same people saying exactly the same thing in each thread. I respect your right to disagree with me. And I respect your right to express your views here but do you have to do it in a new thread every six hours?

IMV, The game is NOT broken. It's actually working, god forbid it, pretty damn well. All three game openings I've played so far have been different from each other -when was the last time I could say that about civ V?

If you find the game boring, then move up the game difficulty and make it harder for yourself to win. OR, god forbid, provoke the AI by DOWing someone. The denouncing will soon start, believe me. I honestly don't understand what the complaiing is about.

JustinianIV said:

I'm wondering if the BNW players experiencing only peace have not installed the latest patch that came out on July 1st or 2nd. It was supposed to make the AI more aggressive, and this was certainly the case when you played GnK with the patch.

Click to expand...

It was supposed to make an ongoing city attack more aggressive, not the AI itself. So that the units are not dancing around the enemies cities anymore.

I'm yet to see a single peaceful game (played 2 games so far )

godman85 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well done, I'd be hard pressed to find a better example of a straw man argument than this one, it should go into an encyclopedia or something.

In my experience so far, playing on anything from King to Immortal using standard settings I haven't finished a game yet (finished 4) where every AI made it to the end. In 2 of those games, some civs were wiped out before I even discovered them, and I prioritized it in all 4 games in an attempt to establish world congress.

On emperor I could get away with not having much of an army, on immortal I got stomped each time I did. Some as early as turn 50-60 (I think I was screwed no matter what there, Boudica with 15+ units and a GG).

As far as I can tell, the AI considers your army vs his army, if he thinks he has a good chance of killing you, he'll attack (and backstab if necessary). If he doesn't think his odds are good, he won't attack. The AI seems less inclined to just dow you for the sake of dowing you, and only do it if he thinks he can actually win. If that's the case, it makes sense dows are much more common on high settings since the AI has a crapton of units no matter what on that setting.

finished my first game. Continents...

On my continent two wars where fought where Japan completely wiped the Songhai (4 cities), second war was me conquering the celts and some pieces of Oda (he actually defended now and killed 4+ units of mine (very bad terrain around his cities, so i had to use some fodder).

On the second continent there was an almost unending war between Assyria and Inca, started by the inca. I allied with Assyria, they became best friends with me, even adopted same ideology and then i won the game with a cultural victory.

From what i watched on youtube and that one game i did i surmise that the AI just makes a decision. Either you are a trade partner or you are conquest. Thats why some people report very friendly games and other perpetual wars...

I was only able to start one game (king difficulty), but so I'm obviously not very qualified, but the AI seems more cooperative. I suspect there a rehidden modifiers for trade routes because having too many enemies will ruin your economy. The Carthaginians were 'neutral' but quite standoffish and simply refused an open border agreement, but once I sent a couple of cargo ships to them they started acting friendlier.
There haven't been any wars on my continent yet, but I (Poland) am sharing it with China, Carthage, Siam and the Dutch, not exactly the biggest warmongers. On the other hand I've already had notofications that two unmet civs have lost their capital, and it's just the medieval era.

Just pick different leaders every leader has a different victory in mind a lot of them want to go culture victory or science and just don't start random wars.

however I thinx its a little bit wierd that assyria wants to go culture doesn't fit with their thrait.

GoodSarmatian said:

I was only able to start one game (king difficulty), but so I'm obviously not very qualified, but the AI seems more cooperative. I suspect there a rehidden modifiers for trade routes because having too many enemies will ruin your economy. The Carthaginians were 'neutral' but quite standoffish and simply refused an open border agreement, but once I sent a couple of cargo ships to them they started acting friendlier.
There haven't been any wars on my continent yet, but I (Poland) am sharing it with China, Carthage, Siam and the Dutch, not exactly the biggest warmongers. On the other hand I've already had notofications that two unmet civs have lost their capital, and it's just the medieval era.

Click to expand...

Yes i've had 2 leaders who where just neutral and one hostile and i didn't had trade routes with them so here you go.

Oh, there are wars alright, starting from the medieval era or so in my experience. I ended up with a runaway Rome who crushed about 3 other civs, plus Spain always DoW'ing me even though we had 3 trade routes.