Should there be more aggression, or not

[Clement]

I've had three games so far, all on Prince difficulty and my experience has been good, the warlike nations have done their thing, the peaceful ones have pursued their style of play, all in all i feel my games were balanced with the right amount of war with a few surprises thrown in, like a passive aggressive Wu Zetian and a dangerously sly Pedro, so in answer to the original question, no, aggression is fine, any more aggression and i feel it's back to the bad old days of Civ 5 royal rumble.

 

[VainoValkea]

I don't understand how people say "aggression is fine". I've had cultural and diplomatic victories without having any army at all - how is it "fine" if my better armed neighbors don't pounce at me? I would certainly pounce on a culture-bomber neighbor that's about to win in a few dozen turns if left unchecked.

 

[Clement]

I don't understand how people say "aggression is fine". I've had cultural and diplomatic victories without having any army at all - how is it "fine" if my better armed neighbors don't pounce at me? I would certainly pounce on a culture-bomber neighbor that's about to win in a few dozen turns if left unchecked.

I got pounced on more than once, Siam told me i was weak and it was his chance, i almost lost the game but after i survived i had a decent army, what difficulty do you play on? I play on Prince all the time so far.

 

[Cao Cao Mengde]

There shouldn't be MORE aggression-

But I think there should be some earlier wars. Most wars take place in the Middle Ages, which becomes a shame when you're playing as say, the Romans, and can't use those legions to full effect .

 

[VainoValkea]

King and Emperor most of the time. Yeah, even on Emperor I only got DoW'd once. By Siam, and that was in the industrial era after they picked a different ideology than mine. I was still defended only by a single crossbowman.

I won the war though, and the game later on. Rush buying and their sluggish start to the war did miracles.

 

[Clement]

Ah ok, well all i can go on are the three games i had on Prince difficulty, i found war to be fairly common, especially in the late stage.

 

[VainoValkea]

Yes, warmongering is very focused in the late game. Some enthusiasts like Attila go for it early on, too, but it seems only late game gold, weapons and ideologies finally grant less violent AIs the courage to wage war.

 

[Deggial]

This last point is counter intuitive. Offering a passive bonus allows peaceful civs to support more defensive units. The current system requires aggressive civs which build up their military to take cities and get the from plundering. This game mechanic should be promoted more and the AI should aggressively try to plunder other cities to get military income in the early game.

I don't know if it is counter intuitive. Of course you are right, that getting gold from conquest should be a large benefit for aggressive civs.

Matter of fact is, however, that the mentioned 'sanity check' evaluates the income loss due to canceled trade routes, when starting a war. If this loss is a too high percentage of the total income, no war will be declared (or at least a DoW will be way less likely).
Now, if you increase the static income from the palace, you should weight the evaluation a litle bit in favor to war. However, I might very well misinterpret the evaluation algorithm.

 

[jtravers88]

My proposals:

1. Variable aggression levels for each leader depending on era
I would prefer this over a general increas in aggression. This could assure, that e.g. Assyria makes optimal use of it's siege tower while the Ottomans will use their Janissaries.
This variable aggression increase might very well have a wide range. For example, Atilla might have an extremely high aggression level early in the game but only a medium level later on while Suleiman might have only a slight increase in the Renaissance.


2. Warmonger penalty depending on era
In early eras, war (or better: taking cities) is a diplomatic suicide. All civs have only a few cities built and the new warmonger evaluation kicks in heavily under this circumstances. The same applies for taking CSs as the smalest thinkable civs.

In reality, war was an expected and acceped behaviour in ancient times. Succesfull warring leaders were feared, but respected! "Morals and stuff" are more or less a modern approach.
I think, Civ5 should reflect this. Early warmongering should be way less penalized than warmongering in later eras. If at all, early wormongers should cause 'fear' in other nations and make unbalanced deals more likely to appease the aggresor.


3. A higer palace gold yield
As early gold (or the lack of it) seams to be one major reason for early peacefulness (see the 'sanity check'), why not increase the gold output of the palace? As the game progresses, this relatively small lump-sum of gold will make no big difference.
But very early in the game, the gold will help to maintain a reasonable army-size and lower the effect of trade routes on the mentioned 'sanity check'. Declaring war will therefore be more likely.

'Variable aggression levels for each leader depending on era'
I think that tuning aggression based on the history of an ancient civ is not the way to go. Just because Attila is my next door neighbor should not automatically mean I need to say 'uh oh, better build a defense'. However if an ai civ finds itself with a great advantage, such as a unique military unit at any given time, it's aggressiveness should be higher while that particular unit is in play. This could be hardcoded logic.

'Warmonger penalty depending on era'
I don't know that warmongering is punished all that much prior to the industrial era. The world congress has only just begun in Renaissance right? A lot can go wrong with punishment of warmongers in later eras if a civ is coded to always be aggressive. That is of course, unless it is very successful in it's war efforts. Then that civ probably doesn't give a hoot about what the world thinks.

'A higher palace gold yield'
Not if it causes any absurdity, as mentioned in the original post.

Actually in that game as Napolean, I was attacked by the Netherlands and Korea? for rapid expansion and the Netherlands spanked me due to my 'thinking' no enemy armies had been created. He took one of my cities after I posted this thread. But in general the game is much tamer and I like it that way.

 

[ArmChairAttila]

That's exactly my point of view.

The AI behavior should be based on their personality with a bit of randomness. I don't like it when I exactly know who will attack or back stab me and when it will happen.

It's nice to have a game with more peace than normal and it's also fine to have games with more aggression and more early wars.

At the moment my games are way to predictable. I've played a dozen games, four without a DoW againt anybody, eight without a DoW against me - although I only had my initial warrior and maybe one bowmen. There were only four games with some DoWs (against the AI and me), but all except one at Renaissance or Industrial era.

I hear this a lot but do not see it in any of my games. I wonder if the AI has changed so much that it now caters to those who are playing. I.E. if you are being a peaceful builder then the game recognizes it and leaves you alone for the most part. If you are going down the honor path and picking friends which means you are making enemies too, then there will be blood. The reason I say this is I played a Venice game and just went about my business making money and building my city. Made no DoF's or denouncements. It was a peaceful game for the most part. On the other hand I played Shaka with full honor and had multiple wars started by Spain and the Shoshone from the classical all the way until Industrial. I made friends with Persia early and basically did what he wanted so my caravans would be secure. It was a great game.

 

[Thuellai]

Rome was all over me in the classical era just as expected. Is the world less likely to implode at any given moment into a screaming cacophony? Maybe. Is there no war? Hardly, or I wouldn't have foreign leaders knocking on my door every four turns asking me if I'm ready to help them kill my OTHER trade partner. I think aggression is where it should be.

I do really like the idea of variable aggression across eras though, so that civs are encouraged to wage war when they're most efficient at it.

 

[homegrown]

I'm seeing plenty of aggression between the AIs in every game. Maybe it's because I'm playing them by trading and not getting dragged into their petty conflicts, but I'm pretty happy they hate each other more than me. (for the most part)

 

[teqofc]

I don't what game you guys are playing but I've seen no lack of aggression at all on emp and immortal. I have yet to play a game yet on these settings where I can get away with a small army, tuck myself in some corner and just concentrate on building while my neighbors mow my lawn and tuck me into bed at night. Every single one of these games has been my immediate neighbor DOW me after my 2nd city or 3rd city. Just when I'm getting some momentum and gold flowing here comes Zulu or Genghis or Napolean or some other grr.

I've learned now to be ready with a decent size army in the beginning. Enough to hold off the typical lame AI attacks. This recent Venice game was pretty funny where I had just bought my 2nd CS with a 2 CB, 1 horse and 1 warrior. On turn 83, Napolean my friendly neighbor to the NE whom I had 2 trade routes with says "Hey wassup! Time to die!" See http://imgur.com/qUyhPoh

I held him off for 20 turns with his relentless printing of units. Paris has 6 fricken mines so his production is off the charts. On turn 103 I had my MoV head to Lhasa and pop that sucker. I swear I hard Naplean say "WTF!" simultaneously as the pop sound as Lhasa immediately gave me 6 pikemen and 5 CB. See http://i.imgur.com/GXjlh9l.jpg Suffice to say Napolean was miserable the rest of the game. I razed all of the tiles around Paris and left him the capitol. From my previous BNW games played I've learned already that taking a capitol that early just leads to misery later in the game as the whole world ends up against you. So I just left Napolean to suffer till the end of the game

 

[killmeplease]

AI should not be that dumb! And thats all.
If you have 1 warrior and Assyria AI next to you has lots of spears, chariots and siege towers, it shoud attack. If AI invests into military, it should wage war.

also, no early wars is very bad for immersion i think

 

[stealth_nsk]

One very strange thing I've noticed, being DoWed multiple times. It's always backstabs. Looks like DoF is a requirement to attack you

So, as I understand, developers lowered the warmongering leader trait, but didn't touch desire for backstabbing. This also explains why wars usually come later.

IMHO, AI needs really serious revision.

 

[Shafi-is-back]

I still fail to see whats the fuzz about new AI. Early wars still happen in every game of mine, I still get the messages about someone losing it's capital in classical era, AI still DoWs me if I am weak and especially if I am weak and we have bad blood among us. AI is fine.

AI doesn't act like a schizophrenic sociopath on drugs, not anymore, and it's a positive change.

Not that it can't be improved further, you can always improve AI, but making every leader DoW left and right just because it can is not an improvement.

This. Couldnt say it better.

 

[Greasy Dave]

answering the op, no. i have had excellent ai aggression interaction on the games i've played. i am wondering if this is more a feature on the lower difficulties. all my games have been at immortal. i've noticed that alot of people complaining are playing at easier levels.

right now i see it as the difference between 1 dimensional aggression and 3d aggression. before the ai wss 1 dimensional. in g and k and vanilla the ai had only one way ro be aggressive-war. a player knew that he always jhad to prepare for a dow by turn 50. the difficulty was increased by the ai getting bigger and bigger bonuses. this was boring. the bnw games i've played the ai has been much less transparent. it can aggressively pursue a culture victory, a diplo vic, and a sci vic. in one game i played alex conquered his whole continent and built up a huge gpt then tied up all the cses for the rest of the gmae. as a player, i have had to be prepared not only for ai dows but also ai heading for a vc and strategising to get there pretty damn well.

i am overwhelmed by how good this game is. if you are disatisfoed can i suggest you move up a difficulty level

 

[Horace]

I have also had plenty of AI aggression.

To the people saying I am next to 2 peacemongers and so just neglect my military - why don't you play with some random personalities so you cant predict from the get go if someone will war you.

I always play with random personalities and have seen plenty of war in all my games (early game & despite trade routes)

 

[Hakuoh]

You guys should play games with Rome, Greece, Huns etc.

They are still warmonger and will take any chance to whipe out the weak.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I still fail to see whats the fuzz about new AI. Early wars still happen in every game of mine, I still get the messages about someone losing it's capital in classical era, AI still DoWs me if I am weak and especially if I am weak and we have bad blood among us. AI is fine.

AI doesn't act like a schizophrenic sociopath on drugs, not anymore, and it's a positive change.

Not that it can't be improved further, you can always improve AI, but making every leader DoW left and right just because it can is not an improvement.

Agreed.

Since getting BNW I have still been attacked by my neighbours in the Medieval era. I haven't noticed any problems with the aggressiveness of the AI. The only change is that pre-BNW, I found I could set my watch by the fact that my nearest neighbour - regardless of who they were - would DOW before turn 100. Now, sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't. I like that. Barbarians are more of a handful than before, which helps to compensate for the lack of AI aggression at the start of the game.

I can understand that the likes of Attila, Augustus, Alexander should go to war earlier rather than later if they are going to, and I haven't encountered any of them in my games yet, so I'm not sure if they do or not. But if AI aggression is patched back to pre-BNW levels, I will be so annoyed. In my opinion, they fixed the predictability of the early game.