So boring!

[Moriarte]

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that many players have voiced their discontent about the long eras of peace since BNW. I don't think any of them care what the code exactly says. Also, get of your high horse, your 1 word dismissive reply was trolling.

And your anecdotal evidence even supports my claim, since you did lose the city. Apparently your 5-6 units weren't enough for him to see his chances as too low to capture it, therefore he declared and won.

You do realize that "long eras of peace" can only happen on emperor and difficulty levels below it, right? It can be seen as a side effect, so you don't feel pressurized by the game too much. That can happen on immortal/deity too, of course, just that the chances are slim, and well, the wars are very likely, since everyone spam units. If you feel discontent, move up the ladder..

they still won't declare war on you if they're not 99% sure they can take one of your cities within three turns. 4-5 units at the border of every potential enemy, and they will never declare war, no matter how vile you are.

It's a lot more complicated than that. You can trust Aristos on that one.

 

[Quineloe]

The game becomes way too hard and "1 true way" for me to enjoy above Emperor. It goes from nothing happens all day and I collect an easy win on Emperor to losing on turn 100 to 1 or 2 players with a tech advantage steamrolling me in a 3 turn war on Immortal.

I don't really care how complicated it is. The game should be interesting on all levels, not just the top 2 out of 8. It certainly was before BNW.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

You do realize that "long eras of peace" can only happen on emperor and difficulty levels below it, right? It can be seen as a side effect, so you don't feel pressurized by the game too much. That can happen on immortal/deity too, of course, just that the chances are slim, and well, the wars are very likely, since everyone spam units. If you feel discontent, move up the ladder..



It's a lot more complicated than that. You can trust Aristos on that one.

What's wrong with it being Prince and lower like it used to be?

King and emperor used to be kind of fun sometimes too. Not every one should be forced to go to immortal and deity for a more dynamic game. There are a lot of casual gamers who really have no interest in playing those levels. That "You're not playing a high enough level" response is kind of lame.

Part of what slows the early game down is the relatively high production cost of trade units in the early game and the need to build and work the guilds. The AI doesn't spam units as early as it used to because it can't do everything it needs to and crank out those massive armies it used to build. That's why immortal and deity AI seem as aggressive as ever, they have the bonuses to crank out early trade units and military units rather than one or the other like the lower level AI. The code determining their aggressiveness never changed but the early game did change, quite a bit actually, and that's why they're less likely to be the early aggressor on lower difficulties.

If trade unit production costs scaled by era so they didn't suck up so many hammers early on it'd be easier to get both trade and an army built rather than one or the other. It'd also make it less devastating to have your trade routes pillaged which would make war less prohibitive in the early game. Players don't seem to feel this as much because players are better at fighting with smaller armies and can get away with starting wars that would be pure suicide for the AI, they're also smart enough to route trade units away from combat areas and are less likely to have their units pillaged.

Scaling trade units would also have a nice added effect because losing them in the late game would be a bigger deal than it is now. I pretty much stop defending them when I get to the point where I can build a ship in 2 or 3 turns but if it took longer than that I'd be a little more upset when one got pillaged and would work harder to make sure it's defended.

The other hidden bonus would be a little more balance to the SP trees. Part of what makes tradition so strong is the ability to ignore trade through the first couple eras and focus on other things. The other trees, especially Liberty which only has a golden age to help with income, depend much more on building trade units earlier.

 

[screamingpalm]

You do realize that "long eras of peace" can only happen on emperor and difficulty levels below it, right?

I've won Diplo victories on Deity more than once without ever firing a shot. I'd assume Science victories could be achieved just as easily as well. Wondering if the game would be any fun with all victory conditions disabled aside from Domination, but meh. At that point may as well stick to playing the scenarios I guess.

 

[Moriarte]

King and emperor used to be kind of fun sometimes too. Not every one should be forced to go to immortal and deity for a more dynamic game. There are a lot of casual gamers who really have no interest in playing those levels.

To me all levels are fun. Two years ago, a year ago, today. And I'm not forcing. If you wish the game to be something else, you can certainly do so. Perhaps, it's hard for me to understand how AI's reluctance to go to war can ruin one's experience at a level where AI declaraing war on you would be a joke anyway.

That "You're not playing a high enough level" response is kind of lame

Should i take a wrench and fix it for you? If you want a different experience - play a different difficulty/settings. Simple. The game got adjusted 100 times since release and lots of players migrated back and forth between difficulties. That imaginary level of difficulty you stick to is no longer the same as it was 2 years ago. You can always find some "middle ground" and have some fun though. Like overpopulate the Pangaea and see what happens. The chance that something is fixed in this particular game is slim. It ran it's day. Now only the modders can help, i reckon.

 

[Quineloe]

Should i take a wrench and fix it for you?

No, it just would be nice not to get hit over the head by deity players with the "play deity" argument. I don't want to play the only valid way that allows you to survive on deity, I also don't want to coast half asleep towards victory. There should be a middle ground, and I absolutely reject the notion that the game has run its life cycle when Civ 6 isn't even properly announced and they're still releasing more DLC for this game. Civ 1 on Warlord you had to deal with more aggressive opponents than Civ 5 Emperor.

 

[Moriarte]

No, it just would be nice not to get hit over the head by deity players with the "play deity" argument. I don't want to play the only valid way that allows you to survive on deity, I also don't want to coast half asleep towards victory. There should be a middle ground, and I absolutely reject the notion that the game has run its life cycle when Civ 6 isn't even properly announced and they're still releasing more DLC for this game. Civ 1 on Warlord you had to deal with more aggressive opponents than Civ 5 Emperor.

It would be even nicer if you wouldn't confuse a hit over the head with a mere suggestion. And playing deity in just one way is a widespread misconception. There are plenty of ways, with people not taking rationlism, going full honor first, etc. None of these ways are easy, indeed. Other than that, i can agree with you: find a mod that suits you and enjoy the game. I think I read about few guys fiddling with warmongering values (and such) in the appropriate section here.

 

[bbbt]

> Like overpopulate the Pangaea and see what happens.


This. If you want more war, put in more civs than usual. If you want to turtle and play a peaceful game, put in less civs.

 

[kb27787]

Emperor and Immortal are not that different... as long as the AI starts with a single city, it's all the same
I find it a little too easy... (trust me I've done some ridiculous things on immortal which I would never dream on deity such as build all the theming wonders, build great wall, do HG/Petra back to back before expanding/national college, most importantly forward settling on salt-AI or the like with your starting settler)

Back to the thread opener, if you find it boring, then do something fun, like, denounce them, forward settle on them, citadel spam them, etc... (btw why have you not yet on 300 turns with some science giant like Korea? You must be playing for CV like me )
but AI generally will not attack you if your military is stronger (unless you are declared a warmonger and denounced over and over); quite easy to do on emperor when your tech is far ahead and you accidentally befriend a military CS through a quest (Impis are strong, but even Shaka won't attack you with them when he sees your line of infantry)... If you want wars, build no units, expand, and wonderwhore... that should do it.

 

[Redaxe]

Set up a game with all the warmongers; Huns, Aztecs, Germany, China, Zulu, Denmark, Mongols, Songhai, Rome, Greece, Japan, Assyria, Russia etc.
This always makes for intesting games. I did this as Byzantine recently and Shaka forward settled then destroyed Denmark within 60 turns and soon after 2 civs lost their capitals on the other continent before I even met them. Apparently Germany had taken half the continent for itself. Back on my continent Rome was continually at war with my neighbors but both Rome and Zulu adopted my religion they didn't give me any trouble.
I did have to take care of the Huns early on and I provoked them by forward settling on their capital.

 

[APCY]

In my games everyone always fights i want peace. Im playing on emperor, maybe difficulties have some difference.

 

[pthieu1986]

what victory options do you set up?

 

[Wodan]

Hi ^^ I am back to forums. I started playing again after a long break and I'm at turn 300 right now (normal speed), game with biggest map size possible, 22 civilizations and 36 city states. My issue is, no one is fighting wars. Can someone explain if im doing something wrong?

• Huge map is reducing interactivity by spreading things out (there's more room to expand without running into another civ)
• Large # of city states is reducing interactivity (most AIs won't attack a CS, and CSs are reducing pressures by reducing the frequency of civs bordering each other)
• Mapscript might be reducing interactivity some... try Pangaea or similar
• Use Advanced settings, and increase the # of Civs while decreasing the # of CSs (I routinely increase Civs by ~75% and decrease CSs by ~60%)
• Others in the thread have posted good suggestions, such as manually insert some of the more aggressive civs instead of playing with all random leaders

 

[Magean]

Believe it or not, even Alexander sometimes turn to Gandhi.
I played a game (post-patch), which I abandoned because I got bored, with Alexander and two other guys on my continents, and by the Renaissance not a single war had fired.

There is definitely something rotten with AI aggressiveness since BNW.

 

[beetle]

• Huge map is reducing interactivity by spreading things out (there's more room to expand without running into another civ)
• Use Advanced settings, and increase the # of Civs while decreasing the # of CSs (I routinely increase Civs by ~75% and decrease CSs by ~60%)

As Wodan points out, relatively more space encourages peace. Note that the default major civ to CS ratio is 2:1. A slightly easier algorithm is to (1) start with the default values for the map size as they are well balanced; and (2) for every civ you add, remove 2 CS slots. Keep in mind that more civs == more war, but if you don’t have a significant number of CS, it really degrades the game mechanics, including the propensity for some civs to war.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

If you want a war, then DoW. I don't understand how anyone can complain that "there's not enough war" when you can DoW or bribe the AI to. AI has only DoWd me once, because we were neighbors and all I had was a warrior and my three cities. But 99% of all my wars were declared by me, and I have lots of fun since the AI on lower difficulties are no challenge at all

 

[Brennan1214]

If you want a high-war game, and don't want to manually insert all the aggressive leaders, then just mod the AI values to make everyone more warlike.

 

[Wodan]

Keep in mind that more civs == more war, but if you don’t have a significant number of CS, it really degrades the game mechanics, including the propensity for some civs to war.

I agree with you Beetle except for the above. Though perhaps that's simply the definition of "significant". A 2:1 ratio seems about right to me, maybe a little more but not much (5:2 maybe).

 

[beetle]

I agree with you Beetle except for the above. Though perhaps that's simply the definition of "significant". A 2:1 ratio seems about right to me, maybe a little more but not much (5:2 maybe).

The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I will admit), is that if one takes out all the CS and replace them with half again as many civs, the space available will be just about optimized for competition, but there will probably be less war mongering than if you left half of the CS in. Certain civs will not be able to compete for CS favor (and thus war less), and other civs will not have CS to fight (and thus war less).

I have no idea what the best balance is for maximum civ aggression, but your 5:2 ratio feels exactly right.

 

[Wodan]

The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I will admit), is that if one takes out all the CS and replace them with half again as many civs, the space available will be just about optimized for competition, but there will probably be less war mongering than if you left half of the CS in. Certain civs will not be able to compete for CS favor (and thus war less), and other civs will not have CS to fight (and thus war less).

Ah, that makes more sense.