They need to hotfix AI agression now

[kaspergm]

So have we decided if we just want early AI dow as a rule to satisfy people's checklist or have we emperically shown it's better?

I mean, if you had all AIs wanting to war as a default, you could get an AI that grows quite large from the sheer momentum of victories, but you could get equally crippled AIs from endless fighting.

I think you are painting a bit in black and white here. I think what we want is a middle way. Peaceful/average civs could act like now, but civs with a very strong propensity for early warfare - Huns, Aztec, Inca, Mongols, perhaps German, Japan - should be more aggressive in early game imo. I don't want all civs to act the same way, I want their actions to match the civs characteristics.

To my experience those early rushes could be right crippling in G&K. It definitely kept me on my toes and made sure I couldn't just expand uncritically or wonderhoard without second thought. I haven't really experienced that in BnW yet, so that is something I miss.

I do think that in order to fully understand part of the situation, we need to see the full picture. As discussed in the "Realistic benefits of an early war" thread, early conquest is generally not a very good tactic - which is further mitigated by the fact that Honor STILL sucks if you pick it as your first tree, as also discussed in the "Opening Honor" thread. I think all these things create a synergy where early wars are not seen so often - whether that is because AI understands that it's not viable, or just because of some random weird AI coding, I don't know. But either way, I think it does take something out of the game, so I do hope some sort of middle ground between G&K and BnW can be found.

 

[BSPollux]

That leads to the next question. Is it ever valid, as Monty, to NOT build an army? That's the sanity check here. I can confidently say that as a player it has to be no less than 95% of games it's my best line of play, as Montezuma, to attack something and the sooner the better. Same goes for most of the aggressive civs ... it's simply their optimal line of play.

Remember that many players will restart the game if they dont like the map, quit if they lose the first war or fall behind in some other way or, and thats very important, if the placement of rescources and foreign capitals and CS is useless for early wars.

So the avergae AI-Monty plays from a way worse position then the average player-Monty.

AI-Monty will sometimes be in a position where he just can not win a war early on. He has to deal with that then, somehow.

 

[Kordanor]

Just wanted to drop by and give a heads up:
There is a podcast from 3MA /Idle Thumbs /FlashOfSteel.com where the developers Ed Beach and Dennis Shirk talk about several topics. One of the topics was the aggressiveness of the AI. The moderator Rob mentioned that he realized that the AI was more aggressive now. And the Devs mentioned that there is a forum on civfanatics claiming the opposite. They pointed out that the AI is not very aggressive in the beggining but might get aggressive in mid game and will be aggressive in endgame. They did however not evaluate any of it (like saying that this and that needs to be changed).

The podcast can be found here:
http://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/firaxis-revisionists
And the discussion about aggressiveness starts at 15:32

 

[Quineloe]

So did they actually say anything?

If you want a peaceful game, play against 7 ghandis.

 

[Buccaneer]

So they purposely neutered pre-industrial military civs (with a few exceptions) because some people did not like those civs using their strengths? Or any civs that could take advantage of a choice situation? What's next? Neuter late game wars because some find those too boring? That's how a good strategy game can get ruined - not only preventing AI from using their strengths to effectively win any victory but also rendering most of the units in the game irrelevant. They swung the pendulum way too far the other way and need to restore a better balance.

 

[Sonereal]

99% sure at this point that an easy solution to early aggression (or lack thereof) would be just to add gold back to river hexes. Amassing even a decent-sized army early on is expensive.

 

[Kordanor]

99% sure at this point that an easy solution to early aggression (or lack thereof) would be just to add gold back to river hexes. Amassing even a decent-sized army early on is expensive.

Or just make an early on policy for "maintenance for X units free".
But to be honest I think the best and easiest solution here would be to let the AI Cheat.
I mean it cheats anyways and it needs to do so because it sucks in the combat pillar. So why not giving the AI a money boost in the beginning?

 

[MarshalN]

I think AI aggression is fine. Now only some AI will go nuts. In my current game, Atilla and Alex are on world-conquering mode. Bismarck is trying to keep up. The rest are not warmongers - and neither should they be. Isabella and Catherine fought a few times (and wore themselves out in the process). Songhai is the only weird one that hasn't declared at all.

So, I think AI aggression is just fine. Just because they don't declare on you doesn't mean they're not fighting. In fact, with Alex being a bit of a runaway, I think I'm going to lose this game. This is immortal.

 

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, it's hard to know what will trigger but based on their comments, they may have significantly reduced the odds when it comes to early game evaluations - just so they can force the game to the latter stages. Pathetic really. The AI can't really do the late game stuff that well either.

Each game should have enough variation, depending upon several factors, that they could be over relatively quickly or fight to the bitter end. Forcing the game into a more predictable path of late game mechanics was a bad idea. As said long ago, they should not have listened to marginal players that wanted a peaceful, dumbed down game.

 

[dexters]

So they purposely neutered pre-industrial military civs (with a few exceptions) because some people did not like those civs using their strengths? Or any civs that could take advantage of a choice situation? What's next? Neuter late game wars because some find those too boring? That's how a good strategy game can get ruined - not only preventing AI from using their strengths to effectively win any victory but also rendering most of the units in the game irrelevant. They swung the pendulum way too far the other way and need to restore a better balance.

The good thing is that they are aware of it.

I'm going admit this though that I'm not too bothered by the AI being less agressive, (usually suicidal) in the early game. Yes, an early war puts pressure on the human player, but it also often works out to the human's advantage if it's the AI beating each other up.

Also, I like the trade routes/ideologies having a powerful effect on who you develop friendships with. It's a direct tool for human players to sort of align themselves, or to take out insurance against a neighbour they don't want to deal with. I don't want that changed in pursuit of more aggression.

It's a balancing act for sure.

 

[Machinegunkenny]

99% sure at this point that an easy solution to early aggression (or lack thereof) would be just to add gold back to river hexes. Amassing even a decent-sized army early on is expensive.

I think Sonereal hit the nail on the head. Lack of early funds is prime reason for less early AI warmongering. I have noticed no issues from mideval on.

I am currently playing next to Zulu who is expanding like crazy during renaissance period (7 cities to my 3 and a settler heading to a spot I want) and he is only held at bay due to a trade agreement and 3 caravans going to 3 of his cities. I would really hope that the AI is not patched so he would just attack for the sake of attacking and throw his economy into disarray in the process. Honestly, between insane barbarian spamming and aggression to staving off Zulu, Monty, or Attila in their current state I would be restarting ALOT to an even more illogical AI that is aggressive for the sake of aggression.

I think adding a more robust trade system has logically led to a more "stable" environment.

AI needs to be more intricate for sure. As it is there are a lot of problems with illogical actions and factors that are based off of "lazy" triggers. For example, I was playing as Venice over the weekend and just dominating everyone in all areas and was friends with everybody except the Polish that were using Brazil as a punching bag and being an elitist douchebag to all other civs. I was asked to go to war with them by 5 other civs and was happy to do so. By the end I had them on an island with one city left. I had done the same thing to Gandhi early in the game because I was asked to by 4 or 5 civs. At the end of the game (just before my cultral victory) most of the same group had asked to dispatch Portugal. I was to win in 20 turns and thought what the heck. I quickly took their capital and 1 other city and EVERY leader that asked me to go to war denounced me...hell, all leaders denounced me. Now I fully understand due to taking 3 capitals during my play labeled me as a warmonger but I never just went to war without being asked. Civs who war another civ together should not get penalties when you take the capital of the mutual enemy. The AI REALLY needs more depth.

 

[dexters]

Yeah having competent Zulu economy is actually quite surprising. I first saw a Zulu that isn't falling apart on someone's else game when they were soliciting for advice last week. Then in my current game, they showed up in my game and they're also doing quite well late into the game because he picked his wars carefully and aligned himself with my rival, rather than having an alliance of has-been warmongers that often resulted from games where warmogners shoot themselves in the foot by declaring so many wars they become global pariahs hated by all the important civs.

That said, I'm open to a compromise of tweaking up early wars. If AI needs 'bonuses' to maintain an army, so be it. I just hope they don't break the trade route diplomacy bonus or anything else they've done right.

I was to win in 20 turns and thought what the heck. I quickly took their capital and 1 other city and EVERY leader that asked me to go to war denounced me...hell, all leaders denounced me. Now I fully understand due to taking 3 capitals during my play labeled me as a warmonger but I never just went to war without being asked. Civs who war another civ together should not get penalties when you take the capital of the mutual enemy. The AI REALLY needs more depth.

I would normally be all for more 'depth' to AI but I have to disagree

When they denounce you after you take all the capital cities in a coalition war, what the AI is responding to is that you took allthe spoils for yourself. It's not wholly unrealistic (just look at how quickly the Allied side fell apart at the seams between the Soviet and American spheres over who gets what and mutal jealousy and distrust) and if you're joining a coalition war as a pretense to grab land (I know you're about to win so didn't need to but it's quite possible other players look forward to it as their causus belli) then the warmonger label should come from # of cities taken, and not strictly on # of times you DoW.

I think the AI is about as smart as they need to be here. You the human player just want them to be dumber and not notice, which is quite opposite of what you're asking for. It's possible they can add dialogue along the lines of 'we are denouncing you now because we asked you to help us in our conflict against X Civilization, not take all their cities for yourself' That may fix some of the misconceptions about how the AI is thinking, which IMHO is perfectly logical and reasonable.

 

[Magean]

I think AI aggression is fine. Now only some AI will go nuts. In my current game, Atilla and Alex are on world-conquering mode. Bismarck is trying to keep up. The rest are not warmongers - and neither should they be. Isabella and Catherine fought a few times (and wore themselves out in the process). Songhai is the only weird one that hasn't declared at all.

So, I think AI aggression is just fine. Just because they don't declare on you doesn't mean they're not fighting. In fact, with Alex being a bit of a runaway, I think I'm going to lose this game. This is immortal.

And in my last game (Emperor difficulty), the first war in the world started around 1880 AD.
True story. Because there was no Monty, Attila, Shaka... I guess the most "scripted toward aggression" leader was Catherine.

Back in G&K I played King. Now Emperor is easier than what King was, because you have all the time you need to focus on internal growth. Turtle strategies work perfectly, that's a shame.

Must I really play at a difficulty level, namely Immortal, that's supposed to be very hard, to see the end of that pacifist behaviour ?

Now looks like that every leader excepted the psychopathic bunch (Monty, Shaka, Attila or Genghis...) has become a Gandhi.

In my opinion, average-aggressive leaders should go to war when they see they'll take advantage of it. That's Realpolitik.

The problem is : now it's so easy to befriend everybody, that the opportunity cost for going to war has dramatically increased. When you are not aiming for Conquest, you can easily have DoFs and, as a consequence, Research Agreements with lots of civs at the same time. So you don't want to destroy your RA opportunities by going to war and having diplomatic penalties (and I avoid the topic of early game warmongering).

 

[dexters]

^ so you admitted to having a peaceful game because there are no warmongers then you go on a rant about it being too easy? Totally unconvincing and sounds more like bandwagonneering.

Even pre BNW, you can have varied difficulty in starts on the same difficulty setting based on who started around you and the lay of the land.

 

[Makonnen91]

And in my last game (Emperor difficulty), the first war in the world started around 1880 AD.
True story. Because there was no Monty, Attila, Shaka... I guess the most "scripted toward aggression" leader was Catherine.

Back in G&K I played King. Now Emperor is easier than what King was, because you have all the time you need to focus on internal growth. Turtle strategies work perfectly, that's a shame.

Must I really play at a difficulty level, namely Immortal, that's supposed to be very hard, to see the end of that pacifist behaviour ?

Now looks like that every leader excepted the psychopathic bunch (Monty, Shaka, Attila or Genghis...) has become a Gandhi.

In my opinion, average-aggressive leaders should go to war when they see they'll take advantage of it. That's Realpolitik.

The problem is : now it's so easy to befriend everybody, that the opportunity cost for going to war has dramatically increased. When you are not aiming for Conquest, you can easily have DoFs and, as a consequence, Research Agreements with lots of civs at the same time. So you don't want to destroy your RA opportunities by going to war and having diplomatic penalties (and I avoid the topic of early game warmongering).

My exact issues.

 

[Magean]

^ so you admitted to having a peaceful game because there are no warmongers then you go on a rant about it being too easy? Totally unconvincing and sounds more like bandwagonneering.

Even pre BNW, you can have varied difficulty in starts on the same difficulty setting based on who started around you and the lay of the land.

So to see war in that game, I need to ensure that bloodthirsty guys are here ?
You do think that only Mongol, Huns or so should wage war more often than not ?

Such a game is what I would expect from 8 Gandhis/Pedro.

I randomize my opponents, and back in G&K, even when Attila, Dido or Monty weren't there, the world saw wars in each era.

As I said, while bloodthirsty warmongers should remain jerks that everybody else hates, normal leaders should ALSO go to war. Not as often as those jerks, but still. They should do a bit warmongering.

I played a passive game to see how "untroubled" AIs act on Emperor, a difficulty level I had never tried before. Well, now I know. I kept only 4 archers and 1 swordman which I upgraded throughout the game as my entire military, I remained last in Military for nearly the whole game, and no AI ever tried to take my tasty lands ? That's ridiculous.

 

[Makonnen91]

So to see war in that game, I need to ensure that bloodthirsty guys are here ?
You do think that only Mongol, Huns or so should wage war more often than not ?

Such a game is what I would expect from 8 Gandhis/Pedro.

I randomize my opponents, and back in G&K, even when Attila, Dido or Monty weren't there, the world saw wars in each era.

As I said, while bloodthirsty warmongers should remain jerks that everybody else hates, normal leaders should ALSO go to war. Not as often as those jerks, but still. They should do a bit warmongering.

I played a passive game to see how "untroubled" AIs act on Emperor, a difficulty level I had never tried before. Well, now I know. I kept only 4 archers and 1 swordman which I upgraded throughout the game as my entire military, I remained last in Military for nearly the whole game, and no AI ever tried to take my tasty lands ? That's ridiculous.

There seems to be weird thought process that if your name is not Shaka, Atilla, Alex, or Monty you shouldn't be at war.

Why can't some of the lesser warmongering civs take the opportunity to go to war if it will benefit them?

It makes it so predictable that you won't be at war if one them is not your neighbor. You no longer have to make hard decisions about defense vs infrastructure. Just turtle up, and build to your hearts content.

And to be clear, It is not me just wanting war for bloodshed sake. War and the real possibility of war puts pressure on the player to make key early decisions and sacrifices. Without it, it seems as if every game starts of the same with no real impact or weight to the choices you do or do not make.

 

[Magean]

There seems to be weird thought process that if your name is not Shaka, Atilla, Alex, or Monty you shouldn't be at war.

Why can't some of the lesser warmongering civs take the opportunity to go to war if it will benefit them?

It makes it so predictable that you won't be at war if one them is not your neighbor. You no longer have to make hard decisions about defense vs infrastructure. Just turtle up, and build to your hearts content.

And to be clear, It is not me just wanting war for bloodshed sake. War and the real possibility of war puts pressure on the player to make key early decisions and sacrifices. Without it, it seems as if every game starts of the same with no real impact or weight to the choices you do or do not make.

You quoted the wrong guy. We are on the same side.

 

[Makonnen91]

You quoted the wrong guy. We are on the same side.

Hahaha no no. It was supposed to come off as a follow up to your point. My mistake.

 

[DyadoMraz]

I disagree
I had Shaka declare war on me in the classical era, spam units like crazy and refuse to even talk about peace up until the modern era