kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,577
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.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.
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.