Aggressive AI in Warlords?

Arkanin

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
81
I just bought warlords and it seems that the AI has been modified to be far more likely to declare war. Note that I'm playing without extra-aggressive civs checked, and so-on.

I started monarch games to ease into the expansion, and so far, the AI has been far more aggressive than it used to be: to the point of nearly being irrationally aggressive, not cleverly aggressive. Note that this is playing as Victoria (Fin / Imp).

The first game I played, I had a +3 relationship with Asoka of all people. I had reasonable if smallish garrissons, and he declared war on me. Here's the kicker: his civ was halfway across the map and this was in the early game's expansion phase.

Second game, I got smacked by a new AI (hannibal) and got pincered between two AIs. They aggressively built into my land, and they couldn't get any. No copper, pretty hopeless, understandable.

Third game that proceeded further: I'm between Brennus, Mansa Musa, and Bismark. I initially have positive relationships with all of them. Mansa Musa is economically weaker than me and he declares war; I take several cities. Then Brennus declares war, even though I've been continuously building a military. I smack him around some, take one city, and reach peace. At this point, having to have so damned many units to fight all these people, and with their random pillaging, my and my neighbors' economy is weakened enough that none of us will have a shot against the major players (Cyrus, Saladin).

I eventually knock back bismark and all three civs are weakened. Brennus declares war again, stupidly, and I raze some cities; then Mansa Musa and Bismark declare war again. My war weariness is nearly crippling my economy, and I can't get any consistent peace. Nor, in the course of the game, have I done anything save refuse some demands to piss anyone off. And the kicker is, I can eventually win against them; they're just all going to ensure that none of us have a shot at being a major power.

All of this happened before longbowmen. Is this normal in Warlords? The AI is declaring war so much that it defies their self-interest, and it isn't any fun at all, honestly. I am also suspicious that there is some bias to declare war on the player in particular in Warlords?

Meh.
 
I have noticed that, if you end up on a landmass with one or more protective civs, the odds of a war drop precipitously. I confess, though, that my experience of Warlords is currently not that broad (too busy modding and mod-testing :( ). Anyway, sounds like those last two games the AI fought pretty intelligently, wheras Asoka was definitely stupidly aggressive.

Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
I have noticed that, if you end up on a landmass with one or more protective civs, the odds of a war drop precipitously. I confess, though, that my experience of Warlords is currently not that broad (too busy modding and mod-testing :( ). Anyway, sounds like those last two games the AI fought pretty intelligently, wheras Asoka was definitely stupidly aggressive.

Aussie_Lurker.

I have to admit, though I don't like it, that while the AI was sometimes very cleverly aggressive; still, the sheer aggression of the AI has so far forced me to play a constant warmongering game. I've had several wars every game before teching to longbowmen; so far, those wars have hurt everyone around me, save the game where Hannibal stomped me with copper and I had no chance. :/

I may play a game with protective civs just so the AI is more like in Civ 4. Or did I just get very unlucky?
 
I have noticed it being more agressive, especially towards other AIs, but your examples sound like bad luck. I play with the Agressive AI option on and I haven't seen that much attacking.
 
The game, I'm currently involved in is pretty much the same as the last one you're describing : AIs keep declaring war to me and between each other ... One thing to notice is that there are three different but strong religions ... but even the AI who share hindouism with me keep attacking me ...

On the contrary, last WE, I played a game without any war at all ... until I started my conquest war :king: !!
I founded hindouism and succeded in steeling the boudhism holy city to Brennus ... thus I spread Hindouism in all the world ... 6 civs adopted it and only frederic was confusianist ... except my early war to conquer upsala (boudhism holy city), there have been absolutely no war until 1300 AD !!!! In fact, I have been the only one to gain great generals (2) late in the game ...:eek:

EDIT : I play in monarch on normal terra map
 
Man. I play on Noble in Warlords and I have only had the AI declare war once on their distant neighbour :( They have never declared war on me! I do tend to avoid state religion though and focus on my power rating at all times.
 
I suspect that the Warlords AI's aggressiveness increases with the difficulty level. I too play Noble, and I haven't really noticed that much of a difference from vanilla. Time to get back up to Prince?
 
Lars_Domus said:
I suspect that the Warlords AI's aggressiveness increases with the difficulty level. I too play Noble, and I haven't really noticed that much of a difference from vanilla. Time to get back up to Prince?
Hmmm. Maybe it is about time I bump it up to Prince too. The thing is, I fall behind in tech on Noble still because I focus on expansion. I typically end up with 30-40% research. Sometimes I end up with 0%.
 
To the contrarty to the OP's suggestion, I found the numerous aggressive civs in my first Warlords Terra Map on Noble level to be pacifists - well, not quite - the Celts attacked the Koreans which ticked me off because they pillaged the place and reduced the number of military units for me to destroy and get more promotions and GG points.
 
Lars_Domus said:
I suspect that the Warlords AI's aggressiveness increases with the difficulty level. I too play Noble, and I haven't really noticed that much of a difference from vanilla. Time to get back up to Prince?

It increases a s a function of the cheaper cost to units and upgrades available to them... so they get more units faster. They get to a higher ratio of units vs. you (and maybe another civ), so they declare war.

That's how it apeears to work.
 
I've played Warlords quite a bit now, always aggressive AIs, and huge maps/ monarch/marathon......and what I will say with almost certainty, is that the AI attitudes have been changed, in that they are now more willing to go to war.

This doesn't mean they will go to war, but it definitely increases the possibility. The problem is still the massive modifiers the AI has with each other for sharing the same religion, which tend to override everything else.I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again, if the real world followed CIV IV's religious pattern, then the history of Europe would be an incredibly peaceful one.

Which it isn't...(I started typing some quasi-humourous comments, realised I was boring even myself and rubbed them out, I sure you've heard this all before).

Anyways, it depends on many things, but to me the AI is still far too laid back, it'll cheerfully allow an "enemy" to build three tiles away from one of its cities(well it'll tell the player that so and so is their worst enemy), and then just glare at them for a thousand years...(If you do not run away we shall taunt you once again..to paraphrase The Holy Grail)

Some games there's quite a few wars, some games there are virtually none.

If you fluke a map where say 4 different religious "pacts" grow up, having no contact till optics, the game can still be magnificent fun.

But as I think Watiggi said in another thread, if you keep your power graph high, don't get affiliated to any nation in particular, then its basically up to you when any wars of note are fought, because it'll be you starting them...

The only time anyone has attacked me recently (not including a sudden vassalge declaration) was in the very very early stages....because the AI starts with a couple of archers etc on high lvls, and if your one warrior dies to a bear within 10 squares of your cap (the norm that is;) ) then it rightly sees you as shark bait.

Tokugawa declared in 3300BC, and I barely survived, and when I tried for an early religion and got it, Monty declared in 2980 BC (and quite rightly so, I only had one warrior).

If only more nations played like these 2 idiots, it would be more fun all round (ok not to everyone's taste), but even with the supa-aggressive nations, and aggressive settings, they seem to have been coded that war is bad (yeah kids....war is bad..in a Mr Macky South Park drawl), even though in the history of "civilized" man, war could almost be considered the normal state of affairs. Unless they have a generally significant power lead over another, they're back to building more troops and then taunting at 50 paces.

Its more feasable in some games to get a major world war going than it was in vanilla CIV IV, but sadly you virtually always have to initiate proceedings.

Just once, would I love to have the diplo screen open to be greeted with "So Drew, our war against the hated blahblah civ continues, join us and we will give you the tech of Monarchy", instead of "Join us and we shall give you nothing at all, but if you don't we shall sulk in the corner and hate you forever"..

If only.........
 
Well something strange just happened. I was taking Izzy's land (as one does because it's in the rules), when suddenly a big stack of Cyrus's units arrives on the border of one of my new Spanish cities.

He was pretty annoyed with me at the time, so I hurried one of the Spanish campaign stacks back so it was out of sight but in reach of that city, and next turn, he and his gimp Washington declare on me.

Now whats strange, is that I'm pretty sure Izzy didn't bribe him, and that he saw it as an opportunistic moment to take more land, as I was at the time very overstretched, but consulting the power graph, mine was double his and Washington's combined.

So he attacked someone with over twice his power rating, but because I had so many lightly defended cities, I had to make peace with Izzy, and fight an almost purely defensive war against Persia and little America.

The war lasted from 1420 AD to 1576 on MARATHON, which is a hell of a lot of turns, and neither of them would ever talk during that whole period. I took / razed 7 cities off the two of them before they would even talk, and now my economy is in ruins.

It was either an AI masterstroke, or a very fortuitous set of circumstances for this to occur, and no peace discussion for that long!?

Maybe there's hope for the AI yet....
 
Yeah that second front war has been happening a lot more often to me too. Egypt of all people pulled it on me while I was busy with Persia. And then once there was peace and persia redeclared, rome pulled it out.

I think ther's some bribing going on, because both times my military seriously overwhelmed them... but it slowed down my economy nicely for Egypt to take the lead juuuust abrely... worried about the space race now.
 
I'm working on my second Warlords game, this time I moved up to Prince. It was pretty quiet up until about the Renaissance and then wars were breaking out everywhere. Here's my story that I thought was kind of fun...

I was busy consolidating the lands I had just won from the recent destruction of Mali when I was attacked by a large stack of Aztec Grenadiers, War Elephants, Knights, and Trebuchets on my eastern border. He and his puppet Brennus both declare war on me. Now, I am playing Large, 24 civs so there should be plenty of allies to bribe to attack Montezuma, but unfortunately most of my friends are still busy participating in Julius Caesar's precipitous fall from top civ to having only one island city (due to some earlier bribing on my part while I destroyed Rome's vassal Mali) so they won't start a war on another front. I do managed to bribe Bismark into war, but he is so far away that I doubt he will help much...oh well. Thankfully I had just gotten to Infantry so I decimate my cities by whipping out Infantry and drain my coffers to upgrade my not-so-current defeses. After several turns, I begin to turn the tide and Montezuma's pillaging forces are almost defeated. Of course, at this point, my former ally Isabella lands with a stack of cavalry, cannons, and grenadiers on the west coast (opposite of Monty) of my nation, declares, and razes a city. Thankfully I destroy this invasion force and return my attention to the Aztecs, who have now been joined by their lapdogs, the Celts, in the fight on my eastern border. At this time, I look to my south and see Huyana building up a force of Cavalry and Riflemen which worries me so I talk to him a bit. He won't be bribed to fight because he "has too much on his hands right now". Surely a bad sign for me. Of course, a few turns later he declares as well and sends his stack towards my southern cities. Finally I sign peace with Monte and the Celts and take one of HC's cities due to my superior technology and some GGs. I'm in the process of destroying the Incans and hopefully signing a peace treaty with the Spanish right now.

Anyway while all this is going on, Saladin & Qin are fighting Roosevelt; Shaka, Hannibal, Peter, and Roosevelt are fighting Julius Caesar; Alexander and Tokugawa are fighting Wang Kon; Elizabeth is fighting Napoleon; and Ragnar is fighting someone but I can't recall who ATM. Also should mention that the Malinese, Ottomans, and Indians have all been destroyed (the AI destroyed the last two and helped with Mali).

Also, I have seen the AI open up a two front war. Once when I bribed Napoleon to attack Caesar, while he was still at war with JC, he attacked Elizabeth on his own.

So, I think the AI is definately more agressive now, can be more easily bribed, tries to bring allies into war more often, and in general just fights more. Yay.
 
@Suspendinlight: Sounds an interesting game...but large map 24 civs!? Ouch, thats not very much land per civ...I thought around 14 on a huge map could get crowded...oh well 24 on large is a guaranteed way to get a lot of wars :)
 
Drew, I had exactly that happen to me last night: I was playing as Augustus, experiementing with a peaceful expansionistic game using the Praetorians to just defend while I would kind of 'rex' it on a tiny, crowded pangaea. I basically had one Praetorian in each city thinking that it would be ok. Then, all of a sudden, both my neighbours turn and attack me within 2 turns. They weren't happy with me, but both of their power ratings were below mine, so it was strange.

The only thing I did different in that game was to not do my usual thing of creating a standing offensive city taking army before building. I usually do that first thing every game. I initially build a stack of City Raider Axemen, then follow it up with Swordsmen, then Catapults and have support units of Spearmen, Horse Archers, Chariots, etc whenever the techs become available, regardless of whether I intend on using them or not.

The thing that I remember when looking at the AI capitulation code is that there is a function whereby it calculates the chance of it succeeding in a war. It will not capitulate if it still thinks it has a chance of winning. I do wonder if having an offensive city taking army factors in moreso than the power rating when the AI considers whether to attack or not.
 
i landed around 20 anticipated ciites away from main persia site, in fact this part of 'their' island was closer to my city mass

war was declared immediately, war is certainly more likely :)
 
hmm, interesting. I guess it is a good thing they didn't decide to call the expansion "Civ4: Dirty Flower Throwing Peaceniks Who Need to Take a Bath"
 
Back
Top Bottom