AI Aggression levels (please discuss here).

[Uncle_Joe]

For my last few games I've been playing on a Large map (with the recommended 9 AIs) rather than the Standard with 7. And so far, I've seen a LOT more conflict in 3 games. Part of it I attribute to having the religions more scattered, but even there I've been at war with same-religion AIs at least three times in 2 games.

Its interesting to see the greatly increased wars with no other settings changes.

 

[Roland Johansen]

For my last few games I've been playing on a Large map (with the recommended 9 AIs) rather than the Standard with 7. And so far, I've seen a LOT more conflict in 3 games. Part of it I attribute to having the religions more scattered, but even there I've been at war with same-religion AIs at least three times in 2 games.

Its interesting to see the greatly increased wars with no other settings changes.

Of course, more civilizations means more conflict as there are more civlizations that can start a war and more difference in religions. If one civilization starts a war, then that can lead to dogpiles and more hatred against the starter of the war. All of that leads to even more conflict.

I always play on huge maps with aggressive AI. At any given moment in the game, there is a place in the world with war, just like in our world. In the game, that is a good thing, in reality not so...

Note that three games of course is only a very small set and in your case it could be largely a coincidence. But on the other hand, there are good reasons for more wars on the larger maps.

 

[glider1]

G'day there. I'm new to this forum but have been following Blakes work for sometime. I'm a fanatic of Jdog5000 the creator of the Revolutions Mod. I've been following this thread because I believe Blake's work and Jdog's are the best thing that has happened to CIVIV and now there is a merge between the two.

Jdog has created a test build of Revolutions 0.81aw and Better AI 24/2. He officially retired from working on the Revolutions Mod arfter the 0.81aw build proved stable and balanced. However he came out one last time to produce this test build after we convinced him. A couple of us Revolutions fanatics have tested the build and it's fine.

Could I suggest you people who love Better AI give the Revolutions Mod a try? Some of you have noticed that the better AI is less aggressive latest build. If you try Revolutions, you might get more of the balance between conflict and nation building you are after. The dynamics of Jdog's revolutions are just great including leaders being overthrown, cities rebelling and uprising, civil war, religious conflict etc etc. All this and more without even going to war on anyone else!

You have to get used to playing the Revolutions mod. It adds an extra level of complexity to the game. Hogging all six religions is probably not a good idea because your own citizens will fight each other. You have to be very careful about when you introduce labour reforms. You have to constantly be aware of cities whose citizens appear happy on the surface, but which contains an underground rebellious movement. Wars and diplomatic relations are more complex because now if you get bogged down in war, your own citizens might attempt to overthrow you in the middle of it. If you have got the cash you can pay them off or meet the various other demands they may make upon you.

Don't ride the mod off because you are finding it too hard. It's not. The essential game play of Warlords is unaltered. It's just a little more complex and dynamic. A lot of beginners get discouraged because their society keeps collapsing from within. Preventing and/or managing revolution takes practice. I and others believe it's what Warlords has always needed. It's awesome to see a huge empire collapse in the late game due to vassals breaking away, trade problems just generally dying from within. The power vacuum created is a lot of fun.

With the Better AI now implemented, I think the Revolutions mod is even better. The balance hasn't changed but the improvement in the AI is much appreciated. The Autoplay component in Revolutions is now more useable with the more capable AI which is good for fast forwarding a game x-turns or during those times when you are overthrown.

Installation procedure is to download and install the official release of Revolutions 0.81aw:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171127

Then replace the CivGameCoreDLL with the download of the Better AI and Revolutions merge CivGameCoreDLL:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/38534/betterAIRevolution.zip

If you want to follow the latest on how the build is going go to this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171127&page=51

The release is not yet official and hasn't been included in the database. However I can't see why it shouldn't be once confidence rises from 95% to 100%.

 

[Infantry#14]

Maybes:
Agg AI's will dogpile more and generally be opportunistic swine, while norm AI's will have some sympathy for the dogpile victim (maybe try to equalize things).

I think I like this, because there should be the element of balance of power in the game. Like in Europe no country could be too overpower because other countries will combine and dogpile that powerful nation.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I think I like this, because there should be the element of balance of power in the game. Like in Europe no country could be too overpower because other countries will combine and dogpile that powerful nation.

I think this is meant in different way. I guess that Blake wants the AI civilizations to dogpile the one that is trouble already. So when a nation is already at war with 2 nations then other nations will join to get their share of the territory.

 

[Yakk]

Infantry has a point. If the computer is seeking to win the game, smaller nations are not a danger. The big bad nation is a danger. Ganging up on the nation that is too powerful seems like a good idea.

At the same time, dogpiling a weak nation makes lots of sense, because you get some of the spoils. The problem is when you are dogpiling along with a large nation: the large nation gains a larger share of the spoils, and gets even larger.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Infantry has a point. If the computer is seeking to win the game, smaller nations are not a danger. The big bad nation is a danger. Ganging up on the nation that is too powerful seems like a good idea.

At the same time, dogpiling a weak nation makes lots of sense, because you get some of the spoils. The problem is when you are dogpiling along with a large nation: the large nation gains a larger share of the spoils, and gets even larger.

Oh surely he has a point. It can be a good tactic to stop the strongest nation from becoming stronger. I just don't think that Blake was planning to program that. I think he was talking about dogpiling the weak nation (which as you say can also be a good tactic). The section of text 'and generally be opportunistic swine' seems to indicate that line of thought.

There has been some discussion about whether the AI should be aware of the victory conditions in a sense that it should stop other nations from acquiring victory. There is a group that says that the AI should not attack allies or good friends just because they're about to win and there is a group that says that the AI should stop even its allies and good friends from winning the game. I personally say that the AI should try to mimic a real life civilization instead of playing a game. So it should view a victory of an ally as a partial victory of its own civilization and not something that must be prevented. It should stil try to win itself and try to prevent enemies from winning but it should not go to war with an ally just because that ally is about to win a spacerace or cultural victory.

(Of course, if the good friend is very weak militarily and the aggressive AI option is checked at the start of the game, then the AI should sometimes attack its weak friend. Especially the more militaristic civilizations should do this.)

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Two more games on the Large map with all other of my settings the same as before. And again, in both games there were a LOT more wars (and this is with no Aggressive AI setting). I am in the 1500s and I've been in just about constant warfare with at least one other AI for almost the last 1000 years.

The difference between the Standard and Large map is just night and day for the amount of wars being declared. I really wouldnt want to see more that what I'm seeing now (on Large). On the Standard, it did feel awfully peaceful though.

 

[Yakk]

Just toss in a slowly growing diplomatic penalty for "You are getting too strong!" (domination), "your cultural imperialism is getting tiresome" (cultural), "you are abandoning the world, and not taking us along!" (space race), "You destroyed entire civilizations!" (elimination), "The End Times Approach!" (time), "We Fear A World Government" (diplomatic)

... ok, "The End Times Approach" is a bit silly. But so is the time victory condition.

It would be a rather fun option -- as the game approaches the end of the time limit, civilizations start getting more and more violent with each other. In the end, civilizations let loose with their nuclear arsinals, trying desperately to claim more of the world before it all closes up shop!

 

[TheNiceOne]

The difference between the Standard and Large map is just night and day for the amount of wars being declared. I really wouldnt want to see more that what I'm seeing now (on Large). On the Standard, it did feel awfully peaceful though.

It might be a coincidence. My last game was on a Large Fractal map (which turned out to be one single continent) with all standard settings and the orginal handicap file, on Monarch.

The game was quite peaceful with only two wars througout the entire game that was not declared or bribed by me, and one of those two was declared 10 turns before game end.

There were lots of different religions and close borders, but still not much fighting.

It was a great game though, with me winning a space race victory one turn before Hatti would have von a cultural victory.

 

[Quornix]

Just toss in a slowly growing diplomatic penalty for "You are getting too strong!" (domination), "your cultural imperialism is getting tiresome" (cultural), "you are abandoning the world, and not taking us along!" (space race), "You destroyed entire civilizations!" (elimination), "The End Times Approach!" (time), "We Fear A World Government" (diplomatic)

... ok, "The End Times Approach" is a bit silly. But so is the time victory condition.

It would be a rather fun option -- as the game approaches the end of the time limit, civilizations start getting more and more violent with each other. In the end, civilizations let loose with their nuclear arsinals, trying desperately to claim more of the world before it all closes up shop!

While this really did make me laugh, it also seems like a very good idea. I love the idea of the AIs going crazy as the turns start to run out -- I'd even turn the time victory back on just for that. It's a good idea for the rest of them as well, but the "End Times" is just too good to pass up.

Even more fun, you could occasionally have civs go into "End Times" mode at the wrong time -- it's happened before. Maybe give each civ its starting date, which is heavily weighted to the end of the game.

 

[Doomed_UK]

Was it civ 2 that had everyone declaring war on you if it looked like you were going to win? That was tiresome to say the least, lots of people who stood no chance delaring war on you and making the turns take forever.

How about any civs that think they have no chance of winning (ie. not going for space race or cultural victory) delaring war on thier weakest neighbour as they get around the industrial age onwards, giving them a chance of having an expanded empire to either catch up in tech or achieve a domination victory.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

I had the same problem with ASSoka, even without the Better AI mod. In my experience, Asoka is a coward who will only backstab after he has run away with the tech lead and thus is able to produce more advanced units than anyone else.

Maybe I missed something, but isn't "war at pleased" and "backstab" the same thing? Or does 'backstab' count for attacking at "cautious" too?