Civs historicially aligned with agression will often play the early game gambit of DoW and I'm happy to report they either fight each other to a stalemate or actually knock/cripple a civ or two out early in the game. But that's been a human strategy the AI wasn't really able to pull off in the past unless in rare circumstances. I can also confirm a vast majority of the time, I'm not the one being declared on. Even when I don't play an agressive game. Though in the odd game I've gone for the early archer/warrior rush myself if I start cloe to another AI. But the AI will also try that too. The 'hands off' cooldown period that devs used to put in for the early game where no warfare is allowed has been significantly reduced or may no longer be in play. Normal non agressive AI will also tend to become agressive if you start too close to each other. The problem, significantly, is playstyle. If you decide to wonderspam or go 'builder' while starting close to another Civ, or next to the likes of Napoleon, Monty, Ghengis, Bismarck, Alexander, or any of the high agression Civs without first confirming they are fighting someone else, you deserve to lose. There's no 'ideal' starts/ Maybe your first five builds can be prefab and set, but you really do need to adapt to how you roll and who you're next to. I even switch social policies depending on which Civ I play. Depending on the Civs you roll, who you start next to and geography, games can vary considerably. This is also why games on the same difficulty can vary from easy dominant early game leading to dominant late game due to early warfare amongst the AI civs with a weak slate of AI opponents (all warmongers), to slow grinding stalemate with Haiwatha and being boxed in on all sides. I can't possibly imagine how people can claim it's predictable, civ5's first 100 turns are probably the least predictable of all the Civ games.