Why are AIs not conquering each other, not creating empires, and it does seem I am the only one complaining about it? Seriously, in civ5 the world was very much alive, dynamic, interesting, you were just one of expanding empires. AIs were fighting each other, conquering, empires were rapidly spawning and then collapsing eaten by another empire, not to mention wonderful dynamism of late game ideologic cold war but that's separate thing. Some AIs were failures, some were strong pacifists, some were creating monstrous behemoth empires... Of course it has added a lot to the difficulty level, as AI was capable of creating powerful states just like human. In civ6 I feel as if I were the only active player in the world. AI denounce each other, sometimes have "war", but rarely actually capture cities from each other and even rarer actually manage to create empires via conquest. The world is passive, static and BORING. No mod fixed that for me. The end result is: if I manage to prosper in the early game, repulse obligatiry early invasion, then conquer one or two AIs entirely, then I am set for the victory as no one is going to reach my size of empire. Also, no penalties for wide and snowball of this game enforce this, so as you can see many terrible aspects of this game are at place. Why is no one complaining about this? It's as if everybody was too focused on city building sim and pathetically easy human on AI conquests to notice the world being static, boring and easy to steamroll. This issue is my personal obsession in strategy games, as it is quite common yet underreported, which makes me question my sanity. No wonder people complain about the difficulty - you are the only one building an empire in the arena of pacifists.