Magean
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 474
Hi,
I think I know one of the reasons why AI are now far more passive, especially in the early game (from my experience and also according to some reports I read, later in the game more wars occur).
The warmongering penalty is now tied to the number of cities you conquered. The penalty for declaring war is halved, the penalty for taking the last city disappeared... but avoiding the "warmonger" status is IMO not easier.
Because the amount of "warmonger points" you get scale with the size of the map and of your opponent. The larger the map, the lesser the increase of warmongering for taking one city. Same for enemy's size : the wider your opponent is, the lesser is the increase of warmongering value.
As a consequence, early wars bring always a huge warmongering increase, since civs usually have only a few cities. Taking two cities can label you as a bloodthirsty warmonger for the next 3000 years.
Then, once you are considered as a warmonger, everybody hates you, declares war and you are kinda forced to continue the slaughter, since taking cities is the best way to make the AI asking for peace. Your diplomacy has no chance of recovery.
That's in my opinion one of the reasons why AI (even aggressive ones) are much less aggressive in the early game. They "know" wars could bring down their diplomatic position for the rest of the game. They don't seem daring at all : in my last game, Shaka had built the Terracotta army, DoWed Pedro but instead of rushing him and taking his cities with a large army, he started a sort of attrition war, losing units very foolishly. Before BNW, aggressive leaders always launched massive attacks on cities in the early game.
By the way, this system penalizes civilizations whose UU unlock(s) in the early game. They can harder make full use of them.
So, I suggest two simple things as solutions :
1) Make warmongering score scale with the era. The later the game advances, the more warmongering you get, everything else being equal. Early wars shouldn't be so determining diplomatically. I think this suggestion could bring balance between civs who receive UU early on and Renaissance conquerors (Ottomans...). Of course, a bloodthirsty leader like Attila or Dido who would wipe out three civs should still be considered as a danger for the world... but not somebody who simply secured his borders. And it would make sense historically : ancient time saw quick and massive conquests.
2) Let the warmongering penalty decrease over time, so that you are considered as a normal and cooperative leader if you did some conquests early on, but then sat on them and developed peaceful relations for the next 1000 years.
What do you think about it ?
I think I know one of the reasons why AI are now far more passive, especially in the early game (from my experience and also according to some reports I read, later in the game more wars occur).
The warmongering penalty is now tied to the number of cities you conquered. The penalty for declaring war is halved, the penalty for taking the last city disappeared... but avoiding the "warmonger" status is IMO not easier.
Because the amount of "warmonger points" you get scale with the size of the map and of your opponent. The larger the map, the lesser the increase of warmongering for taking one city. Same for enemy's size : the wider your opponent is, the lesser is the increase of warmongering value.
As a consequence, early wars bring always a huge warmongering increase, since civs usually have only a few cities. Taking two cities can label you as a bloodthirsty warmonger for the next 3000 years.
Then, once you are considered as a warmonger, everybody hates you, declares war and you are kinda forced to continue the slaughter, since taking cities is the best way to make the AI asking for peace. Your diplomacy has no chance of recovery.
That's in my opinion one of the reasons why AI (even aggressive ones) are much less aggressive in the early game. They "know" wars could bring down their diplomatic position for the rest of the game. They don't seem daring at all : in my last game, Shaka had built the Terracotta army, DoWed Pedro but instead of rushing him and taking his cities with a large army, he started a sort of attrition war, losing units very foolishly. Before BNW, aggressive leaders always launched massive attacks on cities in the early game.
By the way, this system penalizes civilizations whose UU unlock(s) in the early game. They can harder make full use of them.
So, I suggest two simple things as solutions :
1) Make warmongering score scale with the era. The later the game advances, the more warmongering you get, everything else being equal. Early wars shouldn't be so determining diplomatically. I think this suggestion could bring balance between civs who receive UU early on and Renaissance conquerors (Ottomans...). Of course, a bloodthirsty leader like Attila or Dido who would wipe out three civs should still be considered as a danger for the world... but not somebody who simply secured his borders. And it would make sense historically : ancient time saw quick and massive conquests.
2) Let the warmongering penalty decrease over time, so that you are considered as a normal and cooperative leader if you did some conquests early on, but then sat on them and developed peaceful relations for the next 1000 years.
What do you think about it ?
