Balance discussion (AI) with no city-states

[jpinard]

For those choosing to play without city-states, how are you finding AI and balance? I haven't come up with objective findings yet, but subjectively I'm seeing some patterns. If you'd like to offer your thoughts, choose quote and response under each question. I'll add a post later to not influence conclusions.

* Do you think you're seeing: more, less, the same, city spam?

* Do you think the AI is: more, less, the same, in aggression towards you?

* Do you think the AI is: better, worse, the same, in the long-run (ie. not having City-States to lean on)?

* Do YOU, play a: more, less, the same, balanced game not being able to exploit City-States?

 

[DarkTempla]

I'd be interested to know, what are the subjective patterns you have recongized then??

 

[SirMaru]

I play without City States or Barbarians and limit AI to just one. The AI plays much better that way.

 

[CultureManiac]

I play without City States or Barbarians and limit AI to just one. The AI plays much better that way.

That would solve all the diplomacy issues too

 

[ICanHasName?]

I havent played without CS, but I have noticed that the AI likes to take a bunch of warriors and spears and go loose them all attacking them. Also when at war the AI tends to send a bunch of units to attack enemy city states, really reducing the number of units it can toss at the real enemy.

You know... I wonder if the crazy AI diplomacy has something to do with city state requests. Maybe Elizabeth decides to wipe out CS2 to make CS1 happy, but CS2 is allied with Alexander, so Liz attacks Alex, and all the troops going past Monty's lands to attack allied CS's on opposite corners of the globe make Monty panic and act all passive agressive against Liz. I think I'll look into this...