Does the AI bother to declare war?

[BShaftoe]

The Gold draught paralyzes the AI in the early game.

Must be some of kind of an elixir that causes that type of a response from an AI.

 

[Polisurgist]

I don't know the source, but this might explain some of it too: http://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1i1q7l/keeping_one_ai_city_alive_no_longer_spares_you/

The earlier you declare war, the stiffer the warmonger penalty, and likewise for declaring on a smaller civ. It might be the case that the AI doesn't want to screw its diplomatic relations in the future by attacking you early on.

 

[pilot00]

I don't know the source, but this might explain some of it too: http://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1i1q7l/keeping_one_ai_city_alive_no_longer_spares_you/

The earlier you declare war, the stiffer the warmonger penalty, and likewise for declaring on a smaller civ. It might be the case that the AI doesn't want to screw its diplomatic relations in the future by attacking you early on.

Well, they are attacking each other but not the player most of the time. Even if they covet your lands and the wonders you build.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I guess firaxis can't win either way. First, people whine about mean AI declaring war on you and now that they become more docile, people still complain. Civ is a war game and there should always be wars somewhere, not necessary involving you. There is nothing worse than passive opponents that are not playing aggressive to win (any victories).

I never complained about the previous constant AI-aggressiveness. Playing under the threat of super-powered AI invasions was by and far the main thrill of this game for me. Where is my dear friend Siam now? Where are his elephants, who so joyfully mangled my pikemen into bits? No more tension. No more blood. No more elephants' roar as they topple over. This is a travesty. BNW is not CiV.

 

[SamBC]

Ah, I see, we've just switched which portion of the player base is moaning...

 

[Buccaneer]

I never complained about the previous constant AI-aggressiveness. Playing under the threat of super-powered AI invasions was by and far the main thrill of this game for me. Where is my dear friend Siam now? Where are his elephants, who so joyfully mangled my pikemen into bits? No more tension. No more blood. No more elephants' roar as they topple over. This is a travesty. BNW is not CiV.

I remember very early in a vanilla game, I had Siam attack me with those Elephants. I really didn't like how they simply swiped my units away. I have since learned how to deal with them, if they come again.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I remember very early in a vanilla game, I had Siam attack me with those Elephants. I really didn't like how they simply swiped my units away. I have since learned how to deal with them, if they come again.

Exactly, the Vanilla elephant rush is a distinct experience. You worry about your whole empire falling to three units. Amazing. Less so after G&K.

 

[Gucumatz]

I have been in constant war in my Immortal singleplayer games. And don't get me started on Multiplayer, the gold restrictions don't stop things thaaat much

 

[ptoss1]

Ah, I see, we've just switched which portion of the player base is moaning...

Ya pretty much. Personally there's just too many barbarians for me to even go to war sometimes. Trade routes are really unreliable.

 

[Polisurgist]

Ah, I see, we've just switched which portion of the player base is moaning...

This makes sense to me.

I have definitely noticed civs being less likely to go to war, but I figure that's an intentional gameplay move. If the "typical" game now has everyone more concerned with barbarians at their borders early on and later graduating to taking on other civs, that would make sense.

But I think it may actually be a slightly smarter AI who's reluctant to get either too friendly or too aggressive (both of which seem to be true).

 

[pilot00]

I wouldn't call it smarter I would call it coded to be honest.

Montezuma and Assyria (warmongers by default no?) and I in the middle with no army till turn 100. No DoWs.

 

[Nickel_lion]

Seriously, why is everybody complaining about the lack of aggressiveness early in the game? I think it's ok. It let you concentrate in other things and not in controlling a crazy warmongering civ... Want a war? START IT!!!

I agree with this guy:

...the AI [is] more active on pursuing early wonders which also contributes to their lack of early army.

Only those civs who ignore early wonders and favor early conquest (Assyria, Zulu, Huns) seem to be prone to attack relative early.

The AI now, warmongers apart, seem to pursue other victory conditions more actively and not rely on war alone.

What's the problem with that? I think the game becomes then MORE DYNAMIC and FUN!!

AND PLEASE, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!!

There is nothing that have to be fixed in this game expansion.

Just play more. Stop whining.
Stop just being passive and wait for AI to early attack you so you can defeat them and remove from the game. AI just become smarter (as all asked for), it will not commit suicide just so you would be happy to have some early fight and easy conquest.

And if you want to warmonger, attack AI yourself, where is the problem?

Personally, now after completed five games (all on Prince difficulty -four win and one lost) I do not see AI being more peaceful, just more smart decision making. The one I lost is with Venice, being conquered by Songhai in early renaissance (I actually just stopped playing turn before I got beaten, I can not have lost on my resume

 

[gunnergoz]

Playing on King and into the modern era, I have twice been at war and did not even know it until the enemy surrendered to me (I had many defensive agreement allies who apparently did all the fighting far from my borders.) Do they not show the DOW screen any longer? Or is this because I'm in a defensive agreement so I don't get the DOW screen when war starts? You'd think I'd get some notice...

 

[fliddermang]

i got DOWed after about 80 turns on my first BNW game, prince difficulty.

 

[pilot00]

Seriously, why is everybody complaining about the lack of aggressiveness early in the game? I think it's ok. It let you concentrate in other things and not in controlling a crazy warmongering civ... Want a war? START IT!!!

Its not a lack of aggressiveness its a lack of tacking rational action with a combination of docile programming.

Negatives accumulated in 5 Immortal games (tried them as an experiment): Denouncement, Ignoring their demands not to settle near them, coveting my lands, Ignoring them not to spread my religion, Coveting wonders.

I had three cities and not a single scout, Monty had an army composing of Jaguars, comps and catapults within marching distance, he did nothing. Montezuma was always a crazy warmongering CiV.

In the second game he continued to ignore me but DoWed Assyria who had an extensive army.

The problem as I see it through 5 trial and errors, is that the AI is programmed to leave the player alone for a fluctuating number of turns. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Starting a war right now is more easier than ever once the economy is up and running. If you DoF the civs you want to have as trading partners they always look the other way.

 

[Polisurgist]

To all the people complaining about lack of DoWs from the AI: are you winning games you might have been losing before as a result, or are you breaking even or doing worse?

Because it seems to me that this is the result of a strategic play on the AI's part and further, that it's a strategy that's highly sensitive to consensus. If wars aren't happening much, you gain a lot more by trade, and if wars are happening, you have fewer trade opportunities even if you're not the one at war. Game theory-wise, this should lead even warmongery AIs toward peace in the early game, at least until war breaks out, in which case you're probably going to be looking at a world war that will last a really long time.

That, at least would explain the wildly different levels of aggression people are seeing, especially in a limited sample size where none of us has been playing the game for more than a couple weeks.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

When everyone is clumped together and the AI has more opportunities for different trade routes, it seems like conflict is more prevalent. However, if they only have one neighbor they seem more likely to pursue peace to maintain their trade routes.

Seems to make sense to me.

 

[pilot00]

The problem is not what it does in correlation to other AIs (thats business as usual), but in correlation to the player. That is the 'problem'.

 

[Matthew.]

Last game had a dual DoW on me at about turn 80. A third DoW around 6 or 7 turns after that. Only Emperor difficulty. AI still sucks at tactical combat--regular archers, not composites, held it off just fine.

Although I was playing a wider game and already had 6 cities. Sitting on something like 3 would probably keep you out of wars for quite a while.

 

[Timally]

I've played a total of two Shoshone games now, about 8 hours of playtime each. In both games (Emperor difficulty) no wars were declared until well after turn 135. In my second game, I was put right next to Alexander and he never declared on me....EVER. The entire world was one peaceful happy place for me to coast to a cultural victory or declare on others at my leisure. That never happened in any pre BNW game. My build orders, at least so far, may not include any military units until after turn 100 now.


Another problem with the AI seems to be with their military. Before they always had a fairly large force, and now many leaders don't even upgrade their troops. I popped 6 Foreign Legion in the Freedom Tree, and marched them straight to Mongolia.....still sporting catapults and spearman....and he wasn't that far behind in tech.

Anyone else observe this or outlier?

I was playing last night. Just messing thinking of a cultural victory on a low level..Prince maybe. I had a couple scouts a warrior and a bowman. Dido decced me and turned up with 6 warriors, four archers and a GG. My game was over by turn 62

I know I'm terrible