Does the AI bother to declare war?

[ptoss1]

Poland Declares War on Shoshone

Spoiler :

Horrible Finances Do Not Stop War

Spoiler :

Poland's Invading Force

Spoiler :

WTF Are These Reserves or Something?

Spoiler :

Nope They Aren't Moving...

Spoiler :

The AI Still Sucks At War

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

The Shoshone won because Poland left all its forces behind and only sent like one warrior. Anybody who thinks the BAI has gotten better is kidding themselves. In 800 AD Rome would make another half hearted attempt at conquering Shoshone, and fail at it too.

 

[pilot00]

Dunno guys, I am currently on my 2nd play-through as Arabia (all random), had a very nice Petra/Salt heavy with flood planes (jack pot ) and hills area and again Morocco as my neighbor (those guys are victims it seems). Down is Rome, west of them Japan and I can see a settled city belonging to Alexander. I have embassies with all bar Alexander, no army (one archer) and three cities. Turn 120 no DoWs yet.

 

[ptoss1]

Two Civs Lose Their Capitals

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[JohnnySnowstorm]

I also noticed this. I've been playing on Prince. I've played 3 games though haven't finished one yet. (I'm trying out the new stuff.) I got up to industrial in my last one and there wasn't a single war the whole game between any civs. The only war in any of the games I played that I know of was one I started early on as Assyria so that I can try out their UA.

King was my default Gods & Kings difficulty, but with Brave New World I'd say anything below Emperor is no longer worth playing unless you enjoy 6000 years of peace.
I did my first Brave New World game on Prince and pretty much never had more than 4 units, never got into any wars, had friendships with all nations and booming trade and tourism. Second game I did on King and got bored in the Renaissance Era because I was playing a science game as Assyria and was way ahead of everyone.
Currently playing on Emperor and I'm already being bullied by Alexander, yay!

 

[Dai]

Kind of feels like a related issue, but in the games I've played, it seems like the AI just does not want to pursue Domination as a victory condition. In all cases, the majority of the AI civs appear to be after Cultural victories, with the rest split up between science, diplomacy, and being the guy who gets stuck somewhere crummy and ends up way behind everyone else. (Which makes it hard to tell what victory condition they're after.) They do DoW each other and do things like take the little cities that the AI loves to put in somebody else's empire, but I've yet to see a major war of conquest, and zero capitals taken by the AI across several Emperor playthroughs.

 

[Polisurgist]

In my current game, I started as Poland, sharing a small continent with two city-states, built up a strong (for the era) ancient era military and bullied the hell out of my two neighbors for an early boost, spent most of the game only having contact with Maria Theresa to my north. Now that I've met the rest of the world and we're in the Modern era, I can see that Assyria, Egypt and Sweden have been duking it out all along in the middle of the world while the rest of us have barely developed our militaries at all (I seriously had researched Archaeology before getting Bronze Working).

But the civs who didn't build up their militaries or go to war are the ones competing for the lead (me, Austria, Ethiopia), and the warmongers are falling behind.

In short, I think if you're seeing a lack of aggression on the AI's part, it's because the AI is playing it smarter, not just easier. Which is why I'm curious how much of this outrage is actually because the game is "easy" and how much is just because the AI isn't falling for the same dumb player tricks.

 

[Nials]

In my current game as Venice on King/Continents, Genghis started near me. He declared twice within the first 150'ish turns. Then, the only other civ on my continent, Portugal, declared slightly after turn 200.

Meanwhile, Poland on the other continent is running away with the game. He eliminated two civs already, Netherlands and Aztecs, and is now going for Morocco.

So yeah, the AI declares war

 

[Kwami]

No wars so far in my first two games.

As Poland (Immortal, Continents, Standard, Standard) I had The Iroquois and Babylon as neighbors with Greece, Russia, The Zulu, India, and The Netherlands on the other continent. Shaka & Catherine ate William and Babylon took 2-3 Iroquois cities, but otherwise, the entire game was peaceful. I never had a single combat. Even when Catherine and Shaka were in "civil disobedience" with lots of unhappiness because of my dominant ideology, they were still willing to be friends and share open borders. Too peaceful!

In my second game as Morocco (Immortal, Continents, Standard, Standard), I'm next to China and The Huns. I'm only into the medieval on this one, but still no wars, yet. I even forward settled on China to take Lake Victoria and she asked for a Declaration of Friendship three turns later. :/

 

[pilot00]

In short, I think if you're seeing a lack of aggression on the AI's part, it's because the AI is playing it smarter, not just easier. Which is why I'm curious how much of this outrage is actually because the game is "easy" and how much is just because the AI isn't falling for the same dumb player tricks.

I wouldn't call it smarter, to be in passive mode and wait the human to stomp you at his leisure. So we switch the old 'sell me your mother even if she is 900 years old and 900tons fat and ugly as hell, ill buy her' with 'come please kick me in the rear I am playing culture now'?
Seems dumber AI to me. At least it did something with that army.

EDIT: On a side note 250 turns (epic) near Rome with only archer and still no DoW. Still hope that Alex will do something.

So yeah, the AI declares war

OFC it does, if you are an AI

 

[Malinov]

I've played two games since I have BNW, and it's been quite of a mixed bag really... In the first as The Huns on emperor/continents, I was spawned right on Shaka's doorstep, and staying true to his personality, he DoW'ed me any chance he could. There were other wars too, Casimir and Dido ganged up on Maria I all the time, and the latter of the duo became more aggressive as the game progressed, pissing off everyone, taking autocracy and earning the title 'Terrible', eradicating Byzantium etc.

Now on my 2nd one, I'm only in the renaissance so far with America on immortal/smallcont., I have Genghis as my neighbor who strangely never coveted my lands and we're trading buddies since the start, while there's good ol' Napoleon who's situated way further than him, but is relentlessly attacking me since the classical ages...

So yeah, kinda unpredictable I'd say.

 

[Polisurgist]

I wouldn't call it smarter, to be in passive mode and wait the human to stomp you at his leisure. So we switch the old 'sell me your mother even if she is 900 years old and 900tons fat and ugly as hell, ill buy her' with 'come please kick me in the rear I am playing culture now'?

So, as to my question...are you actually coming in and stomping them? When you play these games through to the end, are you winning more or losing more than you were before the expansion?

If the AI is making all these terrible decisions you're so incensed about and not actually losing because of them, they aren't actually bad decisions by definition.

 

[pilot00]

So, as to my question...are you actually coming in and stomping them? When you play these games through to the end, are you winning more or losing more than you were before the expansion?

No I usually stomp the nearest civ, money and time permitting. Right now I have Rome, Alex and Morocco near me since turn 50 (its turn 273 epic) and by the looks of it, Rome could wipe me out by turn 100+ but all Augustus is doing is using his armies to patrol the jungle and as a drain in his purse. He doesn't like me either. I plan on taking him out by 300 if he doesn't DoW me.

If the AI is making all these terrible decisions you're so incensed about and not actually losing because of them, they aren't actually bad decisions by definition.

I cant really get this, might be because I am not a native speaker or not. How aren't they terrible actions if they don't help him win? If the underlying meaning is that he is using this HUGE army on defense then sorry but this faulty reasoning. You know very well that no matter the numbers the AI is completely clumsy and wont win a war against a human that knows what he is doing.
Considering that my army consisted of 3 archers till now, it makes no sense at all, if he was planning to win he had to at least destroy the border town I planted on his face, to allow himself some expansion.

So yes by definition those actions are terrible because:

a) I prevent him from expanding
b)He hates me because of it
c)I have gobbled up his religion
d)I have denounced him
e)He had an army which could wipe me off and instead opted to pay maintenance for it without using it.
f)Even if I don't attack him, he is still gonna lose because he is at my mercy expansion wise and tradewise.

My belief is that the aggression in the game has been toned down because there was so much whining going on because of early attacks. The guys who said this is pretty normal are right and I stand with them. If the AI can destroy you or severely damage your hopes for victory should cease the chance not stand there watching you. I am speaking for normal and above difficulties OFC (king+).

EDIT: Forgot to answer, my win to lose ratio is improved me thinks (at least I won three games in row in immortal, will try the next one soon)

 

[Emperor Giulio]

Then you should move up difficulty level.

You shouldn't have to play on the hardest levels to play a full game. The developers need to fix AI aggression. They need to make it cheaper to declare war, or more rewarding; for the AI at least.

 

[Polisurgist]

I cant really get this, might be because I am not a native speaker or not. How aren't they terrible actions if they don't help him win?

I asked the question because I'm less than 100% convinced that these changes to aggression are actually detrimental to the AI's chances of winning. I think a lot of people who are complaining about this are getting bored with playing a game without constant war and may not be getting to the point where the resources the AI saves by not going to war start to really blossom and help them toward a cultural or diplomatic victory in the late game.

My belief is that the aggression in the game has been toned down because there was so much whining going on because of early attacks. The guys who said this is pretty normal are right and I stand with them. If the AI can destroy you or severely damage your hopes for victory should cease the chance not stand there watching you. I am speaking for normal and above difficulties OFC (king+).

I'm inclined to believe that they're both right, but not that any amount of "whining" led to it. I think trade and diplomacy rules encourage the AI to stay at peace if the world is generally at peace, and to go all in on war if the world is generally at war. If there are wars everywhere, you can't gain as much from trade and therefore have to take what you can, so you see big swings in the amount of aggression.

EDIT: Forgot to answer, my win to lose ratio is improved me thinks (at least I won three games in row in immortal, will try the next one soon)

This is what I'm really interested in; whether players' win/loss ratio changes for the better as a result of these changes is really the only objective definition of whether these changes are an improvement or not. People who ragequit to go complain on Civfanatics are not a good test case for this