Has FXS gone a little too far with the change to aggression ratio in Modern ?

[tedhebert]

Hi all,

I was one of the people complaining that the AIs went woonky crazy on aggression in modern with everyone declaring. FXS listened and adjusted the game in one of the patches.

But I think they went too far. Balance has NOT been attained. Now, of course, 1 game since the patch is an extremely small sample and what's happening in my current game might not be a good global reflection, but still...

Amina had a great explo and was leading in pretty much everything starting modern as my first two screenshot show.

Then in modern, she went Buganda, Fred went Prussia and IBN went Siam. we're at turn 63, not a single war has been declared in modern, no one is gunning for the military victory at all, everyone's at 0, even if all are competitive, as my next 2 screenshot show

Now... I can understand maybe my very neighbor IBN not going to the warpath with me, I've managed to keep him at -30 relation and do trade etc... and Siam is not the most aggressive civ being cultural and diplo.

But how has Amina with buganda sitting on the global leader chair has not declared on anyone ? And Fred with prussia ? They're both at -90 relation with me.

This doesn't feel right to me. I DON'T want an automatic world war every game into modern. But I DO want civs who SHOULD go to war do so. I'm literally walking over them in modern.

Is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing, or is this just a fluke game ?

What's your take on this ?

Thanks

 

[playshogi]

If patching out war sells more units, that's what will happen. Maybe there should be an AI aggression slider for each age so players can have the kind of game they want?
I don't want WW2 to be all against all, either. There should be 2 allied blocks.

 

[Uberfrog]

I haven’t got to the modern yet but literally everyone is at war with me and Napoléon in the Exploration crisis, so I wouldn’t say the AI is entirely pacifist.

 

[tedhebert]

If patching out war sells more units, that's what will happen. Maybe there should be an AI aggression slider for each age so players can have the kind of game they want?
I don't want WW2 to be all against all, either. There should be 2 allied blocks.

Maybe I should have mentioned that no one has an ideology yet !

 

[tedhebert]

I haven’t got to the modern yet but literally everyone is at war with me and Napoléon in the Exploration crisis, so I wouldn’t say the AI is entirely pacifist.

no. especially in explo. but it used to be world war in modern, almost automatic.

 

[Mudkip1001]

The Alliance system tends to cause world wars pretty quickly, especially since the AI tends to dogpile if you are at war. The Ideologies can ruin your existing alliances, I wish there was a way to convince the ai to pick your ideology or a reason to like in BNW in civ 5... rn it seems the AI just picks one from a hat...

I had Pachicuti's Mughal attack me turn 15 and we were on sorta good terms albiet I had settlements that were on his borders obtained from a peace deal against his rival.

I personally like aggressive civs or at least ones that do try to get the military victory, so far I've seen some late-age attempts at trying for it from the AI but usually except for the one listed exception, its always been post 50% of the age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My experience so far has been only in Antiquity and Exploration, so it probably doesn't count entirely for Modern Age, but here are my observations on War and Alliances:

1. In Antiquity the AI will forward settle right next to your borders and then go Hostile because you are on His/Her borders.

2. If the AI asks for an Alliance, that means they are planning to go to war and drag you into it. This has happened every time any AI asked for an Alliance, even relatively Non-Military Leaders like Confucius and Franklin. Basically, I have learned to stay out of Alliances if I can until I am ready to go to war, because the sequence appears to be Inevitable.

3. With all the Hostility and Alliance-bashing, it is relatively easy to repair relations, but if the underlying reasons remain (close settlement, etc) they deteriorate again just as fast.

4. Some Leaders can take really unfair advantage of the Hostility system: I'm playing Machiavelli now for the first time and he absolutely Loves hostility: every time someone rejects his diplomacy, he rakes in the Gold!

5. Finally, regardless of Alliance, Hostility, Diplomacy, et al, when they do go to war the AI is not that good at it. That makes all the vagarities of the Diplomatic system less important, because the consequences are less severe.

With one exception: I had one game in which, for reasons I still don't entirely understand, in Antiquity I was attacked by one AI, counter-attacked and started advancing on one of his settlements, and Every Other AI on the continent declared war on me - and not simultaneously as in an Alliance, but separately over 3 - 5 turns. Since I hadn't even taken any settlement yet and had relatively positive relations with all but one of them, I still have no idea why that happened. Made for an exciting Antiquity Age, though!

 

[evonannoredars]

Perhaps it'd make more sense if ideology incentivised the AI to form alliances around them, so instead of a lot of seperate ideology-motivated wars breaking out, one person attacks another and alliances drag everyone into the war WWI-style. (Perhaps with specific benefits for having ideological alliances, to make potentially getting involved worth it even if you don't plan to conquer?) Although for that theyd ought to add the possibility of wars with alliances to form one big war instead of seperate wars for each combination, which I hope they do anyway.

 

[evonannoredars]

2. If the AI asks for an Alliance, that means they are planning to go to war and drag you into it. This has happened every time any AI asked for an Alliance, even relatively Non-Military Leaders like Confucius and Franklin. Basically, I have learned to stay out of Alliances if I can until I am ready to go to war, because the sequence appears to be Inevitable.

Interesting, I've had that experience a few times but not every time. In my current game I was allied with Tubman and Xerxes for a long time before they turned on each other and I had to choose who to side with (which was v fun!)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Interesting, I've had that experience a few times but not every time. In my current game I was allied with Tubman and Xerxes for a long time before they turned on each other and I had to choose who to side with (which was v fun!)

As posted, this is all based on very few observations: have played through Antiquity 7 - 8 times, Exploration 3 times, haven't touched Modern at all - but planning to this weekend. The Alliance Trap has happened to me twice in Antiquity and once in Exploration, so at the moment I am somewhat suspicious of any Alliance offer - and, by the way, Xerxes was one of the Leaders who asked for an Alliance (in Exploration) and then promptly dragged me into a war with someone else!

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I still haven't been able to play (this weekend is looking like it'll finally be a break), so I'm a little disheartened to hear that AI aggression has been turned back... sure, an instant war declaration in the first 30 turns can be an instant loss, but I love a good defensive war! I remember one Vietnam game that I played, setting everything up to be ready in case of attack... but my neighbors all liked me so after I dealt with the barbs, I was able to just turtle and sim for the entire game... it was fun enough, but it could have used some shaking up, especially by the late game. I ended up squeezing myself into a defensive joint war near the end just to have something to spend on other than Builder spam while my Biosphere ticked me towards a win, but the gap between me and the AI on the other side of the continent was already too big for it to be tactically engaging, and nothing that would win me the game was actually in danger. I want my coastal capital to be threatened by a giant navy, for an enemy to pick Prussia or Buganda and rush me while I'm still reeling from the Age transition after a crisis... that is a much more engaging form of challenge for me than an opponent counting to a number at the same speed as me across the oceans. I had a game with friends once where I had to prepare for invasion in advance because they were starting to realize I was getting away with culture and snagging all the great people, changing my government, techs, infrastructure priorities, in order to prove the power of my empire and fend them off until the victory screen. It was some of the most fun I've ever had playing Civ. An overaggressive AI brings me closer to that, so I'd much prefer it to a passive one.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Xerxes was one of the Leaders who asked for an Alliance (in Exploration) and then promptly dragged me into a war with someone else!

In one of my games Catherine offered me an alliance which dragged me into a war which she then peaced out on next turn

 

[Uberfrog]

At least it gives you the option to cancel the alliance instead of immediately declaring war!

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think modern age is designed for world wars. First, it skyrocket settlement limits, so you could only fit them with conquest. Second, ideology really drags AIs into those wars.

From gameplay perspective it makes sense, because by the end of exploration there's no land for expansion, so war is the only way to play with land.

Not sure how I feel about it, I'm still quite peaceful player.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think modern age is designed for world wars. First, it skyrocket settlement limits, so you could only fit them with conquest. Second, ideology really drags AIs into those wars.

From gameplay perspective it makes sense, because by the end of exploration there's no land for expansion, so war is the only way to play with land.

Not sure how I feel about it, I'm still quite peaceful player.

To return to this Thread briefly, having played a few games into Modern Age.
The Ideology system is explicitly designed to start World Wars. Different Ideology = Enemy: it seems to be coded that simply.

Furthermore, almost No One picks the Democracy Ideology.

In 3 Modern Ages, I was the only one picking Democracy in one game (I was playing America, call it Role Playing) and everybody else (7 AI Civs) picked Communism or Facism, and every one of them declared war on me. In the other two games, neither I nor anyone else (7 AI Civs each game again) picked Democracy. I would have to look more closely into the Leader/Civ combinations involved to be sure, but it appears that, at least to the AI, Democracy is a poor Third Choice of Ideology. Given that the game has never, to my knowledge, shown the implicit maluses of either Communism or Facism, that doesn't surprise me. but it makes for a much poorer Modern Age diplomatic/military situation with 1/3 fewer real choices of Ideology.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

To return to this Thread briefly, having played a few games into Modern Age.
The Ideology system is explicitly designed to start World Wars. Different Ideology = Enemy: it seems to be coded that simply.

Furthermore, almost No One picks the Democracy Ideology.

In 3 Modern Ages, I was the only one picking Democracy in one game (I was playing America, call it Role Playing) and everybody else (7 AI Civs) picked Communism or Facism, and every one of them declared war on me. In the other two games, neither I nor anyone else (7 AI Civs each game again) picked Democracy. I would have to look more closely into the Leader/Civ combinations involved to be sure, but it appears that, at least to the AI, Democracy is a poor Third Choice of Ideology. Given that the game has never, to my knowledge, shown the implicit maluses of either Communism or Facism, that doesn't surprise me. but it makes for a much poorer Modern Age diplomatic/military situation with 1/3 fewer real choices of Ideology.

i dont like how extreme the penalty for opposing idelogies is. america frequently supported facist regimes in the cold war that were ideologically opposed to us. we even had a working relationship with communist china.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I just haven't chosen one.

 

[StargazingDog]

Is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing, or is this just a fluke game ?

More like "sample size: 1".

No, I did not see this in my last game that I finished. It was me and two others, allied against the rest of the world. I was in the middle of performing the nuclear test, and my allies got into yet another war. I didn't follow them into it (breaking both alliances), and they ended up declaring war on me just before I won the game.

Lesson learned: don't break alliances just because they are inconvenient.

 

[Leucarum]

I want the AI to be aggressive towards competing ideologies but I don't like how that aggression disincentivises players to pick an ideology at all.

If you aren't aiming for a millitary victory, don't pick one, so that you don't have to deal with attacks... And if you are, you need to wait and see what your prime targets pick - usually you're waiting long enough that you could usually win another way (or multiple other ways TBH)!

Culture was the most egregiously broken victory track (and it's improved but not ideal still) but Millitary is a close 2nd I think...

 

[evonannoredars]

I want the AI to be aggressive towards competing ideologies but I don't like how that aggression disincentivises players to pick an ideology at all.

Given how the civic tree design forces u to research the civic that unlocks ideologies, it's strange imo that you can then just never pick one.