I’ve had a few games where I’ve been playing around building 3 IZ / aqueduct triangles. Very fun. But the hint is, except for some early war, these games tend to have me playing a little passively because I’m focused on just building infrastructure, and then when I do decide to expand late game I still have plenty of room because I’m playing Continents + Islands so no need to step in anyone’s toes. I noticed in my last game that initially some people liked me (those I’d been careful to develop diplomatically) and some people hated me (those I hadn’t). But by late game, basically everyone loved me. Thinking about it, it didn’t seem surprising to me that most people liked me. My empire was pretty wealthy, I had a decent amount of military, and I hadn’t done anything to hurt anyone or mess them around, and wasn’t even particularly bee-lining any specific victory. Anyway. I know people often complain about the late game love-fest. But it got me wondering - is the love-fest actually a sign I’m not playing well rather than a problem with the AI? Perhaps it means I’m playing too passively. If I was playing harder and more aggressively, sure, I’d have a few Allies, but shouldn’t I be picking fights with everyone else - to prevent them achieving their own Victories, to Pillage yields, even to capture Wonders? Surely it’s not surprising everyone likes me when I’m playing passively? And surely playing passively means I’m not playing the game well. I can only have so many Alliances, and moreover, by not messing with other Civs aren’t I just “leaving money on the table”? Isn’t the onus on me to do things that make people hate me? Perhaps people that complain about the late game love fest have got it wrong. The fault is not in the AI, but in them being too ready to turtle and just stay in their lane, rather mix it up with other Civs and play everyone off against each other?