I am truly sick of the AI's Ancient Era warmongering.

[CaptainPatch]

So I start a new Emperor level Marathon game on a (mod) Immense map (that's 5 sizes up from Huge) with me + 5 AI opponents. IMMENSE map. yet, by Turn 33 I had already encountered THREE of my five opponent civs. One of them was based just 12 hexes from my starting city. One of those three, Catherine Medici (France) IMMEDIATELY threw everything she had at me, totally bypassing the two other known civs to get to me. Despite the fact that we were being cordial and had already exchanged Diplo delegations. The two civs she bypassed her FOUR Warrior and one Slinger units -- and it's only Turn 42 mind you -- literally had to walk along the borders of the other two Capitals to get to me.

I just do not get what kinds of formulas this game uses for its logic. Like I said, it was only Turn 42 and France already had settled two additional cities (which would have required building two Settler units) PLUS built/bought 3 additional Warriors PLUS built/bought (420 gold if purchased) a Slinger -- minimum; who knows how many other units France had moving about the map -- AND had moved all those combat units @ 30 hexes just to get to my city's border as a cohesive group.

I feel like I was just bums rushed by the developers. Sure, Emperor should be challenging. But, really, +4 combat units and 2 Settlers before Turn 40? AND all three of the French cities had already grown to populations of 2. Which reminds me: All three of the French cities ALSO had Warrior garrisons. So make that _+7_ combat units, minimum.

I'm pretty much convinced to put this game down and not look up again until Civ 7 comes out. The Civ series is starting to look similar to the M$ Windows series in that every other version sucks, and all the problems need to be fixed by the following versions. [XP, decent. Vista, garbage. 7, decent. 8, garbage. 10, somewhat better than 8, but not as decent as 7.]

 

[Xur]

The AI is beyond stupid and difficulty settings suffer from it - causing ripples of effect to other gameplay formulae like warmongering. If Firaxis can fix the AI, a lot of other features would be fixed I think. But "AI" isn't sexy enough, so better hire 100 artists and 1 AI dev, right?

 

[Disgustipated]

Doesn't bother me so much now that I learn to expect it. Historically many ancient civilizations did fight each other.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Emperor difficulty AI starts with an extra settler. The rest is believable math with a couple decent tiles in each of the first two cities.

 

[Futumch]

Don't they (the A.I.) start with a few units thrown in at Emperor level? 2 Settlers, 3 Warriors and a builder according to http://civ6.gamepedia.com/Game_difficulty
It's artificial difficulty.
The AI basically cheats because they'll never be as good as a human! : )

 

[Leyrann]

So I start a new Emperor level Marathon game on a (mod) Immense map (that's 5 sizes up from Huge) with me + 5 AI opponents. IMMENSE map. yet, by Turn 33 I had already encountered THREE of my five opponent civs. One of them was based just 12 hexes from my starting city. One of those three, Catherine Medici (France) IMMEDIATELY threw everything she had at me, totally bypassing the two other known civs to get to me. Despite the fact that we were being cordial and had already exchanged Diplo delegations. The two civs she bypassed her FOUR Warrior and one Slinger units -- and it's only Turn 42 mind you -- literally had to walk along the borders of the other two Capitals to get to me.

I just do not get what kinds of formulas this game uses for its logic. Like I said, it was only Turn 42 and France already had settled two additional cities (which would have required building two Settler units) PLUS built/bought 3 additional Warriors PLUS built/bought (420 gold if purchased) a Slinger -- minimum; who knows how many other units France had moving about the map -- AND had moved all those combat units @ 30 hexes just to get to my city's border as a cohesive group.

I feel like I was just bums rushed by the developers. Sure, Emperor should be challenging. But, really, +4 combat units and 2 Settlers before Turn 40? AND all three of the French cities had already grown to populations of 2. Which reminds me: All three of the French cities ALSO had Warrior garrisons. So make that _+7_ combat units, minimum.

I'm pretty much convinced to put this game down and not look up again until Civ 7 comes out. The Civ series is starting to look similar to the M$ Windows series in that every other version sucks, and all the problems need to be fixed by the following versions. [XP, decent. Vista, garbage. 7, decent. 8, garbage. 10, somewhat better than 8, but not as decent as 7.]

On your bolded part: Wouldn't that mean that Civ6 is absolutely awesome, considering how Civ 3 is seen as not-that-good, Civ 4 is seen as the best Civ to date, and Civ 5 is seen as super bad?

Anyways, on your post in general: On Emperor, AI's start with a bunch of extra warriors, an extra builder, an extra settler and some 70% or something production and gold bonus. If you'd use an AI mod like AI+, you could most definitely scale one or two difficulty levels back (doesn't make them less agressive though; mostly city states tend to fall a lot), and if you use a mod like Deity++, you can opt for a reduced AI starting bonuses ruleset. I know having to use mods isn't perfect, but it solves your problems. Also, I could advice Seven07's Larger Worlds mod, which also modifies starting distance based on map size and starting number of civs. I guess the mod you're using right now might not do that (also, Seven07's Detailed Worlds mod is also nice as it just makes your maps more varied).

 

[Victoria]

differing covilizations only survived and grew by taking those around them in the ancient times. In this game you can choose not to do so. While I prefer peace I am coming to understand the game should be played with a land grabbing violent phase. It makes for better varied gameplay. A staged approach.
The first 100 turns do include some prep for you victory often but mainly it is creating the foundation.
The second 100 turns are exploration and consilidation
The rest is grinding out that victory if you really want to push for victory as some type of measure

I still like to start peaceful, let civs declare on me and then punish them severely by looting them and maybe getting a city or to for peace

 

[teks]

Throughout history nothing causes you to be hated more then being weak.
You can negotiate friendships all you want. If you do not have an army, the AI is going to attack you.
You're on turn 42. It takes some 5 turns to build a military unit. So you should be able to develop the tools you need to ward off such attacks by this point in the game. The AI is going to attack if they feel that you are an easy target.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, running marathon would change the build times. A marathon turn 42 isn't the same as a standard turn 42, so what I'm used to probably isn't what your used to.

However, if you think the AI is cheating too much, you can tune this down by lowering the difficulty, because that's all the higher difficulty settings do. They don't change AI behavior as far as we know, all it does it provide the AI with free units/techs/buildings to make the game more challenging. So, if you think its unfair that the AI start with x free units, lowering the difficulty would be a means of directly modifying this.

 

[CaptainPatch]

On your bolded part: Wouldn't that mean that Civ6 is absolutely awesome, considering how Civ 3 is seen as not-that-good, Civ 4 is seen as the best Civ to date, and Civ 5 is seen as super bad?

Three was done by neither Microprose or Firaxis, so no surprise it was Meh. Four was definitely a damn fine game. Five started out significantly inferior to Four, but finished as a pretty decent game in its own right. Six... Meh and getting worse it seems (to me). The only thing may be a saving grace will be the availability of plentiful mods rather than waiting for polished DLCs.

Emperor difficulty AI starts with an extra settler.

I wasn't aware of this. I will definitely keep it in mind for future games (if I can bring myself to start anymore.)

...if you use a mod like Deity++, you can opt for a reduced AI starting bonuses ruleset. I know having to use mods isn't perfect, but it solves your problems. Also, I could advice Seven07's Larger Worlds mod, which also modifies starting distance based on map size and starting number of civs. I guess the mod you're using right now might not do that (also, Seven07's Detailed Worlds mod is also nice as it just makes your maps more varied).

The map mods I'm using are (primarily) Mynex Larger Maps and Yet (not) Another Maps Pack. Having a really large game map is pointless if the program insists on jamming everybody into the same corner of the map.For example, really, really BIG Pangaea map generates a single Australia shaped continent.
Then the program places all six, seven, eight or however many civs in just the New South Wales province. Duh. Waste of time allocating LOTS of elbow room if the program doesn't use it. Ideally (for me anyway), any given civ wouldn't even encounter another civ until >Turn 100 (Marathon).

FYI on Marathon, it usually takes 15 turns to build a Scout. Somewhat longer (@18) turns to build a Builder. MUCH longer to build a Settler ... and you're not even allowed to start one of those until the city has a minimum population of 2.

 

[ArdentFire88]

Higher difficulties are programmed to spawn closer to you; they have extra units and bonuses in cities by each of the yields (i.e. +80% production in cities at diety, +16% science in cities at emperor, etc.).

 

[bladex]

turn off wm points than edit eras.xml

locate WarmongerPoints="change these values 0

now you can play in peace...or war and not worry about WMing

 

[Jimdigriz]

I'm still waiting for the AI's who declare war on me to actually....do something. The only units attacking me were from an allied City state!

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Sorry, but I don't understand the point here. Is the complaint about the "unfair" bonuses to the AI, to the poorly-implemented AI, or simply its predisposition to an early war?

I can understand your complaint about the poorly-implemented AI, but you should expect a leg up in difficulty in Emperor, and early wars are so powerful that even you should consider it as part of your strategy.

 

[Victoria]

I think its more the large map should limit contact to allow them to grow large peacefully.
I mean emporer AI has lots of bonses so whats the point of a large map wjen quite a few civs are in your face.
A fair comment really bit prob not getting that it is about a violent early phase that should help ypu as the AI is pretty bad.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Sorry, but I don't understand the point here. Is the complaint about the "unfair" bonuses to the AI, to the poorly-implemented AI, or simply its predisposition to an early war?

I can understand your complaint about the poorly-implemented AI, but you should expect a leg up in difficulty in Emperor, and early wars are so powerful that even you should consider it as part of your strategy.

Several complaints really. But the primary is that it is rather illogical for a civ to throw EVERYTHING into jumping on another civ that early in the game. 1) It leaves the aggressor vulnerable on the home front to any other aggressor civ that happens along while the first one is off attacking the one human opponent. 2) It seriously reduces the aggressor's exploration benefits because instead of seeking out tribal villages, EVERYTHING the aggressor has is going after the human opponent. And 3) the early game warmongers that use the banzai strategy do so against ONLY the human civ. If you follow the news that pops up, AI versus AI wars don't start until mid- to late-Ancient era. That far along, the defenders have had the opportunity to at least build up some defenses. And at least to get a couple Scouts out there to find some tribal villages. Given the AI extra units benefits on higher Difficulty settings, a banzai charge from an AI is actually an irresistible force -- and that's provided the human kept everything close to home. (One Warrior and one Scout versus 2-3 Warriors plus a Scout and more than likely at least one Slinger.) Meanwhile, while the human is being overrun, some other AI civ could be overrunning the aggressor -- but that NEVER happens.

 

[kamex]

I do feel that expanding into your neighbor yourself is the strongest start and kind of negates this problem... But if you as the human want to pursue religion or wonders early game on higher difficulties, this requires full commitment at the start of the game, and leaves you defenseless. This can make the early game for some civs very luck dependent on whether or not nearby AI will steamroll you (Spain / China)... Having Monty or Scythia spawn next to you while going for a wonder or religion is usually fatal, or at least puts you in a position where recovery is very difficult. This locks out various strategies and is why I get so frustrated with the game at the moment. Stonehenge goes by turn 30 on Emperor sometimes, so it may as well not be in the game as far as I'm concerned as its never a possible option, except lucky China start.

One thing I particularly hate is the bonus damage their units get, its one thing that they can out produce you, but they do that with stronger units and faster promotion which is just plain cheap. All of this no doubt is done to try and cover up the fact the AI can't play 1UPT on even ground, so they have to spam buffed units to make up for it.

 

[UWHabs]

Several complaints really. But the primary is that it is rather illogical for a civ to throw EVERYTHING into jumping on another civ that early in the game. 1) It leaves the aggressor vulnerable on the home front to any other aggressor civ that happens along while the first one is off attacking the one human opponent. 2) It seriously reduces the aggressor's exploration benefits because instead of seeking out tribal villages, EVERYTHING the aggressor has is going after the human opponent. And 3) the early game warmongers that use the banzai strategy do so against ONLY the human civ. If you follow the news that pops up, AI versus AI wars don't start until mid- to late-Ancient era. That far along, the defenders have had the opportunity to at least build up some defenses. And at least to get a couple Scouts out there to find some tribal villages. Given the AI extra units benefits on higher Difficulty settings, a banzai charge from an AI is actually an irresistible force -- and that's provided the human kept everything close to home. (One Warrior and one Scout versus 2-3 Warriors plus a Scout and more than likely at least one Slinger.) Meanwhile, while the human is being overrun, some other AI civ could be overrunning the aggressor -- but that NEVER happens.

I disagree on the first point - how often is a human strategy "build up every and rush the nearest neighbour"? If that's a valid strategy for me, it should be a valid strategy for the AI as well. However, the rest of your points make more sense.
-The AI gets bonuses, but when they declare war, they rarely come with enough force to actually take you down. They tend to declare war before coming with archers, so there's really not enough damage that the few warriors can do that can't be defended against by a couple slingers, or even easier if the human gets archery. If the AI rushes to swordsmen and came at you with that, or even tech-ed to archery and came with 3 warriors and 3 archers, that would make it an infinitely better strategy
-They tend to target the human. I'm guessing that's because they essentially look at everyone's power, and the human is always in last. Mostly because the AI starts with extra units and gets bonuses, while we don't.
-Then since they don't come with enough to do any damage, all it does is slow them down, while overall, it doesn't have nearly the same effect on the human player. Or, if they do enough damage to a human to slow you down, I'll just restart and it doesn't impact me.
-Then the other problem is that more often than not, they get completely beaten back, and then pay you a lot for peace. So some games I can basically double my cash per turn from suing for peace from an AI. And I can't help but think that in that case, I actually come out ahead overall.
-And with that, they will often simply screw up, where you beat back their troops, and start marching to kill off more of their units, and you can capture a loose settler.

Overall, I really do like the fact that the AI is willing to be aggressive early on, but I just feel that all these points combine to almost always make it a horrible strategy for them.

 

[darkace77450]

Several complaints really. But the primary is that it is rather illogical for a civ to throw EVERYTHING into jumping on another civ that early in the game.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's a smart strategy for players to aggressively attack their nearest neighbor in the early game regardless of desired victory path, then why should the same strategy be considered illogical when the AI does it?

 

[CaptainPatch]

I disagree on the first point - how often is a human strategy "build up every and rush the nearest neighbour"? If that's a valid strategy for me, it should be a valid strategy for the AI as well. However, the rest of your points make more sense.
-The AI gets bonuses, but when they declare war, they rarely come with enough force to actually take you down. They tend to declare war before coming with archers, so there's really not enough damage that the few warriors can do that can't be defended against by a couple slingers, or even easier if the human gets archery. If the AI rushes to swordsmen and came at you with that, or even tech-ed to archery and came with 3 warriors and 3 archers, that would make it an infinitely better strategy
-They tend to target the human. I'm guessing that's because they essentially look at everyone's power, and the human is always in last. Mostly because the AI starts with extra units and gets bonuses, while we don't.
-Then since they don't come with enough to do any damage, all it does is slow them down, while overall, it doesn't have nearly the same effect on the human player. Or, if they do enough damage to a human to slow you down, I'll just restart and it doesn't impact me.
-Then the other problem is that more often than not, they get completely beaten back, and then pay you a lot for peace. So some games I can basically double my cash per turn from suing for peace from an AI. And I can't help but think that in that case, I actually come out ahead overall.
-And with that, they will often simply screw up, where you beat back their troops, and start marching to kill off more of their units, and you can capture a loose settler.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's a smart strategy for players to aggressively attack their nearest neighbor in the early game regardless of desired victory path, then why should the same strategy be considered illogical when the AI does it?

I get the feeling that there's a world of difference between Marathon and whatever speed you guys play at. On the one hand, at higher Difficulty, the AI gets extra units (an extra Settler and an extra Warrior. On Marathon, on average, it takes 15 turns to build just one Scout. During those 15 turns, the AI has established a second city on Turn 2 or 3. Both AI cities then are building 2 Warriors while its Scout locates where you are. (Generally less than 20 hexes apart.) 10-12 turns for the initial 2 Warriors to close on your city. Two Warriors to one; the one loses, nine times out of ten. [Your Scout should be out doing what it was designed to do, scouting.] But in actuality, the two Warriors can ignore your Warrior and just go for the city. While the two Warriors are weakening your city, your Warrior is trying to hammer them enough to break off the attack. Meanwhile, there's two more fresh Warriors closing in. Even if you manage to hold the city long enough to produce a second Warrior, it will appear about the same time that the AI's reinforcements arrive. That leaves maybe two dead AI Warriors, you with two wounded Warriors (at best) and a heavily damaged city ... against two fresh Warriors.

It's practically a foolproof strategy for the AI.... except that it means that in order to take out you, the AI left the homefront practically naked, easy pickings for any other AI (with likewise additional units) to just walk in and ransack the AI's city. Which is why the AI really should NOT opt to throw everything at YOU while ignoring all of the other AI civs. Yet, in three of five Emperor games I've played, I was confronted with the AI banzai charge. That tells me that the program has a predisposition to go "Banzai!" whenever an AI city gets placed in close proximity to the human's city.

 

[gimper42]

Sounds like you should not be making scouts and instead making slingers at the top of your build order.

And more generally speaking: You have to use what is given to you. Given by the map. Given by the AI players. When I get attacked early on Immortal or Deity, I am 95% of the time really happy that they finally got on with it. Unless their cities are so close that you run into them on turn 5, I usually won't have an army that is large enough to travel and conquer before they are willing to. So when they come to me for war, it is a huge boon. Plus they seem to tend to bring settlers for me to capture quite often.