Modern civs in 1.2.3 a lot less warlike, or just me?

[KingLouisIV]

A big difference for me in late-game playability between VI and VII was that in VII, other civs were extremely likely to go to war with you when you appeared likely to win. This was … somewhat frustrating, but at least made the late game a challenge instead of just cruising to Yet Another Science Win.

Since 1.2.3 that appears to have changed a lot, with late game civs being nearly pacifist towards me in most of my late games. Is it just me, or…?

I’d be very certain it was the diplomacy tweaks except I also made some game-play tweaks around the same time (more trade routes, often delaying getting an ideology).

[Always Deity, if that matters.]

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A big difference for me in late-game playability between VI and VII was that in VII, other civs were extremely likely to go to war with you when you appeared likely to win. This was … somewhat frustrating, but at least made the late game a challenge instead of just cruising to Yet Another Science Win.

Since 1.2.3 that appears to have changed a lot, with late game civs being nearly pacifist towards me in most of my late games. Is it just me, or…?

I’d be very certain it was the diplomacy tweaks except I also made some game-play tweaks around the same time (more trade routes, often delaying getting an ideology).

[Always Deity, if that matters.]

My observation, both before and since the 1.2.3 patch, is that the key to warfare in Modern Age is Ideology.

EVERY time I picked an Ideology, I ended up at war with someone, because in no game at no time did everybody pick the same Ideology, and whoever had a different Ideology from mine would, guaranteed, pick a fight with me.

On the other hand, (and this has, frankly, become my default play style) if I simply never pick an Ideology, I can avoid any war for the entire Age easily. Any war I get into, I have to foment and start.

I suspect the design team's emphasis on the Modern Age as a period of ideological conflict has placed too much emphasis on Ideology as the basis for all Civ conflict, to the point where without an Ideological trigger, the AI simply doesn't consider military action. Even the 'forward settling' that almost guarantees a war in Antiquity seems to have little or no effect in Modern Age.

 

[KingLouisIV]

That would make sense. I think my first few games with very delayed ideology were a happy accident.

 

[vorlon_mi]

EVERY time I picked an Ideology, I ended up at war with someone, because in no game at no time did everybody pick the same Ideology, and whoever had a different Ideology from mine would, guaranteed, pick a fight with me.

On the other hand, (and this has, frankly, become my default play style) if I simply never pick an Ideology, I can avoid any war for the entire Age easily. Any war I get into, I have to foment and start.

This has also been my experience. I delay choosing an ideology in most games as long as I can. This lets me choose my enemies.

When I choose an ideology, I get declared on by civs/leaders that have chosen a different ideology. The relationship turns to hostile and war often follows.

When I delay choosing an ideology, I will sometimes get dragged into a war due to an alliance that I formed before the ideologies were set.
I have not observed AI civs/leaders making new alliances with their idological siblings, very frequently.
In my current game, Bolivar and Napoleon have been allied in both Exploration and Modern (they are Distant Lands neighbors). But they chose different ideologies, so I expect one of them to declare on the other before Modern ends.