1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Should there be more aggression, or not

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jtravers88, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. Clement

    Clement Layman

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    732
    I've had three games so far, all on Prince difficulty and my experience has been good, the warlike nations have done their thing, the peaceful ones have pursued their style of play, all in all i feel my games were balanced with the right amount of war with a few surprises thrown in, like a passive aggressive Wu Zetian and a dangerously sly Pedro, so in answer to the original question, no, aggression is fine, any more aggression and i feel it's back to the bad old days of Civ 5 royal rumble.
     
  2. VainoValkea

    VainoValkea Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    The Harsh North
    I don't understand how people say "aggression is fine". I've had cultural and diplomatic victories without having any army at all - how is it "fine" if my better armed neighbors don't pounce at me? I would certainly pounce on a culture-bomber neighbor that's about to win in a few dozen turns if left unchecked.
     
  3. Clement

    Clement Layman

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    732
    I got pounced on more than once, Siam told me i was weak and it was his chance, i almost lost the game but after i survived i had a decent army, what difficulty do you play on? I play on Prince all the time so far.
     
  4. Cao Cao Mengde

    Cao Cao Mengde Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    There shouldn't be MORE aggression-

    But I think there should be some earlier wars. Most wars take place in the Middle Ages, which becomes a shame when you're playing as say, the Romans, and can't use those legions to full effect :(.
     
  5. VainoValkea

    VainoValkea Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    The Harsh North
    King and Emperor most of the time. Yeah, even on Emperor I only got DoW'd once. By Siam, and that was in the industrial era after they picked a different ideology than mine. I was still defended only by a single crossbowman.

    I won the war though, and the game later on. Rush buying and their sluggish start to the war did miracles.
     
  6. Clement

    Clement Layman

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    732
    Ah ok, well all i can go on are the three games i had on Prince difficulty, i found war to be fairly common, especially in the late stage.
     
  7. VainoValkea

    VainoValkea Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    The Harsh North
    Yes, warmongering is very focused in the late game. Some enthusiasts like Attila go for it early on, too, but it seems only late game gold, weapons and ideologies finally grant less violent AIs the courage to wage war.
     
  8. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,377
    Location:
    Germany
    I don't know if it is counter intuitive. Of course you are right, that getting gold from conquest should be a large benefit for aggressive civs.

    Matter of fact is, however, that the mentioned 'sanity check' evaluates the income loss due to canceled trade routes, when starting a war. If this loss is a too high percentage of the total income, no war will be declared (or at least a DoW will be way less likely).
    Now, if you increase the static income from the palace, you should weight the evaluation a litle bit in favor to war. However, I might very well misinterpret the evaluation algorithm.
     
  9. jtravers88

    jtravers88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49

    'Variable aggression levels for each leader depending on era'
    I think that tuning aggression based on the history of an ancient civ is not the way to go. Just because Attila is my next door neighbor should not automatically mean I need to say 'uh oh, better build a defense'. However if an ai civ finds itself with a great advantage, such as a unique military unit at any given time, it's aggressiveness should be higher while that particular unit is in play. This could be hardcoded logic.

    'Warmonger penalty depending on era'
    I don't know that warmongering is punished all that much prior to the industrial era. The world congress has only just begun in Renaissance right? A lot can go wrong with punishment of warmongers in later eras if a civ is coded to always be aggressive. That is of course, unless it is very successful in it's war efforts. Then that civ probably doesn't give a hoot about what the world thinks.

    'A higher palace gold yield'
    Not if it causes any absurdity, as mentioned in the original post.

    Actually in that game as Napolean, I was attacked by the Netherlands and Korea? for rapid expansion and the Netherlands spanked me due to my 'thinking' no enemy armies had been created. He took one of my cities after I posted this thread. But in general the game is much tamer and I like it that way.
     
  10. ArmChairAttila

    ArmChairAttila Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    78
    I hear this a lot but do not see it in any of my games. I wonder if the AI has changed so much that it now caters to those who are playing. I.E. if you are being a peaceful builder then the game recognizes it and leaves you alone for the most part. If you are going down the honor path and picking friends which means you are making enemies too, then there will be blood. The reason I say this is I played a Venice game and just went about my business making money and building my city. Made no DoF's or denouncements. It was a peaceful game for the most part. On the other hand I played Shaka with full honor and had multiple wars started by Spain and the Shoshone from the classical all the way until Industrial. I made friends with Persia early and basically did what he wanted so my caravans would be secure. It was a great game.
     
  11. Thuellai

    Thuellai Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Rome was all over me in the classical era just as expected. Is the world less likely to implode at any given moment into a screaming cacophony? Maybe. Is there no war? Hardly, or I wouldn't have foreign leaders knocking on my door every four turns asking me if I'm ready to help them kill my OTHER trade partner. I think aggression is where it should be.

    I do really like the idea of variable aggression across eras though, so that civs are encouraged to wage war when they're most efficient at it.
     
  12. homegrown

    homegrown Missionary of Sorenism

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    Houston TX
    I'm seeing plenty of aggression between the AIs in every game. Maybe it's because I'm playing them by trading and not getting dragged into their petty conflicts, but I'm pretty happy they hate each other more than me. (for the most part)
     
  13. teqofc

    teqofc Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    192
    I don't what game you guys are playing but I've seen no lack of aggression at all on emp and immortal. I have yet to play a game yet on these settings where I can get away with a small army, tuck myself in some corner and just concentrate on building while my neighbors mow my lawn and tuck me into bed at night. Every single one of these games has been my immediate neighbor DOW me after my 2nd city or 3rd city. Just when I'm getting some momentum and gold flowing here comes Zulu or Genghis or Napolean or some other grr.

    I've learned now to be ready with a decent size army in the beginning. Enough to hold off the typical lame AI attacks. This recent Venice game was pretty funny where I had just bought my 2nd CS with a 2 CB, 1 horse and 1 warrior. On turn 83, Napolean my friendly neighbor to the NE whom I had 2 trade routes with says "Hey wassup! Time to die!" See http://imgur.com/qUyhPoh

    I held him off for 20 turns with his relentless printing of units. Paris has 6 fricken mines so his production is off the charts. On turn 103 I had my MoV head to Lhasa and pop that sucker. I swear I hard Naplean say "WTF!" simultaneously as the pop sound as Lhasa immediately gave me 6 pikemen and 5 CB. See http://i.imgur.com/GXjlh9l.jpg Suffice to say Napolean was miserable the rest of the game. I razed all of the tiles around Paris and left him the capitol. From my previous BNW games played I've learned already that taking a capitol that early just leads to misery later in the game as the whole world ends up against you. So I just left Napolean to suffer till the end of the game
     
  14. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    AI should not be that dumb! And thats all.
    If you have 1 warrior and Assyria AI next to you has lots of spears, chariots and siege towers, it shoud attack. If AI invests into military, it should wage war.

    also, no early wars is very bad for immersion i think
     
  15. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    One very strange thing I've noticed, being DoWed multiple times. It's always backstabs. Looks like DoF is a requirement to attack you :)

    So, as I understand, developers lowered the warmongering leader trait, but didn't touch desire for backstabbing. This also explains why wars usually come later.

    IMHO, AI needs really serious revision.
     
  16. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    This. Couldnt say it better.
     
  17. Greasy Dave

    Greasy Dave Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    answering the op, no. i have had excellent ai aggression interaction on the games i've played. i am wondering if this is more a feature on the lower difficulties. all my games have been at immortal. i've noticed that alot of people complaining are playing at easier levels.

    right now i see it as the difference between 1 dimensional aggression and 3d aggression. before the ai wss 1 dimensional. in g and k and vanilla the ai had only one way ro be aggressive-war. a player knew that he always jhad to prepare for a dow by turn 50. the difficulty was increased by the ai getting bigger and bigger bonuses. this was boring. the bnw games i've played the ai has been much less transparent. it can aggressively pursue a culture victory, a diplo vic, and a sci vic. in one game i played alex conquered his whole continent and built up a huge gpt then tied up all the cses for the rest of the gmae. as a player, i have had to be prepared not only for ai dows but also ai heading for a vc and strategising to get there pretty damn well.

    i am overwhelmed by how good this game is. if you are disatisfoed can i suggest you move up a difficulty level
     
  18. Horace

    Horace Likes to ski

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    Leeds
    I have also had plenty of AI aggression.

    To the people saying I am next to 2 peacemongers and so just neglect my military - why don't you play with some random personalities so you cant predict from the get go if someone will war you.

    I always play with random personalities and have seen plenty of war in all my games (early game & despite trade routes)
     
  19. Hakuoh

    Hakuoh Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    You guys should play games with Rome, Greece, Huns etc.

    They are still warmonger and will take any chance to whipe out the weak.
     
  20. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,420
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    Agreed.

    Since getting BNW I have still been attacked by my neighbours in the Medieval era. I haven't noticed any problems with the aggressiveness of the AI. The only change is that pre-BNW, I found I could set my watch by the fact that my nearest neighbour - regardless of who they were - would DOW before turn 100. Now, sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't. I like that. Barbarians are more of a handful than before, which helps to compensate for the lack of AI aggression at the start of the game.

    I can understand that the likes of Attila, Augustus, Alexander should go to war earlier rather than later if they are going to, and I haven't encountered any of them in my games yet, so I'm not sure if they do or not. But if AI aggression is patched back to pre-BNW levels, I will be so annoyed. In my opinion, they fixed the predictability of the early game.
     

Share This Page