So boring!

[Cissnei]

Hi ^^ I am back to forums. I started playing again after a long break and I'm at turn 300 right now (normal speed), game with biggest map size possible, 22 civilizations and 36 city states.

My issue is, no one is fighting wars. In G&K there was always many wars even before industrial era, but now i don't make any army and no one attacked me, all game. At turn 300 i had only 1 war and i had to start it, with Sweden, and they surrendered after i took 1 city from them... And gave me another city = o =

Difficulty is emperor. I play as Korea. Is it normal?? Can someone explain why is everyone so idle and passive?

Out of 22 civilizations only 2 civilizations are often at war. The rest declares a war on them but probably dont even attack (marry christmas emoticon^^)

Can someone explain if im doing something wrong?

 

[Walter R]

I've still not loaded BNW because I like to go to war (in the game!) and everyone with BNW talks about BNW being 'tall and peaceful' and 'warmonger penalties'. Some of the stuff like trade routes, new civs and wonders I'd really like to experience, but I really enjoy my G&K games so I'm hesitant. From what I read your situation is not unnusual. I'm not sure that I want to play an "Ah look at all the pretty flowers" kind of game, but I may well have got a very warped view of BNW!

 

[phillipwyllie]

War happens in BNW as well. If you want war DOW someone and most civs will denounce you for being a warmonger. Denounce back.......

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Put in some warmongering civs like Shaka, Alexander, Atilla, Genghis, etc. Especially with the first two mentioned war is a certainty.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

War happens in BNW as well. If you want war DOW someone and most civs will denounce you for being a warmonger. Denounce back.......

Yeah, you just have to engineer every one. If you turtle up and play peaceful they'll ignore you for most of the game. Boring as all Hell and you can ignore military and rush out culture and science buildings left and right.

I think it's in response to all the "WTH! I didn't do anything to that guy! Why'd he attack me?" complaints. I'm sure the peaceful builder types are happy but that kind of gameplay gets stale fast.

Once you get to the industrial and ideological lines are drawn you do start to see AI that acts more like their good ole' quarrelsome selves. Too bad war gets so easy at about the same point. Artillery and planes make it pretty simple to wipe out the AI.

Shaka and Monty are the only two I ever see really stirring things up in the early game. Like Hakan said you can add them and get a more interesting game.

 

[Adjuvant]

22 civs and 36 city states lend to less-than-ideal conditions for the AI's programming. In this extreme example many have poor start locations, and/or are subsequently "stuffed into corners" wherein typical code is disallowed by virtue of narrowed prospects. "They" can't grow "right", so "they" are significantly less-challenging opponents.

Some manner of this can be observed when even one or two opponents are added. See, the developers can do their best to create commands like "if you see ( this ) , do ( that )" but the whole propensity to ever do ( that ) is thrown out the window in many cases, so it just continues to do ( this ) until the human kills/otherwise defeats them or an opponent AI, with a "luckier" start, and a greater propensity for ( this ) eats them.

It would take centuries to code every option. For this, for now, it's a pretty impressive mechanism for a "balanced" set of parameters.

 

[Ravellion]

22 civs and 36 city states lend to less-than-ideal conditions for the AI's programming. In this extreme example many have poor start locations, and/or are subsequently "stuffed into corners" wherein typical code is disallowed by virtue of narrowed prospects. "They" can't grow "right", so "they" are significantly less-challenging opponents.

Some manner of this can be observed when even one or two opponents are added. See, the developers can do their best to create commands like "if you see ( this ) , do ( that )" but the whole propensity to ever do ( that ) is thrown out the window in many cases, so it just continues to do ( this ) until the human kills/otherwise defeats them or an opponent AI, with a "luckier" start, and a greater propensity for ( this ) eats them.

It would take centuries to code every option. For this, for now, it's a pretty impressive mechanism for a "balanced" set of parameters.

Indeed. Basically, if you want war, I suggest the lakes map (Pangaea also work well, but slightly less so) and a few aggressive civs, but no more than the standard amount. I've grown accustomed to putting Shaka and Alex in everyone of my games to spice things up. Assyria is a decent warmonger too, though somewhat depending on his rolls. I find Attila and Montezuma too dependent on early war, but Attila can still do well in the mid game too.

On Large and huge maps you can add a civ or two without breaking things too seriously. In fact, it often helps aggression because there really is a lot of space on the larger maps. The "Plus" maps suck because they put the CS on islands. This in turn creates too much space on the map which obviously discourages war.

 

[Quineloe]

War happens in BNW as well. If you want war DOW someone and most civs will denounce you for being a warmonger. Denounce back.......

they still won't declare war on you if they're not 99% sure they can take one of your cities within three turns. 4-5 units at the border of every potential enemy, and they will never declare war, no matter how vile you are.

 

[sc0tsman76]

maybe its time to try multiplayer

 

[civdiv]

I am new to the game but I am also getting bored after a week.

Basically it seems to be getting quite repetitive:
research stuff
make sure civ is happy
expand your civ
research more stuff
build more stuff
build an army
spend a long time surrounding another civ capital
take them out
rinse repeat

is there anything more to this or am I playing it wrong.
I can't find a reason to want to play anymore, same sh*t different civ.

 

[Adjuvant]

I am new to the game but I am also getting bored after a week.

Basically it seems to be getting quite repetitive:
research stuff
make sure civ is happy
expand your civ
research more stuff
build more stuff
build an army
spend a long time surrounding another civ capital
take them out
rinse repeat

is there anything more to this or am I playing it wrong.
I can't find a reason to want to play anymore, same sh*t different civ.

The intricacies are just not interesting to you. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Walter R]

I am new to the game but I am also getting bored after a week.

Basically it seems to be getting quite repetitive:
research stuff
make sure civ is happy
expand your civ
research more stuff
build more stuff
build an army
spend a long time surrounding another civ capital
take them out
rinse repeat

is there anything more to this or am I playing it wrong.
I can't find a reason to want to play anymore, same sh*t different civ.

Dunno. I guess if none of this floats your boat then it may not be the game for you, but it works for us. BTW you missed "Gawp at bizarre AI behaviour" from your list.

 

[Aristos]

they still won't declare war on you if they're not 99% sure they can take one of your cities within three turns. 4-5 units at the border of every potential enemy, and they will never declare war, no matter how vile you are.

Nonsense.

Show the code as proof.

 

[Quineloe]

What a silly, useless reply.

I'm speaking from experience of so many games played that went by without a single war.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Getting personal is trolling, please get back on tropic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sonereal]

Can someone explain if im doing something wrong?

I'm assuming you're playing BNW, if so, wars were heavily toned down pre-industrial. They AI doesn't want to put itself in the red by breaking trade routes and going to war, so it tries not to. Having lots of civilizations help, because it opens up more trade partners.

Shrinking the map also helps.

 

[Aristos]

Thank you mod.

It's not useless. What is useless is seeding myths. Thus the "show the code as proof" for someone that claims a specific AI behaviour. I have many months of helping here derailing myths through swimming deep into the DLL code, because I don't like myths. And I don't like myths because they destroy any chance whatsoever for making the game better, be it via the developers with a patch, or via us modding it.

So, show the proof of your claim.

Experience is biased. I have an ongoing Immortal game right now, where I was attacked by Attila in turn 80, even with more than "4-5 units in the border", even with trade routes going. Attila destroyed my key second city, and I was only spared because I had Alexander, to the east of Attila, bribed to declare war. Soon thereafter, everyone else in that continent came after Attila, most likely because he got a HUGE warmonger penalty for destroying my second city. I decided to continue the game because it looked fun to try and come back "from the death" and see how far I could get.

Now Attila is gone from the game, but Alexander went to far and conquered everything from Attila, so now Alexander is the bad boy in the hood. Same happened to Shaka (of course), in some other continent, and more than half of the world is fighting these two bad boys, while I am slowly catching up from the initial disaster with careful diplomacy and permanent DPs with my best friends and neighbours.

Point in case: experiences are varied. They are not enough to claim a specific behaviour.

 

[Quineloe]

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that many players have voiced their discontent about the long eras of peace since BNW. I don't think any of them care what the code exactly says. Also, get of your high horse, your 1 word dismissive reply was trolling.

And your anecdotal evidence even supports my claim, since you did lose the city. Apparently your 5-6 units weren't enough for him to see his chances as too low to capture it, therefore he declared and won.

Moderator Action: Cease the personal, if someone upsets you, please report the post and let the staff handle it. This is not the way to do so.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aristos]

... and many players have voiced the opposite, which shows that, indeed, it is anecdotal evidence. The truth is in the code; and the result of the code, as it should be, is variance (who would like a predictable game, as even this one was before BNW? Wait for war-defeat suicidal AI- win).

Again, show the code to proof your very specific, number-filled claim. Or else.

Moderator Action: Now you are pushing the envelope. Think we need to get off the code talk, unless you wish to present the facts found in the code, and back to the topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Spice things up yourself. Bribe an AI to go to war against a CS. Watch him take the CS and instantly become a pariah.