Standard number of AI civs on maps isn't enough anymore

[BroOfTheSun]

Exactly what the title says. I usually play on Emperor/Immortal, Standard/Large size, Continents/Continents+/Pangea. I find games are much more fun when you add more AI civs to the maps. For Standard maps, 0-2 more civs is good. For Large maps (I play more larger maps), 3-4 more civs makes for much better games.

There is still room for expanding and building more cities with the additional civs. It tends to lead to more wars, conquering, and more early wars (slightly less warmonger penalties for more cities on the map). World Congress becomes more democratic (one civ doesn't always dominate). It is also much more entertaining just to have more AI civs to compete against.

Just thought I would share this finding. Remember that the settings for games haven't changed since Vanilla. However, the game definitely has changed a lot. So I think adding additional AI civs does a lot for the game with all the changes made since G&K and BNW. I can't play games anymore without adding additional civs. Of course, this change takes into account that you are ok with longer turn load times.

 

[tedoll78]

Complete agreement here. For huge maps, I've been going up to the 22-civilization limit (and bumping-up the AI's expansionist flavors a few points), with extra city-states thrown-in as well. It slows-down turn times for late-game eras, but I'm willing to wait the extra bit of time, as the extra tension/competition/chaos/war is well worth it.

 

[leadtothehead]

I play on huge maps and normally add 2-4 Civs and 2-4 CS, it really helps to make the early games more interesting.

 

[whyidie]

I've always enjoyed playing a map up (Large) with less city states. Creates more room for everyone to expand and having more Civs on usually makes for a more interesting experience, especially with new mechanics in BNW.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

I've always enjoyed playing a map up (Large) with less city states. Creates more room for everyone to expand and having more Civs on usually makes for a more interesting experience, especially with new mechanics in BNW.

I add civs for the exact opposite experience: less room to expand. Less room means more competition and more complicated relationships.

 

[whyidie]

I add civs for the exact opposite experience: less room to expand. Less room means more competition and more complicated relationships.

Tough to fault the logic. What size map and how many civs do you usually go with ?

 

[Johnpecan]

Yea, I haven't tried adding civs but it makes sense. If the AI has enough land to expand at the rate they desire, wars will almost never occur. I recall a continents game (standard map, standard numbers) where all 4 of the AIs on my continent were content with few cities, going tradition and not expanding. It was a freaking AI love orgy throughout the whole game.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

Tough to fault the logic. What size map and how many civs do you usually go with ?

I like playing large/huge maps, and I'll add between two and four additional civs. Sometimes I add or subtract city states, and I HIGHLY recommend disabling Diplomatic Victory.

Yea, I haven't tried adding civs but it makes sense. If the AI has enough land to expand at the rate they desire, wars will almost never occur. I recall a continents game (standard map, standard numbers) where all 4 of the AIs on my continent were content with few cities, going tradition and not expanding. It was a freaking AI love orgy throughout the whole game.

I hate the "love-fest" games. Constant research agreement popups and "hey we're friends with them, too!" alerts. In the worst of these games, one civ will adopt an ideology well before the others and the promise of ideological warfare will evaporate in favor of one freedom civ, one autocracy civ, and nineteen order civs. UGH.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

No, I like that the AIs are choosy about settling cities now. I couldn't stand how every AI would ICS every game, and continue to build cities until every tile that could host a city had one. Near the end of the game settlers could be seen wandering around, waiting for space to open up in case a city was razed.

 

[Johnnymac1418]

I play with 22 civs and 26 city states on huge. It just makes it so much more interesting and harder

 

[Matthew.]

On large you have to add some, but standard? Seems like it is crowded as is.

When I play on large I will increase Civs but keep CS's the same. Messing up the ratio doesn't bother me, since it is usually the human player who is capable of abusing them. More CS's just mean more power for the human player. AI struggles as is, don't need to cripple it further by adding CS's.

That, and by the end of the game it will likely be down to a 8/16 ratio again anyway (Civs knocked out of the game)

 

[I_qua_I]

I have to agree with the OP. The AIs don't like to expand like they used to. A few more AIs to fill out the map (and a few less city-states) always feel more "complete" in my games.

 

[Cedbird]

I've always enjoyed playing a map up (Large) with less city states. Creates more room for everyone to expand and having more Civs on usually makes for a more interesting experience, especially with new mechanics in BNW.

Specifically for me the trade routes are more interesting with more Civs. Especially when the World Congress comes. If you are embargoed in means you have more options. More complicated Ally/Villians relationships

 

[Helmling]

I add civs for the exact opposite experience: less room to expand. Less room means more competition and more complicated relationships.

Amen, brother. I always go huge with 22 civs and the CS slider to maximum. Otherwise the world feels too empty.

 

[Jampine]

I understand this too, since the BNW mechanics have been introduced, the AI [and player] won't expand too much, or risk running up their science and policy costs. I am thinking of doing this, as in recent games I have noticed a lot of empty land in mid games which isn't usually empty, leading to higher barb activity, but most the time, the turn times start to get long enough without more civs adding to it :/

 

[sun8119]

Actually on standard maps sometimes there is barely a place for 2 cities and not so often a place for very good 4 cities. So, I'd say if you increase the number of AIs then you should also increase the map size Sure, you can go to war but if you want to be peaceful.

 

[BroOfTheSun]

Actually on standard maps sometimes there is barely a place for 2 cities and not so often a place for very good 4 cities. So, I'd say if you increase the number of AIs then you should also increase the map size Sure, you can go to war but if you want to be peaceful.

Standard seems fine with the standard # of AI civs. I sometimes add 1-2 more depending on if I want more war in my games. It's also good to help prevent certain civs from ICS spamming since someone else is around to take up the space.

 

[Wodan]

I pretty much always cut the # of CSs down to 1/3 to 1/4, and increase the # of AIs up to x1.5 to x2.

 

[cpm4001]

I pretty much always cut the # of CSs down to 1/3 to 1/4, and increase the # of AIs up to x1.5 to x2.

Same here. More "Full" Civs means more trade opportunities and more interesting diplomacy. Fewer City-States means less aggravation when you discover that that stupid City-State founded itself practically right next to where you wanted to found one.

 

[dashwinner]

I think its every size of map... I've been playing on small recently, and even an extra civ will still leave ample empty space