They need to hotfix AI agression now

[robincox]

waiting for another 14 hours until i can play.

But this is just what i was hoping for the current AI in G&K is way too hostile for my liking.

And if they can actually fight better - great

I agree, finally I can see my closest neighbors as potential allys instead of illogical maniacs that one turn are friendly and the other turn out of the blue hate me and want to rid the world of me. Time for some civilized Civilization

 

[steveg700]

Congratulations to you peaceful builders, you ruined the game for the rest of it because you were afraid to fight.

This is an absurd statement considering that the ability of the player to wage war is as it ever was. The people who have a beef with less aggressive AI's aren't the daring warmongers, but rather those players too complacent to take the offensive, and instead want to passive-aggressively provoke the AI into a DoW that will compel it to stupidly march their armies into a gauntlet of archers/CB's/Xbows.

If you want to wage war, go wage war already.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

My first BNW game on Prince everything was almost typical. Shaka rushed and destroyed Dandy (decided to play Poland, not Venice. Felt having both new mechanics and completely different play style would overwhelm me), attacked a city state, bullied two, attacked my allied Maria of Portugal (got her capital, another city, I reclaimed them for her), attacked Ashurbanipal and burned two of his cities (didn't get his capital). I declared war on him after he attacked Maria and killed him off, but he seemed fine.

The AI seems very aggressive in many ways and not too much unlike GNK. Granted, it was Shaka, but I saw on the other continent Napoleon and Ahmad attacking Gajah Madah, and many other wars.

I think AI is a bit smarter at deciding war (Shaka attacked his closest enemies), but then it was just Prince. Emperor Venice playthrough is waiting (I would continue the current Venice Emperor, but the AI NOT taking natural wonders pissed me off too much)

 

[Law Lord]

Now I understand your point better; we were on the same page after vanilla release, remember? I was fierce in that respect, in fact, earning myself a lot of trouble in this very forum. Why do I tell this? Because the only thing no one can accuse me of is complacency.

With that said, I don't know what is going on with your games of BNW, but I am not seeing what you allude to in mine. I am not seeing passive opponents as in "immobilized", but more cautious AI opponents that may or may not become more competitive in the mid-late game because of that. I like that, and I find it makes for much better gameplay, including war-oriented gameplay. What sense does it make to have completely aggressive AI's right from the start when they cripple themselves for the rest of the game by doing so? That's exactly what it was before BNWAI; let's be honest. Who couldn't win an early war against the suicidal AI pre-BNW? In fact, it was a certainty, you just needed to know that they would come, and prepare yourself just enough to be able to hold their suicidal rush but still presenting a target of opportunity so that they would carry on with their early suicide plan. I never found challenge in that. Once the initial suicide was over, the whole mid-late game was yours. No challenge.

What I see now is the opposite. You can feel the AI considering a lot of options (the lot that was hugely increased by BNW). You can see them struggle with the human player for early gold, yet they manage the scarcity well; same with happiness (AI really learnt how to deal with their unhappiness, thus the decrease in semi-cheating bonuses in this regard is completely justified). They really build up trying to be a better opponent for the rest of the game, and not only a fake one for the early game.

Perhaps you need to go longer in your games, or play more, if you did not so already, to see the true evolution of the AI's early decisions? I am seeing that (of course, it does not work for them always, as it does not for the human player in many instances, and that is the challenge), and I like it.

I largely agree with this analysis. However, I will say that if there is almost zero threat of an early rush from the AIs, then I'm sympathetic with those complaining about the lack of aggression. Ultimately, I think we are all looking for the sweet spot of mostly predictable, occasionally surprising AI. I like the new changes so far, but I don't want every game to have virtually no threat of an early invasion, because that takes away the range of situations I need to plan for. The game does become less interesting in that respect.

Does an early invasion to happen every game? Absolutely not. I'm with you in that I'd much rather have a more challenging mid-to-late game than an early knockout punch with a cruise to the finish line (and yes, that was largely vanilla and G&K in a nutshell). But I think we can all agree that pure 100% predictability isn't the goal here, whether it's the G&K suicide rush or the BNW pure peace approach. Neither is the sheer unpredictability of the G&K diplomacy situation.

We're just arguing over where the sweet spot is, really.

 

[Buccaneer]

If the AI is waiting for a better time (if any), does it instead spend its resources to be aggressive in other areas? Is the AI not even winning culture, space or diplomacy much either?

The point about warfare was not you declaring but the AI using such mechanics to disrupt/annoy/stop you, however temporary. That still seems to be preferable than them sitting back and doing nothing while you are free to build up. Sometimes (not always) that may be enough to put you behind in something.

I just thought of something while I was typing. Does that mean that there are fewer runaways? That was a good equalizer, making it harder for you to defeat at times. If you are getting the tech and score lead by turn 145 now, wouldn't that be enough for you to win?

 

[Unresolved]

I'm not a peacemonger or a warmonger, but in my limited experience with BNW, I think the AI is not aggressive enough. I say this because I attacked Monty around turn 60 on Prince and he had zero units. Not a warrior, not a jaguar, not an archer. Not even a worker(after I stole his first one ). And then in an Emperor game, I attacked Theodora around turn 70 and she had a grand total of 1 archer and 1 warrior.

 

[Ellye]

On my first game of BNW, I'm currently on the Medieval era in a Emperor Epic Fractal Huge game and I've seem quite a few wars among AIs already. Seems to be normal, so far.

 

[Raptor Llama]

It's fine. I'm in a game with YnAEMP and though I haven't been attacked, there are many capitals gone and one civ wiped out (would be two if I hadn't enabled complete kills). There making it less of a war game and more of a game about the history of civilization, which I believe is a good thing. I expect the AI to act more or less what real civilizations would, and that means not forgoing all your history together and invading just because you have less units. Some civs of course are aggressive, like the Zulu (in my game they've reduced Egypt to one city and are in an eternal conflict with Assyria), but it wouldn't make sense for a trade-fairing civilization to attack you. I know some people want AI that plays to win, but I'd prefer AI that kind of role plays more, though I guess that's since I prefer the alternate history thing to the whole "hyper advanced war boardgame" thing. If only there was an option to choose between the two...

 

[Buccaneer]

AI playing to win does not always mean winning Domination. It should also play aggressively to win Culture, Diplomacy and Space as well.

 

[Odans]

hmm well f the two games i played(both as France) and both with the Huns.
first game, the huns were in a pretty desolate area, and spent their time building wonders and being bullied by me, denmark, and genghis.
the second, well they were on a continent with Montezuma, songhai, and the new middle eastern one, and within 150 turns he had beaten them all down.

 

[Gali]

Buccaneer, I am getting very tired of your persistent attitude that your view of CIV as a wargame is the ONE true path and anyone who advocates anything else is a moronic wuss who just wants to beat up on the AI. Civ has never been a true wargame; it is an empire builder with a large military aspect. BNW finally giving the other half of the community more than the barebones 1upt forced on us is not a bad thing. They were never going to spend the time or money to fix the AI so we didn't ruin your utopia.

Because of the absolute crippling of the AI from 1upt, Firaxis was forced, even more than in civ 4 to massively buff the defense. Not having the Ai blow all its hammers into suiciding against my prepared defences every game, after it stands around for at least 5 turns shouting I'M GOING TO ATTACK YOU, YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET READY, is not hurting the AI. I far prefer the AI to spend its resources on expansion and force me to attack into its defenses. I am still seeing the AI conquer other AIs and form the large/runaway empires that is needed to make it powerful. IN EVERY game I have played in BNW an AI has managed to absorb another AI entirely.

Also cultural civs like Brazil or Indonesia are noticeably stronger in culture and take forever to take down with tourism. In fact conquest is now a viable alternative in cultural games allowing multiple paths to victory, something GK shunned like the plague for the rigid optimal paths people called strategy. The AI is also very aggressive religiously, going down piety and spreading its religion quite emphatically. I only dominated my continent religiously once and by killing off the other religion militarily.

Add in the greatly improved barbarians, through buffed units, maybe increased spawn, and the need to defend trade routes, and I still need to build and balance a military. Not having to have 6 CBs by turn 50 every game allows gold to be brought down and make investing in growth a choice. In the early game I consistently am short on gold and need to balance growth, trade routes, and the military to deal with barbs. That is a far preferable and more varied opening than GKs go tall, Tradition and build ranged units for the inevitable AI kamikaze attack. The Ais are pretty much as technologically advanced and powerful in the late game in BNW as in GK I just don't have the pro forma suicide attack. I'd much rather have the ai build up its empire or time its offensives to coincide with UUs then blindly launch the same attack every game/

How in the world would trade routes even function in the GK aggression cycle. In that game even at King I would have regular floods of units all over my land even internal trade routes would be pillaged. Whenever I have provoked the AI by forward settling or other aggressive moves it has responded with attacks at least as powerful in GK.

 

[Buccaneer]

That's all I have been advocating, an aggressive AI that plays to win in ANY of the victory conditions. If you read my earlier post, I talked about games where the AI rolls over and go passive - military or not - and that's what I have been arguing against. Half of my games have been turtling in nature so I don't always go on the warpath. But what good would an AI's cultural trait be if it doesn't defend itself from other civs or doesn't use those traits effectively? Why are we, sometimes, able to get by with so few defensive units yet still win the game without much of a challenge?

I know the AI can fight well sometimes, what I am more interested in whether they can fight us culturally, technologically and diplomatically as well consistently instead of not trying very hard in those respect. It does seem that I react against those that don't want the AI to do much of anything in the game, allowing us to peacefully build towards victory. No, it's not about winning Domination but winning ANY of the victory conditions with good competition and a fight towards any one of those goals.

 

[Aristos]

That's all I have been advocating, an aggressive AI that plays to win in ANY of the victory conditions. If you read my earlier post, I talked about games where the AI rolls over and go passive - military or not - and that's what I have been arguing against. Half of my games have been turtling in nature so I don't always go on the warpath. But what good would an AI's cultural trait be if it doesn't defend itself from other civs or doesn't use those traits effectively? Why are we, sometimes, able to get by with so few defensive units yet still win the game without much of a challenge?

I know the AI can fight well sometimes, what I am more interested in whether they can fight us culturally, technologically and diplomatically as well consistently instead of not trying very hard in those respect. It does seem that I react against those that don't want the AI to do much of anything in the game, allowing us to peacefully build towards victory. No, it's not about winning Domination but winning ANY of the victory conditions with good competition and a fight towards any one of those goals.

Well, I can tell you I am having a blast with my present game in every sense. There are three runaways right now, one of them China which started isolated in a medium island and managed to take the science lead silently but steadily. Three of the others are clearly aiming at culture, one of them my archenemy Siam (across the mountain range separating us and our armies), the other my uber ally the Mayans, and the third one of the runaways (Polynesia). Persia is on the other "tip" (big) of the continent, and I'm not sure yet if he is aiming at science or culture.

Siam tried to embargo me early, and failed, but it's there where the hostilities started. All proposals so far were clearly aimed at crippling someone dangerous or enhancing their own VC; some of them failed, some succeeded (I just managed to embargo Polynesia because it was the first runaway I recognized, but now I think I failed to see the looming Persian danger to my west, across an ocean). I had to buy 6 votes for a total of 33 gold to achieve that, as Polynesia dominates the Congress. He managed to enact a cultural resolution, according to his plan.

And much more is going on, I just don't have the time to tell it all in detail. My bottom line is: let the (for me) obvious and rich variability of the new game act on you by playing longer and more, and you may start to see the underlying little treasure. Believe me, I am coming from the resistance's camp when it comes to Civ5, but now I am sold (about time, mind you). Bleach et all have saved the iteration, and I think they managed to re-inject hope to what the new approach could be with their work of the last 18 months.

Thank the gods Mr. Shafer "resigned"...

Anyways, back to enjoyment!

 

[dowd001]

I agree the AI is more passive. I think that this whole issue arises because the AI has never learned to win a war against a human in the 1UPT format. That fact limits what the devs can do to make the AI competitive.

Before BNW, the AI would attack for an advantage, and wind up losing in the end in a manner that knocked them out of the game. Now, they do not attack and instead focus on beating you in a peaceful game. That is definetely a smarter STRATEGIC AI, but the reason that is happening is because the AI is still really bad TACTICALLY.

The end result of the new peacenik AI is a much more predictable game where the human might now in fact lose, but the path to the end will pretty much look the same each time. The AI's warmongering, while strategically bad since he tactically could not win, nonetheless made the game more interesting for the human.

It's all about the fact that the AI never learned to win a 1UPT war. If the AI had learned to win a 1UPT war against a human, then warmongering would have been a good strategic choice and the game as a whole would have been less predictable. Just because the AI is now acting smarter by playing peacefully does not mean that the AIs playstyle is the smartest way to play. It only means, assuming it is acting rationally, that the other strategic choices were worse. The reason that wormongering is worse is because it cannot do it.

 

[Buccaneer]

Thank you, Aristos, that is encouraging. Maybe I ought to just skip over the reports of AI civs becoming more docile, which alarmed me to no end. People have misinterpreted that as meaning they must war (though sometimes they should when the opportunity presents itself), whereas I wanted a more competitive game in all forms.

 

[Aristos]

Thank you, Aristos, that is encouraging. Maybe I ought to just skip over the reports of AI civs becoming more docile, which alarmed me to no end. People have misinterpreted that as meaning they must war (though sometimes they should when the opportunity presents itself), whereas I wanted a more competitive game in all forms.

Try it and report back. I am interested in other experiences, I reckon the "sample size" argument works both ways, and even if my experience so far has been excellent, I also want to try to make sure that I am not on the lucky side so far...

 

[Aristos]

The end result of the new peacenik AI is a much more predictable game where the human might now in fact lose, but the path to the end will pretty much look the same each time. The AI's warmongering, while strategically bad since he tactically could not win, nonetheless made the game more interesting for the human.

I disagree. Siam attacked me at the best possible moment for them, when his UU was maximized. If it weren't for that magnificent mountain range that separated us, and the strategically placed citadel, they would have trumped all over me. Then again, Siam never committed suicide against the citadel, they probed it a few times and then waited. They also did not suicide their army by embarking to flank the mountain range, a classic of pre-BNW, because they saw my incipient navy controlling both sides of the range. They waited, trying to lure me into the offensive. Enough time passed until their army weakened, and then all the other neighbours, some of them my own allies that refused to go to war with Siam earlier, banded together against him.

Opportunistic is the word for this new AI, not passive. Opportunistic as hell. I have seen such opportunism in an AI only once before, and that is EU3's Ai, and only after the last patch (5.2).

Predictable were the games of vanilla and G&K for me, not this one. I knew I could count on their hara-kiri every time. Some people are trying to sell that as challenge to me, but I don't buy it.

 

[teejing]

I think we can all agree when i say that we all want very diverse games that never stops to suprise us.

 

[Gali]

The AI is just as powerful late game in BNW as GK Buccaneer. The entire point of those AI attacks in GK was to force military units and delay growth. With the heavy nerf to gold early game getting settlers is harder to begin with. Add in the need to spend hammers on trade units in addition to all the old build units and growth is actually pretty much as challenging. At least Tradition, Liberty Piety is now a choice.

The thing that is saving BNW is the buffed barbarians and the need to defend space with trade units. With the need to defend my trade routes from barbarians I need to keep a military about as big as in GK. That early AI aggression is less needed. Especially when you consider I actually need a navy to defend and can't wait to build it until I attack. With more to build and less gold that military is actually costlier. Another factor is that I don't have the gold reserves to pop walls or emergency units. Everything must be pre-built and it is a balancing act. If someone comes after you need a military in place beforehand to survive, which again necessitates keeping an actual military.

I have been attacked if I am aggressive and provoke the AI. You can't just do anything and settle in their face.

Another factor for culture wins is that the culture of enemy civs is now defensive. In all my culture games the culture powers like Brazil have severely delayed my victory compared to warmongers. Brazil was the only civ left to take out in my first culture win for 30+ turns. Autocracy works as a culture victory ideology more in enabling you to conquer those powerful culture civs than in buffing your tourism.

My main problem with BNW is that AIs choose Order 80% of the time massively distorting the ideology game.

 

[Aristos]

My main problem with BNW is that AIs choose Order 80% of the time massively distorting the ideology game.

Funny. I have seen them choosing whatever fits their apparent (or obvious) plan of the moment. I have seen them choosing all three. In fact, I destroyed my own first game by choosing my ideology too early and without much consideration of the other AI's plan. Even for that choice we have to be very careful now, and the decision delay vs early benefits when it comes to ideology is key.

Variability. That is the richness of this new Civ.