They need to hotfix AI agression now

[Buccaneer]

Seems like a lot of people are saying to wait until Ideologies and then all crap breaks loose. Perhaps but a good player should be able to win the game before that happens because there aren't that many good opportunities for the AI to be aggressive before then?

 

[Buccaneer]

Let me turn that question around. Are the AI civs being aggressive in pursuing non-Domination victories? I've read a few accounts this morning of people having the chance to win culturally, diplomatically or technically - all in the same game! I wonder is it because of the lower levels they are playing at? So, are you losing to the AI culturally, diplomatically or technically or not?

 

[Gradac]

It is dreadful. I have seen more agression on the lowest difficulty in G&K then on emperor in BNW.


It is silly how passive the AI is. When I see another person's capital right next to mine with 2 screens, i expected a few skirmishes and denouncements because realistically, no way in hell we can both expand.

I can be next to atilla and atilla can have the biggest army in a 12 civ map while i have an archer unit for the entirety of my military.

NO ONE ATTACKS.

It is basically a passive farm fest up until the renaissance. This has completely ruined the game for me. What is the point of classical/early period powerhouses if they don't declare war on anyone and shake things up a bit.

They need to hotfix this asap. It is way too passive.


I should not be able to tech up with 1 damn archer and not be swarmed by massive armies that COVET MY FREAKING LAND

There is nothing that have to be fixed in this game expansion.

Just play more. Stop whining.
Stop just being passive and wait for AI to early attack you so you can defeat them and remove from the game. AI just become smarter (as all asked for), it will not commit suicide just so you would be happy to have some early fight and easy conquest.

And if you want to warmonger, attack AI yourself, where is the problem?

Personally, now after completed five games (all on Prince difficulty -four win and one lost) I do not see AI being more peaceful, just more smart decision making. The one I lost is with Venice, being conquered by Songhai in early renaissance (I actually just stopped playing turn before I got beaten, I can not have lost on my resume

 

[jaldaen]

One thing that might be happening is that the AI's desire for trade routes and more gold/science is affecting their desire to make war. One thing I noted in Godman's game was that the Celts were friendly toward him even though he did nothing to make them friendly. However, the Celts did have a caravan going to one of his cities. So perhaps the AIs are more peaceful with their neighbors because they have determined that the cost of war is too high compared to ongoing trade with their neighbors.

 

[kkapalk]

Gradac, yes you can wage war yourself if there isn't enough happening. But to me and probably many others there was eager anticipation in G&K when noticing the AI suddenly moving their units nearer to my cities. You knew a war was coming and it made the game fun. BUT I did feel there were too many wars. No sooner had I repelled one attack then another civ decided to have a go at me. BNW seems exactly the opposite. Don't get me wrong, I find BNW fascinating. I just feel they need the AI aggressiveness turned up a tad. This will give a use for the early units at least.

 

[Nickel_lion]

Seriously, why is everybody complaining about the lack of aggressiveness early in the game? I think it's ok. It let you concentrate in other things and not in controlling a crazy warmongering civ... Want a war? START IT!!!

I agree with this guy:

...the AI [is] more active on pursuing early wonders which also contributes to their lack of early army.

Only those civs who ignore early wonders and favor early conquest (Assyria, Zulu, Huns) seem to be prone to attack relative early.

The AI now, warmongers apart, seem to pursue other victory conditions more actively and not rely on war alone.

What's the problem with that? I think the game becomes then MORE DYNAMIC and FUN!!

AND PLEASE, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!!

There is nothing that have to be fixed in this game expansion.

Just play more. Stop whining.
Stop just being passive and wait for AI to early attack you so you can defeat them and remove from the game. AI just become smarter (as all asked for), it will not commit suicide just so you would be happy to have some early fight and easy conquest.

And if you want to warmonger, attack AI yourself, where is the problem?

Personally, now after completed five games (all on Prince difficulty -four win and one lost) I do not see AI being more peaceful, just more smart decision making. The one I lost is with Venice, being conquered by Songhai in early renaissance (I actually just stopped playing turn before I got beaten, I can not have lost on my resume

 

[godman85]

There is nothing that have to be fixed in this game expansion.

Just play more. Stop whining.
Stop just being passive and wait for AI to early attack you so you can defeat them and remove from the game. AI just become smarter (as all asked for), it will not commit suicide just so you would be happy to have some early fight and easy conquest.

And if you want to warmonger, attack AI yourself, where is the problem?

Personally, now after completed five games (all on Prince difficulty -four win and one lost) I do not see AI being more peaceful, just more smart decision making. The one I lost is with Venice, being conquered by Songhai in early renaissance (I actually just stopped playing turn before I got beaten, I can not have lost on my resume

Did you even read the patch notes? Or see the enemy fight recently. When they DO FIGHT, they take your city within 3 turns liek a human player. they don't get distracted or walk around your base getting picked off.

They get the job done.


Furthermore if you can complete a game on deity with 2 ARCHERS as you entire game's army and not isolated....


Clearly that is beyond broken.

 

[Gamewizard]

I played one game on Emperor and rolled to a cultural victory fairly easily. Little aggression from the AI. I started an Immortal game, was a little more aggressive myself (stole a CS worker, destroyed Poland), but then things turned against me when Greece and Egypt DOWed me, bogged me down. All the while Greece bought up every CS around me making it very difficult to stay in positive happiness and to make international trade routes. I'm trying my best to create a stalemate on the battlefield so that I can get a peace for peace deal, but the AI is too good at spamming units at this level.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, like I said before...if you think the game is too easy then bump up the difficulty.

 

[godman85]

Seriously, why is everybody complaining about the lack of aggressiveness early in the game? I think it's ok. It let you concentrate in other things and not in controlling a crazy warmongering civ... Want a war? START IT!!!

I agree with this guy:



What's the problem with that? I think the game becomes then MORE DYNAMIC and FUN!!

AND PLEASE, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!!

You guys simply don't care about anyone else. You don't see a single person complaining about the PEACE PARTY trying to burn your bridges in the new features or late game.

But you want us to just accept losing our only joy in this game which was THREAT.

You think its "smart ai" when attila trades peacefully with a civ next to them that has a monopoly on a highly lucrative resource and wonders.

He should risk a non-risky easy war to double or triple his score and take a major late game threat out with his vastly overpowered early game UUs that he ALREADY spammed and are now dancing in his base.


If all the AIs are "trying to win" as you say. Why are the civs who were suppose to take a huge early game advantage through the UU and UAs just sitting around trying to out tech a damn tech civ. It will never happen.


Certain civs are catered to certain victory conditions. When an entire group of civs WILL NOT go for their victory condition or atleast gain an advantage from it....Something is wrong.


But let's be unreasonable about it. Let's tell people who want compelling drama in their games to <snip> even though they don't want to take away any features added that was consider fun.

Moderator Action: Stay polite, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[godman85]

I played one game on Emperor and rolled to a cultural victory fairly easily. Little aggression from the AI. I started an Immortal game, was a little more aggressive myself (stole a CS worker, destroyed Poland), but then things turned against me when Greece and Egypt DOWed me, bogged me down. All the while Greece bought up every CS around me making it very difficult to stay in positive happiness and to make international trade routes. I'm trying my best to create a stalemate on the battlefield so that I can get a peace for peace deal, but the AI is too good at spamming units at this level.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, like I said before...if you think the game is too easy then bump up the difficulty.

so you had to become a warmongering menace before someone decided to do something?


Doesn't sound like you proved anything other then the AI will not let you rape their women and give you gold for your troubles.

 

[Gamewizard]

I'm just giving examples from my small sample size of games. If you give the AI a reason to fight, then they will fight.

 

[EasilyDone]

I really enjoy the new balance of more "civil" civs and aggressive barbs in the early game. Come ideologies, my experience is friction between civs spills more readily into war. As the man said, BNW is a builder game, and I for one am loving it.

 

[Zednaught]

Let's not forget that one of the biggest complaints before BNW was about the AI. Many, if not most, friendships would end with a random denouncement. I hated how random the AI was, how capricious and psychotic it was. To me, this is the result of the AI being 'fixed': they're more stable and rational. Then tradeoff is that they war less often (but claims of 'never' are harder to buy).

And what did constant war bring to the AI? Usually disaster. Either wasting their units against my smaller army or battering themselves against an equally large army of another civ. Basically it just bled their gold and production for little gain. In BNW, there are stronger gold and science incentives to stay at peace. If anything, the AI benefits from less aggression.

I also doubt the claim that that there's no war-there's certainly less of it, at least in the early game, but I still ran into warmongers. Ideologies definitely kick up the aggression, but now there's the added bonus of being able to form coalitions against an opposing ideology. It happened so easily to me that I was shocked. I've never been able to get other civilizations to join with me in a defensive pact before.

My past experience with the AI was that the game typically turned into a mess, with every Civ at war with or hating multiple people.

In one game before BNW, I remember being asked to declare war against a runaway Hiawatha by an Siam, which was being attacked. I do so, and the very next turn he declares war against me and sends his army across the continent to be slaughtered in the ocean while Hiawatha attacked his now defenseless territory. More war does does not necessarily make the game better, especially if it makes a mess of diplomacy.

For me, the most interesting aspect of Civ is developing my empire, so although I usually conquer a civ or two in my games, it's not my main focus. Those wanting more combat have an easy solution-start it yourself. I considered doing it in my current game, but the potential loss of science, gold, and happiness was too much. I suspect the AI makes a similar calculation.

 

[Nickel_lion]

Let's not forget that one of the biggest complaints before BNW was about the AI. Many, if not most, friendships would end with a random denouncement. I hated how random the AI was, how capricious and psychotic it was. To me, this is the result of the AI being 'fixed': they're more stable and rational. Then tradeoff is that they war less often (but claims of 'never' are harder to buy).

And what did constant war bring to the AI? Usually disaster. Either wasting their units against my smaller army or battering themselves against an equally large army of another civ. Basically it just bled their gold and production for little gain. In BNW, there are stronger gold and science incentives to stay at peace. If anything, the AI benefits from less aggression.

I also doubt the claim that that there's no war-there's certainly less of it, at least in the early game, but I still ran into warmongers. Ideologies definitely kick up the aggression, but now there's the added bonus of being able to form coalitions against an opposing ideology. It happened so easily to me that I was shocked. I've never been able to get other civilizations to join with me in a defensive pact before.

My past experience with the AI was that the game typically turned into a mess, with every Civ at war with or hating multiple people.

In one game before BNW, I remember being asked to declare war against a runaway Hiawatha by an Siam, which was being attacked. I do so, and the very next turn he declares war against me and sends his army across the continent to be slaughtered in the ocean while Hiawatha attacked his now defenseless territory. More war does does not necessarily make the game better, especially if it makes a mess of diplomacy.

For me, the most interesting aspect of Civ is developing my empire, so although I usually conquer a civ or two in my games, it's not my main focus. Those wanting more combat have an easy solution-start it yourself. I considered doing it in my current game, but the potential loss of science, gold, and happiness was too much. I suspect the AI makes a similar calculation.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

You just wrote my WHOLE impression about the pointless, annoying AI aggressiveness in G&K and how the fact the AI does not attack so much now MAKES SENSE with the new features added to the game... Thanks again.

And besides that, I just wanted to add my 2cents to the discussion. EVERYBODY has different play styles and what's annoying and even stupid for John and Andrew is just great for me and Louis. AND everybody is having different experiences with BNW, while some say the AI is too friendly and hippie, others see a Hitler in each civ they play with.

People used to complain about how agressive the AI was in G&K and then they complain about how docile it seems to be in BNW...

 

[godman85]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

You just wrote my WHOLE impression about the pointless, annoying AI aggressiveness in G&K and how the fact the AI does not attack so much now MAKES SENSE with the new features added to the game... Thanks again.

so we should just wait for ideology to have a real game of civilization?

 

[Nickel_lion]

Let's not forget that one of the biggest complaints before BNW was about the AI. Many, if not most, friendships would end with a random denouncement. I hated how random the AI was, how capricious and psychotic it was. To me, this is the result of the AI being 'fixed': they're more stable and rational. Then tradeoff is that they war less often (but claims of 'never' are harder to buy).

And what did constant war bring to the AI? Usually disaster. Either wasting their units against my smaller army or battering themselves against an equally large army of another civ. Basically it just bled their gold and production for little gain. In BNW, there are stronger gold and science incentives to stay at peace. If anything, the AI benefits from less aggression.

I also doubt the claim that that there's no war-there's certainly less of it, at least in the early game, but I still ran into warmongers. Ideologies definitely kick up the aggression, but now there's the added bonus of being able to form coalitions against an opposing ideology. It happened so easily to me that I was shocked. I've never been able to get other civilizations to join with me in a defensive pact before.

My past experience with the AI was that the game typically turned into a mess, with every Civ at war with or hating multiple people.

In one game before BNW, I remember being asked to declare war against a runaway Hiawatha by an Siam, which was being attacked. I do so, and the very next turn he declares war against me and sends his army across the continent to be slaughtered in the ocean while Hiawatha attacked his now defenseless territory. More war does does not necessarily make the game better, especially if it makes a mess of diplomacy.

For me, the most interesting aspect of Civ is developing my empire, so although I usually conquer a civ or two in my games, it's not my main focus. Those wanting more combat have an easy solution-start it yourself. I considered doing it in my current game, but the potential loss of science, gold, and happiness was too much. I suspect the AI makes a similar calculation.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

You just wrote my WHOLE impression about the pointless, annoying AI aggressiveness in G&K was and how the fact the AI does not attack so much now MAKES SENSE with the new features added to the game... Thanks again.

People used to complain about how agressive the AI was in G&K and then they complain about how docile it seems to be in BNW...

But let's be unreasonable about it. Let's tell people who want compelling drama in their games to FUK themselves even though they don't want to take away any features added that was consider fun.

I just wanted to add my 2cents to the discussion. EVERYBODY has different play styles and what's annoying and even stupid for John and Andrew is just great for me and Louis. AND everybody is having different experiences with BNW, while some say the AI is too friendly and hippie, others see a Hitler in each civ they play with.

 

[jaldaen]

Something that might help with early aggression is if the Culture Trees worked like lesser ideologies. Perhaps not with such a big effect as ideologies, but with cultures traveling down different trees getting negative modifiers with each other and people traveling down similar trees getting positive modifiers with each other.

It might be interesting to see what would happen with early game aggression with a change like this.

Although I'm not certain if the more warlike Civs being friendly with each other (because of choosing Honor) would be a good or bad thing. Good in that they are more likely to attack "weaker" civs, but bad because they might band together to make Warmonger alliances.

Any modders want to give such an add-on a shot? I'd do it but am strictly an XML modder and this type of mod is probably beyond me.

 

[Zednaught]

so we should just wait for ideology to have a real game of civilization?

Ideological conflict is indeed more interesting than conflict used to be, with the ability to form factions and stable alliances.


But I'm a little confused. Why would you complain about the AI not declaring war when you yourself aren't declaring war? If you want conflict, you can start it in just a few clicks. I'd imagine with a warmonger rep you'll find getting into conflict easier. Otherwise, there seems to be some disconnect between complaining about an AI peacefully developing your empire when you're doing the same thing-and for good reason. There are stronger incentives for peace in BNW.

Like I said, going to war is often a terrible decision for an AI. Usually, it doesn't pay off. It seems more rational to go to war less-though on Immortal, I've certainly experienced AI aggression when I was weak and seen the AI fight it out plenty. Less war, but hardly no war. I'd recommend upping the difficulty-the AI has never been very threatening on lower settings.

What is a 'real' game of civ? The thing he was talking about was how the AI could be counted on to behave randomly and refuse to cooperate even to their detriment. That's wasn't interesting to me, just frustrating.

Some questions:
But why is less conflict (not no conflict) in the early game a bad thing? How can we resolve their lessened aggression with the fact that the mechanics of the game seem to make war a poor decision most of the time.

Is the game most interesting when there's war? I think the answer is yes for you and many others (not saying it's a bad thing).

If so, why can't you just declare war yourself? Seems to solve the problem.

Edit: Another possible cause of the lessened aggression, posited by MadDjinn, is that there are more early wonders and buildings that the AI wants to build.

 

[Nickel_lion]

I accidentally double-posted... I'm new here in the forums and I do not know how to erase my replies. Sorry.

 

[learner gamer]

so we should just wait for ideology to have a real game of civilization?

Pray tell, exactly what constitutes a &#8220;real game" of civilization? And who made you the definitive authority on all things Civ? Are you in fact one of the developers? Or is it possible that you are in fact just another poster on the forum with nothing more than a subjective view of what a game of Civ means to you, or of what aspects (eg. war) or mechanics make Civ enjoyable to you &#8211; a view that you're completely falsely trying to present as the definitive guide to what makes Civ enjoyable for everyone else? If your twitch.tv video is any guide by the way, the answer to this latest question at least is a resounding yes.


@Zednaught: Great post. Not everyone who plays Civ is a warmonger.



There may still indeed be issues with the game &#8211; and it may be that the number of units that the AI produces and / or its aggression needs to be revised higher. I've not yet seen the code to ascertain where it now stands, nor played sufficiently far into my first game of Civ 5 to have a remotely informed view on the matter. However, it does rather strike me that there may be a number of reasons that some folks are seeing less war in their game. If you take a look at @godman85's twitch.tv video for instance, you'll notice that there's still plenty of land available to settle even late in his video. So, in those circumstances, the question that occurred to me is, why should the AI necessarily have to wage early war?

That of course brings me to another possibility that may be behind the issue. Perhaps the AI is now better recognising the value of settling land, especially with the benefit of trade routes. Then again, maybe the AI needs to better evaluate when it should DoW with the units that it has. There's another post in another thread by @PhilBowles meanwhile which mentions that the AI failed to use a plane in a war fought in his game. Perhaps the AI also needs to become better at using its existing troops as well as recognising better when indeed it does have the numbers to DoW the human. Then again, maybe the real issue is that, with the introduction of trade routes in BNW &#8211; which take precious early hammers to produce &#8211; there simply aren't enough hammers available to the AI (and perhaps also the human player) to build an invading force and any other infrastructure that it wants to construct.

In short, it occurs to me at least that there are a number of reasons why folks may be witnessing what they're seeing in game &#8211; and the number of units being produced by the AI and their willingness to use them is just one possibility. Indeed, it was actually the lack of quality in Civ 5's AI &#8211; and not necessarily the number of units produced by the AI - that was the overwhelming message I picked up from watching @godman85's twitch.tv video, particularly when I noticed the peace deals offered by the AI to end the war at the end of his video.

FWIW, those peace deals in that video also reminded me meanwhile that Civ 5's AI has, IMHO at least, been notoriously deficient since vanilla &#8211; and that AI unit spam and early DoWs have in fact been a great way of both covering up those deficiencies and introducing a challenge for some gamers, particularly those who enjoy war. For my part though, as someone who enjoys "building an empire to stand the test of time", I really hope that Firaxis look at identifying and resolving the core problem (eg. by perhaps improving the AI if that's the issue), as opposed to once again simply reverting to increasing unit spam or AI aggressiveness as a band aid solution if that's not the real problem.