They need to hotfix AI agression now

[Balerune]

Yeah they definitely need to put out a patch.

I am playing on King (my usual setting from Gods and Kings) with Standard map with 8 civs and 16 city states.

I quickly discovered it was just me and Poland on a small to medium size continent. I declared war on him and captured two of his settlers. No other fighting occurred and we eventually made an equitable peace with him giving me two gold a turn.

After a time, I declared war on him again this time with three catapults, two spearmen and two composite bowmen moving on Warsaw. I knew from G&K I was going to have a fight on my hands.

Lo and behold all Warsaw had was city walls and NO Garrisons of any type!! Unbelievable.

He knew I was bent on his destruction from our earlier conflict but built no military at all to save himself.

I captured Warsaw and a small city without losing a unit, and still have not seen a Polish military (I did kill a Polish warrior far to the western side of the continent).

Something definitely needs fixing when a civilization won't even defend itself.....

The difficulty setting you use makes a big difference.

I see that there is no "always war" button which had been available; perhaps someone could mod that.

You can always select the civilizations that are in game if you want a more warlike game.

Maps make a large difference as well as staring positions. If you really want a challenge just start a game in a lousy starting position no matter what the difficulty.

My point is that you have a large amount of control over how you play the game; it takes a bit of proper set-up.

 

[iam2509]

I believe the AI should have built a military of some kind since it is 100 AD. Having the Polish civilization have no military, (In my both wars, I only killed TWO warriors) is a flaw that needs to be fixed.

In Gods and Kings I have never faced a situation even close to this...

 

[Buccaneer]

Well, firstly I just want to mention that considering the Impi are a Pikeman replacement, if I'm seeing ten of those in turn 40 I've already lost. But I'm guessing you just thought they'd be a warrior replacement (a reasonable assumption).

That said, while all Civs should try to take advantage of the era of their UU, I'm just not sure how you'd make such early war workable for the AI in BNW. If you can find a way to make it work, sure, Montezuma should attack early to make use of his Jaguars. But I think you can agree that the list of people willing to attack that early is VERY limited.

Out of 43, you're probably right (now that Zulus should not be on that list, my bad). But I guess it's based on how early is early. I think Greece can get a swarm of Hoplites and CompCavs up fairly early and those are quite dangerous (I've seen that before).

In one G&K game, I built five Atlatists after the initial scout to take out a very close-by capital (before they expanded) and then I turtled. They did the job well, so why should not the Mayans take advantage of a similar opportunity in BNW? It wouldn't take long before their UU becomes out-dated.

 

[DemonMaster]

I believe the AI should have built a military of some kind since it is 100 AD. Having the Polish civilization have no military, (In my both wars, I only killed TWO warriors) is a flaw that needs to be fixed.

And I got killed by Attila, extremely early by a Battling Ram and a Warrior while I had none. We all make mistakes.

 

[Magic of Friend]

NOBODY actually said that. We NEVER stated a desire of easy victories (otherwise, we would all playing settler), The AI DOES DECLARE WAR, but in this expansion, it does it in LATER ERAS!!

"I dont want an easy win, I just want to be able to build nothing but Science and Cultural building for 5000 years, without having to worry about any threats. Then I want the A.I. to attack me when im way ahead of it in military technology and units. But I dont want an easy win."

Moderator Action: Please state your opinion without all the sarcasm as this is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Buccaneer]

The difficulty setting you use makes a big difference.

I see that there is no "always war" button which had been available; perhaps someone could mod that.

You can always select the civilizations that are in game if you want a more warlike game.

Maps make a large difference as well as staring positions. If you really want a challenge just start a game in a lousy starting position no matter what the difficulty.

My point is that you have a large amount of control over how you play the game; it takes a bit of proper set-up

How do we control the AI's ability to defend and its vulnerability? Would Poland, in his game on Immortal instead, have built much better defenses? Just like we must pay attention to tourism (and science, as always) no matter what kind of victory, wouldn't a more balanced game also dictate that all players must pay attention to defenses?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Out of 43, you're probably right (now that Zulus should not be on that list, my bad). But I guess it's based on how early is early. I think Greece can get a swarm of Hoplites and CompCavs up fairly early and those are quite dangerous (I've seen that before).

In one G&K game, I built five Atlatists after the initial scout to take out a very close-by capital (before they expanded) and then I turtled. They did the job well, so why should not the Mayans take advantage of a similar opportunity in BNW? It wouldn't take long before their UU becomes out-dated.

Personally, I think it should be dictated by ages. Mayans, Aztecs, those people with Warrior and Spearman replacements should be the early war types (although I'm not sure the Mayans should be warmongers at all. They never struck me to be the type.) People like Alex are clearly early classical, so they should war about that time. Zulu, obviously, should go to war in the early medieval, with their Impi.

That said, you need to figure out "which civs SHOULD be warmongers" before you ask "WHEN should civs be warmongers".

 

[goodolarchie]

Thumbed through a few pages of the thread... lots of anecdotes about the dove-like diplomacy and blanket aggressiveness changes, and my experiences reflect the very same.

In my most recent Immortal game, I settled with a 2 tile margin between myself and Alex, who had an army of at least 12 archers/warriors/hoplites, he could have (and should have, my REX'ing was DOW worthy, I locked him into a penninsula). Instead, he didn't do anything, except slowly filch all the city-states. Surely, Alexander the Great aught to be an early warring AI, thought I. I waited, he never came.

In fact, the only ones who have initiated a war in any of my ~10 BNW games, against any civ, in any era, have been Assyria (in every game, around turn 75 like clockwork), Shaka, Morocco, and Monty. If I denounce an AI early on at Emperor+, I liken this with "come at me bro." Most AI's just roll over. For trade purposes? If that's the case, just fix the trade weight value, surely losing 2 GPT is worth the opportunity to squelch some paltry human player.

I would echo other sentiments in this thread about modding in an aggressiveness slider if that's possible in code, or something that incurs a higher likelihood of an early war (other than rerolling games until zulu lands next to you, in which case your games will just be formulaic). After playing CivUP and GEM, I don't find the barbarians to be a challenge compared to an early unexpected war dec.

Vanilla and G&K: AI got to the dickplomat.
BNW: You get to be the dickplomat.

Tonight I will try an Emperor game with Monty, Danish, Zulu, Assyria, Attila, and Mongolia, let's see who the real doves are

 

[steveg700]

I'm playing a large pangea map with Portugal. Guess what? It's another mega-bloodbath.

I had to liberate Venice from Japan as the latter were warmongering. Then after I beat them back, Siam came and finished them off. Now Siam is on the warpath, and as of my last logoff, Veince was again about to fall.

Meanwhile, Polynesia keep attacking my neighboring ally CS, Panama City, and I keep feeding them units to fend them off. Polynesia, Songhai, and the Ottomans have gone at off and on. I actually had to look at the Deal History to remember that it was Mongolia that got eliminated way back in the middle ages.

I'm at industrial era now, with no ideologies in play yet.

Oh, and it's only King difficulty.

Easily one of the most brutal games I've played in a long time. The AI really goes for the throat. None of this leaving a pity city for the loser to squat in.

So, there you go, folks. More anecdotal evidence that defies the sky-falling hyperbole.

 

[Jman5]

To be perfectly blunt, dowing me early is probably the worst thing an AI can do. I always get two composite bows very early via the Shoshone Pathfinder upgrade. Combined with my Oligarchy policy, and +15 combat strength UA, I always wind up demolishing early aggression.

By the end of what is usually a very short war, I tend to make out like a bandit. The AI on the other hand spends the rest of the game hopeless backward and weak.

More on topic, I've had early aggression in all my games for BNW on Immortal and Emperor. And every game the aggressor gets hated on by all the other civs and sits in last place for the rest of the match.

 

[steveg700]

Thumbed through a few pages of the thread... lots of anecdotes about the dove-like diplomacy and blanket aggressiveness changes, and my experiences reflect the very same.

In my most recent Immortal game, I settled with a 2 tile margin between myself and Alex, who had an army of at least 12 archers/warriors/hoplites, he could have (and should have, my REX'ing was DOW worthy, I locked him into a penninsula). Instead, he didn't do anything, except slowly filch all the city-states. Surely, Alexander the Great aught to be an early warring AI, thought I. I waited, he never came.

So, were you guys trading with each other?

To be perfectly blunt, dowing me early is probably the worst thing an AI can do. I always get two composite bows very early via the Shoshone Pathfinder upgrade. Combined with my Oligarchy policy, and +15 combat strength UA, I always wind up demolishing early aggression.

By the end of what is usually a very short war, I tend to make out like a bandit. The AI on the other hand spends the rest of the game hopeless backward and weak.

No, the AIs that are peaceful in the early game always do much better.

That sentiment is very much at the heart of this discussion. Is the decreased likelihood of early really a detriment to the challenge, or does it negate certain chickenhawk tactics.

 

[Buccaneer]

That said, you need to figure out "which civs SHOULD be warmongers" before you ask "WHEN should civs be warmongers".

I think it should be the other way around. Taking advantage of a Warrior or Spearman replacement when others are weak would be in line with "the AI assessing the situation". What better opportunity does the Mayans have to get a choice capital if it's nearby? If you deemed the Mayans should not go to war, then you have just invalided their UU. It should not matter if they are or not, if the situation presents itself - just like I did after I saw that nearby capital.

 

[Buccaneer]

To be perfectly blunt, dowing me early is probably the worst thing an AI can do. I always get two composite bows very early via the Shoshone Pathfinder upgrade. Combined with my Oligarchy policy, and +15 combat strength UA, I always wind up demolishing early aggression.

By the end of what is usually a very short war, I tend to make out like a bandit. The AI on the other hand spends the rest of the game hopeless backward and weak.

No, the AIs that are peaceful in the early game always do much better.

Against the human player and the Shoshone at that, well I don't think the assessment would score very high. But what if the AI can get three Jaguars or Battering Rams against another AI capital that only has two Warriors? People have seen that happen in BNW, I believe, so it should not be tuned that the AI should never do this (take advantage of a good opportunity).

 

[bison21]

I just started a game on king out of curiosity (small continents, standard size, quick pace) and after less than 100 turns, Poland has by far the largest army with over 10 units (!).

It's funny, I grew so accustomed to the constant war-mongering it now feels that this is what is lacking- but DOWing at turn 50 only to defend with a few archers isn't exactly asking for strategic decisions- you just knew it was going to happen and were prepared.

I feel now with the trading routes, the barbarians are the real warmongers. The necessity to trade makes the AI more peaceful, but I have been back-stabbed by Attila (who had captured a city state), Elizabeth went all sour with me over some land, Ramses is fruitcake as usual.

 

[ww2commander]

I am indifferent to whether on not the game I play has a lot of wars or not, but I would like to share my observations up to this point from my second game (first game was mostly experimenting with the new features) using the huge earth map from the YnAEM mod. I must note that I am using the 28 Civ DLL with it (I am pretty sure that it only changes the player cap and nothing else).

I am playing England so I do not expect much war on my part early game given my island separation 'advantage'. I like to emulate history (settling in areas England would of historically) and thus I also tend to be less aggressive focusing instead on wide empire tactics. I only go to war when I really have to.

Game Settings: Epic speed, Prince difficulty, 26 civs, 22 CS, true starting locations

IMPORTANT EDIT: I forgot that I have also included the 'Less warmongering hate' mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=20358). This should in theory makes things more peaceful???

Observations:
1. Shaka has conquered the bottom half of Africa and is constantly aggressive towards me with denouncements. Most of the other players have denounced him and I always receive invites to join in on attacking him. He is also attacking various CS at random points in the game but it mostly ends in stalemate.

2. Spain conquered Portugal within first 100 turns and then settled down and has not said peep for a while!

3. Poland conquered Berlin and 2 Greek cities early game and is pretty much the enemy of every player north of the equator! I have been alerted to atleast 4 'world wars' in the past 200 turns where Poland is at war with at least 3-5 European and Asian civs simultaneously. He has a very good army and can hold all his captured territory at this stage. I get constantly spammed to join these wars from almost each player. France and Japan tend to be the major opposing forces in the most recent battle fielding armies up to 10 units against Poland

4. Egypt and Greece are constantly arguing and battling on and off. Greece lost a city but its mostly small skirmishes.

5. Barbarians are breeding like cockroaches in dark undisturbed corners of the map such as Siberia, Greenland, Australia and upper North America. I have just settled in Australia and the bugs are now running around like crazy. Luckily quite a few militaristic CS have been donating free units with a few popping up in Australia just in the nick of time

6. Upon arriving and settling in North America, I noticed that the Americans and Aztecs have not made much progress due to barbarians out of control in the Rockies. (I don't have any native American civs in this game).

7. Arabia is wonder and religion spamming and won't go to war at all. I gather the AI knows its on to a good thing and won't break it.

8. China, India and Siam have also had a few skirmishes in the past but tend to be a bit more chilled out in the last 100 turns.

9 (EDIT) Indonesia...well...it has populated a few islands in its location but has not done much of anything else

My overall view is that the game has a better feel (for an Earth map) than G&K and I like the fact that players are not going schizo DoWing themselves into oblivion for no real gain.

As others have stated, there is too much at stake with trade routes and culture so it feels like civs are more calculated and pick their fights where there is something to gain 95% of the time. Some players are functioning on negative or single digit GPT and thus can't do much warring any way!.

The exceptions, Poland and Zulu did quite a few bad things early game and thus the 'underlying AI numbers' for those civs mean constant war around those areas.

I noticed that Europe and upper Africa, where most of the congestion is, tends to be more of a powder keg. Thus I gather proximity factors have a lot to do with aggression. The North American civs who have more breathing space tend to be more passive!!!

My conclusion is that the diplomacy and warfare in BNW feels more 'balanced' and the AI is holding its cards much closer to its chest than G&K. This is a good thing in my mind as I prefer playing with an AI that has reason for aggression rather than a random out of the blue 'well I guess this means war!" DoW by 3 distant civs at the same time for no reason!

 

[jaldaen]

Perhaps the early game "warmonger" Civs should have a little AI help. I've always thought it'd be cool if during certain eras of the game certain civs increased their warmongering inclinations. Some civs would be heavy warmongers in the Early and Classical eras (those with UUs in those eras), others in medieval and renaissance, and so on. This would perhaps help the AIs make better use of their UUs by "inspiring" them to war when they are best at it. Then, as those eras pass, their warmongering buff would go away. Some civs, those with multiple UUs, might even have two of these buffs during a game.

 

[EgyptRaider]

Personally, I think it should be dictated by ages. Mayans, Aztecs, those people with Warrior and Spearman replacements should be the early war types (although I'm not sure the Mayans should be warmongers at all. They never struck me to be the type.) People like Alex are clearly early classical, so they should war about that time. Zulu, obviously, should go to war in the early medieval, with their Impi.

That said, you need to figure out "which civs SHOULD be warmongers" before you ask "WHEN should civs be warmongers".

This sounds really logical. Civs should utilize their UU's

 

[Calouste]

I think it should be the other way around. Taking advantage of a Warrior or Spearman replacement when others are weak would be in line with "the AI assessing the situation". What better opportunity does the Mayans have to get a choice capital if it's nearby? If you deemed the Mayans should not go to war, then you have just invalided their UU. It should not matter if they are or not, if the situation presents itself - just like I did after I saw that nearby capital.

The opportunity still has to be there, and a nearby capital that's easy to capture doesn't occur that often. What occurs far more often as an early opportunity is clearing out a barb camp for a city state, and the early UUs are good at that as well. The Mayan UU of course doesn't get any particular benefit for fighting against cities, they're just slightly cheaper and available earlier, but the only way to use that advantage is to start building them from turn 1 and just hope there is a capital near. The only civ that should DoW early often are the Huns, they can't use their UU for anything else.

 

[RedFuneral]

I just had a very strange war with Germany. At this point Germany was down to two cities(their capital having been stolen by Assyria and as far as I could tell they weren't a threat to anyone.(though they putting out a lot of their first UU). Assyria came to me asking me to DoW Germany with him. I obliged as my troops needed some promotions before I went after France. Within the next 15 turns we'd each razed one of his last two cities and knocked him out of the game. Immediately after his defeat Assyria asked me to DoW Khan with him, of which I refused(he's not a threat and he's a good trade partner).

Now I'm asking myself why Assyria wanted rid of Germany so badly, was it the militaristic CS Germany had liberated from Khan? Was it the fact Assyria wanted to attack Khan but was worried Germany would take advantage of the situation and try to liberate his capital? Or did he maybe want to capture the city that I razed?(which was located right outside Sweden's capital city) All I know now is that half of the continent is a smoking ruin. I've never seen AI this war-hungry before. I guess it's probably because I'm a bit isolated behind Assyria so I'm his sole trade partner.(and he's probably making at least 60gpt off me) He has nothing to lose with his wars unless he turns on me.

Also worth noting that I nearly made the same mistake Songhai did early in the game, that being marching my whole army across Assyria's borders to pick on a weaker AI. After I had moved the majority of my force to the other side of the map he started piling units on our border. Fortunately I had enough units there to discourage any bold moves he could have made. As soon as I got a few pikes in the area he retreated back into the fog. Almost makes me worried that the AI learned from my prior invasion.(of Songhai)

 

[footslogger]

I haven't played BNW yet, but I'm finding it hard to square what I read about rampaging early barbarians with all the talk of not needing to build an army. Someone said he went through the whole game with only a scout and an archer! How is this possible? If you want early trade routes don't they have to be protected from barbarians? Don't barbarian camps have to be eliminated? I'd have thought you needed several military units for those purposes alone even if the AI is playing passively. Perhaps someone can explain.