They need to hotfix AI agression now

[goodolarchie]

So, were you guys trading with each other?

A very pertinent question, the answer is YES, I had a land route with Athens around turn 30. After DOW'ing a civ in another game in which I had a trade route, I realize I lost my caravan as a result. But what if they DOW you, and the caravan is yours, doesn't it just return to home base?

 

[Karmah]

And again full early game aggression , was neighbor with bismarck and japan , they both declared before turn 100 , one after the other tough. I only had coastal cities and went archer + dromon but still. I even had a full green Japan , friend and RA and all go backstabbing on me.They went on with regular DOW for quite some times , until late renaissance were bismark decided to focus on culture , and Japan was too low on science and went on bismark for a change.
So again , what is this guy talking about ??!!!???
War is an investment amongs others , AI considers it properly as such.

 

[The QC]

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.

Yeah, I don't know how that happened for some people.

My first full BNW game ended around 30 turns in with me quitting after i lost my caravan, a farm, a luxury and generally all initiative in front of a wave of barbarians.

It's possible that this is a bigger problem on more cramped continents, while on bigger ones there's more room for barbarians to spawn far from you. On my second game they were less of a threat, but I also was more aggressive with them and wiped them out with composite bows that my Pathfinders found in some ruins .

 

[Satai Casimir]

Hi Guys!

This is my first post although I'm an avid reader of these forums.

I'm inclined to agree a little that the AI is too timid.

I'm playing as Poland, Small, Large Continents, Marathon.

I usually play on immortal or Deity but thought I'd start on Emperor to get familiar with the systems.

I've spawned on the same continent as Attila and Catherine. I thought I'd be in for it given Attila's reputation as a warmonger and Catherine being a backstabbing wench.

In anticipation of all out conflict I DOW'd Catherine as she was about to plant a settler in a particularly good location I'd been eying up. I nabbed the settlor and it was plain to see that she didn't have the army to take me on so we made peace several turns later (at her instigation). Strangely we've been bezzy mates since then.

All in all, aside from my brief war with Catherine nothing much has happened and it's been a very quiet 300 or so turns. This has allowed my to build several wonders (Great Library, Oracle, Hanging Gardens and Stonehenge) and establish four cities as well as founding Catholicism. I'm just about to complete Chichen Itza.

So far I have a tech lead and am churning out shed loads of culture. Catherine is not too far behind me in culture and tech but has now run into some problems. These problems being Attila.

After pestering me several times to DOW Catherine Attila finally decided he could gobble her up all by himself and within five turns of DOWing her he'd taken Moscow and then settled for a white peace. It was good to see just how well he'd executed his war. A real blitzkrieg. A big thank you and well done to the Devs here as when it comes to war, from what I've seen, the AI is much better.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm next on Attila's list for invasion so I'm just about to plan a nice surprise party for him should he come knocking on my door. I don't have much in the way of military at the moment (an archer, two warriors and a pikeman) and certainly have less than Catherine so I'm not sure why he attacked her first and not me. I'd have been fodder for his horse archers in G&K games so I'm not sure what's going on. I'm not trading with him and he has no reason to like me.

The other bizzare thing is that up until his very successful war with Catherine, Attila had only settled three cities and left an expanse of unsettled land (say enough for two cities) between him, me and Catherine. I've not bothered to settle there as I have found three very juicy coastal locations to the east and west of my capital.

Catherine, has also only settled three cities (bordering my capital and Krakow) but she seems to be going for a cultural/diplo victory as she is trying to wonder spam and has allied successfully with the three city states on our continent.

Whilst I'm really enjoying the game, if truth be told I'm a bit disappointed that Atilla is being so timid. Whatever happened to the hordes of batting rams?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to go back to G&K style pointless aggression but I would have though that the likes of Attila was there just for that purpose, particularly as my civ is a military weakling but Attila just doesn't seem to care!

I've noticed that there is a thread which suggests that there is a bug and if you disable G&K the AIs become much more aggressive. Anyone confirm?

 

[Nickel_lion]

...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!

This, guys... THIS!!!!!!!!

 

[apocalypse105]

This, guys... THIS!!!!!!!!

The Ai actualy considers space if you don't have close borders and he wants you're land he iwll first conquer someone else to get to you or ignore you .

 

[Magean]

The bad point with it is that transcontinental invasions now seem even more unlikely.

I remember, back in Vanilla, Spain sent a large fleet with a medium army across the ocean and DoW'ed me.

Never saw that again.

 

[bjarkieinars]

I'm playing an Emperor game as Venice on Continents map and it looks to me that gold seems to affect warmongering a lot.

As soon as I started a few trade routes to my next door neighbor Assyria, they started rolling over Byzantium, followed by Aztecs, then Egypt. Leaving only the 2 of us on our continent with Assyria having a huge score lead and my BFF since I joined him in all his wars (I only snatched 1 city though, Aztecs cap). All other civs remained peaceful to each other even though Mongolia took out most of the cs's on its continent.

Now I'm sailing with a huge frigate fleet (buying 2x frigates per turn with my crazy trade income) over to the other continents to take the caps from Mongolia, Shoshone and the Huns.

My plan is then to ninja Assyria's capital with 1 cav + x bombers the turn after I research flight.

Venice has so much income its crazy + double merchant gold for when puppets are no longer needed/wanted.

 

[Paradigne]

Are we playing the same game? I was playing G&K on emperor so I decided to drop it down to king with BNW. There have been a few games that by the time I dropped my second city, my opponents had 4 and a full army (about 8 units). I'm not sure how this was possible with a scout->worker->shrine->warrior->settler build, but it bugged me enough to go down to prince. Unfortunately at prince I steamroll them.

I normally play raging barbarians. Maybe that's a factor?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm playing an Emperor game as Venice on Continents map and it looks to me that gold seems to affect warmongering a lot.

As soon as I started a few trade routes to my next door neighbor Assyria, they started rolling over Byzantium, followed by Aztecs, then Egypt. Leaving only the 2 of us on our continent with Assyria having a huge score lead and my BFF since I joined him in all his wars (I only snatched 1 city though, Aztecs cap). All other civs remained peaceful to each other even though Mongolia took out most of the cs's on its continent.

Now I'm sailing with a huge frigate fleet (buying 2x frigates per turn with my crazy trade income) over to the other continents to take the caps from Mongolia, Shoshone and the Huns.

My plan is then to ninja Assyria's capital with 1 cav + x bombers the turn after I research flight.

Venice has so much income its crazy + double merchant gold for when puppets are no longer needed/wanted.

Don't forget to take Constantinople too. The Domination Victory has changed. The winner must hold all the capitals, not just be the last one to hold his own.

 

[bjarkieinars]

Don't forget to take Constantinople too. The Domination Victory has changed. The winner must hold all the capitals, not just be the last one to hold his own.

Ahh, thx I had forgotten about that, then I also need to take Thebes :/

Or maybe I can just buy them off Assyria

 

[Satai Casimir]

Are we playing the same game? I was playing G&K on emperor so I decided to drop it down to king with BNW. There have been a few games that by the time I dropped my second city, my opponents had 4 and a full army (about 8 units). I'm not sure how this was possible with a scout->worker->shrine->warrior->settler build, but it bugged me enough to go down to prince. Unfortunately at prince I steamroll them.

I normally play raging barbarians. Maybe that's a factor?

I am playing with raging barbs . The only difference I've noticed is that the AI now goes after barb camps (presumably for the precious gold).

Other that the two very brief wars I mentioned above its been a very peaceful game.

 

[Teholb]

I've almost finished a game as Morroco, King, Large, Standard, random AIs. I'll post screenshots later, this is crazy. You guys aren't going to believe how ridiculous the InfoAddict graphs look (my military in the early game, mainly). Perhaps the AI does need a kick in the pants as far as aggression goes . . . but then again, I do like that trade routes and income have a restraining effect. It makes relations and location extremely important. I have a single city running almost every trade route of my civ, because it's positioned so perfectly between two empires. It makes me too tempting a trade partner to attack.

I am the glue that bonds the world together in massive DoFriendship alliances that have held for hundreds of years. My first war began in the late Industrial era. Denmark thought to get uppity, built a massive military force, and started threatening my subjects (poor, poor Ragusa ) and I. Having the majority of the delegates in the World Congress paid off when I got a massive tax penalty enacted on standing armies. After 15-20 turns of economic sabotage, I felt Denmark was ripe for the plucking. And ripe it was.

Nobody DoW's me because they're all afraid of me at this point (I would be, too, if someone had carriers with atomic weaponry sailing the high seas). Now the world sits in tense anticipation as Siam appears to be building a grudge against me (I chose Order, they chose Freedom). They have access to uranium and they have built the Manhattan project. I'm well on my way to a Science victory, but I'm not sure the world will survive the nuclear holocaust long enough to complete it


. . .this is the only game I play that I really feel like I can get into the role of a world leader. Idk if it's the 3D leader scenes or just the cool interplay of features (which were so lacking in Vanilla/G&K that I often played with NiGHTS as a matter of course), but this game draws me in like no other. I can't wait to see how this game ends- hopefully I can avoid any further bloodshed, 'cause Siam's capital is linked to mine directly via roads (as are two or three other civs . . . I'm the trade prince of Morroco).

 

[blackcatatonic]

Perhaps the AI does need a kick in the pants as far as aggression goes . . . but then again, I do like that trade routes and income have a restraining effect.

Set up a trade route with Shaka after we signed an uneasy peace, just to see how this would work.

I sent him a Caravan, a few turns later he sent a bunch of Impis to surround my capital...

 

[Kwami]

In my first full game (Poland, Immortal, Continents, Standard, Standard), I never had a single war. I had one Archer unit in each city (upgraded as tech and gold allowed), my starting Warrior (not upgraded), and six free Foreign Legions from the Freedom tree (upgraded as tech and gold allowed). My neighbors were The Iroquois and Babylon. On the other continent were Zulu, Greece, Russia, India, and the Netherlands. Russia and Zulu killed the Netherlands fairly early, but then the entire world was more or less at peace for the rest of the game. Zulu was the only aggressive player. Worse, I was listed #1-2 for military strength for most of the game.

Even ideologies didn't matter. I chose mine first (Freedom) and the other two civs on my continent also chose Freedom. Everyone on the other continent went with Order except for Greece, who also went Freedom. I was friends with everyone in the game regardless. Even when Russia and Zulu were in Civil Disobedience because of my awesome Freedom tourism and Russia was at -15 or so Happiness, she still signed DoF and Open Borders with me until the end.

The AI is probably too peaceful. I'd like to have to defend myself again.

EDIT: In my second game (Morocco, Immortal, Continents, Standard, Standard), I started near China. I forward settled on her with my third city to claim Lake Victoria before she could. Three turns later, she asked for a DoF and she's been my friend ever since. My military consisted of a Scout, the starting Warrior (not upgraded because I don't have Iron), and two Archers. :/

 

[Teholb]

Set up a trade route with Shaka after we signed an uneasy peace, just to see how this would work.

I sent him a Caravan, a few turns later he sent a bunch of Impis to surround my capital...

Hahahaha

Well, you know, context is everything I generally cultivate peaceful relations from the very beginning of the game, even going so far as to accede to AI requests for luxuries, GPT, or strategic resources for nothing in return. They really like that, and if I can afford it, I will "purchase" world stability to ensure the continued prosperity of my trade unions. I don't lash out until I have most AIs in my diplomatic pocket, at which point they'll all fall into line and denounce whomever I so choose with a little gentle massaging.

 

[Teholb]

Ok, don't laugh at my current GPT, some serious shyte went down and Denmark had to be put in it's place. Reference the Military ss

 

[Jaybe]

Open image in new tab if they don't display in this forum

Still doesn't seem to work.

EDIT: OMG, now it works just fine without the tab.

 

[Teholb]

Still doesn't seem to work.

Reuploaded to a different host, sorry 'bout that.

I think this is the best I've done since the release of G&K. I'm not really a hardcore player, but this expansion really opened up a huge new toolbox that I like to use. Military was formerly the only way to truly influence other civs before BNW, imo.

 

[Nickel_lion]

. . .this is the only game I play that I really feel like I can get into the role of a world leader.

Ok, guys. THIS is the main reason I like the new features of BNW.

Although I'm a builder-type in the early stages of the game, I would also like some threat, especially in later eras, a kind of rebel nation. SO I can understand some complaints about the AI being passive THE WHOLE GAME (Although I must make this clear: I HAVEN`T EXPERIENCED THAT In EVERY ONE of the games I've played so far) The AI being extremely docile has been a RANDOM, RARE feature to me. Most of the times I get at least ONE (or more, depending on the civs I choose to play with) warmongering civ in my games.

In this sense, I think that as it happens sometimes so, I hold the idea the game has not to be "fixed", somehow. Maybe a Mod to ensure warmongering, psychotic civs every game!??