They need to hotfix AI agression now

[Uncle_Joe]

The game has lost the tension created by the threat of an early ai attack. That is not good change. One no longer has to ponder the next build order "maybe I should build another archer before I start building the market in case the ai rushes me." It just isn't as much fun as it used to be.

Yep, that's it exactly for me. I end up stopping games in the 1500s now because it's so easy to get ahead due to not needing a military.

Sure, I could crank up difficulty, but that just give the AI more bonuses that I have to compete with. I want the AI to respond to my military weakness and huge econ/science base, not just sit back and try and out build/out tech me with massive artificial bonuses.

In short, at the same difficult at which I was playing G&K and being challenged, I'm bored to tears by 1500. No threats, no need to do much more than crank the econ/science machine and hit 'Next Turn' until I win.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

That is the problem for many, right there.

This is NOT StarCraft. I know Shafer's Civ5 may have spoiled a large group of people into thinking something in that line about the franchise, but Civilization is a strategy franchise, not a real-time light tactical game. No offense.

With BNW, the new developer team has finally brought this iteration back to what the franchise really is about. Obviously, some edges may still be a little rough and in need of adjustment and balance, but this was one huge step in the right direction. The AI is playing at the strategic level now, not "zerging" and suiciding against my walls anymore, and that is good. If you want to play StarCraft, then play StarCraft; if you want to play Panzer General, then play Panzer General.

If you want to play Civilization, you are most welcome.

Being passive != 'playing strategic'

On bigger maps with slower game speed the AI issue becomes more apparent. Max out the map size and duration and the AI can't even properly fill out a continent. I've seen few AIs that just for some reason got stuck on 2 cities on huge world on marathon speed until 1500 AD with no neighbors.

BTW Starcraft (or any RTS with base building really) is not 'light tactical', it is fully strategic because you have full control over the infrastructure (very basic, but a model nonetheless) from which your army is based around. It's not operational, but it is definitely strategic. And I'm sure you meant offense because Teejing only brought up Starcraft to talk about the most rudimentary strategy issues (that is, if you spend lot of resource on army over economy but don't fight, much of the resources spent is wasted) with the current AI. The relation that Teejing drew was on such fundamental level that you going anal about that game didn't serve any other purpose than to antagonize fans of that franchise.

 

[andrewlt]

That is the problem for many, right there.

This is NOT StarCraft. I know Shafer's Civ5 may have spoiled a large group of people into thinking something in that line about the franchise, but Civilization is a strategy franchise, not a real-time light tactical game. No offense.

With BNW, the new developer team has finally brought this iteration back to what the franchise really is about. Obviously, some edges may still be a little rough and in need of adjustment and balance, but this was one huge step in the right direction. The AI is playing at the strategic level now, not "zerging" and suiciding against my walls anymore, and that is good. If you want to play StarCraft, then play StarCraft; if you want to play Panzer General, then play Panzer General.

If you want to play Civilization, you are most welcome.

I find it sad when people say "no offense" when they clearly meant to give offense.

I started playing this series with Civ 2. Between Civs 2-4, I was routinely expanding and conquering my way to 20-50 cities. Not building 4 cities, stopping there, and turtling my way to a science/culture/diplomatic victory. And all the while being completely oblivious to what the AI is doing since I don't gain anything from attacking them and they won't attack me, either.

Civilization isn't Simcity or the Sims, either.

 

[Buccaneer]

There are good reasons for difficulty levels. If you don't want the competition of immortal or deity, then do not expect to have a competitive game.

 

[darden]

Yep, that's it exactly for me. I end up stopping games in the 1500s now because it's so easy to get ahead due to not needing a military.

Sure, I could crank up difficulty, but that just give the AI more bonuses that I have to compete with. I want the AI to respond to my military weakness and huge econ/science base, not just sit back and try and out build/out tech me with massive artificial bonuses.

In short, at the same difficult at which I was playing G&K and being challenged, I'm bored to tears by 1500. No threats, no need to do much more than crank the econ/science machine and hit 'Next Turn' until I win.

next game, just make sure you've got Elizabeth, Genghis Khan, and another warmonger or two sharing your continent... they'll make sure you build some units.

for whatever reason, I've also found that taking out city states seems to make the AI a lot more aggressive. maybe they've got more money to blow.

 

[Twahn]

In the game I'm currently playing I've been gang declared by Mongolia and Zulu in the Medieval era, which in turn led to my many friends being dragged in and a war resulting that no nation on the planet was not involved in and which has been on and off for the entire game into the Industrial era and is still unresolved. Morocco has just turned traitor (I always knew they weren't really into me that much) and declared war on me in the Industrial era too.
Mongolia had already wiped out Egypt in the Classical era before the turned on me.
Plenty of war here. We've barely know peace in fact.

The game before that saw my Persian empire only being saved due to my Immortals (I'd forgotten how good these guys were) with a biltz attack DOW from the Songhai due to them getting cranky at my rapid expansion. This was obviously a Classical era war.

Both games on Emperor.

 

[Civking5]

After playing three full games with new expansion, immortal/ large map/ standard, I reached to the conclusion that AI aggressiveness is almost the same as before and depending on who your neighbours are ( I am looking at you, Shaka!), you could get involved into wars even from early eras in games.

 

[Buccaneer]

Here's a good challenge for those that think Civ should be a challenging game (hint: it's not played at an easy level)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502035

 

[Zodan_Mir]

So, wait ... "aggression" is only defined in terms of war?

Brave New World provides several new systems/ways of competing offensively with other civs--many of which have nothing at all to do with war. But, if the AI uses any of these new systems, to the exclusion of war (cuz, ya know, there is only so much gold to go around in the early game), it's considered "passive"?

War was predominant in G&K because that was/is the only system that provided any kind of offensive 'pushback' from the AI. In G&K, there is no way for the AI to really engage in a 'culture game' or a 'diplomatic game', at least in no way that has any kind of offensive component to it--therefore, no challenge. The only challenge left in G&K, therefore, was to ramp up war, and to make an AI-driven 'carpet of doom' a real threat that the AI could pressure you with.

In Brave New World, the AI has more options to apply offensive pressure. To compare it with G&K is like comparing apples and coconuts. Kind of silly, really. I could see Firaxis maybe making the AI more devious with executing 'wars of opportunity', but again, with the new trade, diplomatic and/or culture systems in place--all of which benefit greatly from peaceful relations--this might be easier said than done.

 

[apocalypse105]

After playing three full games with new expansion, immortal/ large map/ standard, I reached to the conclusion that AI aggressiveness is almost the same as before and depending on who your neighbours are ( I am looking at you, Shaka!), you could get involved into wars even from early eras in games.

impi's are anoying

 

[Uncle_Joe]

So, wait ... "aggression" is only defined in terms of war?

Brave New World provides several new systems/ways of competing offensively with other civs--many of which have nothing at all to do with war. But, if the AI uses any of these new systems, to the exclusion of war (cuz, ya know, there is only so much gold to go around in the early game), it's considered "passive"?

War was predominant in G&K because that was/is the only system that provided any kind of offensive 'pushback' from the AI. In G&K, there is no way for the AI to really engage in a 'culture game' or a 'diplomatic game', at least in no way that has any kind of offensive component to it--therefore, no challenge. The only challenge left in G&K, therefore, was to ramp up war, and to make an AI-driven 'carpet of doom' a real threat that the AI could pressure you with.

In Brave New World, the AI has more options to apply offensive pressure. To compare it with G&K is like comparing apples and coconuts. Kind of silly, really. I could see Firaxis maybe making the AI more devious with executing 'wars of opportunity', but again, with the new trade, diplomatic and/or culture systems in place--all of which benefit greatly from peaceful relations--this might be easier said than done.

None of those 'options' change the basic fact that armies are EXPENSIVE (both in production and especially, upkeep). If you have army, you need to get your money's worth either in taking things from neighboring Civs or in making sure that you deter neighboring Civs from taking from YOU.

In BNW, I have no felt the need to build an army any larger than needed for anti-barbarian duty. In 4 games on King (same I usually played in G&K) I have not been attacked once despite generally being in the bottom of the military ranking most of the game.

So it's not rocket science to see that I'm gaining a HUGE advantage in production and cash over the AIs that have piles of units sitting in their empires and not using them to at least force me to be honest and have SOMETHING for defense.

It's not a question of constant attacks or warfare. It's a question of simple economics...

 

[tat501]

None of those 'options' change the basic fact that armies are EXPENSIVE (both in production and especially, upkeep). If you have army, you need to get your money's worth either in taking things from neighboring Civs or in making sure that you deter neighboring Civs from taking from YOU.

In BNW, I have no felt the need to build an army any larger than needed for anti-barbarian duty. In 4 games on King (same I usually played in G&K) I have not been attacked once despite generally being in the bottom of the military ranking most of the game.

So it's not rocket science to see that I'm gaining a HUGE advantage in production and cash over the AIs that have piles of units sitting in their empires and not using them to at least force me to be honest and have SOMETHING for defense.

It's not a question of constant attacks or warfare. It's a question of simple economics...

Very true Uncle Joe.

Perfect example is in my current game with Venice which I mentioned in another thread bemoaning the lack of aggression.

On Emperor - I'm bringing in 371 gpt - expending 112gpt for a profit of 259gpt.
85 of that 112 gpt expenditure is building expenditure. Im spending only 27gpt on my army/navy.

My army consists of a pikeman, a composite bowman and some frigates and caravels.

In the Industrial Era. On Emperor....

I have only 54,000 troops under arms compared to the military leaders the Ottomans who have over 270,000. I'm 5th in GNP.

I have not been to war once on this game - never been attacked. Doubt I ever will be. Ill just cruise to a diplomacy win. I already control most of the city states.

But I could be killed in about a 10 turn campaign by the Turks who are settled all around me. They just wont attack!!

 

[tekjunkie]

That is the problem for many, right there.

This is NOT StarCraft. I know Shafer's Civ5 may have spoiled a large group of people into thinking something in that line about the franchise, but Civilization is a strategy franchise, not a real-time light tactical game. No offense.

With BNW, the new developer team has finally brought this iteration back to what the franchise really is about. Obviously, some edges may still be a little rough and in need of adjustment and balance, but this was one huge step in the right direction. The AI is playing at the strategic level now, not "zerging" and suiciding against my walls anymore, and that is good. If you want to play StarCraft, then play StarCraft; if you want to play Panzer General, then play Panzer General.

If you want to play Civilization, you are most welcome.

THIS!! You hit the nail smack on the head buddy. I sadly didnt realize what civilization was until civ 3 but I loved it. Civ 4 was awesome too but it soured me a tad at the beganning bc of the ATI videocard but that kept the game from starting. Civ 5 was bland at first and its been getting better. I have to say that this game now reminds me of my days of civ 3 and "just one more turn syndrome." I would love to see this AI really get good. It HAS POTENTIAL I believe but it need some TLC. I wanna wake up every mornign and call in sick just to play. Its really gotten that good.

As for aggression, I have noticed its less but thats a good thing. Just like a few ppl said earlier about the AI being smart in its decisions. Its really engaging and thats what i want to see. Playing multiplayer with friends vs AI is great but whats really cool is if the AI makes you think and gives you a real challenge. Its even better when ppl come here and i get to read there battle reports. Love it.

Overall Im very im pressed with this. The AI is playing on a more Strategic Level, and I want more of that!

 

[Calouste]

Very true Uncle Joe.

Perfect example is in my current game with Venice which I mentioned in another thread bemoaning the lack of aggression.

On Emperor - I'm bringing in 371 gpt - expending 112gpt for a profit of 259gpt.
85 of that 112 gpt expenditure is building expenditure. Im spending only 27gpt on my army/navy.

My army consists of a pikeman, a composite bowman and some frigates and caravels.

In the Industrial Era. On Emperor....

I have only 54,000 troops under arms compared to the military leaders the Ottomans who have over 270,000. I'm 5th in GNP.

I have not been to war once on this game - never been attacked. Doubt I ever will be. Ill just cruise to a diplomacy win. I already control most of the city states.

But I could be killed in about a 10 turn campaign by the Turks who are settled all around me. They just wont attack!!

You have a fairly large income, so you can buy a unit every 2-3 turns, and upgrade the ones you have, not counting any cash you might have at the moment. And you are allied to a large number of city states that will declare on the Ottomans when they DoW you. Attacking you is just not that attractive a proposition for the Ottomans as you make it seem.

 

[tat501]

You have a fairly large income, so you can buy a unit every 2-3 turns, and upgrade the ones you have, not counting any cash you might have at the moment. And you are allied to a large number of city states that will declare on the Ottomans when they DoW you. Attacking you is just not that attractive a proposition for the Ottomans as you make it seem.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way.

IN G&K IIRC the AI only took into consideration current gold stocks - i.e. how much cash you had at that moment in time when considering comparative strength. Do you think they now take GNP into consideration?

 

[tekjunkie]

Yep, that's it exactly for me. I end up stopping games in the 1500s now because it's so easy to get ahead due to not needing a military.

Sure, I could crank up difficulty, but that just give the AI more bonuses that I have to compete with. I want the AI to respond to my military weakness and huge econ/science base, not just sit back and try and out build/out tech me with massive artificial bonuses.

In short, at the same difficult at which I was playing G&K and being challenged, I'm bored to tears by 1500. No threats, no need to do much more than crank the econ/science machine and hit 'Next Turn' until I win.

There is 2 sides to this coin.

1. The AI should be more agressive in this aspect. But, as we seen here, a guy a few pages back was taken out early by a hun battering ram and warrior. That was hilarious and awesome, i wanna see more of this.

2. The game plays HOW YOU want it to, to an extent. You can play passive and the AI will also. But you can play passive/aggressive and the AI will probably DoW you at some point.

Play style seems to play out more now then ever before. Which can be boring but thats what all the customizations are for when u create a game. And on the flip side of that I do think there needs to be some ransdomness added in. Random evens would be cool but I want it to add/enhance gameplay and not be over bearing. It seems now we have a good mix.

 

[Calouste]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way.

IN G&K IIRC the AI only took into consideration current gold stocks - i.e. how much cash you had at that moment in time when considering comparative strength. Do you think they now take GNP into consideration?

I don't know if the AI takes GNP into consideration, but I certainly would

Also, if the Ottomans declare on you, they would lose all their trade routes and friendship benefits they currently have with the city states you're allied with. Not great for them either.

 

[isau]

I am on the fence. But just based on what I've seen so far, I thought the way the AI behaved in Gods and Kings was better in terms of the gameplay experience.

Yes, they would often try to rush you. The problem I am having now is that outside of an occasional fluke (the Assyrians asking me to join them in a war on turn 12 for example) the first 200 turns feel like just a build up to when stuff actually happens. If this were going on because I was making strategic decisions, like sharing my religion, it wouldn't be so bad. But the way it works, I feel better off fielding the smallest military possible to handle barbarians and avoid the gold penalty of an army at all until much later in the game, when I can pop them out after building XP buildings.

Part of the issue here is that trade is so vulnerable to disruption that fighting a neighbor is usually foolish. And neighbors, in Vanilla and G&K are who you usually would attack. So instead of doing any fighting, you have to set up a system that won't bankrupt you, while dealing with constant barbarian attacks. These leaves all of the players just building infrastructure and wonder-racing.

G&K wasn't perfect but I did find it more fun than this so far. Micromanaging a bunch of trade routes for 200 turns before anything interesting starts has made it really hard to want to load up a new game. In previous iterations of this game, it was late game where I started getting bored, here nothing really gets that interesting until halfway through the game because the AI is far too passive. I don't think it's a problem if some of the leaders acted this way, but I don't think most should. Civ 4 had a much better balance in this sense I think.

 

[artavash]

Just my 5 pence for this issue.
I've only played 1 game on BNW - but failed to beat Diety on G&K on epic, 12 civs, random map on numerous occasions due to the murderous, treacherous civs I shared the world with. I never seemed to keep pace financially or scientifically and survival into the Modern era was a problem at times.

So I set up an epic,12 civ, random map at King (so I could get a chance to check out the new elements to the game) - got Pangea, random civ - I got Spain. I've only listed Dow's that were initiated by a civ - not from a city state allied to a Civ during a DoW.
So I noticed straight away that I wasn't getting any DoW's on me on the early game. But that was partly as I was at one end of the Pangea and so not readily accessible by the majority of the Civs. At the end I lost to Suleiman obtaining a scientific victory but the replay information was quite interesting especially considering the views on these War threads.
t118 - Genghis Khan (GKhan) dow Wittenberg
t132 - Casimir dow Maria
t133 - Suleiman dow Pacal
t135 - GKahn dow Zurich
t140 - Pacal peace Suleiman (net loss 1 city)
t143 - Maria peace Casimir (net loss 1 city)
t147 - Pachacuti dow Lhasa (captured)
t162 - Harald dow Pachacuti
t162 - Ashurbanipal dow Pachacuti
t173 - GKhan peace Wittenberg
t184 - Pachacuti peace Harald
t199 - GKhan dow Ife
t212 - Gajah Mada (GMada) dow Haile Selassie (HSelassie)
t219 - GKhan dow GMada
t225 - GMada peace GKhan (net loss 1 city)
t228 - Ashurbanipal peace Pachacuti (net loss 2 cities)
t237 - GKhan dow HSelassie
t240 - Harald dow Maria
t240 - Casimir dow Maria
t261 - HSelassie peace GKhan
t272 - Harald peace Maria
t279 - Maria peace Casimir
t291 - GKhan dow HSelassie
t295 - Casimir dow Maria
t295 - Ashurbanipa peace Pachacuti (net loss 2 cities)

That was it for the first 300 turns. I wasn't directly involved and I was careful to keep my gold levels up so I could field a decent army. In t335 I dow'ed GKhan and that was my first conflict. Some of that I put down to geography. My expansion was forcing Haile Selassie to build towards Genghis Khan (who from the list above had shown no issues wih DoW'ing just about anybody). I do think the gold has reduced early conflicts as the AI has to plan more strategically how it's going to build the army and maintain it. Much better in my opinion than the unit spam in G&K.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

As for aggression, I have noticed its less but thats a good thing. Just like a few ppl said earlier about the AI being smart in its decisions. Its really engaging and thats what i want to see. Playing multiplayer with friends vs AI is great but whats really cool is if the AI makes you think and gives you a real challenge. Its even better when ppl come here and i get to read there battle reports. Love it.

Overall Im very im pressed with this. The AI is playing on a more Strategic Level, and I want more of that!

There is nothing smart about the AIs losing to diplomatic/science/cultural victories when they had significant military lead the entirety of the game. Such play isn't strategic, it's just being passive to the detriment of the AI controlled civs. How can you be impressed with AIs that waste tons of resources into its army then never uses them while the vastly weaker opponent is gearing up to win the game?

I'm glad they got rid of the psychotic/suicidal AI of the vanilla CiV but the one we have in BNW is the complete polar opposite and refuse to take any advantage of their military might until industrial era.