They need to hotfix AI agression now

[pilot00]

I think if anything the biggest change is not that civs aren't hurting specifically themselves in this, it's that no civs are getting stomped down early either through a failed attack or a failed defense, and by the later games there isn't nebuchadnezzar with 3000 points and the next guy with 1200, but a more even late game playing field.

Depends, you can have some hilarity ensue. They can all gang on one Civ (not the player), get their hairy behinds handed to them and make that one the most powerful (happened).

Or have them wield mighty armies that wield an even mightier budget that causes them to self destruct by deficit. And that army just dances on your borders and your single warrior just craps his pants every turn till you win a tourism victory (happened too)

 

[ww2commander]

This thread has expanded quite a bit with both 'camps' now well entrenched!

Would it not be wise to progress this to the next step by shifting from theories and observations to actually capturing 'hard data'? We know it is a fact that the developers read these threads so why not provide them with useful data over an agreed sample period.

Things that would best serve this purposes would be:
1. What are the setup options for your game?
- Map Size and Type
- Number of players
- Start Era
- Difficulty
- Level of resource placement (i.e. scarse, abundant)
- Random or chosen opponents
- Number of city states

2. Victory conditions (which ones, only one selected or multiple?)

3. What other boxes have you ticked? (i.e. random personalities, raging barbarians)

4 Base setup or using mods?

5. Briefly describe you play style (keep it brief i.e. culture spammer, early attacker, loner, wide, tall)

This way we can compile some statistics on configuration and style of play that might be causing AI confusion or issues (assuming they exist in BNW).

This along with some of our resident modders peaking into the BNW XML AI defines along with the DLL code might assist us in pinpointing if there is indeed unintentional issues introduced with BNW or just a play style clash/issue.

We need to help the developers obtain hard data if we want them to look into this issue.

 

[Boygor]

I play on King and have started around 10 games. In each there has been no war against me. Sure there have been some AI wars but nothing early...

It's getting to the point where I don't even require to build an army anymore...

Even Forward settling on Alex didn't elicit any kind of response! I shall try Emperor skill level tomorrow and see if anyone dow's me.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I play on King and have started around 10 games. In each there has been no war against me. Sure there have been some AI wars but nothing early...

It's getting to the point where I don't even require to build an army anymore...

Even Forward settling on Alex didn't elicit any kind of response! I shall try Emperor skill level tomorrow and see if anyone dow's me.

That's my experience too.

Please repost here if Emperor changes that. I'm having a hard time mustering the interest to start again on Emperor because a lot of people are reporting the same issue there too.

 

[dexters]

I guess the open question for people is, should Monty, Alexander, Attila and to a lesser extent China just always be a little insane in the early game?

This is what I came to expect in G&K and patched vanilla. If you see them in-game you know an early war is likely and your goal is not to be picked by them (most of the time) as a target. Their agression also goes way up right around the time each Civ gets their UU.

This seems to no longer be the case in BNW. The more strategic nature of AI decision making does seem to impact them as they are less likely to go to war early and thus miss their window of opportunity for carnage.

That's really the only change I could support and agree with. I generally like the BNW AI, especially the economic monsters playing the long game and building up science, and culture and economy for the industrial age wars and so on.


Strategic variety among the AI is certainly welcome. Some AI do really benefit from playing peaceful early ; others like Monty seem to fizzle out if they don't knock out a neighbour or two.

Ok quoting myself from earlier and posing this question again.

In short, should some AI simply be expected to play the early game rush gambit?

 

[jaldaen]

One thing I'm wondering is if the AI takes into account your gold on hand when calculating their odds of winning a war. This might one be one factor, including CS allies, but all these factors are combining to make DOWs less likely from the AI.

I know that in previous versions of the game I could "trap" the AI into attacking me and then whip up an instant army that would take down the AI without too much difficulty.

 

[Kordanor]

Out of about 10 games (let’s say about 50h total) we played (not to the very end) we had like 2 attacks by the AI.
One attack which happened within the first 70 turns was when expanding massively (like 6 cities in first 70 turns)
The other attack was in modern era. Actually one turn after I traded open borders from france to move my armys through their empire to get to the other player. Once my army was at and in his area, he declared war and killed my stuff.

During the rest of the games the AI does not do anything. They still build massive amount of troops but do nothing with it.
Since BNW I spend the time until I have crossbowman with just one scout and one warrior and add one crossbowman later on. And after that I might add a crossbowman in some cities. Before BNW I would have been crushed with that setup.
This feels unchallenging and isn't really satisfying.

1. What are the setup options for your game?
- Map Size and Type

Continents, Pangaea
Normal Speed, Small

- Number of players
Small Map Standard (2 Players, 4 AI)

- Start Era
Ancient

- Difficulty
Immortal

- Level of resource placement (i.e. scarse, abundant)
Normal

- Random or chosen opponents
Random (had also aggressive opponents as Zulu, Aztecs and Kelts)

- Number of city states
Standard and 0

2. Victory conditions (which ones, only one selected or multiple?)
All except of time

3. What other boxes have you ticked? (i.e. random personalities, raging barbarians)
Fast Combat

4 Base setup or using mods?
Base setup

5. Briefly describe you play style (keep it brief i.e. culture spammer, early attacker, loner, wide, tall)

We used different play styles, including culture, science, expansive, religion (not early attacker).


So did anyone hear anything about a new patch at all? Hope this will soon get fixed or an "aggressive civs"-option added.

 

[godman85]

And I counter-agree . I am NOT seeing sitting armies, I am seeing AI civs carefully building up to increase chances of military success, and then using their force (against me). Even after defeat; for example, after a long and cautious war from both sides against Siam, I took the offensive when I was ready (the AI is doing that now in all my games) and managed to capture his wonderful capital. Pre-BNW, that usually meant game over for the AI. Not for this one; he carefully built up again, but instead of stubbornly coming after me for revenge and get killed, he picked the weaker Mayans to his south, finished them, and used his newly acquired "substitute empire" to further build up. When he got the critical mass, he came after me in full force; it was a long struggle full of blows/counterblows after I finally defeated him... only to be attacked by the might Persians when I was at my lowest (and committed) to the other border. Only my might navy kept the Persians at bay, until after a long struggle we both realized WP was the only option... only to get attacked by the uber Polynesians, who where slowly building up all that time.

And so on. I am not seeing what some claim, I am seeing full (and smarter) use of all options available, and I am seeing a far better gameplay and AI.

As I said in the other response, I only believe what I see. (and of course, in trying to understand why other's claim to see different, I draw some conclusions that sometimes I like to share..)

ignore aristos. He is looking threw a telescope at a problem in the same room. He just can't see it.
Moderator Action: don't troll around.

The problem is that when an AI is in debt because they built the strongest military on the map, and there are 11 civs between you and them as far as military strength goes, WHY WON'T THEY KILL YOU.


people try to make these arguments that we want the ai to be idiots. Far from it. We want the AI to put us in our place when we get lazy. If I am chillin with 2 archers in my base by the medieval era, someone should be marching a huge army my way for a sneak attack. Especially when I have wonders and a measly 12gpt.



I WANT TO LOSE. I want to know that when I mess up, I pay for it. The only time I feel defeated is when I expand too fast and barbarian cavalry happens to mass spawn and literally rip my empire apart while being uncatchable.


I look at those 3 cavalry and see them decimate me and i go.....Thank god that attila with 8 horse archers, 6 battering rams, who i agressively expanded on, and refuse to trade with won't attack me. I mean, its not like he has a chance. Those 3 barbarian cavalry are legendary ronins from japan. Legends are spoken of them.

 

[Adjuvant]

Maybe I'm just lucky (unlucky?) to have mongols/huns/shaka/babylon/england prevalent in my games lately.

The AI certainly can be aggressive. Appreciate it when it's not.

 

[Hieschen]

We should define aggression.

I am in my fifth BNW game and besides one, where my dear neighbours (rome to ne and maya to nw, southpole to my south) were not showing up with an army, i later scouted that they were pressured by attila resp the celts, they still forward settled me.

In all the other games, AI aggression mainly consits of spamming settlers and putting them all around me. So even if they do not declare, i will have to do it if i do not want to play OCC.

So no, my feeling is that AI is MORE aggressive, but in a passive way, ie through settling and not through dowing.

Now this is for the first 130 turns. Later, regularly all hell breaks loose.

In terms of army production, i generally produced 4-6 archers plus 1-2 melee units (emperor/immortal) in the first 60/70 turns as a reception to the early rush in gnk. Now i more or less produce the same amount, perhaps slighlty delayed by 10 turns, first to get rid of barbarians and then to be able to open up some space.

What should be changed / patched is not the AI aggression level, but the over the top warmonger diplo hits we take as we declare now and not the AI

 

[MonorailCat]

->Complains about lack of war
->Actively avoids war by not starting them

It is less complaining about lack of war and more complaining that there is no THREAT of war. Why invest resources in Military Units and Military Tech when going for a Science Victory if you know that nobody will try to stop you?
Last Emperor Game: Forward settled at Swedens and Russias Capital to grab the best spots, bought their best tiles .. beelined Education and then Scientific Theory .. all with 2 Archers and 2 Warriors .. didn't even bother to upgrade them.

I don't want an AI that acts like homicidal Maniac, but I want an AI that stops me if I'm acting like an a**hole AND don't defend myself. My Capital has 7+ Wonders and is guarded by 2 Units and I am Techleader. The time to stop me is NOW ... but nothing. They just sit there, denounce me a few times and then watch me win. I dont even Trade with them .. so there is nothing holding them back.

 

[DemonMaster]

The whole idea with the game if you want to play an expansionist, is to expand and if there is enough 'lebensraum' to expand without military means, this is what I do and also expect the AI to do. Why walk a gazillion tiles to do battles for land, when you could settle the land you just walked over.
Isn't there an option to select more water or something like that (I usually don't do this, but it was such an option in Civ 4) and that would mean, slightly smaller continents and that would mean that those AIs that have been chosen to be played expansionistic, will have to make war to be able to do so, at least earlier than expected.
Then of course if you like wars, sometimes the game will have all the AIs to be tall builders in the game. Then tough luck for you or you should do something about it before their tall towers reaches ...

 

[DemonMaster]

It is less complaining about lack of war and more complaining that there is no THREAT of war. Why invest resources in Military Units and Military Tech when going for a Science Victory if you know that nobody will try to stop you?
Last Emperor Game: Forward settled at Swedens and Russias Capital to grab the best spots, bought their best tiles .. beelined Education and then Scientific Theory .. all with 2 Archers and 2 Warriors .. didn't even bother to upgrade them.

I don't want an AI that acts like homicidal Maniac, but I want an AI that stops me if I'm acting like an a**hole AND don't defend myself. My Capital has 7+ Wonders and is guarded by 2 Units and I am Techleader. The time to stop me is NOW ... but nothing. They just sit there, denounce me a few times and then watch me win. I dont even Trade with them .. so there is nothing holding them back.

We must be playing different games you and I or at least different difficulty levels.

 

[killmeplease]

have played 2 games (king and emperor), was DOWed in both, though not earlier than in renaissance. it seems before renaissance there are no wars at all what is absurd. its a history based game after all, and there was no "age of peace" in human history, especially at its beginnig. Early eras should be brutal as they were in GnK, otherwise this game cant be named civilization. name it Fantasy Kingdom or like that.

hope next patch will fix the problem!

 

[DemonMaster]

have played 2 games (king and emperor), was DOWed in both, though not earlier than in renaissance. it seems before renaissance there are no wars at all what is absurd. its a history based game after all, and there was no "age of peace" in human history, especially at its beginnig. Early eras should be brutal as they were in GnK, otherwise this game cant be named civilization. name it Fantasy Kingdom or like that.

hope next patch will fix the problem!

We must be playing different games you and I or at least different difficulty levels.

 

[Vohbo]

I love peaceful games a lot more than the bogged down, everlasting endless war games with AI's that are programmed to never accept peace, so I'm more than fine with it.
It would help though I think if the AI spent his money again instead of hoarding it.

 

[killmeplease]

We must be playing different games you and I or at least different difficulty levels.

games i played were king and emperor difficulty
in emperor game i placed a city to get marble just next to Rio, about 20 tiles from my capital and 10 tiles from my other city across a gulf. Pedru looked at it for the whole medieval era having his swordsmen and trebuchets swarming inside his borders. And eventually he attacked, one turn after I've signed a defensive pact with Austria which had enclave there too so austrians attacked brazilians which invaded my territory and i havent lost the city.

 

[blackcatatonic]

We must be playing different games you and I or at least different difficulty levels.

This is what bugs me about people clamouring for it to be 'fixed'. The only thing we can be fairly confident about in terms of changes to AI aggression is that it's now a lot more variable than before. Everyone IS playing a different game. I'm playing on Prince and was DoWed in early medieval (probably would have been Classical if I hadn't spent time building up my army because my neighbour was Shaka); what are people complaining about?

 

[killmeplease]

This is what bugs me about people clamouring for it to be 'fixed'. The only thing we can be fairly confident about in terms of changes to AI aggression is that it's now a lot more variable than before. Everyone IS playing a different game. I'm playing on Prince and was DoWed in early medieval (probably would have been Classical if I hadn't spent time building up my army because my neighbour was Shaka); what are people complaining about?

did you bribed him into war with you

 

[DemonMaster]

I have seen plenty of fighting in all my BNW games so far (5 so far). The first era I have only seen fighting in two (Monty both times), versus me in the first one and versus Morocco in the other (Morocco dies no less). In all games there where fighting somewhere, sometimes with me, sometimes with neighbours.

I haven't even noticed anything unusual playing BNW than G&K until I read it on the forums. Except that the AI don't do the warrior rush that they usually do and I don't miss that warrior rush, mainly because, very seldom it accomplishes anything other than you utterly destroy or cripple an AI. It still happens, as in two of my games, with Monty and he actually accomplished something in one of the games.

Edit: I am (usually) a King player. I stopped playing (in G&K) on higher difficulty levels because of the early warrior rushes, it was so extremely boring to start every single game with that and it is a little less of that on King. Perhaps I should go up a notch now when the AI no longer (or mostly no longer) do a maniac suicidal warrior rush turn 30-50.