They need to hotfix AI agression now

This, pretty much.

 

Personally I find the game (due to lowered AI aggression) is actually quite trivial if you get a good start - even on Deity. I wouldn't state it categorically yet because obviously we haven't played enough but my 4 games so far have been very easy due to rolling over the AI in medieval era wars. A few AIs are tough but most of them are not.

If you want a real easy time of things on Deity play as Assyria. You'll get free techs and free cities rolling over people with their siege tower that the AI seems to be unable to deal with. Take extra cover promotion and you are gold.

 

I've seen plenty of aggression. Morocco managed to completely conquer Japan and the Dutch on the other continent. On mine the Songhai dow'd me pretty early because I settled near them. I then initiated a 3 on 1 on the Indonesias which wiped them out, and I didn't bribe the other civs. Then the Songhai fought the Brazilians for awhile.

In the first 30 turns I saw the other continent 5 wars began and 1 ended. And the Moroccans and Dutch were just as involved as the Zulus and Japan. In my last 3 openers forward settling brought early dows. Ai is a bit less aggressive yet I am still seeing a number of wars. All these games were on King btw.

 

The Mongols now play to their strength and go off and conquer city states a lot more then usual. In a game Im playing now (as Venice) Indonesia conquered China, started a war with Spain, and then had Monty join them in the conquering and razing of Isabella.

I have noticed that the AI (except for good ole city spammer Hiawatha) does not expand as aggressively as before. There were like 2-3 good city placements around me, but no one settled and im already on turn 180.

 

I've been playing on Emperor and i've had quite a few DoW's, and lost cities due to sheer overwhelming numbers. But it's nice that at least sometimes now just having a neighbour isn't enough to auto guarantee a DoW from them if you treat them nicely.

 

My observation is that there much more "situational variability" now and that the AI is aware of it, and cautious. I have seen both high and low aggressiveness depending on the environment, the neighbouring civs, etc. The Brave New AI is definitely more cautious, especially in the early game, when gold is scarce (as is the player). The combat AI is also much less suicidal; we all know the classic choke point of mass suicide from past versions; well, not anymore.

My present game has a nice mountain range separating my valley from Siam's valley; I used my first GG to plant a citadel in front of the only pass through the range. Range runs from side to side of the "neck" of the continent, some 18 tiles wide. Only option apart from assaulting the pass is to flank the range by sea, both sides. Siam has big ports on either side, but I had the initial advantage there by building two frigates on each sea. Siam is trying to balance the scenario in each side by building/purchasing frigates, but I am slowly surpassing them.

Now, in that scenario, there is no doubt that the pre-BNW AI would first suicide half its army against the citadel guarding the pass, and then "adapt" by suicide the second half embarking unprotected to flank the range: war over. Not anymore; Siam's AI is playing cautious, probing the citadel once in a while without losing units (and meanwhile collecting XP), while trying to regain naval superiority in its coast.

This is definitely better. I think people are confusing passiveness with caution, and from my point of view, caution is better than suicide, and in the long run, makes for a better and more competitive game (I cannot invade Siam's valley either as he still has land superiority there, which in the end is doing the same as the AI: building up for a better momentum).

I like it.

 

There are over a hundred units in the game and 90% of them (my guess) are military units. The board is laid out exactly like a traditional war game. There are placement and movement rules due to terrain; zone of control and leader influence (GG). The core game is built upon a war game model BUT that doesn't mean that it is always war or should be, that's a silly thing to say.

There are four victory conditions with 8 players (usually) all should be given the chance to win by one of those victories, with varying degree of ease or challenge depending on difficulty level and map. You create a game where the best player has an inherent advantage and you desire an even more advantage because you want to play with weak, passive opponents?? That's called cheating.

Opponents can offer a better challenge if they use their advantage to offensively go after the best player, and that sometimes has to mean being aggressive in war (since most of the units they have are such). They also should be aggressive in out teching everyone, outspending everyone or use tourism, not to mention getting the most delegates.

By whatever means (and they can vary), there should be a level playing field - with the human player matching their skills to the difficulty level. It ceases to become a game if you are free to play as if in a sandbox and nothing in the game should allow you to do that short of playing at a level way below your skills. If the mechanics of the game and the resulting actions by the AI opponents allow that, then that can only dumb down the game for the rest of us that want stronger, aggressive opponents in a single player game.

 

I actually don't think it's the lack of gold that's affecting AI aggressiveness at all. On the higher difficulty settings it's not unusual for the AI's to be rolling in gold. 50+ gpt early on easily.

I think it's just the tipping point for them to declare war has been increased.

 

You guys are missing the point. My problem is NO ONE IS FIGHTING. I had a 12 civ pangea and found everyone on the map, NO ONE FOUGHT ANYONE DEEP INTO THE RENAISSANCE.


Even if they don't DoW me, they should atleast hate SOMEONE. THere are no more alliances and drama on the map. It is so peaceful, it feels like Fallen Enchantress. AKA a knockoff to civilization with little to no diplomacy but prettier graphics.

 

I am not complaining about 35 turn wars. I am complaining about having 1 soldier to my name and no one doing anything about it. I am complaining about a cramped huge map with 6 agressive pre-medieval civs just holding hands. They don't attack anyone. NO ONE ATTACKS UNTIL the renaissance. Its sickening.

 

after playing 4 BNW games, i have to join in and say the AI are indeed too passive

 

I've only played the demo so far--Morocco, small with 5 new civs, end of medieval to beginning of industrial (~150 turns) for those who haven't seen the demo (I'm waiting until Fall or Winter Steam sale). I too found the AI military aggressiveness to be scaled down while barbarians were more rampant. However, their wonder building emphasis seemed really enhanced. I was playing on Warlord (G&K Prince/King) and was obliterated in wonder races. Now I admit it may have to do with the Medieval start and about 6 or so wonders being available from the beginning, but I had never seen the AI pursue wonders so aggressively. But even with new researched wonders, the AI were rushing for them.

Maybe a little off topic but seems to me that military aggressiveness scaled down and wonder aggressiveness scaled up.

 

I'm not missing the point. Clearly there is a problem with the AI's choices for going to war. They need to have a reason, such as aggressive expansion towards them. They can't just spam DoW's endlessly and needlessly, that's counter productive for them and for who they are declaring war on and really jsut devolves the game into a grind of long game turns for no good reason.

There should be wars and clearly you've encountered an issue, but to solve that issue you can just say they should declare war at every opportunity.

 

I lose the game? They get my wonders? They get my gold?


zzz. Bad example right there. The Ai's objective is to win and the easiest way to win is to get rid of me.

 

Scanning thru this; it looks to me like they finally got a good balance with BNW.

In G&K; there was little difference between the "peaceful" civs and the "agressive" ones; all were just different shades of agressive.

Now it appears that there is actually a big difference based on the aggressive setting. Be next to Shaka and expect war; be next to Gandhi and expect peace (as it should be)

There are a very large number of civs possible now in BNW compared to standard size map; big differences in total war count can be expected with the in game average aggressiveness changing so much.

 

Religious activity has also gone way up.

 

guess you havn't read a single post in this thread. When people are sitting next to atilla, ceaser, and alexander but holding hands with them as they try to expand next to you.


Most people talking about how they got attacked are leaving out an important factor. TIME PERIOD. If it is medieval or later, it only support my claim of passivity

 

Just put an ''Agressive AI'' option in the settings (i think civ4 had that) and everyone will be happy

 

Nothing to fix. The AI was irrationally and unrealistically aggressive before. If you want an early (and senseless) war, start it yourself and/or put warmonger civs into your game instead of Ghandi et. al.

 

I was just coming on these forums to say how much I enjoy the fact that DIPLOMACY seems to actually matter when it comes to war.

Now, this thread is all just anecdotal evidence, so I will add mine.

On King difficulty I have been able to grow in complete peace with my two neighbors until the Modern Era, no war. So this seems to support the AI being too passive. I am playing as Brazil and the Ottomans next to me had an enormous army of Jannisaries, while I had minimal defenses.

So I went back and loaded a saved game and played it a bit differently:

- When he asked me to join in a war agianst a mutual neighbor I said 'no' (I had joined him before, although offered very little help)

- I turned my trade routes internal, so we didn't share as many trade routes

- when a different neighbor asked me to stop spreading my religion I told him to stick it, and subsequently got denounced by several civs (but not the Ottomans)

Then he launched a massive surprise attack against me (despite us still being at 'friendly' status).

Really, this experiment made me very happy. It showed that global diplomacy and interconnected trade routes appears to impact AI agressiveness, and that makes sense.

It's just weird for me to play a game of Civilization where the United States would invade Canada because 'it's trying to win.' I get that it's a game with end conditions, but it's still a simulation game, I enjoy it when it simulates a bit.

I also find that having extended periods of early peace is the only way to have a competitive end game. When my AI neighbor launches its 'sneak' attack (entirely predictable in previous versions) it means I either get smashed and lose, or (more often) repel the attack, capture almost all of their cities and become a runaway global power.

In my peaceful game I able to not go warmongering, keep the game competitive, and then make a move in the modern era for a particular victory condition, if I'm setup right.

Rather than winning an early war or two leading to an end game of 'pick the goal to slog to in obvious victory' - I can play a peaceful game and actually have a competitive heat at the end.

So it seems in my optimistic assessment.