Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by godman85, Jul 11, 2013.
I've noticed that they AI is more aggressive in building wonders and teching.
I just had a game surrounded by the Mongols, the Romans and the Aztecs - the Mongols conquered a ton of city-states, but didn't do jack otherwise.
The dependance on your neighbors for gold is debilitating to warfare. It's kindof silly; how the hell do you play a 1on1 map? Even if you trade with a city-state, the returns are so laughably minor that it's not even worth doing.
at this point, I think this argument is dead
ok wise guy. Since you wanna play devil's advocate.
THe AI gets extra happiness at higher levels, in order to expand they need more resources, you have 3-4 unique resources and are right next to them.
You want science, thus more pop, thus more luxuries...they have 2 archers, you have 8 pike, 6 catapults, 4 composites and zeus.
Clearly you shouldnt secure that 16 happiness and whatever awesome building they bought for little to no effort due to superior forces.
Wow that sure was easy making a completely bias approach to how the AI reasons.
I've played 7. please don't spam 1 liners trying to be cool.
THis is emperor level too.
However, if two civs are trying to achieve the same victory, shouldn't they be inclined to wage war upon one another to eliminate the competition?
that would make no sense. Why would you ever attack a run away wonder spamming egypt with a ridiculously superior armied greece.
So dumb, totally dumb decision to clame those 7 wonders they spammed in the first 150 turns.
In my 1 game I thought I may have to jump to Emperor/Immortal because of lack of challenging warfare. I had early wars, but AI troop levels were not enough. But the net result (in my 1 game) I like. Diplomacy does matter. More factors matter. If this holds true, I like the end result.
Sure I like your approach. 1 game, played differently, lets see the results.
Very nice. Play diplomacy differently, get different results. Add in variations for different maps, neighbors, etc,. and hopefully we've got a good balance between predictable results and every game playing the same.
I'd also add that it feels more natural to me. Early game you're out exploring the world and focusing on building your cities. Getting to know your neighbors. At some point you or your neighbors decide that you need more of something and war is they way to get there. With that being said I still want the early DOW from the warmongering crowd, but its nice to have some variation.
My only concern at this point are AI troop levels. When I played at Emperor in GnK I typically did not want a DOW because they would bring enough of a force that at best I would be severely inconvenienced. Sure, at times I would adjust and focus more on military and wait patiently for the DOW, but even then it was a good battle due to the size of their armies. Emperor was a good fit for my playstyle.
In my single experience with BNW, troop levels at King were well below typical King levels in GnK. Hopefully as I am able to play more I'll see AI with larger forces.
i could beat emperor with a lobotomy
your little ''brag'' aside, there's like 5 thread about AI passiveness so far full of different players saying the same.
Most of the new civs are peaceful, except Zulu.
If you loaded up all the other civs with BNW civs, you won't see much war.
If you play with random civs across all iterations, you'll see much smarter AI war DOW's.
Maybe the role of religion could help fix this passive AI problem. To reflect reality, it can be a source of heated conflict. the negative repercussion of having a different religion should be buffed. food for thought.
I think you got it completely right. I especially liked the part I highlighted.
There seems to be some very vocal people on here trying to convince everyone else that they are right. The AI is trying to win, just like the player. If the AI declares an early war and are not successful, they are almost certainly forfeiting their chance to win the game. We've ALL noticed, in previous G&K games, how that one aggressive civ who DoW you early and now sits in the corner of the map in his one crummy city is basically out of the game. He'll still be fielding medieval units while the rest of the players are in industrial and further, and will basically just be a ripe target for any other player.
I'm sure we all remember earlier builds when the AI would throw everything he had at you, leaving you an easy waltz to take his capital as soon as you had dealt with the rush. Perhaps, just perhaps, the AI has realized that an early war without a great chance of victory will gimp them for the rest of the game, and therefore are more cautious.
No. As a builder, I don't start wars. But there is no fun if the early game AI is so paralyzed that it is almost certain there that will be no threats. Even worse, sometimes the AI does not even expand and you can take all the land. This is just wrong.
I allow myself speaking here for many players of the German community. With help of VPNs, we are constantly playing since Tuesday, and almost all of us have the same early game experience that a guy just described this way:
The aggressions level of the AI remindes me of "The Waltons":
"Good night, John-Boy!"
^^ this is my experience.
We all have different experiences/playstyles/difficulty levels. Also, even a dozen games a small sample size from a probability perspective.
There is a fine a line here. But in my games, when that AI Civ launches that 'overwhelming' attack, I buy a unit in each of my cities on the next turn, repel the attack, and end up *at least* taking a few of their cities.
This was a universal experience:
1. build up early game - explore- whatever
2. get attacked by militariliy superior neighbor regardless of diplomatic relations, existing trade agreements etc.
3. repel invasion and conquer neighbor
4. use my super experienced army and several great generals to conquer another neighbor
5. hit 'end turn' until I won
If I bumped up the difficulty level then change step 3 to 'get instantly crushed and lose'
At first glance it *appears* that BNW is attempting to direclty confront this problem. I, for one, am very grateful.
There are and always will be people who see Civ as just a war game. They will be disappointed to see fewer early rushes.
Of course, the AI's infatuation with early rushes wasn't an indication of the AI being "non-********". It was a fairly lazy player exploit: wait for a civ to DoW with a bunch of bowmen tucked away, then let them march their armies right into a deadly killzone. They'll wipe themselves out impelling their armies against your bows, then you can either stroll and capture their unprotected cities, or wait for the inevitable super-generous peace offering. I've done it enough times to know.
Personally, I'm happy to see war be among a civ's last resorts, not first. For there to be an emphasis on late-game politics and ideologies, there have to be more than a couple of civ's left in the game. Heavy aggression in the early game tends to mean lack of aggression in the endgame.
Having said that, I was playing as Morocco yesterday, and was backstabbed by Japan as Nobunaga could amass some a sword=and-spear heavy army, and this was despite a mutually-beneficial exchange of caravans and cargo ships. His declaration was the "your weakness is my opportunity" message that indicates he made a move because he had me outgunned. My other neighbor, France, was also sizing me up.
I don't have the chance to have BNW as yet, but to those who want constant war and early rushes, did they consider that they are playing the right game for them? After numerous games and regular participation to the GOTM series and the different challenges in the strategy forum, I came to the conclusion that without this, the game is completely boring, because it feels in GnK very scripted on Immortal and above and still too scripted on Emperor.
You could do what you want, but you basically needed 4-6 archers and a couple of melee troops by turn 60 with construction not far away to upgrade to CB. Wait for the DoW, independent of the AI btw, beat the sh it out of him, go get his capital or if you felt generous, ask for and obtain an AI crippling peace treaty. From there it was path to victory assured. Now how is that interesting at lenght in a strategy game?
I took motivation from comparing my finishing times with those of the fellow posters, not from the fact that the game as such is so good. It may be at least half a year since I generated a map to play by myself....
All this on account of ******** aggression from the AI side, which on a sidenote did not get better through the ages. I still remember the last game i played where out of the blue my fellow ally for 200 turns declared on me because he could. That felt a bit like the US declaring on the UK, come on.... result was the same, army crushed, i offered a white peace because i could not be bothered by conquering him. All this costs turns and feels like a negative play experience, because the AI action was utterly pointless and just disruptive.
If BNW goes in the same direction, I will have to go looking for other games, too much goes on in RL to be bored by what should be a nice hobby.
Game's ben out, what, two days now?
At any rate, why shouldn't the AI be a builder? Doesn't it make sense for them to want infrastructure? I think we all are aware that building a few qualities often trumps the ICS madness the AI has been so well-known for.
Probably like what they did for the initial vanilla in making the game more "accessible" = providing ineffective opponents so marginal players can feel like they accomplished something instead of having to think and learn much, esp not having to be adaptable. This goes for builders who want play in a sandbox and for warmongers who think they can war without consequences. It usually takes a couple patches to make the game more challenging unless they start listening to those that don't want any strong opponents.
Do you actually read what others are posting?
Builders are also disappointed, because the early "gold farming period" feels tedious.
If you can be sure that the AI will never attack during the early game (except for Shaka and Attila), this can be used as an exploit (and also feels tedious).
If the early game AI is so passive that it often does not expand, the player can take the best land easily. This also is a kind of exploit.
I think that part of the problem is that we're all just so used to aggressive AI that when they actually slow down and become more passive we wonder why, since it's not what we're accustomed to. That being said, I would still like Montezuma to be a crazy bastard and declare war on me if I get stuck beside him, because that's what he always did when I played the vanilla version. He'd attack, I would push him back, he would sue for peace, and then when the peace treaty expired he'd declare war again and start the cycle all over again. He was freaky anyway, I hate him.
Separate names with a comma.