They need to hotfix AI agression now

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

This just plain isn't true though. There was always rational reason for the AI to go to war. Primarily self gain, you know, the same reason the player does anything. It's just very unfortunate that they are so bad at war they ended up hurting themselves more than helping.

 

[3drawegroeg]

If one guy plays a a partial game and decides the game needs a major patch, it's enough for me.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Phew - so it wasn't just me. Seriously. I understand they might have made them more diplomatic and made the barbs more numerous to compensate for it, but in a game you need some sort of conflict or action instead of micromanaging (this could depend on the player, though).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If one guy plays a a partial game and decides the game needs a major patch, it's enough for me.

Right, because dozens of other people experiencing the same issue is irrelevant.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

I noticed the AI is a lot more passive too. I've been stealing allies, banning luxs, and placing embargos, yet the most I get is neutral relations.

 

[Aristos]

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

...
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.

Exactly my observations; "situational awareness" is welcome. Can be improved, for sure, but it the huge step in the right direction.

Trade routes have a huge influence in aggressiveness, as it should, now that gold is highly dependant on trading. Just same game, last night, Siam tried to pass "Embargo Shoshone" resolution to cripple me during our war, but I had many lucrative routes to other influential empires (and they to mine), so the resolution met a resounding "Nay"; both the intention and the end result are consistent.

 

[Zet]

This just plain isn't true though. There was always rational reason for the AI to go to war. Primarily self gain, you know, the same reason the player does anything. It's just very unfortunate that they are so bad at war they ended up hurting themselves more than helping.

The AI aggressiveness was out of control and completely irrational in GNK. At least on high difficulty levels.

The AI was programmed to attack if the player had a small military (which on high difficulty is always true until mid to late game), if the player didn't have large diplo bonuses towards the civ (which in the early game is never the case). The result is the AI, regardless of leader, trying to wipe the player out on turn 40 from across the continent, rather than reaching for the low hanging fruit and actually focusing on expansion. This made the game extremely repetitive because the the AI would attack and backstab like clockwork with no way to prevent it. With a city on a hill and an archer the AI doesn't even stand a chance to achieve anything unless it's the Huns.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

I think more civs need to be Afraid more often too, especially after you take over 90% of their land, and declare a peace treaty. I figure that would inspire them to behave more humbly, and less Hostile.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The AI aggressiveness was out of control and completely irrational in GNK. At least on high difficulty levels.

The AI was programmed to attack if the player had a small military (which on high difficulty is always true), if the player didn't have large diplo bonuses towards the civ (which in the early game is never the case). The result is the AI, regardless of leader, trying to wipe the player out on turn 40 from across the continent, rather than reaching for the low hanging fruit and actually focusing on expansion. This made the game extremely repetitive because the the AI would attack and backstab like clockwork with no way to prevent it. With a city on a hill and an archer the AI doesn't even stand a chance to achieve anything unless it's Attilla.

That's all still rational by definition of the word and logical in the manner of interactions between civilizations aiming to become dominant. Also, that's kind of the idea of "high difficulty levels" is it not? The nature of this game is always going to be formulaic and min/maxing at the highest levels unfortunately.

The nature of this problem i feel is more the LACK of difficulty and sophistication in AI warfare. There wasn't an inherent problem with the declarations of war, but with the follow through, at least in my opinion.

 

[Hyper Nova]

If you guys want an aggressive AI turn off BNW . Seriously I'm still waiting for BNW and pre patch I was just about getting a grip with emperor but with the BNW patch but still in GnK I'm getting my arse handed to me on king so much so I almost feel like dropping back to Prince .

I'm looking forward to see how BNw works. I feel the balance needs to that war is relatively rare from non war civs but piss them off they go nuts on you and when at war it's a hard fight.

 

[Zet]

That's all still rational by definition of the word and logical in the manner of interactions between civilizations aiming to become dominant.

War isn't the ONLY way to become dominant, but the GNK civ behaved like it was. That was wrong. Civ is not a pure war game. Higher difficulty isn't supposed to mean constant unavoidable wars either.... it just means higher difficulty.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

If you guys want an aggressive AI turn off BNW . Seriously I'm still waiting for BNW and pre patch I was just about getting a grip with emperor but with the BNW patch but still in GnK I'm getting my arse handed to me on king so much so I almost feel like dropping back to Prince .

I'm looking forward to see how BNw works. I feel the balance needs to that war is relatively rare from non war civs but piss them off they go nuts on you and when at war it a hard fight.

I'm solidly on King level right now (at least in G&Ks), it took some time. The reason why is because I was constantly getting discouraged. I would see I was in always in 3 or 4th place in terms of score, and that the AI always had "a military that could wipe me off the planet". But after I took some advice from people here, and spammed archers, the AI's troopers were easy pickings. I realized, no matter how well I play, the AI will always out-do me because of the bonuses they receive. But honestly, I don't know any other way to deal with the AI, other than marching over, and crushing their troops, as they move illogically around into vulnerable areas.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

War isn't the ONLY way to become dominant, but the GNK civ behaved like it was. That was wrong. Civ is not a pure war game. Higher difficulty isn't supposed to mean constant unavoidable wars either.

No it didn't, it was perfectly competent at winning via science, culture or economically. It regularly used these and city sprawl or wonder spam to become vastly dominant without having to declare war.

I struggle with the AI on deity not because of invasions and its military, but because of its science and economy more than anything. If i can't keep up in these eventually it does establish military dominance over me too, and too right, i'd do the same to them. That is high difficulty for you, playing against yourself, playing against an opponent who is willing to do whatever it takes to one up you.

Besides, wars in G&K even on higher difficulties are not always unavoidable either. On numerous occasions i've avoided wars with denouncements, maintaining friendly relations or using alliances (and i've verified actually avoids with reloads).

I know it's cool to bash the AI, but it can't be called irrational. It can be called incompetent, but at least now after 3 years of patching, it is not irrational.

 

[malitano]

I'm still on my first game but the Zulu are declaring war all over the place.

Can't agree with you yet.

 

[godman85]

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.

In GnK, a peaceful victory required effort. In this one, no one will threaten your peace.


How is that strategic? If you build 5 wonders in 100 turns, i am going to send my big ass army to your home to try and claim it. What would compel me not to?

Do you have a standing army that makes me think twice? Oh you have an archer and warrior. Guess my 12 pikes, 6 trebuchets, and 4 knights can't kill you.

I better be friendly next to you while you have completely different policies, threaten my economy with superior trade and wonders, and religion.


I know I have passive UA that is designed solely to dominate in war. I know you lan blocked me into a corner, expanding across my kingdom...

But this is a strategic game now. I have no "reason" to attack you poorly defensed, ridiculously close, lucrative to conquer, roadblocking, player owned, trade dominating, religious spreading cities.

I'll just sit in the corner with a 200 point deficit by the medieval period and wait until the modern era to attack when my UA is completely useless because it was designed exclusively for early agression.


Love the new AI. It's like practice mode even on Immortal

 

[MantaRevan]

I usually have trouble on king but the match I just played was an absolute bore. I ended up with almost a 2k lead on the AIs and I was only involved in one war over the course of the entire game.

 

[godman85]

If you guys want an aggressive AI turn off BNW . Seriously I'm still waiting for BNW and pre patch I was just about getting a grip with emperor but with the BNW patch but still in GnK I'm getting my arse handed to me on king so much so I almost feel like dropping back to Prince .

I'm looking forward to see how BNw works. I feel the balance needs to that war is relatively rare from non war civs but piss them off they go nuts on you and when at war it's a hard fight.

THe AI is better in combat (if it ever happens)

I would have no problem with peaceful by lore civs not DoWing unless backed into a corner. But when you got attila and alexander sitting next to you on EMPEROR, they better atleast threaten your pathetic army (which it is compared to theirs)

Their whole civ is designed around early expansion. THey simply don't do it anymore.

 

[mike3640]

I know I'm only one example but I just played about 120 turns of BNW and was surprised I was attacked by Shaka. I'm used to being the aggressor. I thnk it depends on what civs are present and what victory conditions they are going for.

 

[godman85]

I know I'm only one example but I just played about 120 turns of BNW and was surprised I was attacked by Shaka. I'm used to being the aggressor. I thnk it depends on what civs are present and what victory conditions they are going for.

120 turns on what speed?

on normal speed that is like the medieval age.

 

[adwcta]

If AI is going for a science victory, war doesn't help unless victory is guaranteed.
If AI is going for a diplo victory, war doesn't help unless it's against the goat (which doesn't happen early game).
If AI is going for a culture victory, war doesn't help since it lowers your rate of influence (exception being to take out the lone high-culture civ or w/ Autocracy's cultural tenant), but early war may help if you're out of land, but ONLY when you're out of land.

So, if you're looking at it this way, only 1/4-1/2 of the time, will it be beneficial to the AI EVEN IF they win an early war. Add in the situations where AI has no other trading partners, thus no gold for an army, or where AI has a ton of space to expand... where it would totally DUMB for the AI player to declare war on anyone early.... and you get a relatively peaceful early game.

So, from the perspective of I'm competing vs. 7 other civs, so if they all attack me that would make the game harder... yes the AI should be aggressive.

But, from the perspective of EACH AI, who is trying to win the game for itself, it is almost never the correct choice to try to take out a neighboring civ early. Especially with the new World Congress, being a warmonger has never hurt so bad.

So yes, the AI got SMARTER about winning the game. And by getting smarter, the AI got more peaceful in the early game. This in turn lowers the difficulty for the human player as an indirect result, because while your neighbor's % chance to win the game went up, so did yours, and it was all directly at the cost of the far away runaways' % chance to win the game.

This is called balance, and a more intelligent AI.

I mean, you can complain about it, because being attacked early DOES make the game harder, but you can't argue with the AI's better decision-making process.