They need to hotfix AI agression now

[klail]

I guess I'm another one in the camp of "the AI is BNW is too docile".

It'd be nice if there was a flag you could set which would cause the other civilizations to be able to spam more armies so that they could be more aggressive but that WOULDN'T also increase their speed at teching up, expanding, and so on.

I'd like the enemy armies of a Deity+ setting but an enemy tech and expansion speed of Immortal.

Is there a mod or something that can do this?

Moderator Action: Merged with a related thread.

 

[Buccaneer]

My conclusion to all of this is: the AI should not let you easily win, peacefully or otherwise. The AI needs to be aggressive diplomatically (city-states and vote changing), culturally and tourism, out teching and out producing parts, and defending their capital as well as in taking other capitals.

 

[Kwami]

My conclusion to all of this is: the AI should not let you easily win, peacefully or otherwise. The AI needs to be aggressive diplomatically (city-states and vote changing), culturally and tourism, out teching and out producing parts, and defending their capital as well as in taking other capitals.

On higher difficulty levels? Obviously, yes.

 

[chazzycat]

My experience so far was that it has been balanced, and DOWs have good reasons. In my warmonger game as Shaka, they were DOWing me pretty constantly once I had established myself as a warmonger. That made perfect sense. In my peaceful games, I have also been DOWed when appropriate. For example in my last game I double expanded towards Rome & Japan at the same time. They both DOWd me which again made perfect sense. I haven't had nearly as many "WTH is this guy thinking" DOWs as before. Which is good, it means the AI is focusing on something else.

Let's remember it depends a lot on the leaders you are up against and also the random dice roll on personality modifiers. So my recommendation would be to keep playing against random opponents...in time things will balance out.

 

[Teholb]

Just completed an Emperor game, Large, Standard, random AIs (Morocco again). One of them was Korea, which, as it so happened, resulted in a small nuclear exchange in an effort to suppress a Science victory by them. Nuclear subs + Nuclear Missiles are just so great for assassinating cities.

I barely eeked out a victory that time; I was in 2nd to last place in pt. value the entire game and had a lot more issues juggling relations than on King. Definitely going to have to have to improve my gameplay if I want to beat this difficulty consistently.

 

[Maxym]

Seems like a lot of people are saying to wait until Ideologies and then all crap breaks loose. Perhaps but a good player should be able to win the game before that happens because there aren't that many good opportunities for the AI to be aggressive before then?

I am afraid that is the case...

I think we all seem to have made the same mistake, went down a level or two to figure the new mechanics. And the decrease in AI aggro becomes very apparent then. I finished my Shoshone game on immortal, with t225 DOM, and some of the AIs had decent armies but basically no wars between them. Only Shaka and Assyria as they both got dropped in S America and had no choice. Even then it took them to t150 or so. But with the new science penalty I was not really running away. Enjoyable but a bit boring, so I went back to deity and sure enough...

Took Poland, figured I will try SV now, and got dropped on one of those small continents people report with Harald and two CS as my only neighbors. I had nice defensible mountain range but not enough room for four or even three cities so i rolled the dice and forward settled on him. It did not take long, after I dropped that 2nd city within five turns the troops were massing. But he could not decide where to strike and I kept the path to my cap open as I furiously pumped archer after archer and that was enough to turn the tide. He walked about 3/4 of his forces past my city trying to envelop the cap and got all of them slaughtered. So at least the troop levels were deity like but AI tactics and strategy still lacking. He outnumbered me 69,000 to 22,000 in classical era when the war begun. If he just struck at the closest city I would have not been able to hold on.

Not having other neighbors really messes things up, I was hoping to leverage their superior science to catch up with caravans. Also even with polish UB I am hurting for gold, and have large army of archers badly in need of upgrades. That tactic might need rethinking on these kinds of starts.

 

[teejing]

The problem is not that the AI does not want to attack per se.

If the AI has a weak army due to focusing on science/culture etc it would be suicide/unwiswe to attack.

The problem is the AI that focuses on a large army which diminishes his power in other areas (science, culture etc) and does not attack me or another civ that has a weak army due to focusing on science/culture etc.

Its like i was playing starcraft 2 and i expand happily and my opponent does not do anything instead or
a) attacking and punishing my weaker army or
b) matching my or surpass my possible future economy by expanded itself or expanding 2x

If he expands 2x i am again forced to either attack or outexpand in answer etc.

in summary:
If the AI does not focus on military and has a shot at a victory it is smart to no attack, but if the AI focuses on military aiming for a domination victory then it should decour civs with a weak military ( even if that me the player )

 

[Deggial]

^ this

And the fact that early UU warmongers are crippeled, if they don't fight early wars.

 

[kingofsealand]

Yes the AI is less aggressive because it behooves them. I have started several expansion games and almost completed 2. The first I won as poland but started out very close to the aztecs and chinese. I took some of the prime real-estate to their south and sure enough, since it was to their advantage to attack they did!. In my new game as portugal I am playing on small continents. I started on a small continent with the shoshone, not at all warmongerers and indeed once the AI realize sea trade routes were essential to income none of them considered attacking. I also think the AI now "sets" a victory goal very early in the game. Assyria, for example is on a private continent just to the south of me in the portugal game. Because they could only make their 4 cities on the little island early on they decided to go for science victory, nearly outteching me. Once they found me they didnt declare war because they had already decided, this did not fit in their victory scheme. War-mongering civs will not necessarily attack you if that is not going to benefit their end goal in some way.

 

[BluegrassGeek]

My conclusion to all of this is: the AI should not let you easily win, peacefully or otherwise. The AI needs to be aggressive diplomatically (city-states and vote changing), culturally and tourism, out teching and out producing parts, and defending their capital as well as in taking other capitals.

So far, that's been my experience in my first game (only got to play a couple hours this weekend, a few more yesterday).

Just hit the Atomic Age, though a tad late (2020s, I think). This was all Standard settings, Continents, Prince. At this point, there are only four civs left, soon to be three. Babylon and I wiped out everyone on my continent (and now my Diplomat says he's planning against me), the Maya wiped out everyone but Carthage on their continent. Currently, we're all dogpiling on Carthage, since Dido went Autocracy but the rest of us went Order.

I'll have to build up my military for when Babylon decides to double-cross me. Luckily, I've got natural defenses via mountains, and my capital is a friggin' fortress (though the Great Wall doesn't help anymore, I guess). Plus, playing Shoshone, so I get defense bonuses in my territory. oh, and did I mention the religious tenet that heals my units if the're adjacent to one of my cities?

My only real concern is that he beat me to the Manhattan Project by about 10 turns. I've yet to find a good defense against nukes.

At this point, I'm gunning for a culture victory, since I'm pumping out a lot more tourism than Babylon or the Maya. Plus, I managed to get my faith recognized as the World Religion, so that helps. The key is going to be if I can keep Babylon happy long enough for that to happen.

 

[Teholb]

Something I've noticed repeatedly, is that the AIs frequently war with eachother. I rarely get involved, but shifting military alliances tertiary to the main "World Government of Friendship" that I always manage to setup constantly result in the capture of AI cities and whatnot.

I really think the diplomacy of Civ V has matured to the point that the AI makes fairly meaningful choices, at least relative to Vanilla. It's not just an outright lack of aggression. They're behaving much more like myself, choosing strategic action over blunt-force assault.


I'm not sure what to think about it. I like building, but that almost guarantees I wont be attacked until the Renaissance or further. I guess it will mainly depend on start situation and UA dispositions.

 

[darden]

I actually accidentally managed to create a hugely warmongering game last night.

standard sized map with 10 civs and no city-states... I'm playing as Poland and I'm sandwiched in by Carthage and Mongolia. me and Dido have been pretty cool, but Dido and Mongolia have been at war with eachother off and on for most of the game, and they've both been at war with the Iroquois to the south of us.

 

[feralminded]

While I have not yet played a ton of games I too have noted slightly less aggression than I anticipated. There have certainly been times when the AI had some opportunities that it missed and some of the more aggressive AIs appear somewhat handicapped (Monty seems absurd as ever but Atilla and Genghis were both more timid than expected). That said there also appears to be some random variables to each game as I have seen major swings in relative world-wide warmongering from game to game inline with some of the anecdotes here.

I strongly suspect what we're seeing here is one of the following:

• There is some top-level control variable that is random which affects the overall aggressiveness of the AI each game.
• The AI scripting has a few "pitfalls" that semi-randomly (or seemingly so) occur that force them into a too-passive/cautious/wrong decision path. (this would not surprise me with AI this complex)
• They intentionally coded the AI to slow down a bit to de-emphasize the early-game rush/rush prevention strategies and make the mid-late game more of a game.

In any case I am enjoying the crap out of the game. Unless you are going for domination, the game never stops coming alive with each era bringing a new facet to tangle with all the way until the end. I have never once had this much fun post-renaissance in civ5 but now I look forward to it. I too believe some of the warmongers seem a bit "lost" and likely need some minor AI tweaks ... and even some of the more neutral AIs could afford to learn to be slightly more opportunistic with their troops but largely the game feels fundamentally more complete and each game I've played has a startlingly massive tail that is a huge breath of fresh air compared to G&K or even Vanilla where the game was decided (specially at emperor+) by turn 100.

 

[HipNozY]

The problem is not that the AI does not want to attack per se.

...

in summary:
If the AI does not focus on military and has a shot at a victory it is smart to no attack, but if the AI focuses on military aiming for a domination victory then it should decour civs with a weak military ( even if that me the player )

This. The civs want to attack. When you put a spy on the enemy city, you will see that he is probably plotting against someone or against you, but he won't attack.

 

[Teholb]

This. The civs want to attack. When you put a spy on the enemy city, you will see that he is probably plotting against someone or against you, but he won't attack.

IME, when I got a "X has been plotting against Y!" within 5-10 turns, a war breaks out if they're neighbors. If they're across the map, something rather neat happens (well, in the late game, at least): World Congress resolutions begin to pop up that are decidedly . . . aggressive. I think that's awesome. This has happened two games in a row for me between many different civs, so idk, I think the AI is fine. It makes semi-rational decisions that result in variable gameplay, and not, as some others have stated, the formulaic "by x turn the game is decided". I like it this way, even if it's a little less efficient with it's decisions at times. Just bump up the difficulty a notch, or, if you're at max difficulty already (tech me your ways), start modding!

However, rarely am I attacked when someone plots against me, even my direct neighbors. I think they recognize my awesomeness

 

[Aristos]

Its like i was playing starcraft 2...

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.

 

[95soram]

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.

 

[VainoValkea]

The game has generally lost a lot of tension. It's like the AI doesn't care about me winning anymore. Doesn't CivRev have a system where the AIs gang up on the human when they're winning? They should be doing something like that in BNW as well, instead of just sitting idly as I pick CS allies one after another while having only four gatlings for defense.

 

[Glinda]

I have played 2 games so far, and in the first one, Shaka killed Pedro, and then warred a bunch of city states. He didn't DoW me, because I would have kicked his ass. Personally, I think that's a great change. In previous games, aggressive AI would not let an ass-kicking deter them from a DoW.

Shaka annoyed all the other players in the game enough that once we got World Congress they passed a bunch of resolutions to punish him - first a trade embargo, then a ban on citrus of which he had 5 or 6. I thought it was hilarious, but also made an awesome kind of sense.

In my current game Attila attacked Pedro (what, he has a sign on his back saying "kick me"?) and on another continent, Washington and Monty are constantly fighting.

 

[Nickel_lion]

I have played 2 games so far, and in the first one, Shaka killed Pedro, and then warred a bunch of city states ... In my current game Attila attacked Pedro (what, he has a sign on his back saying "kick me"?) and on another continent, Washington and Monty are constantly fighting.

Damn, I laughed so hard with this...

I think people need to play WAY MORE to have different experiences about the AI's aggressiveness.