AU mod: AI aggression levels

[alexman]

The AI aggression settings are why Bismark and Shaka are such a pain, while Joan and Ghandi are good trading partners. For the most part, civilization aggression settings are chosen to match the civilization traits quite well. Militaristic civilizations, or civilizations with strong ancient UU, get high aggression (Germany, Rome, Japan, Persia, Aztecs, Zululand, Mongols, Scandinavia, Celts, Hittites), and builder civilizations get low aggression (France, India, Carthage, Sumeria, Korea). However, there are some cases where the AI would benefit from a different aggression level than what Firaxis has assigned. For example:

1. Babylon is a classic builder civilization, so her AI aggression could be lower than 3/5. Notice how C3C changed the aggression of Hammurabi, down from 4/5. Another influence of the AU mod?
2. China is a militaristic civilization, very popular among human warmongers, yet the AI aggression level is only 2/5.
3. Greece is scientific builder civilization with a defensive UU. Her AI aggression could be lower than 3/5.
4. Russia is another scientific civilization, with no clear reason for aggressive behavior. She could benefit from reducing her 4/5 aggression level.
5. America is a builder civilization, with no UU until the modern age. Reducing her aggression from 3/5 might be in order.
6. The Iroquois have one of the best UU in the game, yet their aggression level is only 2/5.

Perhaps we can change AI aggression so that the total aggression of all civilizations remains the same, for example:
China: 2->4
Greece: 3->2
Russia: 4->2
America: 3->2
Iroquois: 2->4

On the other hand, some players feel that changing AI aggression levels is confusing because people are used to a friendly Mao and a mean Catherine.

So what do you think? Do you have any suggestions for changes to other civilizations' AI aggression? Would changing aggression levels change the feel of the AI leaders too much from stock? Do you think it's worth the change if it's going to make the AI take better advantage of their traits?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by alexman
Would changing aggression levels change the feel of the AI leaders too much from stock? Do you think it's worth the change if it's going to make the AI take better advantage of their traits?

I like this one, but, as usual, would like to go a tad slower:

China: 2->3
Greece: 3->2
America: 3->2
Iroquois: 2->3

I'd leave Russia alone.

[alexman]

Why is Russia suited for high aggression?
Or is it that you love to hate Catherine?
And what about Hammurabi?

[Theseus]

Russia: History.
Babylon: Already tweaked once, let's play it at 3 for a while.

[ducki]

I would say Russia because of the expansionist trait. You can't be expanding if you are a timid little girl.

For the same reason, I'd say all Commercial civs should be slightly more aggressive(by 1) than you would normally think they should be due to the advantage they have in a larger than default empire.

[MqsTout]

I'm new to the AU forums, but in my free time this morning I've been reading a lot of the changes and the threads and the purposes of the mod, and this has definitely been my favorite. It favors the AI and it isn't all too drastic of a change. Also, it's very well explained why the change should be made.

[pvzh]

Theseus, what do you mean "Russia: History."?

Most of russian expansion was eastward to fairly "empty" space. There were some conflicts, but without major genocide (compare to colonization of the New World).

Edit: I agree with alexman proposal.

[Krill]

Ever heard of the Dogger bank incident, or the crimean war, or what about the cold war

[Theseus]

Ask the Finns, Swedes, Poles, Turks, and French, among others.

[pvzh]

Not sure what you ment by Dogger bank incident (probably we, russian, calls it in the other way). Besides, it is an incident.
Crimean war was declared upon Russia by coallition of most European countries (even Piemount participated. What did they forgot there?) and was fought on russian soil. Hardly a war of agression.
Cold War was not really a war, but even so it was not declared by Russia either. First was Fulton speach by Churchill, NATO and only then Warsaw Pact. Soviet Union even did not have a doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear strike unlike USA.

Finns were not really conquered: Finnland was aquired through Treaty of Tilsit (around 1806 or 1807) and after that enjoyed the broadest possible autonomy. Russian Emperor assumed the title of the Great Duke of Finland, Finlad had constitution, Senate, separate laws. Not even dime was collected to the impereal treasury from them. The only benefit of empire was Helsingfors (Helsinky) as naval base.

Swedes: I think only Norther War 1700-1721 could be called a formal agression. We declared the war, but it was thought only to return the territories that were extorted and captured by Swedes during turmoil of 1590s-1600s. Several consequetive wars with Sweden in 19th century were declared by Sweden.

Poles: similar story. Russia Minor (Ukraine) is Russia afterall. Although in the end Russian Empire ended up with big chunk of Poland (two smaller ones were in Prussia and Austro-Hungarian Empire). It agan was given broadest possible independence: nominal rule. Before uprising of 1830s they even had own army!

Wars with Turks in 19th century could be considered as wars of agression because most of them were disputes over right of passage through Bosphor and Dardanelle Straight.

French? what does that mean? Joining the anti-Napoleon coalitions or Crimean War again?

Not to mention that emperor Alexander I was initiator of Viena Treaty (1813) that was first attempt to work out rules of peaceful resolutions of inter-state conflicts.

What I am saying that Russia was not some kind of state of saints or peaceniks, but that her agressions levels were inline with or below typical europeans of any given time. Defenetly below, Germans or English, probably somewhere around France.

[alexman]

Before this thread moves too much more off-topic, let me just say that the AU mod should not justify changes based on historical accuracy.

The point of this thread was to improve the AI. I think that the Russian AI would benefit from less aggression, but as always, the benefit needs to be worth the change in 'feel' from stock rules.

[pvzh]

Yes, sorry about that. I promise not to reply on the issue (russian agression level) here.

From the game perspective high agression levels have to be reserved for Civ that have good offensive UU's or militaristic trait.

Defensive UU, scientific, or religious should cotribute to lower agression levels. To encourage AI to build more of cheaper infrustructure than units.

Commercial has a built-in agression modifier -- OCN bonus.
Expansionist, agricultural, industrious or seafaring are neutral to the setting IMHO.

[alexman]

The following proposal for aggression level changes is now under consideration:

1. Yes/No: China from 2 to 4
2. Yes/No: Greece from 3 to 2
3. Yes/No: Russia from 4 to 2
4. Yes/No: America from 3 to 2
5. Yes/No: Iroquois from 2 to 4
6. Yes/No: Babylon from 3 to 2

[alexman]

Originally posted by pvzh
Commercial has a built-in agression modifier -- OCN bonus.

Do you mean that Commercial AI try to expand until they reach 25% more cities than non-commercial? I don't think this is the case. I'm pretty sure that the AI looks only at the unmodified OCN when determining when to stop expanding. If you mean that commercial AI should be more aggressive, I agree.

[pvzh]

Well, it was just a hopeful guess. I have never tried to measure it anyhow.

[Theseus]

pvzh: Sorry, I was giving a less than thoughtful answer. Let me re-phrase... given my [less than complete] knowledge and worldview of Russian history, and perhaps also in that my own family and people were smacked around by Russia pretty badly, I gave a gut response as to the appropriate level of aggression for them, which, as alexman points out, is semi-irrelevant to AU Mod gameplay anyway. So, in other words... forget it from a serious RL perspective.

alexman: That being said, I'll stand by my right to advise 'going slow' ... rather than yes/no choices as you have proposed, can we do this with a little more flexibility, e.g.:

China - 2, 3, 4

Thanks.

[alexman]

Time to vote. AU mod panel has 48 hours.

1. Yes/No: Greece from 3 to 2
2. Yes/No: America from 3 to 2
3. Yes/No: Babylon from 3 to 2
4. Yes/No: Arabs from 4 to 3
5. Rank the options: China: 2, 3, 4
6. Rank the options: Russia: 4, 3, 2
7. Rank the options: Iroquois: 2, 3, 4

[alexman]

My votes:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. 432
6. 234
7. 432

[Stuie]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. How did the Arabs suddenly enter this discussion? No.
5. 342
6. 432
7. 432

[alexman]

Originally posted by Stuie
4. How did the Arabs suddenly enter this discussion?

Good point. I guess I forgot to mention them before.

The reason is the same as for the Russians. Their traits are not especially suited for aggressive play.

[Dominae]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. 423
6. 234
7. 423

[lockstep]

1: YES
2: NO
3: YES
4: NO
5: 342
6: 342
7: 432

[ZargonX]

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. 342
6. 342
7. 432

[Theseus]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. 423
6. 324
7. 423

[pauli]

YES
YES
YES
NO
432
234
432

[alexman]

With six panel members voting, all issues have been resolved, except for China's aggression level where we have a tie between 3 and 4.

I sent a PM to Nor Me several days ago to come here and vote, and even though he has been online, he has not voted.

Any ideas?

[Arrian]

When in doubt, be conservative, don't you think? Go with 3 and see how it goes.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

With Arrian's reminder, I would like to pull back to my own original (conservative) change for China, i.e. to 3.

Problem solved, yes?

[alexman]

OK, so if we have a tie, the more conservative option wins. Sounds good to me.