I was excited to join this month's gotm until I saw that it had been set to Prince instead of Noble.:(

It wouldn't be a big deal if the AI actually got smarter in the higher diffs, but I simply can't have fun playing when I know the AI is literally getting unfair advantages over the player.

I know the 'cheating difficulties' issue has been discussed ad infinitum already, but perhaps we could discuss an alternate gotm which stays on Noble. any other option changes are fine, I'm up for any challenge, as long as the AI doesn't get to cheat.

It's preferable to increase the diff through the other settings. I just finished a Duel size world with 18 civs. The only victory available was Diplomatic. Very hard, but no AI cheating.:king:

Sorry to break it to you but the AI cheats on noble too. They have reduced unit support, reduced upgrade costs, etc. But the human is the biggest cheater of all since we can think.

Personally I really like different difficulties, since technically if you can win the game you arn't competing against the AI but against other Human players who played with the same conditions as you. :goodjob:

It is just like in hockey sucks to play on bad ice :sad: , but the other teams has to play on it too :D

Or for people who don't play hockey

Playing soccer with an unproperly inflatted ball sucks, but teams teams kick it. :cool:

According to the game, Prince is the first difficuty that actually handicapps the player against the AIs. To me, this means that Noble does not do that.

Memphus: I think you're right. While it does bother me when I play alone, perhaps when playing specifically to do better than others in the game game, it doesn't matter as much, however, if that's the case, then why wouldn't we just all play Noble, since what matters is how well we do compared to each other, not to the AIs?

If we're all gonna play on the same field, we might as well not throw down any rocks...

... If we're all gonna play on the same field, we might as well not throw down any rocks...

Different difficulty means that players have to demonstrate different approaches and use different strategies. This is a great approach, might consider it as running short, medium and long distance barefoot or with shoes on over concrete road, sand, gravel, or ... well, water if it is higher difficulty like Deity. :lol:

if that's the case, then why wouldn't we just all play Noble, since what matters is how well we do compared to each other, not to the AIs?

It's boring to be far ahead almost from the beginning of the game. There are many aspects of the game that don't really get exercised at all at Noble difficulty: e.g., there's hardly any tech trading, because usually as the human I'm way ahead of the AI players. I can only speak for myself: I played GOTM-1, but I probably won't ever play any other games at Noble level. It's just not fun.

The GOTM will have multiple difficulty levels in the future, in order to give players a choice of the level of challenge they want. But, I would expect that even the easiest choice will be harder than standard Noble difficulty.

i think going harder then Noble is a good idea. i dont like concentrating on high scoring, i just like making good empires, and making a game harder will make it harder for the milkers (i dont mean the term to be negative, but it sounds that way) to pump every possible point out of every city without losing more turns. so i'll do better vs them (not better then them, just closer to them, lol).

in the 4OTM-1 there were only 37 losses out of over 600 submissions.
and almost half the victories (267) were spacerace victories (meaning that all those players got good tech leads on the AI), so i would say the dificulty needed to be upped a bit. prince isnt much different from noble anyway, just dont think of the AI cheating, and you wont notice it.

in the 4OTM-1 there were only 37 losses out of over 600 submissions.
and almost half the victories (267) were spacerace victories (meaning that all those players got good tech leads on the AI), so i would say the dificulty needed to be upped a bit. prince isnt much different from noble anyway, just dont think of the AI cheating, and you wont notice it.What about all those people who failed and didn't submit since they knew they would not win? I am doing the GoTMs now, not to win, I know I won't even place, but just for the fun of knowing that I'm doing the same game as hundreds of others out their and I can look at how we did things differently. I am currently playing the first GoTM since it doesn't matter to me that I can't submit it. I am barely holding an even pace with the computer and if I play number 2 I will be thouroughly stomped by the AI.

You say that it is no fun for you to win always, but what of the others of us that will lose always? If you keep us unable to even have a chance at winning then we will drift away and stop comming here. I know the game is a competition, but the way it is rigged now you are going to have the same 50 or so people in the top spot always. If you keep the skill below Prince then people will stick with it and learn from your styles and actually put some competition on te board. Right now you have the system set in such a way so that if you are not already in the top ranks you don't have a chance to grow that way.

The good players will stop playing if all games remain at Noble level. I don't mind noble level once every 5 months or so, but if it became a trend I know I would not bother playing. The only way to handle it is to mix up the difficulty levels from month to month and implement the conquest and predator classes.

@Frendon - Do not worry, our kind and wise GOTM stuff :worship: took care of not so strong players (me included) in 3OTM. They devised three different classes, conquest, open and predator, where conquest is being for the new and weak players who never scored in top 50%. This class is giving bonuses to human player (e.g. additional units, money, etc) allowing these players to win on harder levels. There is a score penalty for taking conquest class, but as I understand from your message your are concern with a victory, not the score.
Discussions in 4OTM threads indicate that the stuff is going to implement this concept in 4OTM soon. So when 4OTM difficulty levels will go up (and I hope they will and I hope they will go up a way higher than prince), you will be able to play it and still have a reasonable hope for a victory. However, I do not recommend you taking conquest class frequently. Believe me (there are reasons you should), you will learn much more about this game by loosing on the higher levels than wining on the lower levels.

I know the game is a competition, but the way it is rigged now you are going to have the same 50 or so people in the top spot always...Right now you have the system set in such a way so that if you are not already in the top ranks you don't have a chance to grow that way.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you be more specific about what you think keeps “the same 50 or so people in the top spot always”?

What about all those people who failed and didn't submit since they knew they would not win?

Submit losing games! If you post a spoiler about your game, and give details on what you did and why, I guarantee several players will help point out ways for you to improve your game quickly. :)

Losing shouldn't matter. In fact, as Solenoozerec said, you will probably learn more from your losing games than the ones you win.

I am doing the GoTMs now, not to win, I know I won't even place, but just for the fun of knowing that I'm doing the same game as hundreds of others out their and I can look at how we did things differently.

That is an excellent reason to play.

If you keep us unable to even have a chance at winning then we will drift away and stop comming here.

Don't do that. You can be sure that the GoTM staff will always put up a good variety of games. There will be hard ones too though, to keep the really good players from "drifting away." I would still recommend playing the hard ones! Even if you lose, you will get better every time. Especially if you post a spoiler on your game, keep practicing, and read the strategy threads. Remember, most of the really good players enjoy helping others improve.

I hope to see a “Flendon Spoiler” for GoTM 2—win or loss, doesn’t matter.

@Shillen: Don't forget the other way we can maintain interest in low difficulty games: variants!:)

I guess my greatest wish (as far a difficulty) is that the AI be consitered more difficult because it is actually better at stategising the game. I don't know much about programing AI, so maybe it's not even possible, but I would love to play against some Civ AIs that are harder because they are smarter, not because they have been given some kind of edge over me.

I guess my greatest wish (as far a difficulty) is that the AI be consitered more difficult because it is actually better at stategising the game. I don't know much about programing AI, so maybe it's not even possible, but I would love to play against some Civ AIs that are harder because they are smarter, not because they have been given some kind of edge over me.

If the SDK (tool programers can use to customize the game) Firaxis plans to release is as comprehensive as it is billed to be, you may well get your wish. Players have already spotted numerous ways in which the AIs play can be improved significantly. And with the modding community Civ4 has, it's only a matter of time before someone designs a "Killer AI Mod." But that is only if the SDK turns out as good as it is supposed to be.

@Flendon - in the Civ3 GOTM, we have had a lot of people (myself included) who got their first ever deity win in the GOTM - it is a great learning environment. When the GOTMs started, we had warlord level games - with a variety of levels of performance by players. Now we rarely bother, because the community has moved on.

I sense it will be the same with the Civ4 version - don't worry about feeling overwhelmed by the difficulty - just take time to actually see how people go about playing their games - or perhaps join a succession game (or maybe a Civ4 SGOTM :hmm: )

The changes in the AI are only one aspect of changing the difficulty level. You learn a lot about managing cities and good play from running at higher levels. You can be sloppy at the lower levels and still come out ahead.
If your cities become unhappy, or unhealthy, at smaller sizes then you gain a better grasp of the importance of resources. It's also handy to develop techniques that can be used to keep more aggressive AI players at peace.

More to the point, Noble isn't an even game. There are well-documented tactics that can give you a substantial edge over the AI in the early going, even at Prince. Chopping trees for the first couple of workers and settlers is one example. The AI also tends to micromanage acceptably but not optimally, placing too many farms and too few cottages for example. The AI also tends to build too many troops (and not then using them!) and spends a lot of cash on upgrading obsolete troops, which is usually only worth doing if they are combat veterans. The AI players also tend not to do things like deep beelines for valuable techs, or taking rapid advantage of new techs (e.g. getting knights or catapults and using them before the other side catches up).

There are well-documented tactics that can give you a substantial edge over the AI in the early going, even at Prince. Chopping trees for the first couple of workers and settlers is one example. The AI also tends to micromanage acceptably but not optimally, placing too many farms and too few cottages for example. The AI also tends to build too many troops (and not then using them!) and spends a lot of cash on upgrading obsolete troops, which is usually only worth doing if they are combat veterans. The AI players also tend not to do things like deep beelines for valuable techs, or taking rapid advantage of new techs (e.g. getting knights or catapults and using them before the other side catches up).

Exactly my point. It would be a better game if the higher difficulty Civswere simply made to follow some of these 'edge' strats themselves, rather than handicaping the player to make up for his ability to do things which bring him ahead.

Exactly my point. It would be a better game if the higher difficulty Civswere simply made to follow some of these 'edge' strats themselves, rather than handicaping the player to make up for his ability to do things which bring him ahead.

But why/how do we human players know about these strategies?

We learn't them and then came here found other ways refined out game and tried something else.

The AI you played agaisnt game 1 is the AI you play agaisn't 100, 100000 etc, you get better it doesn't.

So at simple glance a programmer could implement (albeit some are VERY hard if not impossible to do) these strategies, but for what?

In a month we(being the civing community) will have a 101 new ways of beating that AI.

Until you(being anyone) can write a program (and that can execute in a reasonable amount of time) where the AI learns from game to game experience to experience it will always produce the same level 'of difficulty'

for more information:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148431
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153187&highlight=Artificial+Intelligence

Wow! I'm getting a sense of deja-vu ... yup, it all comes around.

We had lots of discussions along these exact lines in the Civ3 GOTM's. And all the solutions already mentioned were implemented - Conquest, Open and Predator levels provide the best support for a new player and more challenge for the experienced player.

All I can do is urge you to fully participate, submit any game you have, and post spoilers. Other players shouldn't give you advice about a current game situation, but if you had a difficult problem that was your undoing, post it after the fact and you will get plenty of suggestions for the next time.

And you will struggle a bit as the difficulty increases, but the next time you play a lower level, it will seem much easier as you use the better strategies you learned, and you don't use the poor strategies you've 'unlearned'. The problem with lower level games is you can get by with poor strategies and never know how poor they are. As solenoozerec said, you learn more by losing at a higher level then winning at a lower level. Pretty soon you'll be winning at that higher level.

All good points. Since I noticed that the current GOTM is on prince level (and having never played on Prince myself) I started a Prince game on my own "just to see what it was like". I fell into the early trap of expanding too quickly (6 or 7 cities) only to see my science drop to zero, my gold fall to zero, and my average size army disappear in 10-15 turns (please tell me at what point in the game this turns around...is it a technology, a building, moving to a different age, or what). For that game, I recovered to finish in second place...first place was never in doubt as that AI I chose to suck up to conquered a couple of civs early. However, I learned the hard way about expanding too quickly. I also learned a little bit about cottage placement on rivers. I also learned that barbarians suck. :) Anyways, I've started my second Prince game and limited my early expansion to 4 cities. Now I can maintain a decent sized army, and I've recently used it to steal a couple cities from my neighbor.

Currency is a huge tech; it practically doubles your income due to the extra trade routes, and that's even without any markets.

(please tell me at what point in the game this turns around...is it a technology, a building, moving to a different age, or what)

It turns around when you reduce your costs and increase your beakers or gold output. This means building commerce improvements with your workers, building courthouses, libraries, markets, just growing the cities out, etc.

You should never let your slider drop to 0% and get your units disbanded, though. You can expand quickly without that happening if you emphasize commerce in your cities. Also if you're going for a quick expansion strategy (without war) then you should make sure you aren't paying anything in unit costs. You can't afford to pay both extreme city maintenance and unit costs at the same time. Also, don't use high upkeep civics like organized religion, vassalage, or even hereditary rule (only medium I know).

But generally speaking I wouldn't advise a fast expansion strategy. It's best to find a balance. With enough games you'll figure out how quickly you should expand on a given map with a given strategy and then when to go to war to expand again. It sounds like you did much better in the second game.

In a pinch you can also go into anarchy, which prevents armies/workers from disbanding (cities don't build either, but workers do chop and units are not affected). This can be useful if you either have workers building key improvements or you're about to finish a major military campaign....

In a pinch you can also go into anarchy, which prevents armies/workers from disbanding (cities don't build either, but workers do chop and units are not affected). This can be useful if you either have workers building key improvements or you're about to finish a major military campaign....

That exploit is banned for GOTM. Read the stickies. :)

Anarchy isn't banned, just perpetual anarchy :mischief:.

Currency is a huge tech; it practically doubles your income due to the extra trade routes, and that's even without any markets.

Huh? At the point you get Currency, you usually only have domestic trade routes, so this is +1 commerce per city. Maybe +2 at most. This isn't anywhere near "double": you need to have a lot more than 2*(number of cities) commerce.

(or maybe a Civ4 SGOTM :hmm: )


Ok, don’t even be joking about that! I’ve been hoping they would start up a CivIV SGOTM ever since IVOTM came out. :drool:

You can't do anarchy forever in GOTM, correct. I was referring to a stopgap usage of it, which is permitted. Basically, get at peace, finish up improvements, disband excess units, shuffle worked tiles, etc. and then get out of a critical gap.

But generally speaking I wouldn't advise a fast expansion strategy. It's best to find a balance. With enough games you'll figure out how quickly you should expand on a given map with a given strategy and then when to go to war to expand again. It sounds like you did much better in the second game.

Fast expansion is okay as long as you make sure the next city will cover the cost of expansion either immediately or in a short time. This means you are expanding to terrian that can generate a lot of commence easily and have the worker to make it happen if needed.

Typically, this means water, commence resources and cottages.

Of course, there will always be a time when further expansion is definately a cost to the empire and that is when it should be considered carefully if there is enough future potential and/or strategic purpose to build another city.

Fast expansion is okay as long as you make sure the next city will cover the cost of expansion either immediately or in a short time. This means you are expanding to terrian that can generate a lot of commence easily and have the worker to make it happen if needed.

Typically, this means water, commence resources and cottages.

Of course, there will always be a time when further expansion is definately a cost to the empire and that is when it should be considered carefully if there is enough future potential and/or strategic purpose to build another city.

I find if you can settle another city and have it cover its cost immediately, then you're not expanding very fast at all. If you expand fast then your cities will not be paying for themselves even with some decent commerce tiles to work. It doesn't take much to drop down to the point where you're at 20% science and losing money. Also I think people put too much stock in the fact that a city will "eventually" pay for itself. I find a great amount of time you're better off keeping a strong economy now than hindering it in order to make a better economy later. Also, a great many people just look at the maintenance cost of that one city and say "hey great, it can pay that off on its own" not realizing or just plain ignoring that the maintenance for all other cities went up as well as civic upkeep.

Huh? At the point you get Currency, you usually only have domestic trade routes, so this is +1 commerce per city. Maybe +2 at most. This isn't anywhere near "double": you need to have a lot more than 2*(number of cities) commerce.

It was exaggeration, and a stupid thing to write without qualifications, but in my own defense, I was very tired that day. :) It depends a lot on the map and one's play style as to how big of a boost currency gives in and of itself. I've never found it to not be noticeable, though.

So is obtaining the currency tech the biggest thing in turning around the financial woes of a growing empire?

It's a start. Beyond its trade route benefit, it also lets you sell tech for cash and resources for per-turn cash, which is sometimes lucrative. Investing in cottages is also vital, though this should have started much earlier. Getting courthouses built is important; so is switching to cheaper civics if that's what's running you into the ground. Also exploration -- you can't get trade routes to civs you don't have a visible road connection or coastal connection to. (Unless they have such a connection to you, but you can't count on that.) And Open Borders. And probably a dozen other things.

You have to do them all; there's no easy cure-all.

So is obtaining the currency tech the biggest thing in turning around the financial woes of a growing empire?

Depending on what kind of map, what kind of strategy, and probably a LOT of other factors...

Yes, it can be. In most Noble games I'm to far ahead to notice the difference, but now that I'm playing Prince (highest level I've had a win on) it can sometimes mean the difference between financial ruin or victory. That being said, in other games it can be useless. It all depends. :crazyeye:

Comming back on Prince being 'to hard' because of the AI cheating more. Yea. Sure. But with the AI being as bad as it is in planning anything long term Prince is (for me) the level at which it is 'even'. I'm not saying it can't plan, but at times I scratch my head at the insane things I see (or read on CF) it doing for apperantly no reason. I agree with one of the first posters...

Having a brain is the biggest cheat. ^^

I find if you can settle another city and have it cover its cost immediately, then you're not expanding very fast at all. If you expand fast then your cities will not be paying for themselves even with some decent commerce tiles to work. It doesn't take much to drop down to the point where you're at 20% science and losing money. Also I think people put too much stock in the fact that a city will "eventually" pay for itself. I find a great amount of time you're better off keeping a strong economy now than hindering it in order to make a better economy later. Also, a great many people just look at the maintenance cost of that one city and say "hey great, it can pay that off on its own" not realizing or just plain ignoring that the maintenance for all other cities went up as well as civic upkeep.

Well, exactly the point, the common mistake when moving from civ3 to civ4 may be over expansion initially. But next, it could go the other extreme of under-expansion by players artificially restricting themselves to n number of cities. The thing is that there is no magically number for this. If there is a gold mine nearby versus a cow nearby, the city with a gold mine next to it could easiy pay for itself since it generates 8gc++. while the cow may just produce alot of hammers and some food but is unable to generate enough commerence to support itself. And to make it worst, some players expand without a worker support such that even cottages are not build. A inland city with no river, no cottage and no commence resource is simply just a cost to the empire in terms of $$ even if there are several resources like rice, cow, horse etc to it.

Also, note that I use the work immediately or in a short time. Planning for a size 20 city when you have immediate problems surviving is just not right. I wouldn't even try to plan for size 8 when I put down a new city.

And you are right on the maintenance. And to add to that, the maintenance is not just city maintenance, your Civic maintenance increases as well when you have more cities.

@Frendon - Do not worry, our kind and wise GOTM stuff :worship: took care of not so strong players (me included) in 3OTM. They devised three different classes, conquest, open and predator, where conquest is being for the new and weak players who never scored in top 50%. This class is giving bonuses to human player (e.g. additional units, money, etc) allowing these players to win on harder levels. There is a score penalty for taking conquest class, but as I understand from your message your are concern with a victory, not the score.
Discussions in 4OTM threads indicate that the stuff is going to implement this concept in 4OTM soon. So when 4OTM difficulty levels will go up (and I hope they will and I hope they will go up a way higher than prince), you will be able to play it and still have a reasonable hope for a victory. However, I do not recommend you taking conquest class frequently. Believe me (there are reasons you should), you will learn much more about this game by loosing on the higher levels than wining on the lower levels.Thanks for answering and sorry if I sounded negative there. I know that losing sometimes helps. But losing always doesn't. This conquest sounds like a good system and I would like to see it added. I don't mind high difficulty games, I'll even play above prince if they aren't every game, it just kind of sounds like some people want only high difficulty ones. I will stick around and for several months and give it a chance, but I know some people will just play one and walk away.

I really love what you guys are doing. However my first impressions is that there is an elite class who can just walk all over everyone else in the competitions. I'm not saying that is wrong and you seem more than eager to help us newbs which is great. It just gets discouraging. It is painfully obvious I am not on the same level as you. Some sort of device to level the playing field without penalizing the skilled players would be welcome. It sounds like you have found this in the conquest games you mentioned which is encouraging! Also remember some people are still having difficulty on Settler. Maybe post a settler game along side a prince one and forbid those who play the prince one from competing in the settler game.

I did learn a lot from playing GOTM1 even if I only got a time victory. And I have learned alot from these forums. I will post my results for #2 even if I lose, but I'm sure many people will not. It's part of human nature. People want to win the game even if they don't win the competition.

What I would like to see in addition to the conquest mixed in with the Prince+ games is some Warlord games that force the most skilled players to use strategies other than what they are used to. This would give those of us who do not know the best strategies yet a fighting chance. Even I would find it interesting being past Warlord now to go back and see how the game was changed. Just some ideas off the top of my head that may or may not work:

A no aggression game. Human players are not allowed to initiate a war or capture any cities (recapturing lost cities is ok).
Speed game. Bonus points based off how early you win.
Slowest game. Have to finish as close to 2020 without reaching 2020.


I know I may not be completely clear, but I've been at work for 8 hours, it is 6AM and I am running on mountain dew so I hope you get my point.

PS I've seen mention of the SGOTM games several times, but have not found the definition yet.

PS I've seen mention of the SGOTM games several times, but have not found the definition yet.

SGOTM is short for Succession Game Of The Month, and any information you desire can be found in the SGOTM Reference Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112722). Please note that these rules currently apply only to the Civ3 SGOTM game, as one has not yet been started for Civ4.

Edit: In case you do not know what an SG is please check the What is a Succession Game (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=14235) thread. Note that these rules are located in the Civ3 Succession Game forums. There are no rules/guidelines located in the Civ4 SG forum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=168).

@Flendon - there is indeed a group of highly skillful players. But do not wary about them, after getting some gold medals, they will go for Eptathlon awards (worrying more about different fastest victory types and not score). After that they will pursue pervasive type of games such a No War, Ancient Age Conquest, One City Challenge, etc.
So hopefully after some time they will clear the top for other players, including you if you will do just one thing: stick around for a while

Until we develop smarter than human artificial intelligence, the only way you will get a decent challenge is by giving the AI bonuses. It's a lot better than in civ 3 when the AI was all-knowing and all-seeing. Playing at noble permanently isn't fun as victory soon becomes a foregone conclusion. The higher difficulty levels is where the fun is at, as you have to play smart to come from behind. A Prince victory is so much more satisfying than a Noble victory.

There are many games that make the AI 'smarter' (read: gives the AI more strategic options or allows the AI more time to discover strategies)

The best example is a simple game like Chessmaster. The computer knows more about chess than you, and will beat you every single time if you let it. The difficulty settings allow the computer more time to think of a move. On the easiest level, the computer only gets time to evaluate about 35 different moves, and takes the best one. On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do.

Playing against an AI like that is educational, and helps you improve your game. Another example (that is more like Civ) that uses smarter AIs is the Age of Empires franchise. The higher difficulties do not have to give the AIs and advantage, they only open up new strategies for the AI to use and make the AI more agressive. Again, this is an AI that you can learn from when you lose.


I got talked into it. I played the GOTM on Prince. It was not fun. I was completely trounced before 100AD, and the whole time, everytime something negative happened to me, I knew that I'd be doing well if the computer had not been given unfair advantage over me. I knew that every lost unit was one that might have stayed in my army if the dice had not been weighted against me. I learned nothing more than a stronger dislike of what Sid Meier's team passes off as 'difficulty levels', when they are, in fact, handicap settings. Maybe I'd be less agrivated if they actually presented it as a handicap slider, instead of a 'difficulty'.

I love this game, but I can't enjoy playing it like that.

As I said in the opening post:

It's fine to make it more difficult by changing the other settings (like putting many Civs on a very small world) but the actual difficulty slider is pointless, and takes away from the enjoyment of the game.

Indeed on the higher levels AI is not smarter, it is simply given advantages. I wish at some point game developers will design AI that can learn and adapt to a particular human player. But you do not even need such an AI, since you can play against other humans. Or, alternatively, you will not need humans if you have such an AI (this thought makes me trembling :twitch: )

GOTM is about a competition between human players on beating stupid AI. It reminds me Spanish corrida. But here on higher levels the bull gets bigger, not smarter, just bigger. And you, human, is given less and less tools, so that finally you have to face this bull with only your hands and make this bull to commit suicide.

You do not learn from the bull how to kill him (though observation of his behavior is helpful), you learn from other people how to do this. This is exactly what is happening in GOTM.
Like it or not, this is how it is. Personally I do not want to kill a rabbit with a nuclear bomb in every game if I think I might have a chance against a wolf with a knife. (Independent of a difference between intellectual capabilities of these animals.)

Disclaimer: I love animals :rudolf: and I do not like corrida. This is why I am killing AI. Above example is just an illustration of a point that I am trying to make.

Ok, don’t even be joking about that! I’ve been hoping they would start up a CivIV SGOTM ever since IVOTM came out. :drool:
Would people actually be interested in a Civ4 SGOTM? :hmm:

There might be problem with SGOTM as with any other SG before the final patch is released. People would have to keep multiple versions of Civ4 and the saves might be not compatible with these versions. :hmm:

Same which happened with Conquests 1.15.

Eh? Every new version has been backwards compatible so far. I don't think they'll stop that. There are plenty of SG's going in the SG forums that have had no trouble with the two patches that we've had already.

Would people actually be interested in a Civ4 SGOTM? :hmm:

Yes, definitely.

Now if I could just get Team Smurfze to upgrade to [civ4]. :)

Prince is KILLING me.

Iam Dying here T_T :D


No seriously. Iam down to 10% science and I can only sustain this for a few more turns. :cry:

Sounds more like you are killing yourself! ;) Note the things you've done to get in this predicament, and don't do them in your next game!!

The best example is a simple game like Chessmaster. The computer knows more about chess than you, and will beat you every single time if you let it. The difficulty settings allow the computer more time to think of a move. On the easiest level, the computer only gets time to evaluate about 35 different moves, and takes the best one. On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do.
You are vastly overestimating the abilities of this AI. And vastly underestimating just how much more simplistic chess is than CivIV.

There are many games that make the AI 'smarter' (read: gives the AI more strategic options or allows the AI more time to discover strategies)

The best example is a simple game like Chessmaster. The computer knows more about chess than you, and will beat you every single time if you let it. The difficulty settings allow the computer more time to think of a move. On the easiest level, the computer only gets time to evaluate about 35 different moves, and takes the best one. On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do.

In Chess, a position has on average 34 possible moves to consider. So to look two moves ahead, it's about 34^2 moves, and so on. So Chess computers can look a reasonable distance ahead, and beat the average player tactically (they can look even further ahead by carefully using choosing which moves to examine to the greatest depth). Chess computers get beaten by grandmasters because the grandmasters think strategically instead - it is harder for an AI to abstractly consider what's a good strategy than to concentrate on "what's a good move now".

In Civ4, a position has on average goodness knows how many hundred things to consider, so a simple chess-like search won't work. The AI can break off small chunks (point-to-point movement, order to send troops into battle, etc) and search for the most effective combination there, but for much of the game it simply has to rely on strategies and heuristics that have been coded into it by a human ("if I have more troops than him and he has some close weak-looking cities, maybe I should declare war"). Which means the AI has a fixed and fairly small repertoir to play from [small compared to a smart human, not compared to another AI]. And when the human learns how to counter a particular AI strategy, the AI is stuffed until the next patch. As a hypothetical but unproven example, as soon as you see an AI convert to Theocracy and Vassalage you know it's planning a war, so pop some high-strength troops into the cities of yours that it can see to encourage it to go after one of its other neighbours. If that counter works, then the AI's war-declaring heuristics have just been stuffed by the human to usually work against the AI.

Playing against an AI like that is educational, and helps you improve your game. Another example (that is more like Civ) that uses smarter AIs is the Age of Empires franchise. The higher difficulties do not have to give the AIs and advantage, they only open up new strategies for the AI to use and make the AI more agressive. Again, this is an AI that you can learn from when you lose.

I haven't played an RTS in 10 years, but I seem to recall that AIs in RTS games always have one unfair advantage over the human - they can give orders to two units on opposite ends of the map without having to move the "screen" over to the other units first. This speed advantage (not being slowed down by actually having to move a mouse, and being able to see the whole of the playing field at the same time) helps the AI no end. RTS games by their nature also tend to have fewer options at a given moment than turn-based games.

Not this again...
This comes back everytime, with the comparison with chess.
It's not the same.
Let's be clear.
If the best AI programmers in th world took 6 months to program a static AI for civ (meaning once its programmed, it doesnt change, even if it has some randomness in its decision process, the actual process doesnt change), it would still get TRASHED in a fair fight against a good human of the 'net community after maybe a few weeks of understanding the changes...

Anybody comparing civ to chess doesn't really understand how a chess AI works and how the same process applied to civ would fail miserably.

Not this again...
This comes back everytime, with the comparison with chess.
It's not the same.
Let's be clear.
If the best AI programmers in th world took 6 months to program a static AI for civ (meaning once its programmed, it doesnt change, even if it has some randomness in its decision process, the actual process doesnt change), it would still get TRASHED in a fair fight against a good human of the 'net community after maybe a few weeks of understanding the changes...

Anybody comparing civ to chess doesn't really understand how a chess AI works and how the same process applied to civ would fail miserably.

I find it strange that you moan about my contrasting the game with chess (actually in response to CB Droege bringing up the comparison), and then make exactly the same point I did about why it is different from chess and why a chess-like AI is not suitable.

He couldn't be talking about me... I do understand how a chess AI works, and I still stand by all of my points (even though you all seem to have missed the biggest point I was making).

Besides, You colectively talked me into playing the GOTM despite prince, and I was right, it wasn't fun. I gave it a real changce, I even enjoyed it for a few turns, but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game.

Whether or not it is technically possible to make the AI play a better game is entirely irrelevant to my points. My discussion in that realm was completely hypothetical.

Also, WarCraft 2 was the last game to really have the 'infinite mouse pointers' issue with the AI. Developers are aware of the issue, and have since built limits into the AI which address that problem. My comparison still stands:

RTS AIs are never made to 'cheat', like Civ AIs are.

I'm not trying to start an RTS is better than turn-based argument... I prefer turn-based games myself. I'm just tryint to say that I do not have the ability to have fun against a cheating AI, and I feel that this is not a flaw in myself, but a flaw in the game that only bothers a few fairness-oriented people.


This might be a better analogy than discussing chess and RTS and stuff.

If I enjoy running a good footrace, but I always win and want a greater challenge, what I want is to compete against a better runner.

I would not have fun if my 'greater challenge' was simply the same poor runner with a 15 meter head start

It may not be possible to find a better runner, but that's still what I want, and I would rather win everytime against the poor runners, than give any of them a head start.

The contest is meaningless if it is not fair.


If you want a greater challenge in Civ, it can be found in the settings, or in personal goals (my original exam[ple of a Duel sized world with 18 civs and 'diplomatic victory' the only possible win is very tough (even on noble, yes)) you could, for example, try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, or you could try to get the space race victory a hundred years earlier. These are all ways of making the game tougher without making it unfair...

RTS AIs are never made to 'cheat', like Civ AIs are.


AFAIK, RTS AIs get progressively discounted construction costs on harder difficultly levels. The original Red Alert was an example where the human player got cheaper units on easier difficulties.

And as for the AI not "cheating" on Noble, I did play one Noble game where two AI players discovered my continent. Two swift map trades later, and I could see the path that both took with their first caravels, straight to my island. In the original civ that exploit was allowed purely to make the game more interesting, if you started on an island by yourself.


If I enjoy running a good footrace, but I always win and want a greater challenge, what I want is to compete against a better runner.

I would not have fun if my 'greater challenge' was simply the same poor runner with a 15 meter head start

It may not be possible to find a better runner, but that's still what I want, and I would rather win everytime against the poor runners, than give any of them a head start.


I do not follow this argument against handicapping. You want a greater challenge, but would prefer to win every time rather than make things competitive. To return to the chess example, why not concede a piece head start? What makes things interesting is the relative progress. Yes, you learn more against better players, but that is because you learn more by losing than by winning. Just losing is less enjoyable. Your race would not be much greater challenge if you always won by 20m, but it would if you only ever won by 10m. And if I enjoy a good footrace, but lose every time, then it is not quite as good a footrace as one that I stand even a small chance of winning.


If you want a greater challenge in Civ, it can be found in the settings, or in personal goals (my original exam[ple of a Duel sized world with 18 civs and 'diplomatic victory' the only possible win is very tough (even on noble, yes)) you could, for example, try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, or you could try to get the space race victory a hundred years earlier. These are all ways of making the game tougher without making it unfair...


Indeed, by the end of your thread you are arguing for handicapping, but at the end of the game rather than the start. If you think it interesting to try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, then why is it not interesting to win when the other civs have a 10% production advantage (etc)? Why is it more interesting to win by 10m than to start 10m behind?

As for your argument over the handicap slider, that is purely semantics. Obviously it is more difficult if you handicap yourself, and easier if you handicap the AI, whether by unit costs, or stopping the AI from using more advanced strategies or more blatant cheating.

I find it strange that you moan about my contrasting the game with chess (actually in response to CB Droege bringing up the comparison), and then make exactly the same point I did about why it is different from chess and why a chess-like AI is not suitable.
I wasn't moaning about you?

He couldn't be talking about me... I do understand how a chess AI works, and I still stand by all of my points (even though you all seem to have missed the biggest point I was making).

Besides, You colectively talked me into playing the GOTM despite prince, and I was right, it wasn't fun. I gave it a real changce, I even enjoyed it for a few turns, but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game.

Whether or not it is technically possible to make the AI play a better game is entirely irrelevant to my points. My discussion in that realm was completely hypothetical.

Also, WarCraft 2 was the last game to really have the 'infinite mouse pointers' issue with the AI. Developers are aware of the issue, and have since built limits into the AI which address that problem. My comparison still stands:

RTS AIs are never made to 'cheat', like Civ AIs are.

I'm not trying to start an RTS is better than turn-based argument... I prefer turn-based games myself. I'm just tryint to say that I do not have the ability to have fun against a cheating AI, and I feel that this is not a flaw in myself, but a flaw in the game that only bothers a few fairness-oriented people.


This might be a better analogy than discussing chess and RTS and stuff.

If I enjoy running a good footrace, but I always win and want a greater challenge, what I want is to compete against a better runner.

I would not have fun if my 'greater challenge' was simply the same poor runner with a 15 meter head start

It may not be possible to find a better runner, but that's still what I want, and I would rather win everytime against the poor runners, than give any of them a head start.

The contest is meaningless if it is not fair.


If you want a greater challenge in Civ, it can be found in the settings, or in personal goals (my original exam[ple of a Duel sized world with 18 civs and 'diplomatic victory' the only possible win is very tough (even on noble, yes)) you could, for example, try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, or you could try to get the space race victory a hundred years earlier. These are all ways of making the game tougher without making it unfair...

Let's take your comparison with RTS.
Sure some of them dont make their AIs cheat.
But no good players play AIs because they kick their ass too much.

So the game becomes strictly multiplayer.

In Civ, they choose to avoid this by adding difficulty level.

You're talking about setting personnal goals.
Some people set the personnal goal of playing on Deity, which is a handicap, just as playing on a duel map with 18 opponents...


I don't know how far you want to take your footrace analogy, but beating a runner with 15 m headstart a beating the same with no headstart by 15 m (like your example with double the points) is pretty much the same in my mind,

... but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game. ...

I'm sorry but it seems you are getting it wrong here.

Prince is a very low difficulty level strictly speaking and the game is not challenging absolutely on this level. There is no question human player would win imho if playing properly without mistakes. If you lose, you are obviously doing something wrong somewhere. Well, instead of figuring out what you are doing wrong and trying to make it right, you instead decided to complain about some essentially non-existent AI advatage. I'm really confused by this attitude. Like you admit voluntarily that you are not a good player and you do not want to improve. I'm sorry if I'm getting it wrong in my turn here. :confused:

He couldn't be talking about me... I do understand how a chess AI works, and I still stand by all of my points (even though you all seem to have missed the biggest point I was making).
Judging from:

"On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do."

I beg to differ. :p

The computer only has the ability to look at "every possible game outcome" in a sparse endgame, and similar situations, where there are very few moves available. And even still, the computer could not achieve victory if it wasn't programmed with the (human) known algorithms for solving the basic end-games. E.G. I'm pretty sure that AIs are not yet capable of winning a king-knight-bishop vs king endgame with their searching abilities.

But the fact you said "and not actually possible to beat" is what most leads me to believe that you really don't know about this stuff.


The higher difficulties do not have to give the AIs and advantage, they only open up new strategies for the AI to use and make the AI more agressive. Again, this is an AI that you can learn from when you lose.
But like most games, a good player can quickly get beyond the ability of the best RTS AIs (on a level playing field), and often beyond the ability of multiple AIs teamed up against him. In every computer wargame I've ever played, be it turn based or real time, the games are challenging at first, and then eventually become utterly trivial at anywhere near a level playing field. :(

One of my favorite wargames was actually based on this principle -- instead of making any semblance of an even fight, the whole point was that the AI had overwhelming forces, and the goal was to exploit (or create) a weakness in its position to achieve your objective.

Handicaps are just another dimension for making a game more challenging, and they have the advantage that handicaps can usually be scaled up indefinitely -- while you will eventually run out of new AI strategies, you generally will not run out of ways to give the AI other advantages.


Besides, You colectively talked me into playing the GOTM despite prince, and I was right, it wasn't fun. I gave it a real changce, I even enjoyed it for a few turns, but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game.
Getting back to CIV -- think of it this way: if Noble was a fair challenge, you ought to be losing 86% of your games against 6 AIs.

The AI doesn't compete in the Games of the Month very often, so its ability to "cheat" is irrelevant. We have recently invited GOTM-AI to play some of the Civ3 Conquests games, taking the human role, and you can find his posts in the recent COTM spoilers. He failed miserably relative to the human competitors, losing all but one game. Only at Sid level did he manage to win a bronze medal, when he had the same advantages as the AI. This indicates the performance difference between the GOTM players and the AI.

For GOTMs the AI just provides a measuring stick against which all players pit their playing skills. It takes the place of the bunkers and hazards on a golf course, in a sense. Like bunkers, the AI don't cheat, they just sit there, getting in the way of progress. More so for novices than for experience players, which is the point, really.

We try to set the difficulty levels for games such that we can differentiate the best players from the good players, and the good players from each other. In a very easy game every competent player would get the same result, give or take a RNG roll or two. When the difficulty level is increased the AI gets more advantages, it's the same for all GOTM competitors, and different players cope with these challenges better or worse, creating an interesting performance table.

We have recently invited GOTM-AI to play some of the Civ3 Conquests games, taking the human role, and you can find his posts in the recent COTM spoilers.

Why AI doesn't play 4OTM?

From reading your responces, I think the thing that really makes it a difference for me, is that I always play as if I'm playing against a person. I specifically try not to notice when the AI does things that I can predict, in order to make the game more enjoyable for myself... I don't think that it's fun to analyze an AI, and learn how to specifically work against the things it knows how to do. Would you be willing to play against a group of humans who all got their productions costs halved? poly not. It wouldn't be fun.

I'm not saying that I hate Prince because I always loose. It's that for some reason, on the occasions that I do loose, it upsets me more than it would if the computer didn't get overt advantages

The golf analogy even works... I would much rather strive to get better and better on a normal course, then try to keep the same level of performance on a course that with moving traps...


Again the point is not really to argue about chess AIs, as I said before, it was a hypothetical suggestion, but for the sake of argument: It is possible to program a computer with every possible chess game (there is a finite number of possible move lists). If you allow the computer as much time as it needs, it can simply choose the move each turn that keeps it on the most number of winning lists, and it will beat you. It doesn't matter how good you are.

I think despite the impossibility of winning against this hypothetical program, I wouldn't mind loosing, because it is at least following the same rules.

It could also be made more challenging (even impossible), by letting the computer move twice (for example) for each of your moves... That would not be fun, and you would not learn from it, because the AI is not playing the same game anymore.



However: what it really really comes down to is personal preference:

I prefer to play on Noble, and thought that there might be others who feel the same. If there were, I wanted to see if we could get a seperate GOTM.

It doesn't actually look like I have much support on that, so I've given up on the idea.

I'll just go play games that are solely against humans (which I prefer by far, anyway, despite the pains that this game puts us through for the experience)

Would you be willing to play against a group of humans who all got their productions costs halved? poly not. It wouldn't be fun.


Why not? It depends on their skills. If they play considerably worse than me, I'd prefer to equalize the difference. It is not fun to play when you know the outcome.

well... in gotm you usualy know the outcome, but you do not know how you will do compared to other players. Thus, it is still fun.

Would you be willing to play against a group of humans who all got their productions costs halved? poly not. It wouldn't be fun.


Reminds me of when I played World of Warcraft. There were different classes that all had unique abilities/spells/etc. When it came to dueling (1v1 fighting) certain classes clearly had an advantage over other classes. Whenever I was dueling against another class that I had the advantage over I would handicap myself somehow, whether I didn't use a certain ability or what. Tipping the scales so they're more balanced made the duel more enjoyable for both parties. I think that analogy fits perfectly with the AI's bonuses on prince and above. The human starts out with an incredible advantage because it can think. So in order to tip the scales so they're more balanced you need to give the AI's some advantages, or the player disadvantages (one in the same thing). That makes the game more fun than if one side is clearly dominant over the other. Now it depends on player skill as to how many advantages you need to give to the AI in order to balance the scales. For some people that's prince, others it's immortal, etc. Of course if the player isn't very skilled at the game it could be the player that needs the bonuses...that would be warlord and lower difficulties. But I honestly don't understand the aversion to playing on a more balanced setting just because the AI needed some bonuses in order to balance it.

The golf analogy even works... I would much rather strive to get better and better on a normal course, then try to keep the same level of performance on a course that with moving traps...

The traps don't move in Prince, any more than they do at Noble. They are just a little tougher.

Noble is an arbitrary level of difficulty that you may feel comfortable at. Competition against other players is the focus of GOTM, and one of the opportunities it provides is to get out of your comfort zone and improve your single player game.

There are higher levels of difficulty, and we shall, no doubt, explore them in the coming months. They weren't put there by Firaxis to ensure that players lose all the time, but to provide more challenge as players learn. That's a major factor for many players in sustaining interest in the game.

The AI doesn't compete in the Games of the Month very often, so its ability to "cheat" is irrelevant. We have recently invited GOTM-AI to play some of the Civ3 Conquests games, taking the human role, and you can find his posts in the recent COTM spoilers. He failed miserably relative to the human competitors, losing all but one game. Only at Sid level did he manage to win a bronze medal, when he had the same advantages as the AI. This indicates the performance difference between the GOTM players and the AI.

I have been unable to find where the AI has posted :sad: could someone please help me. :confused:

Is it possible for this to be done in Civ4?
If yes could each player do this?
I.E. I am sure I read it somewhere else before, but can I set all players to AI and just observe a game? Therefore the AI would have complete control but I would still end the turn, and could have 2 options of playing
1. I can only follow one AI civ
2. I can follow all civs and see the whole map.

Personally I feel that option 1 would be the most beneficial as I could without looking at lines code see how the AI 'thinks' :D

We may well ask GOTM-AI to play future Civ4 GOTMs. His schedule has been very busy recently, but he has already expressed an interest and played at least one practice game. It takes him no time at all to actually play the moves, of course,. The most time-consuming activity for him is to slow the game down so as to write up the spoilers. He has already contributed to one of the Civ4 GOTM debates here.

You can find posts by GOTM-AI going as far back as COTM 15 here, and here, and here.
He also played COTM 16 thru 19, and posted in the spoilers for those games. 19 was the Sid game where he won a bronze medal. As his was the only cultural 100k victory in that game, he also won fastest and lowest scoring awards for that victory condition.

Others will have to answer your questions about how a feeble human can attempt to watch GOTM-AI's inscrutable playing methods as I don't know the details.

I just looked at her (at least in Russian language, AI is she, not he) global rating. She managed to be within 100 best human players with only 4 games played. IMHO not so bad for a stupid piece of silicon :goodjob:. I am very curious how she will perform in 4OTM.

You are correct to comment on the gender of our honourable guest player from the dark side. In fact I think we are both wrong. GOTM-AI is a product of the IT industry, and as such is gender-free and should be referred to as IT ;)

Personally i think GOTM-AI is not singular, but plural.. like the borg.. so you could refer to them as 'they' :p

I think you are correct since 'they' were refering to 'themselves' as 'we'.

I just completed CIV GOTM-2, this is my first time to play GOTM, and also my first game on Prince, and also my first game on Epic speed. I normally play Noble, Standard speed. Trust me, I know the feelings of Noble players here, but this jump in difficulty was totally worth it. On a couple of occasions I was almost giving up, but in the end it is exactly this challenge that made the game so interesting.

Spoiler details deleted and sent to you as a PM. Please do not post spoiler information outside the official spoiler threads

In summary, if you want to gain skills, this GOTM is an excellent way to approach Prince if you are a Noble player! Maybe you won't be as lucky as me, but you will certainly gain some insights.

mate, if you can't survive past 100 AD on prince, your problems lie a lot deeper than a few superficial AI bonus'

mate, if you can't survive past 100 AD on prince, your problems lie a lot deeper than a few superficial AI bonus'

Hey some of us have mearly played the tutorial followed by GTOM 1 and GOTM 2 due to time constraints. So we learn the hard way.