I noticed in the ALC games, that Aggressive AI isn't being used. I have used it since BtS came out, how many others play with it enabled?

Most of my games, I use the aggressive AI. I do like some military challenge next to a research challenge. The option does tend to slow the technological development of the AI a little, but it also slows your technological development if you want to be able to defend yourself against the AI.

Aggressive AI is the way it is meant to be played, not having it on is for more casual play in my view. I almost always use it, I like when the AI has the same play style as myself, opportunistic and ruthless. :)

Aggressive AI is the way it is meant to be played, not having it on is for more casual play in my view. I almost always use it, I like when the AI has the same play style as myself, opportunistic and ruthless. :)

I don't think you should insult those who don't use the aggressive AI option. It doesn't make you a better player.

There are just two options which result in different gameplay. It's good to have such options in such a diverse game with players with very different playing styles. The aggressive option shifts gameplay a bit from economic competition to military competition, that's all.

I was playing on noble for a long time but when someone pointed out that if you're winning almost every time you're not really playing at your skill level. I won a game on prince, but I thought there's a difference between losing and not winning. I started using aggressive so I'm not just trying to be the first to a victory, I have to make sure I don't get beaten.

I have not come to a real dicission yet on Agressive AI. On one hand I dislike trying to build diplomacy or going after an AI only to have someoen come out of nowhere to backstab me.

On the other hand it can make the game somewhat easier if you are fortunate enough to be far away from the AI's fighting or can knock out you continentla rival early.

I play most of my games as they come, meaning some I war-monger and other peacefully depending on teh AIs, situation and chosen leader. I don't think I like the AI of forcing every game into a military campaign.

Almost every time. Fun with lots of wars :)

I don't think you should insult those who don't use the aggressive AI option. It doesn't make you a better player.

There are just two options which result in different gameplay. It's good to have such options in such a diverse game with players with very different playing styles. The aggressive option shifts gameplay a bit from economic competition to military competition, that's all.

It's not insulting... Blake (the AI designer) said that it should have been an option to pick peaceful AI's instead of the other way around, but it wasn't important enough to be changed it that way. For warmongering not having Aggressive AI on is almost cheating (the early rush is soooo much more powerful) so in a way his statement is true meaning "not having it on" is more casual.

Everyone plays their own way and thats good, but keep in mind doing peaceful victories with Aggressive AI can actually be easier if you are able to stay out of wars because of the slower AI tech pace, so Aggressive AI is not necessarily only for warmongers.

I play with Aggressive AI, and i'm loving it and will likely never change back ;)

It's not insulting... Blake (the AI designer) said that it should have been an option to pick peaceful AI's instead of the other way around, but it wasn't important enough to be changed it that way. For warmongering not having Aggressive AI on is almost cheating (the early rush is soooo much more powerful) so in a way his statement is true meaning "not having it on" is more casual.

Well if one person said it, it must be true! :rolleyes:

Both playing with and playing without Aggressive AI on are perfectly valid choices. Implying that one is the "correct" way and the other an "incorrect" way of playing is insulting. For Blake, and for others, playing with a more military-inclined AI fits their playing style better. That doesn't make that playing style any better than anyone else's playing style. Suggesting that it does is simply elitism, and unfounded elitism at that.

Bh

It's not insulting... Blake (the AI designer) said ...

It doesn't matter what Blake said. Repeating someone else's words without saying something like 'John said: "...." ', just means that you're saying it. The fact that Blake said something similar earlier doesn't mean it thus cannot be insulting.

BTW: I'm not quite sure which Blake post you're referring to, but if you're talking about a certain post on Apolyton where Blake talked about the differences between the non-aggressive and aggressive AI, then I have to say that he didn't say that 'aggressive AI is the way the game is meant to be played'. Maybe he thinks that, but he didn't explicitly say so.

I want to avoid a pointless discussion about which AI is 'better'. Such a discussion will lead us nowhere and no person taking part in such a discussion will be convinced by the other side. I've seen such a discussion before, dozens of pages of posts where the same arguments are repeated to death. Really pointless.

half and half over here. btw, i would value Blake's imput more than nearly anyone else's, he has a great understanding of how the game works.

Both playing with and playing without Aggressive AI on are perfectly valid choices. Implying that one is the "correct" way and the other an "incorrect" way of playing is insulting. For Blake, and for others, playing with a more military-inclined AI fits their playing style better. That doesn't make that playing style any better than anyone else's [emphasis mine] playing style. Suggesting that it does is simply elitism, and unfounded elitism at that.

I replied to this particular post, but the arguments presented are intended for all posts that assert that one AI is not better than another, for some definition of better.

It depends what you mean by "better". If by better you mean "more fun", "more rewarding", or "more interesting", then you are right that many different play styles are suitable for many different people and personalities. If by "better" you mean "more optimal" where you are optimizing your chances of winning, then for sure some human play styles are better than others, just as some AI play styles are better than others as well, and to point that out is hardly insulting.

In fact this is the strategy and tips forum, where practically every thread is about PLAYING BETTER, and most of the discussions are precisely around what is better. I don't see a lot of people jumping on threads and saying "specializing your cities isn't better, it is just a different play style" - it's all about having a good discussion about improving your game. I don't see why AI should be any different. If there were a super aggressive option where the AI didn't build a single building or tech a single tech and just built warriors, would people argue that this AI wasn't worse than the standard AIs? Or a version that hardly built any military at all? I doubt it.

Blake's core point is that Aggressive AI is closer to optimal from a game theory point of view, in playing against Aggressive AI, the player has a simple, nearly always optimal strategy - rush the AI with lots of units. For a given level of AI bonuses and player skill, this overall strategy is likely to net a much higher percentage of wins than against a more optimal AI, such as Aggressive AI. If you are playing a sub-optimal game yourself (which usually falls on the builder side), then you may not find Aggressive AI more difficult. In any case you may not find it more fun.

Now, using this logic to argue for Aggressive AI assumes that Blake got the metagame approximately right, and his assumptions on maximizing the AIs chances of winning were correct enough. I've seem anyone dispute that, however - only some hand-waving arguments that it's somehow wrong or insulting to suggest that one AI could possibly be better than another, or that some players could possibly be playing a more challenging game than others. There are lots of settings that affect the difficulty of the game - why is it so difficult to accept that "Aggressive AI" is one of them? In fact, Aggressive AI means that while playing optimally you can reduce the bonuses the AI receives and still have a challenging game - and a game with fewer AI cheats seems better to me.

Well if one person said it, it must be true! :rolleyes:


You missed the point completely, the person responsible for the new AI said that it should have been the other way around (Aggressive AI default) and an option for a more peaceful AI instead, which makes it comparable to the "Always Peace" option for instance. Whoever said this is irrelevant, my point is this statement from him makes sense to me and it comes from a credible source (Firaxis employee) and might explain a few things to people who get "insulted" from nothing. My bad it's more interesting spouting irrelevant nonsense about me quoting other people instead of the point..... seriously if you want to do crap like that at least disprove my source or the point in a way else it's just a waste of time. If it was that hard to believe ask for a link to the statement....


Both playing with and playing without Aggressive AI on are perfectly valid choices. Implying that one is the "correct" way and the other an "incorrect" way of playing is insulting. For Blake, and for others, playing with a more military-inclined AI fits their playing style better. That doesn't make that playing style any better than anyone else's playing style. Suggesting that it does is simply elitism, and unfounded elitism at that.


Good points and i agree with most, though for some people the default settings are the "correct" ones. Which i think was the point the "insulting" poster tried to say and why i mentioned Blake's comment about this.

Why can't people just say whether they use aggressive AI or not without adding the remark that their setting is a more difficult game setting and causes a more challenging game.

The remark that I think was insulting went further than that by the way:

Aggressive AI is the way it is meant to be played, not having it on is for more casual play in my view.

Calling someone else's game settings useful just for more casual play is insulting, calling someone else's game settings the incorrect game settings is pushing someone else down so that you yourself arrive on the top, it's elitism and it's just plain unnecessary.

What results in a more challenging game for someone depends mostly on how that player plays the game.

I myself like to use the military aspect of the game when it is to my advantage. I'm not really a rush-player as I play on huge maps that aren't overcrowded with AI and thus the rush is not that effective. But I do use the military aspect when I can take advantage of it. The normal AI is not that effective in attacking other players or defending itself. The number of units needed to crush it, makes war in general a fairly efficient way of improving your civilisation. The aggressive AI makes war far less efficient and can pose a military threat to your civilisation. I like that. For me that leads to a more challenging game because I can't exploit the military weakness of the AI (as easily).

However, if you like the builder part of the game more and don't like the militaristic part of the game very much, if you aren't rushing the AI and aren't taking advantage of every military weakness that you see, then you will probably find a more challenging and fun adversary in the normal AI. This AI will not invest in the huge armies it needs to defend itself against an aggressive human player and thus will be better in the technological development of its civilisation. It can challenge you more in a pure space race game without extensive military conquest. This AI will let the human player develop his/her empire without using every weakness it sees to declare war. Many players prefer that setting. Against a human player capable at defending itself and not interested in military conquest, this setting will probably be more challenging (and fun).

Now if you start to think about what would be a more challenging AI opponent to a theoretical optimal playing human player, a player who uses every loophole to win the game and knows every strategic trick to win the game, then I would think the answer to that question would be very map dependent. The answer would be different on an overcrowded pangea map compared to a isolated start on an archipellago map with no contact between players until astronomy.
Even if you would arrive at an answer to that question, it wouldn't be an answer to the question how the game was 'meant to be played'. Game theory will never answer such a question. It just tries to discover the optimal strategy to win the game, not the 'way the game is meant to be played'. That last question is a philosophical one and while I do believe in mathematics, mathematical game theory can't answer that question.

I have some dificulty in believing that Agg AI is per se more dificult or challenging than the default one..... My experience with Agg AI is that yes, it is more dificult to survive to the first round of wars ( and forget early wonders.... ), but, unless a techie is in game in a confortable corner, the Agg AI starts to stall in research and from that point, you can wipe them with better units.... OTOH in regular AI, you may survive easier to the early game, but there is always a AI plotting a cultural or space win. And I'm not sure that beating regular AI to space is necessarily easier than beating Agg AI in battle.....

I have some dificulty in believing that Agg AI is per se more dificult or challenging than the default one..... My experience with Agg AI is that yes, it is more dificult to survive to the first round of wars ( and forget early wonders.... ), but, unless a techie is in game in a confortable corner, the Agg AI starts to stall in research and from that point, you can wipe them with better units.... OTOH in regular AI, you may survive easier to the early game, but there is always a AI plotting a cultural or space win. And I'm not sure that beating regular AI to space is necessarily easier than beating Agg AI in battle.....

I agree 100% with this. One of the best things about BTS is the balance approach the AI takes towards victory. The Agressive AI tends to steer the game towards battlefield victory alone.

My point was not to insult anyone, I made an emphatic remark and then moderated it with "in my view" and a smile, so please don't take offense if it's not very important for you to do so.

If I come off as arrogant to some, it is all the better to spark a debate. Wheter I succeeded in that or not, I leave for you to decide.

I agree 100% with this. One of the best things about BTS is the balance approach the AI takes towards victory. The Agressive AI tends to steer the game towards battlefield victory alone.
I think it's just to opposite. On the default AI, an easy solution to any problem you encounter is to attack. You'll win the war because you can fairly easily build a bigger military than your target, because he has not built enough units. When you can easily win wars, that makes strategies like axe rushes too powerful, and you can always stop an AI culture or spaceship victory by attacking them. Overall, it makes warfare too strong for the player, so the player should war a lot if he wants to win.

On the other hand, aggressive AIs have enough units to be costly to conquer. So, you have to look for other solutions besides war, you can't just kill your problem. Tech, expansion, spies, diplomacy become more important because war isn't always the easiest solution.

Well, that's why I always play with aggressive AI.

You missed the point completely, the person responsible for the new AI said that it should have been the other way around (Aggressive AI default) and an option for a more peaceful AI instead, which makes it comparable to the "Always Peace" option for instance.

No, I didn't miss your point, I just don't think your point is correct. I don't care if Blake happened to design the new AI. That doesn't give his opinion on the subject any more validity than anyone else's. He's approaching it from the way his playstyle affects the game. Fine. But that doesn't mean his playstyle is the one that should be considered when determing the manner in which the game is presented. If you'll note in the post where he said that, the majority of people disagreed with his viewpoint. I find that very telling.

Good points and i agree with most, though for some people the default settings are the "correct" ones. Which i think was the point the "insulting" poster tried to say and why i mentioned Blake's comment about this.

I don't consider the default settings "correct" either. But they are the settings that I suspect the majority of players are going to be "most comfortable" with. While I'm sure a lot of the hardcore players (which makes up a disproportional percentage of the posters on this forum) are able to handle Aggressive AI, the more casual player would likely get quickly overwhelmed. Again, it's a case of having a narrow viewpoint. When you're a particular type of player, it's very easy to assume everyone plays like that, and then make your conclusions based on that belief.

(Not trying to single you out here, that's more of a "generic" point)

I agree with Roland tho', let's talk about having fun playing with AggAI, and skip the whole "the correct way to play" comments.

Bh

I haven't tried Aggressive AI yet. I'm curious though, so maybe next game. From what I hear, it might make the game easier for me, because I tend to be much more a builder than a warmonger. But I guess we'll see. Often my building starts with a nice chunk of land that I've taken in an early Axe-n-Sword war. If I can't do that, maybe I won't be able to build as well either.

It's nice to have options.

Arguing about which setting is the way the game was "meant to be played" strikes me as pretty strange: Since the settings are there and accessible, it is pretty clear that the game was meant to be played on all of them. One of the best things about Civ IV is how versatile it is. In earlier civ games, I found that there was alot less replayability value because all of my games started seeming the same, once I'd found a few strategies that always worked. Here, changing aggressive AI, raging barbarians, one-city challenge, etc., makes for a lot more variety.

That said, I must admit that whether or not I turn on aggressive AI has a lot to do with how many hours I want my game to last. Aggressive AI games seem to often turn out to be shorter...

One of the best things about Civ IV is how versatile it is. In earlier civ games, I found that there was alot less replayability value because all of my games started seeming the same, once I'd found a few strategies that always worked. Here, changing aggressive AI, raging barbarians, one-city challenge, etc., makes for a lot more variety.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I vary the settings every game, and use AggAI in roughly 1/3 of them.

Quite often, I also use one or more of the settings that no-one else seems to touch, like permanent alliances and random personalities.

However, I'm not 100% sure about this part:


Arguing about which setting is the way the game was "meant to be played" strikes me as pretty strange: Since the settings are there and accessible, it is pretty clear that the game was meant to be played on all of them.


At least from the point of view of the civ-playing community, it's very useful to have a standard group of settings: it allows us to discuss the game on something of a level playing field. Indeed, this is why I play some of my games on the default settings - if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to contribute to the strategy discussions without constantly confusing things (or, at the least, giving a lengthy list of the settings to which the comments I make apply).

This, I believe, is the reason why Sisiutil plays his ALCs on standard(ish) settings: it allows everyone to participate in the discussion, so long as they're familiar with the default rules.

With regards to Blake's comments (and those of his supporters), I'd say there is a case to be made that AggAI should be the default, since (in my experience) it does shift the balance away from the otherwise overpowered early rush, and away from aggression-powered victories in general.

Ultimately, I disagree with them - mainly because I've found AggAI to make things too unpredictable to be the standard, with peaceful victories becoming far too easy on some maps, and utterly impossible on others. But that doesn't mean they should be shot down for arguing that it should be the default.

With the utmost respect to Roland and Bhuric, I think you've overreacted to some perfectly reasonable comments made by fans of AggAI. I don't see anything insulting in the suggestion that NormalAI is "more casual", or that warmongering is so overpowered on NormalAI that it's "almost cheating" (even though I disagree with both comments).

Is there any reason to think that these comments were insults directed at other players, rather than a report of the posters' own experiences? I don't see any malice or gloating in the posts in question, but your responses do seem to me to take a rather confrontational tone.

actually, nvm

"peaceful AI" is better than "Agg AI" because I'm too lazy to build 100 troops and manage them let alone try and get my computer to run them :sarcasm:. I remember one poster talking about how the Agg AI makes it easier to win if you can survive the early years because the AI kills itself techwise so it becomes much easier to out tech them and either dominate them towards a peaceful win or to then get a greater amount of military tech advantage and dominate them that way. I have only played with Agg AI once and, to be honest, it didnt feel much different from the normal settings, so i can't say if the prior thought is true

actually, nvm

lol

With the utmost respect to Roland and Bhuric, I think you've overreacted to some perfectly reasonable comments made by fans of AggAI. I don't see anything insulting in the suggestion that NormalAI is "more casual", or that warmongering is so overpowered on NormalAI that it's "almost cheating" (even though I disagree with both comments).

Is there any reason to think that these comments were insults directed at other players, rather than a report of the posters' own experiences? I don't see any malice or gloating in the posts in question, but your responses do seem to me to take a rather confrontational tone.

The reason why I reacted as I did was to avoid a lengthy discussion about which AI is better. There would never be an agreement about such a setting as players preferences about what constitutes as a fun and challenging game differ very much.

I've seen a few lengthy threads where fans of the normal AI and fans of the aggressive AI start banging their heads together to see who has the thickest skull. It ultimately ends in flame wars.

Someone saying that 'setting X is the way the game is meant to be played' is just the perfect way to resume this flame war all over again.

I've tried it a few times--without success I confess (immortal level).
I suspect that it would make an isolated start easier, but the problem I have been having is that my normal rex strategy does not involve building enough units. I was aware of that and built extra units to no avail.
Maybe it was just bad luck, but I tried 3 games and each time one of the warmongers came for me with really a pretty large army and once I thought I was ready for it but then another joined in.
I'm curious how others have handled this--it just seems really difficult to keep up with immortal AI militarily. In a normal game, more often than not I can avoid an unplanned early war.

I agree with Roland.... Most of the fuzz about Agg AI was generated because of ppl get used in pre-BtS to the axe-rush ( or other early rush ) as the answer to all the problems of the game. ( I remember certain sigs: " there are few map problems that a axeman can't resolve" or " A axeman is a missionary with City Raider promotions" ). The Agg AI will not consent to early rushed as easily as normal AI ( fact ) and some ppl like it ( more war ) and others don't ( peaceful game ruined.... ). As simple as that....

About Blake comment: From what I see from the SGs that he played here in the CFC before entering in the BtS development team, he is a warmonger and likes a good fight. So no wonder that he prefers the Agg AI....

Someone said in here that the Agg AI played more like it should be if you used the game theory.... I do not agree with this, because in Civ IV there is ample rewards to cooperation and AGG AI is not very prone to it. IMHO the players ( Human and AI ) are locked in the the classic prisioners dilemma: if you break the trust ( i.e the peace ) you may gain a reward ( territory and one less foe) , but the cooperation with that civ can be more rewarding than that ( trade routes, tech trades,.... ) if the other doesn't backstab you.... Agg AI is definitely shifted to the small reward IMHO.

To finalize: It was posted that in a poster's opinion, axe-rushing a normal AI was almost cheating.... True enough, but IMHO creating a kill zone to grind Agg AI stacks ( like you had to do in civ III ) while teching to space is almost as cheating as that...... Normal AI has a deficit in early defence as the Agg AI has a deficit in long term teching. Exploring the enemies weaknesses is not cheating, it is the best way of nullifying him ( Sun Tzu dixit... )

With the utmost respect to Roland and Bhuric, I think you've overreacted to some perfectly reasonable comments made by fans of AggAI. I don't see anything insulting in the suggestion that NormalAI is "more casual", or that warmongering is so overpowered on NormalAI that it's "almost cheating" (even though I disagree with both comments).

Roland has already touched on this, but to re-emphasize... The issue was not with the "casual" comment. I'd fully agree that Aggressive AI is better suited towards someone with warmongering in mind, and playing without it is better suited towards a more peaceful player (although I dislike the choice of "casual").

The issue was with the comment about it being "meant" to be played in a certain fashion. That implies two things: first that you are qualified to determine how the game is meant to be played, and second that, by extension, everyone should be playing it in that fashion. At the very least, it also suggests that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to be playing, with Aggressive AI clearly being the "right" way. If someone were to tell me that I'm playing the game "wrong" (ie, not the way it was "meant" to be played), I can't see how I could avoid finding that somewhat insulting.

The sad thing is that there is really no one arguing the reverse. Neither Roland nor I are countering with "no, non-Aggressive AI is the way it's meant to be played". Having Aggressive AI off is simply the default. That doesn't make it a better or worse choice. Perhaps the OP only meant that Aggressive AI should be the default - that would certainly be a viable argument to put forth (although I'd disagree). But I'd really love to avoid getting into another length debate over how the game "should" be played.

Bh

I play Agg AI because I like the unpredictability of the style. It is harder for me to determine when an AI will attack me or another AI. I like that uncertainty, but it can be frustrating when the decisions the AI's make upset your current strategy. OTOH, with Agg AI it is possible to ultimately win an otherwise unwinable situation because some AI unexpectedly attacks the leading AI and gives you a chance to catch up.

Obviously, the choice is purely a question of style. For me, and I think for most players, the key question is which game settings yield the most entertaining style of play. And there are many plausible answers to that question ...

One good reason to have aggressive as an option rather than peaceful is that people have already been insulted by the implication that non aggressive is "casual" and playing with a peaceful option may seem like your backing down from a challenge rather than taking on a challenge with aggressive. It's psychological

I agree that it is psychological. Most computer games I've played have some variation on easy/medium/hard settings in the options. But I have yet to see on that, when installed, defaulted to the hard setting. Medium seems to be the most common, although some games actually start you out at the easy level. I suspect that there is a good reason for this--game developers don't want new players to have the impression that the game is just too much bother to learn to win.

For historical accuracy, yes.

Whenever I play AggAI I find the tech rate to be too slow, to the point where the AI's legions of macemen and knights are just getting slaughtered by my riflemen anyway, or their swordsmen are getting slaughtered by my crossbowmen or what-have-you. Also, I believe aggAI only means they are more aggressive to the human player, not everyone else.

There is a balance and each option has its ups and downs. One isn't necessarily more difficult than the other, it just makes the game play different. It's like any other option you check on or off to change the style of play. It's changing the style of play to suit your tastes.

I also agree with MinorAnnoyance that a lot of it is psychological.

Aggressive AI can really help the AIs that are already aggressive. Case in point:

http://img9.imagepile.net/img9/45443civ4screenshot0001.jpg

Shaka has already eliminated 1 Civ, and is currently close to wiping out his second (he's at war with Isabella, and the reason I am). This is with Aggressive AI on Prince, which I normally play when I feel like having a "mop up" game. And while I've still got a tech lead on him, there's no doubt that he's kicking some serious butt.

Bh

I think it's just to opposite. On the default AI, an easy solution to any problem you encounter is to attack. You'll win the war because you can fairly easily build a bigger military than your target, because he has not built enough units. When you can easily win wars, that makes strategies like axe rushes too powerful, and you can always stop an AI culture or spaceship victory by attacking them. Overall, it makes warfare too strong for the player, so the player should war a lot if he wants to win.

On the other hand, aggressive AIs have enough units to be costly to conquer. So, you have to look for other solutions besides war, you can't just kill your problem. Tech, expansion, spies, diplomacy become more important because war isn't always the easiest solution.

Well, that's why I always play with aggressive AI.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Aggressive AI can be considered "the way it's meant to be played" because it eliminates the ease of military victory, that being the main advantage the human has over the computer. So if you remove something that's a clear human advantage, then the game is objectively more difficult. Diplomacy becomes more important. You can't count on an early rush given a military resource. In my view this is a good thing. It's more balanced.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Aggressive AI can be considered "the way it's meant to be played" because it eliminates the ease of military victory, that being the main advantage the human has over the computer. So if you remove something that's a clear human advantage, then the game is objectively more difficult. Diplomacy becomes more important. You can't count on an early rush given a military resource. In my view this is a good thing. It's more balanced.

See, this is the kind of narrow-focused vision I was talking about. You look at one facet of the game, and assume that everyone else focuses on that as well. Yes, Aggressive AI can make military victories more difficult (it can also make them easier when you can easily out-tech the AI, but let's leave that aside). But at the same time as it makes military victories more difficult, it makes non-military victories easier (especially the ones focusing on tech, like the space-race). So by saying Aggressive AI is "the way it's meant to be played" (think nvidia will sue us for trademark violation? ;)), what you're really saying is that military victories are "the way it's meant to be played". In other words, people who don't play for military victories, or people who don't focus on making war aren't playing the game "properly". That's a completely biased and unsubstantiated claim to make.

There's nothing wrong with playing without a military focus. A large percentage of Civ players prefer the "peaceful builder" route. And that's fine. The game provides options for both groups. So, again, let's stop talking about how the game "should" be played, and focus on talking about how you personally enjoy the game - without implying that everyone else should enjoy it the same way.

Bh

Aggressive AI definitely makes it more difficult to go down the military route. I can regularly beat Monarch level now, at least when on normal AI, simply because I know that a good production city pumping out units will guarantee me the ability to bash one or more civs, should the need arise. In otherwords, a bad start or a poorly executed expansion and there's always a military option to resolve the issue. On Aggressive AI, and even if I have the tech lead, the military route is seriously compromised. I've had many wars that I entered which just ended up stalemated and all that did in the long term was stall the development of both warring civs.

That's not to say I play Aggressive AI that often. In fact I tend to play using normal AI more. A fatal miscalculation or a badly timed AI DoW on Agg AI is usually enough to lose me the game and when I'm relaxng and enjoying a game of civ I tend to like a more forgiving experience. ;)

Aggressive AI definitely makes it more difficult to go down the military route. I can regularly beat Monarch level now, at least when on normal AI, simply because I know that a good production city pumping out units will guarantee me the ability to bash one or more civs, should the need arise. In otherwords, a bad start or a poorly executed expansion and there's always a military option to resolve the issue. On Aggressive AI, and even if I have the tech lead, the military route is seriously compromised. I've had many wars that I entered which just ended up stalemated and all that did in the long term was stall the development of both warring civs.

That's not to say I play Aggressive AI that often. In fact I tend to play using normal AI more. A fatal miscalculation or a badly timed AI DoW on Agg AI is usually enough to lose me the game and when I'm relaxng and enjoying a game of civ I tend to like a more forgiving experience. ;)

I find for me it is the oposite, with Agg AI I expect that DOW so I am always prepared, on normal I tend to forget it and try to break that tech speed record and usually my game ends with an unexpected DOW.

Indiansmoke,

I'm not sure that makes much sense to me. Surely that's just on your side, rather than related to the setting per sé?

A surprise DoW under normal AI is often easily repelled even if relatively unprepared, whereas a surprise DoW under Agg AI can be literally game-ending. In one situation I saw the AI encircle my island with 3-4 full aircraft carriers and proceed to destroy all my land improvements. On normal AI it's rare to see the AI with more than one aircraft carrier.