1 It was in answer to your question:
I thought that would have been obvious. Ask a question - get an answer that relates to said question?
2 WTH - please point out where said: not playing with Aggressive AI manipulates the game
You're making this up as you go along now. And you're saying I'm going off track, mate. If you're going to use a condescending style in your typing, at least make sure you're not doing what you're accusing others of doing.
Sorry. It would seem that
you are making it up as you go along, not me. In your OP, you said that you do not think highly of Immortal players who win only because they manipulate the game, this in a thread about how Aggressive AI is the correct way to play Civ. And you go on to talk about an even playing field, which you now claim is merely taking what you are served with. So are you saying now that what you originally said has nothing to do with the topic at hand? That would really clear things up.
Aggressive AI maintains the AI's personalities. It also allows the AI to "unit spam" if it so desires (Which all the warmonger AIs WILL do with this option on). The main quote in the whole post by blake was "If you're going to rush the AI, at least have the courtousy to turrn Aggressive AI on." There are many types of CIV games. Even in mutliplayer I've seen games where it was accepted everyone would be more passive, and there woudln't be axemen rushes. But if you do Axe Rush, and don't click agressive AI, you have seriously handicapped your opponent. Also notice in blake's post that he said non-aggressive AI can be more of a challenge, since it can devote more of it's resourses into teching. This Aggressive AI box is an option, so that you the player can customize your game to your preferences. Since not clicking Aggressive AI makes the AI vulnerable to warmonger strategies by the players, some people think that it should be the default, and the default should be a checked box for a passive game. But it's kind of moot, because Fireaxis has set it so Aggressive AI is the option, and the default is the more passive game. And Aelf, I fail to see why you're being so whiny and defensive. What exactly are you so irritated about?
The normal AI already spams units quite well, so I don't see why there is a need to protect them some more. If you think it's too easy steamrolling over the AIs, then you can also raise the difficulty level to make it harder to compete with the AI economically (higher difficulty AIs are also more difficult to rush, by the way). I fail to see why this isn't a proper way to play Civ. Just because I axe rushed someone relatively easily doesn't mean the game is won immediately. In fact, that is far from the truth in my games.
I'm not being whiny. I'm just stating a point of view that you happen not to be able to see or you happen not to like.
Actually, I'm advocating a moderate, "shades-of-grey" position over the black-and-white positions many people(yourself included) seem to favor. An AI, like....say....Gandhi or Hatshepsut should be peaceful(unless you or some one else really goes out their way to provoke them) and be reliable, friendly allies. An AI like Alexander should be no such thing. An AI like Alexander should be a cutt-throat warmongering jerk bent on conquering the world whose friendship can only be relied upon as long as you have the bigger, better army in the right places. Of course, the catch-22 is this...Gandhi or Hattie isn't going to be likely to bail you out if, say....Shaka invades you. But Alexander will be more than glad to help you out, because he sees keeping you around as immediately advantageous, because you are diverting Shaka's forces so he can pick up some juicy land. Or he might decide you're doomed and to get a piece of the pie for himself. AIs should range across a wide variety of personalities, and have varying degrees of trustworthiness. The grey area would be leaders like Ramses and Cathy who might, depending on their status and position, be reliable or not.
But really, what I lay out is difficult to achieve. I know the limitations of the AI, but diplomacy CANNOT be an either-or feature. It can't always work or always fail. It has to be iffy, because diplomacy is iffy. I suppose the best advice is this: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."
Isn't this already what the diplomacy is like? Wee see certain personalities like Alex, Monty and Nappy and we know that we can't trust them completely and that we have to put in extra effort to get them off our backs, as well as building a military that is more powerful than theirs most of the time. I don't agree with this 100%, but it's currently limited in its implementation so it's not too bad. We all hate Monty because he is crazy and diplomatically unreliable. Now will making most of the leaders like him make the game more fun for everyone?
As it is, if you like Aggressive AI, then play with it. But don't go around saying that that is the proper way to play Civ (not referring specifically to you). In fact, by the line of reasoning thrown around here, I can conclude that Aggressive AI players might be playing with that option just to make themselves feel better. You think that it's nasty to be able to do things to the AI that it can't do to yourself, but you don't want it to go over to the dark side completely either. I think that's just a wishy-washy way of thinking. As for me, if I find that the AI is too easily defeated, I'd just move up a difficulty while knowing full well that as a human player I can do things that the AI can't do.
Consider the act of backstabbing in a game. I will compare multiplay with single play.
Firstly, in multiplayer diplomacy does still mean something. If you agree to a truce with a player you do your best to keep your word, unless you're not concerned with the conesquences - what that player would think of you after the game if you backstabbed them. On several occasions in MP I've had the urge to backstab an ally but I have withheld from doing so because that player could potentially call me dishonourable or whatever.
In SP, you have a bunch of AIs in your game with seemingly arbitrary diplomacy ratings with you. To you, it may be that none of them are more friendly than another. However, when it comes to the art of backstabbing, human players in SP seem to want to have it one way. They are pissed when a friendly AI declares on them. Yet they have no qualms with declaring on a friendly AI to kill them.
The difference between SP and MP is that AIs do not hold grudges from game to game. You can backstab Asoka in one game and continue to do so every game. If you brutally backstab a human player you are taking advantage of the fact that someone has put some trust in you. You're not likely to get it ever again.
For these reasons, there have been occasions in MP where I have refused to make a truce or anything like it because I do not want to give someone false hope if I am intending to war or keep on warring with them.
Essentially if you want to be evil and play dishonourably then make sure you're playing single player.
But the other AIs in the game will think almost nothing of you backstabbing your friend. That is not how it works with humans. If you backstab a friend or ally in multiplayer, will the others trust you anymore even within that game? So the AI is mostly not able to react within one game itself, much less from one game to another.
That is the nature of the limited diplomacy in the game. If they were to assign a supposed player attitude and give a severe diplomatic penalty for everyone for backstabbing someone they are 'Pleased' or "Friendly' with, then I would be just as happy with it. Then everyone has to pay for it. It's fair, right? As it is, the AI only has attitudes towards the player that has to be maintained for good relations, often at significant cost to the player while making no logical sense (the AI demanding a very expensive and valuable tech from you that you have no conceivable reason to give, for example). If you were to undermine that system by allowing the AI to act out of that system and backstab the player when it sees fit, then there is no point in maintaining that system. Why should I have to bother trying my best to maintain good relations when I know that it might not matter anyway? Then every game will just be about war and unit spam.
PieceOfMind said:
Any player, should play this game to get as much enjoyment out of it as possible. If you happen to be offended by people calling the default AI and 'sandbox' AI, then all I can tell you is not to worry about them. Do not let others dictate to you how you enjoy the game cos that would make no sense. Options like "sandbox" vs. "aggressive" AI are there so people customize it to their liking.
Honestly I don't know why egos come into play when talking about single player computer games.
So I can turn around and imply all sort of things about these players and it would be okay? After doing so many walkthrough games on the higher levels, I just find annoying that some people with a biased perspective can just say that players like me are playing with a 'sandbox' AI or that we are not playing on an even field. Again I ask, what is an even field anyway? Right now, the AI has its bonuses and humans have their intelligence. Seems pretty fair to me.
There were plenty of wars among the AIs, but no one attacked me. I declared some wars when urged to, but never actually fought because the enemies were too far away - and I had no military anyway. Without resources all I could muster was longbowmen.
.
