The All Leaders Challenge Game Bullpen

The AI spams units even without Aggressive AI on. Blake himself said that he made the AI spam units because that's what players like to do, particularly MP players.

What settings are you playing on?

I play Monarch usually, and I do tend to play without Agg AI. I am more nervous about the late game unit spamming. I wish there was an in between setting that made it so the AI would prioritize early game defense without keeping it a game long unit spam, which Agg AI *may* lead to. But in my experience it has not always been that type of game.

But it has been hard to compare between the two settings, because everygame has had so many vairiables. But I think that I will be sticking with normal AI because there already seems to be quite a bit a variance with that setting. Some games the AI starts many wars, others not so much.
 
I play Monarch usually, and I do tend to play without Agg AI. I am more nervous about the late game unit spamming. I wish there was an in between setting that made it so the AI would prioritize early game defense without keeping it a game long unit spam, which Agg AI *may* lead to. But in my experience it has not always been that type of game.

I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.

martin031 said:
But it has been hard to compare between the two settings, because everygame has had so many vairiables. But I think that I will be sticking with normal AI because there already seems to be quite a bit a variance with that setting. Some games the AI starts many wars, others not so much.

The truth is, as its players themselves admit, Aggressive AI doesn't necessarily mean there is more war, only a greater likelihood of war breaking out. The side effects, though, are more unit spam and less reliable diplomacy, both of which I don't regard as positive things in the game.
 
I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.



The truth is, as its players themselves admit, Aggressive AI doesn't necessarily mean there is more war, only a greater likelihood of war breaking out. The side effects, though, are more unit spam and less reliable diplomacy, both of which I don't regard as positive things in the game.

What I think that I might try to see how well it works is to change game speeds from epic where i normally play to normal. I think this might help make warring a bit more difficult. The reason why I did not earlier was because I did not enjoy speeding through the eras and not having a chance to use the units. But with the AI's reduced tech speed, and other options available like no tech brokering, this might help to make wars more challenging without leading to all out unit spam.
 
I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.

I might add that this in fact makes rushing more powerful. Since the AI is not able to spam units that much early on, it makes sense to attack it before it could. So rushing is now even more important and more pivotal to the game. Aggressive AI probably helps, but rushing would still be relatively more effective. I've said this to certain people before, so I'm surprised Blake still says that Aggressive AI discourages axe rushing. It doesn't.
 
I went and read what Blake had to say about Aggressive AI over on the Apolyton boards. Very interesting.

I think my earlier position holds. That is, I think it's most appropriate to try out this setting in a game where I anticipate a lot of warring, to make things more challenging--not to mention fair. Frankly, if the normal AI in BtS is more peaceful, as Blake says, it seems unfair to play as a warmonger leader and NOT turn Aggressive AI on.

ALC 18 with Isabella of Spain (Spiritual/Expansive) I anticipate being more of a game that focuses on religion (Apostolic Palace, anyone?).

ALC 19 with Gilgamesh of Sumer (Creative/Protective)--hmm, tough to say, but Protective is more of a defensive trait. I suppose I could just sit back and let the AI dog-pile me and see if my Protective units are up to the challenge, but with the Creative trait I anticipate more of a building game. Neither his UB nor his UU sound like they'll set the world on fire. Basically, I'm not sure what to expect from a Gilgamesh game. I suspect it will depend very much on the map and neighbours, so stacking the deck with Aggressive AI seems inappropriate.

The next warmonger leader coming up, then, is Ragnar the Viking (Aggressive/Financial ) in ALC 20, so I'll give it a whirl there. After that game we'll discuss using it in future games.
 
Isn't that rather stacking the deck? That's what always struck me as pretty dumb about Blake's take on it - if you are planning on playing a "peaceful" game, then deliberately choosing an AI that isn't as likely to go to war with you would simply give you an advantage. It'd be like turning on Space Race as the only victory condition, and then forcing the AI to de-emphasize production. Sure, they still have a chance of winning, but the odds certainly are in your favour.

Bh
 
Isn't that rather stacking the deck? That's what always struck me as pretty dumb about Blake's take on it - if you are planning on playing a "peaceful" game, then deliberately choosing an AI that isn't as likely to go to war with you would simply give you an advantage. It'd be like turning on Space Race as the only victory condition, and then forcing the AI to de-emphasize production. Sure, they still have a chance of winning, but the odds certainly are in your favour.

Bh
I suppose so, but then again, even choosing the map or the leader is, in many ways, stacking the deck as well. The ALCs are about exploiting the leaders' unique characteristics (or combination thereof), and in the past I've ensured that this could be done--having a 3rd party check the Persia start for horses and neighbours, for example. Because frankly, if I start an off-line game as Cyrus and find I'm isolate and/or don't have horses, I'm just going to restart. I'd rather not waste several pages of ALC thread only to do that.

As we've seen in the latest ALC game, the new, supposedly-more-peaceful AI is no guarantee that you won't have war declared on you. (Though, granted, it seems in that case that Tokugawa didn't have enough units spammed to really threaten me.)

Frankly, if I'm going to pursue a more peaceful type of victory, setting the AI to spam units also seems unfair; while you tech away, they'll be spamming increasingly-obsolete units and falling behind. We've all seen Tokugawa, Genghis, and Montezuma do that pre-BtS. Just because the AI spams more units and is more prone to DoWs and dog-piling doesn't mean that it's any better at war, or at least, not as good at war as a human.

Having the setting on or off strikes me as a way to have the AI play the same style of game that you yourself anticipate playing. Therefore, either way, you should get more of a challenge. Where it would be stacking the deck, I think, is to set the setting one way and then play the opposite style.
 
Gilgamesh is surely set up as a leader for early rushing. Vulture is superior to axeman, you get courthouses with priesthood, creative gives you easy border pops and you've got protective to help defend your territory.

Overall the way for the game to defeat early rush tactics is for AI to spam units early on instead of going for all out expansion. Also the power calculation probably overestimates population and defensive units and undervalues attacking units which distorts things as well.
 
Gilgamesh is surely set up as a leader for early rushing. Vulture is superior to axeman, you get courthouses with priesthood, creative gives you easy border pops and you've got protective to help defend your territory.

Overall the way for the game to defeat early rush tactics is for AI to spam units early on instead of going for all out expansion. Also the power calculation probably overestimates population and defensive units and undervalues attacking units which distorts things as well.

Save that thought on Gilgamesh for the pre-game thread. ;)

I think you're right about the power rating. The AI loves Archers, Longbomen, and Crossbowmen and typically has a higher power rating than the human player, and yet it's rare for the AI to be ready for an offensive war.

I've also noticed that the AI over-values mounted units. I used to as well, because they move faster, but they have penalties for attacking cities. This leads me to think that the AI is also programmed to over-value pillaging as a tactic.

In most games I've played the AI isn't a tough nut to crack until it gets Artillery. It seems to value those far more than other seige units (though it does like Trebuchets as well). It will mass them and unleash them on a city or a stack like God's own thunder.
 
Frankly, I like the changed AI. I think variety is a good thing. The more the AI acts like a person (or better yet, a variety of people), the better. It's more satisfying to plan for the unexpected and have your plan succeed than it is (in a metagaming sort of way) to know your foe's tactics ahead of time and ignore other considerations.
 
Is it time to move up a level?

I hate to base my judgment on one game, but I'm currently pwning in the Peter the Great game and I've seen other posts on the board where people are noticing the AI is teching more slowly with BtS, probably because it's allocating commerce into espionage.

Now, granted, Peter is a stellar leader for the SE if he gets the right land, which he certainly did in this game. Not only is there a lot of seafood and irrigable land, once I eliminated Rome I was able to develop in splendid isolation. I was close enough to have contact with some AI civs for tech and resource trading, but separated by a moat, essentially, to deter invasion, at least early in the game when the cost of that many Galleys would be prohibitive. I also didn't have the greatest competitors: Gandhi, Toku, Mao, Shaka, Bismarck (and later, Qin)... not really a tech fiend in the bunch, and nobody Financial. Nobody like Huayna, Ragnar, or Mansa Musa to worry about.

And then I popped Astronomy from a goody hut... :eek:

So maybe I was just very fortunate this time and at least had the combination of skill and very welcome guidance to exploit that good fortune.

Nevertheless, I'm wondering what others' experiences with BtS are. With Warlords a lot of people dropped back a level; I certainly struggled at first--witness the Asoka game, my first with Warlords, where I very nearly lost early on. It's sounding like BtS is the opposite, with the AI seemingly a little overwhelmed by the new features.

I would like to stick with Monarch for at least the next game, with Spain/Isabella. I'm already thinking of trying a very different type of strategy than I've ever done before in that one, and I'd prefer not to do that on Emperor, especially for the first time, where I might have my strategic options limited. Recently we discussed using Aggressive AI to add another layer of challenge. Perhaps with Sumer/Gilgamesh, it might be time to take the plunge into Emperor level instead/as well? I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's played games at that level with BtS. I may try it myself in an off-line game or two and see what I think.
 
I've played at Monarch level in Warlords and only moved (not very successfully) to Emperor for the last games. Now I'm playing Monarch on BtS and I've seen AIs have good tech leads and good armies from time to time, it just depends on the settings. In one game Justinian I and Asoka were religious buddies on the same continent with the weaker Genghis and Washington. Asoka & Justinian stood really well, probably because of multiple trades and the fact that the other 2 fought between themselves.

So it's still situational. You could move to Emperor and then come back if you feel too overwhelmed by it, that's what I'll probably do.
 
WRT Emperor-Level:

Peaceful wins with few troops are still doable on normal AI. In contrast to 90% of Warlords game, you can grab enough land to win without war; just be (ab)use the diplomacy screen and you'll be fine.

The unit spams can be much more aggressive depending on the AI. I've seen multiple 10-units stacks (sometimes multiple 20-unit stacks) and even a size 2 Kyoto managed to spit out an Archer a turn. Slavery maintenance is also more noticeable; witness the RB game where taking 2 cities dropped their slider to 10%. I must have a defective copy of BtS, because I generally find early war horrendously unproductive and don't have to unit spam to win.

Your time limit to win is generally around 1965, although I've seen AI victories as early as 1940s.
 
Given the reportedly slow tech pace of the AI, I would say that a move up to Emperor is now within reason. I'll probably be moving up to Emperor soon as well once I'm comfortable with all of the new features in BTS.
 
I'm usually (meaning playing warlords) very comfortable at monarch, and somewhat struggling at emperor.
I had the same impression about BtS being easier, so I moved up to emperor, and had a walk in the park up to liberalism.
Then I lost my save and got back to an earlier one (500 AD or so).
For some reason, Ragnar decided to hit me although in the replay while he didn't in the first run. It's not a walk in the park at all anymore :eek:.
I suggest playing the next game at monarch, and playing your offline games at emperor for a while.
Or switching to agressive AI.
 
I'll try to keep this relevant to the purposes of the Bullpen.

I'm with cabert's, rancid's and aelf's take on this. I'm sure many have read the threads spawned by futurehermit on the general AI tech pace, and the ALC Peter 2 game is an instance that confirms that prognosis. Gandhi seemed to mostly defend with LB stacks against Rifles/Cannon/Cav, though I did see some Grens/Cannon in one screenshot of his capital. But Sisutil would have to confirm the general case. In my experience so far this has not always been the case, not by a long shot.

The core issue is the AI tech pace, with the secondary issue of unit upgrade ability since that AI bene has also been nerfed. The issue is not that the AI doesn't build enough units (save the early game, but I don't like to build too many early either), but that it doesn't fully make use of the stacks that it does build. This, plus inefficient use of espionage plus the nerfed AI tech benes are suspected as the root causes of the overall slower AI pace.

So while Aggressive AI would fix the lack of use, it would do so at the price of 1) an even slower AI tech pace due to a) unit spam and b) destructive inter-AI wars, and 2) unit spam tedium - thus aggravating the basic problem, plus leaving the AI with even more units it can't upgrade.

So no to aggressive AI.

Same with No Tech Swapping or whatever it is called. This would nix a key way that the AI could address its tech backwardness independently of the human, further exacerbating the problem. So no here also.

The unofficial patch I haven't used since I think completely uncoupling corps from inflation is too overpowered, promoting an "it's all good" corp spam, for ex. I _like_ how the AP finally makes getting (the AP) religion a _bad_ thing, finally! The tie with inflation should be adjusted, not eliminated, and I'll wait until that is done.

As it sits now, BtS seems to suit a more passive-aggressive "nibbling turtle" style of play. For this I've found the GW+ToZ+AP(with shared religion) to be an excellent defensive combo. Especially with Protective, to which it gives new meaning. Bait an AI into attacking you and let them suffer the happy penalties while you rack up the 2xGG points. Together with an early Theology and early instructors and you can nurture a core of well-promoted units for later upgrade in the...

...Modern Era. I'd like to see some challenging Modern Era warfare. Especially if Boudicca were in the mix, Oooh, Sisutil in pouty Liz drag in a girl fight with Boudi! Er, another inappropriate image, I know :blush: Feels like middle school spirit all over again - that's what these games do to you I guess:lol:

Too bad though if it means dumbing down one's play. I liked a tech beeline challenge as much as anyone else, but I like this more leisurely style as well. I've just sort of adapted to it and tried out other angles. I'm much more willing to share a continent with the AIs rather than feel that I must grab the whole thing for myself if I wanted to have a hope of winning, truly generally the case in Vanilla/Warlords. Not so in BtS, a big (and good) difference. Sisutils' Peter 2 game was unusual in my experience in that he had a truly great opportunity to knock out the only other AI (J Caesar) on his continent early on, one that I wouldn't have resisted, either. But that is exceptional.

The rule is: rubbing close borders with same-continent AIs. Just wait and they will attack, with nice Blake-style combined stacks. Trouble is, they often won't go all out total war with everything, so they are not too hard to contain in "aggressive-defensive" style.

We'll see how it all pans out in the end.
 
Sisiutil, I'm more interested in seeing what you can do with the AP and other new features rather than seeing what you can do by moving up a level.

BTS plays more like civ3 than than the earlier versions.

I'd like to see what you can come up with for passive/aggressive strats rather than a straight hammer.

regards, :salute: AK
 
My suggestions:

Play the next game with no tech brokering, imo that's how the game should be played no more trade abusing and a slightly slower tech pace gives you a larger window so you can show each civ uu/ub more and thats what alc all about isnt it?.

About agressive AI, i'm not sure what to think about it, sure more units and more military makes the game more different, and I think agressive AI is fine untill gunpowder/industrial age when you get increasingly bigger stacks moving around the map that gameplay slows down and your game experience suffers imo. Then again it could be fun to have the mongols invade you with a stack of 40+ knights, they sure can with agressive AI enabled.

Go emperor with isabella a more close game is more intressting to follow then a pushover. I'm sure you can show some different intresting stuff with Isabella even on emperor.
 
ALC 19 with Gilgamesh of Sumer (Creative/Protective)--hmm, tough to say, but Protective is more of a defensive trait. I suppose I could just sit back and let the AI dog-pile me and see if my Protective units are up to the challenge, but with the Creative trait I anticipate more of a building game. Neither his UB nor his UU sound like they'll set the world on fire. Basically, I'm not sure what to expect from a Gilgamesh game.

You might want to consider playing a strategy based on spying with Gilgamesh. In short: Great Wall to generate Great Spy, Vulture rush first opponent, build Ziggurats for spy points, expend Great Spy on second opponent, get Alphabet to create spies and use them for city revolts to take down cultural defenses (and steal some technology). No need for siege weapons this way in the first two wars. It worked for me on Monarch/Epic/Hemispheres.

I'll get back to this in the pre-game thread on Gilgamesh.
 
No tech brokering is a bit of a double edged sword - good because it's keeps the pace more believable and brings some control over excessive tech trading, and yet bad because it really emphasizes tech disparity between successful and backward AI civs. This means that while the tops civs get better and better, the poor civs get poorer and left further behind. Being financial is even more important for the AI! For the human it's also a bit exploitable too - selling tech for dirt cheap to civs that will never win, knowing full well that they can't even use the tech for any trading benefit themselves.

Regarding the format of the ALC, I understand that the map has to be kind of favourable to allow sufficient demonstration of UUs and UBs, the civ's traits, etc, etc. However, since that is kind of stacking the game in your favour, I'd definitely suggest trying Aggressive AI or moving up a level or two. Part of the problem with the ALC is secretly knowing that the map isn't going to shaft you and that things will be ok for your starting position and your UU. Don't get me wrong, I think this is ok because the ALCs are a learning experience and for public interest/show. Having said that, you do then run the opposite risk of them becoming too easy and therefore rather dull like the current Peter one has become.

I'd suggest Aggressive AI and/or a level up, even if it's just for a learning experience and ultimately doesn't work. You could try that with no tech brokering to make it a little slower paced?
 
Top Bottom