The All Leaders Challenge Game Bullpen

sneaky said:

Great! I would love to see you abuse the power of the Dikes.

Click to expand...

That sounds like something to be discussed on a very different message board from this one.

sneaky said:

By the way could you fix Willem van Oranje's name, he is no Wilheim!

Click to expand...

Fixed!

Sisiutil said:

Have they changed it so the Camel Archer now receives a free Flanking promotion? I ask because Flanking got a boost in BtS--it's now a heckuva anti-siege weapon promotion. Units with Flanking stand a chance of damaging several or all of the siege weapons in a stack.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite right. This is another case of a poor wording choice by Firaxis causing confusion about what's going on. From what I've seen the Flanking promotion is not required for a Flanking Attack against siege. Flanking Attack is an innate ability given to some units (most mounted units plus gunship) to cause collateral damage against particular siege units if the attacking unit survives combat. The Civilopedia entry for Improved Siege Combat confuses things even more by suggesting that players may want to give mounted units Flanking promotions to increase their chance of survival (and therefore their chance of causing Flanking Attack damage). But you still get Flanking Attack damage from mounted units that don't have Flanking promotion as long as they survive their combat.

AFAIK Camel Archers are unchanged in BTS.

Some people in the ALC threads have been suggesting that the ALCs should be played with the Aggressive AI setting turned on. I thought it would be appropriate to discuss that here.

First off, I've never played with that setting turned on. Just from the title and the pop-up description in the menu I know vaguely what it does, but perhaps those of you who play with it turned on could let me and everyone else know what the consequences are.

Secondly, what would the advantages/disadvantages be to the ALC series to adopting that setting? Remember that I play the ALCs not to show off (though I guess sometimes that's inevitable), but primarily to engender strategy discussions. I'm not going to change a setting just to make things more challenging. Having Gandhi face aggressive AIs so all his Fast Workers get stolen and he can't leverage his Industrious trait to build wonders because all his hammers have to go into military units might make for a challenging game, but not one in which I would get to showcase all of the chosen leader's unique characteristics--which is the raison d'etre for the ALCs.

In fact, I've avoided certain game situations in the ALCs in the past because they would defeat this very goal. For example, I had Welnic check the Cyrus game's initial save to ensure that horses were available somewhere and that I wasn't isolated, because a Cyrus game without an Immortal rush is just no fun and would fail to capitalize on his UU.

So would the Aggressive AI setting enhance the opportunity to indulge the leaders' traits or hamper it?

My own feeling is that it's a setting that could be used on a case-by-case basis--enabling it for the warmonger leaders, disabling it for the more peaceful ones. But I look forward to hearing others' take on it.

IIRC from one of aelf's tries aggressive AI is more aggressive vs the human player, not vs each other. So you'll have to work much harder on the diplomacy level to maintain peace. I don't think it's a reasonable setting to put for the first few BtS games, unless you're feeling like going for all out war for example. Against a big power rating even the aggressive AI should be a little timid.

I vote against using it as it will simply increase the military factor of your games. I think you put it well when you said the ALCs are about showcasing the unit talents of each leader.

Sisiutil said:

My own feeling is that it's a setting that could be used on a case-by-case basis--enabling it for the warmonger leaders, disabling it for the more peaceful ones.

Click to expand...

I think this is spot on. When we use Boudica, by all means we could have the AI raging. But when we use the Dutch or Portugese, we don't want a horde of angry AI messing up our colonization efforts.

carl corey said:

IIRC from one of aelf's tries aggressive AI is more aggressive vs the human player, not vs each other. So you'll have to work much harder on the diplomacy level to maintain peace. I don't think it's a reasonable setting to put for the first few BtS games, unless you're feeling like going for all out war for example. Against a big power rating even the aggressive AI should be a little timid.

Click to expand...

That was warlords version, not BtS. In warlords, the "AGG AI" just had a hidden negativie diplo modifier against the human. Now they are more likely to build military units, but might not go to war. And the AI WILL fight each other more now.

Ghandi is just as likely as normal setting to not attack, but he will be more inclined to build units to defend himself.
So since this is the discussion, I have played about an equal number with and without and will share a few observations.

-The AI will attack the other AI more than it used to with this setting.(One game Monty was ravaging his continent, I should have known when I saw the flood of GG being born in other lands)

-Builder Civs will still build. Ghandi had a good defense, as well as a nice set of wonders hiding behind those walls.

-More units will be built and cities will be better defended, but not necessarily in the ancient era. It seems there is to big a window early where an axe rush is optimal (in both AGG and Normal setting) that the AI does not prioritize hooking up metal or horses and building stronger units. But once they do, their stacks are very mixed.

-Unit spam can happen, but it seems somewhat dependant on the civs around. One game I could have taken Hannibal down early(with maces and cats), but since we were on pleased terms I felt it was not needed. For the most part his cities were lightly defended, but I felt bad about backstabbing. But I missed it when our relations dropped to cautious, and our close borders were enough to make me a target. And he took the fight to me, and I missed his troop build up.

All in all, I did not see a huge difference between the two settings. Just more units. People complain about the AI teching slower, but I think that has more to do with the espionage system than the units built. I have seen just as many wars started by the AI in normal as I have in Agg.

I would suggest that you try a few games out off line to see what you think. The hardest part is every game I have played has been somewhat different, and that makes it hard to compare any two based on settings.

I think that if you do decide to try it out though for a game in your series, you should turn it on when you are a builder civ. I think it will be cool to see if you can highlight the leader traits and be a good builder in a game that is "designed" to make it more difficult.

carl corey said:

IIRC from one of aelf's tries aggressive AI is more aggressive vs the human player, not vs each other. So you'll have to work much harder on the diplomacy level to maintain peace. I don't think it's a reasonable setting to put for the first few BtS games, unless you're feeling like going for all out war for example. Against a big power rating even the aggressive AI should be a little timid.

Click to expand...

In BTS, I've found the Aggressive AI to be overall more aggressive, against it's fellow AI just as much as against me. Two AI, Pacal and Montezuma, declared war on each other several times before I ever had to start a war, in the game I'm playing now. Of course, later in the game Mansa Musa launched an cross-continental invasion when he was cautious with me, but whatever.

Aggressive AI more often than not means unit spam. If you like to compete with the AI to see who can build the most units to win the game, then it's for you. It does have a militaristic appeal, though. If you want more strategy in general, don't play on it.

Sisiutil said:

First off, I've never played with that setting turned on. Just from the title and the pop-up description in the menu I know vaguely what it does, but perhaps those of you who play with it turned on could let me and everyone else know what the consequences are.

Click to expand...

Basically it just means the AI will build more units. Usually making it more resistant to rushes on one hand, sometimes leading to it getting outteched considerably on the other hand.

Since you often rush an early neighbour, I think it would be interesting to see if and which difference AggAi makes there for you, but I don't think it should be used as a regular setting.

Similarly, I'd like to see one or two games with No Tech Brokering (or even No Tech Trading) to see which difference it makes to your overall approach to the game. Though of course any of those would dilute the comparability between games.

The main goal of Aggressive AI was for the AI to counter the (majority of) human players tendencies of early aggression, at least that's the way Blake made it sound, in other words making it so that the AI defends early rushes properly, and makes them more unit spammish.

scooter said:

The main goal of Aggressive AI was for the AI to counter the (majority of) human players tendencies of early aggression, at least that's the way Blake made it sound

Click to expand...

Or to counter MP players who play SP or SP players who play like in MP. I remember him saying that too.

MP is now.

Mesousa said:

Similarly, I'd like to see one or two games with No Tech Brokering (or even No Tech Trading) to see which difference it makes to your overall approach to the game. Though of course any of those would dilute the comparability between games.

Click to expand...

Well, at the risk of starting a separate discussion, what does No Tech Brokering do? Prevent you from trading techs you haven't researched yourself? Researched completely or partially? What's that like?

Aggressive AI's in BTS declare war much more on the human player and on each other and from my experience often tend to dogpile on a disadvantaged civ (ie. if a civ with a high power rating declares on you, some civs are likely to join and try to wipe you out). It makes for an interesting game though and defensive units like longbows become more important as even on noble, AI's send huge stacks your way.

Sisiutil said:

Well, at the risk of starting a separate discussion, what does No Tech Brokering do? Prevent you from trading techs you haven't researched yourself? Researched completely or partially? What's that like?

Click to expand...

It means techs can only be traded if you've completely researched it yourself. It also applies to AIs. It has some positive and negative effects on tech trading:

You can trade a monopoly tech away to one AI without worrying that it will end up in everybody's hands. This makes it a bit easier to trade one tech that you've beelined for a sequence of techs.

It prevents you from being a tech broker (duh). So no more trading for a tech and then passing it on to some other AI for another tech.

It makes the AIs less willing to trade techs overall. They won't accept a tech in trade (or even as a gift) if they're close to researching it themselves since they won't be able to trade it.

I played one game with this option on but I can't say if it's an improvement or not. It does make the tech trading decisions a bit easier I think.

I love No Tech Brokering since it means that different civs have different techs, rather than the whole "one civ gets it then all the civs get it". I think you'll find it a positive change.

I tried using Aggressive AI and like it for the first part of my game, but one I got to the gunpowder era the sheer number of units made the game really, really tedious. I'd advise against it, regardless of what Blake says.

I've certainly noticed plenty of wars in my non-Aggressive AI games.

aelf said:

Aggressive AI more often than not means unit spam. If you like to compete with the AI to see who can build the most units to win the game, then it's for you. It does have a militaristic appeal, though. If you want more strategy in general, don't play on it.

Click to expand...

I do not believe this is very accurate. I think in general there is too much unit spam on both settings. But from my personal observations from games I have actually played, it appeared that the AI may be more likely to build a troop at anyone time, but it did not seem out of hand.

If you are taking this position based on other peoples experiences as opposed to your own personal observations (not sure if you have the game yet) then you may want to take them with a grain of salt. I think there are more marathon speed players, and this would be a bigger problem on that level.

That being said, I have had a variety of experience of play on both settings, so I think that it is something that needs to be eperimented with before sisiutil decides to try one online.

Bursk said:

I love No Tech Brokering since it means that different civs have different techs, rather than the whole "one civ gets it then all the civs get it". I think you'll find it a positive change.

Click to expand...

I agree. It makes civs a bit more distinct according to their research paths.

I used to play most games with No Technology Trading, as I was never happy with that aspect of the game, or its implementation. This meant that my games went slower tech-wise (resulting in a for me overall nice pace at Normal, reason I never felt very tempted to try Epic or Marathon). Now I'm using No Tech Brokering as a compromise, and teching goes a bit faster.

When you're used to normal tech trading, activating No Brokering should give you the opposite experience, going through the tree should take a bit longer. And of course a highly skilled tech trader should find it increases the challenge a bit. Now more getting a lead and then simply administering it through clever brokering.

martin031 said:

I do not believe this is very accurate. I think in general there is too much unit spam on both settings. But from my personal observations from games I have actually played, it appeared that the AI may be more likely to build a troop at anyone time, but it did not seem out of hand.

If you are taking this position based on other peoples experiences as opposed to your own personal observations (not sure if you have the game yet) then you may want to take them with a grain of salt. I think there are more marathon speed players, and this would be a bigger problem on that level.

That being said, I have had a variety of experience of play on both settings, so I think that it is something that needs to be eperimented with before sisiutil decides to try one online.

Click to expand...

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?

Should Solver's unofficial patch be used in the game before the official patch is released? Here is the current change-list:

* Fixing a possible infinite loop problem with unit movement.
* AI now more likely to promote siege units with Accuracy to better handle the changes to bombardment in BtS
* AI understanding of what is an "early Wonder" now correct for non-Normal game speeds.
* AI civs that are close to reaching a Domination victory recognize that and are more likely to declare war, in particular with Aggressive AI.
* "Dead unitgroup walking" crash fix as per Dale
* No-conscript colony crash fix as per Gyathaar
* Another colony crash fix as per myself
* Fixed the bug allowing Forts in foreign territory, which would result in Forts overrunning useful rival improvements.
* AIs close to domination population will have a high priority for health buildings in cities that are unhealthy.
* AIs close to domination population will put a high priority on researching Genetics and will like other health techs better.
* The AI will be less reluctant to raze cities that have its state religion if it doesn't have the shrine for that religion.
* Corporation maintenance is now exempt from inflation, so the costs don't blow up so much.
* Poison Water and Ferment Unhappiness missions changed for non-Normal speeds. Only the duration scales now, not the effect. So on Marathon, it will be -8 happy for 24 turns, not -24 happy for 24 turns.
* Added possible workaround for a crash bug.
* Fixed an infinite loop problem with city attackers (thanks Gyathaar)
* Blockade code rewritten so that blockading is now much faster, as per Gyathaar

Very notable are the changes to corporations and Poison Water & Ferment Unhappiness missions. Solver's comment regarding corporations:

The system with corporation maintenance and inflation will be changed in the next patch. I can not promise you that the official patch's adjustment to corporation maintenance will be 100% the same as mine, but I can promise you that the system currently is my patch is closer to the system that will be in the official patch than the "unfixed" game.

Click to expand...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168750
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235067