Was the Warlords old patch a help or hinderance?

[White Elk]

Personally I think the Firaxian patch took Warlords a few steps backwards. I think the expansion was weak to begin with, but I think that after the patch the AI has suffered noticiably. What do you think about how that old patch affected the game?

[Charles 22]

I think you and I are both disatisfied with the AI, but for largely opposite reasons. I and many others here have complained that the AI for Warlords, or at least post 2.08, to be too warmonger like, such that the levels of play are somewhat out of proportion. It's considerably more difficult to win at that level, assuming you're not warmongering, largely I suspect because of the cottage spamming. On the flip side if you warmonger, it is probably easier.

[vilemerchant]

Only a 'builder' who likes low difficulty levels could possibly think it made the game better.

[Charles 22]

Originally Posted by vilemerchant

Only a 'builder' who likes low difficulty levels could possibly think it made the game better.

Just for the record, I'm more a builder than anything, and I play on noble. I think it made the game worse because I draw the conclusion that primarily it's made it a warmongering game; at least at the noble level. I typically used to be in first or second place throughout the game, often having the most techs half through the game to the end, but with 2.08 I'm usually in the middle of the pacj if not towards the bottom in score, and there is always at least 3-4 civs ahead of me in techs. The only cures seem to be to cottage like crazy, therefore copying the AI, or to attack them down to my score.

[Underdawg]

Originally Posted by Charles 22

Just for the record, I'm more a builder than anything, and I play on noble. I think it made the game worse because I draw the conclusion that primarily it's made it a warmongering game; at least at the noble level. I typically used to be in first or second place throughout the game, often having the most techs half through the game to the end, but with 2.08 I'm usually in the middle of the pacj if not towards the bottom in score, and there is always at least 3-4 civs ahead of me in techs. The only cures seem to be to cottage like crazy, therefore copying the AI, or to attack them down to my score.

Well I can consistently get by on Prince by playing 'peacefully': building mostly and attacking only when attacked first. Only when you get to Monarch and above does it really become near necessary to warmonger inorder to win (and where luck is more of a factor :P)

[Charles 22]

Originally Posted by Underdawg

Well I can consistently get by on Prince by playing 'peacefully': building mostly and attacking only when attacked first. Only when you get to Monarch and above does it really become near necessary to warmonger inorder to win (and where luck is more of a factor :P)

That's primarily where I operate from, but I have one twist. I either let the war drag on forever, which in the pre-2.08 days meant the enemy AI were having ww, or I waited until they begged to end it and they offered money. Nowadays they will NEVER ask for the war to end, you just have to figure out when to ask them, and then they will give you money if you demand it, but it doesn't seem as much as before. I would assume in your peaceful stance you are having to cottage quite a bit? In my case I am playing with political and space race victories off, with no time limit, so that may construe the AI to play somewhat differently, but for the most part I have little to no reason to play friendly with most of them, since all it does is gain me or them a little more time before war.

With the sort of lead the leader gets on me, not uncommonly as much as 50% higher than me, though usually 20-25%, and having more techs than me usually, the only way to win is to attack. I can't possibly build enough cottages, grab enough new land, or tech smartly enough to make up that sort of deficit.

Actually, in my games, the scores aren't a victory condition either, but I do like to do well there anyway, and it's one of the few ways I can still gauge the other civs accurately back to the pre-2.08 days.

[Breunor]

Originally Posted by vilemerchant

Only a 'builder' who likes low difficulty levels could possibly think it made the game better.

Um, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree. I'm a builder and pretty much an Emperor player, and I think the game is MUCH better.

Breunor

[Galileo44]

I agree with Breunor, I am an Immortal/Emperor player, and it certainly makes the game more interesting. As a mix of builder and warmonger it is interesting to see how diplomacy is more important when the AI is more competant and can pose a real threat to you if you are peaceful, or in war you risk dogpiling. My only complaint is that it was a little too focused on war, but in general it helped the game a lot.

[Elrohir]

I think it's better. But I'm more builder than warmonger, and I play Monarch, so take that with a grain of salt.

[aelf]

Originally Posted by Charles 22

I and many others here have complained that the AI for Warlords, or at least post 2.08, to be too warmonger like, such that the levels of play are somewhat out of proportion. It's considerably more difficult to win at that level, assuming you're not warmongering, largely I suspect because of the cottage spamming. On the flip side if you warmonger, it is probably easier.

There's a small error in what you're saying. Yes, warmongering has been given an increased emphasis with the current patch, but that, as you also suggest, is due to the AI's greater economic strength, not because the AI is more "warmonger like". The combination of the old AI bonuses and better economic management makes it liable to zoom past you in tech on the higher levels, making attacking and killing them all the more important if you hope to keep up and win.

Others have argued that it makes no difference if you move down a level or two, but this has in turn been countered with the argument that moving down a level often makes it too easy and therefore not the same. Since there is no way to prove conclusively that either party is right (every player being different), the debate has somewhat reached a stalemate. In principle, though, I don't see why there is a need to make the game more focused on warmongering, which sends a signal that it is the most effective way of playing the game. Shallower posters have cited the title 'Warlords' as a reason for this, but they forget that what precedes that is the word 'Civilization'.

[Breunor]

Good points Aelf!

The only point I would add is that I think Warlords, by adding the warlord units, helps the human player becuase the computer doesn't use them as I well, I don't think. For builders, it can help to get your first warlord (not that hard) to get a unit to high experience, allowing the building of heroic epic without major waars.

Breunor

[Charles 22]

Originally Posted by aelf

There's a small error in what you're saying. Yes, warmongering has been given an increased emphasis with the current patch, but that, as you also suggest, is due to the AI's greater economic strength, not because the AI is more "warmonger like". The combination of the old AI bonuses and better economic management makes it liable to zoom past you in tech on the higher levels, making attacking and killing them all the more important if you hope to keep up and win.

Others have argued that it makes no difference if you move down a level or two, but this has in turn been countered with the argument that moving down a level often makes it too easy and therefore not the same. Since there is no way to prove conclusively that either party is right (every player being different), the debate has somewhat reached a stalemate. In principle, though, I don't see why there is a need to make the game more focused on warmongering, which sends a signal that it is the most effective way of playing the game. Shallower posters have cited the title 'Warlords' as a reason for this, but they forget that what precedes that is the word 'Civilization'.

I may not had made myself entirely clear, but when I say it's more warmongering centered, what I am saying is that it takes a lot more warmongering to manage any kind of voctory (not that the AI needs the warmongering, but that the player does). By the same token the other sort of victories are much tougher to come by, such that they're almost not possible. I say that with playing the exact same civ(s) as I used to, on the same noble level. Sure there are others who will play the strongest financial civs and see perhaps minimal differences, but I was never keen on playing the easy civs anyway.

[White Elk]

I am genuinely surprised that so many Civers found that the Warolords PATCH was a help rather than a hinderance to the game. But beyond that... isnt the next patch looooooong overdue?

[White Elk]

@Charles22... I am a warmonger by nature for this game of Civilization. However I bore of warmongering and since this is the game of Civlilization I seek for other avenues to enjoy my game. Post the latest patch I feel like you do that I am forced to play the role of the warmonger. The Firaxian Lead AI programmer bragged about his AI programming skills. But he was taking smack for amateurs have humbled him with user mods. The quality that Firaxis puts forth is lacking big time. I would be surprised if even Sid Meier would Honestly feel differant!!!

[White Elk]

Originally Posted by Monkeyfinger

I like it. I don't have any pride issues moving down a level to accustom myself to new, improved AI behavior patterns, so...

*looks at who made this topic*

NEVERMIND.

I have no pride based on changing difficulties lol. IN fact even in a GOTM I accidently submited a save before vicotry which had I submitted the correct save would have placed my victory far higher than it was recorded as. I care not for my public display of a high difficulty game such as that, and I care not for my private gaming successes. All I desire is for a fun and unpredictable game. In the context of this thread... the last patch acted counter to this desire. And now that this patch is sooooo loooooooong overdue I think it just to *****(female dog.. starts with a B ends with an H) and moan about the next patchs delay.

[Charles 22]

Originally Posted by White Elk

@Charles22... I am a warmonger by nature for this game of Civilization. However I bore of warmongering and since this is the game of Civlilization I seek for other avenues to enjoy my game. Post the latest patch I feel like you do that I am forced to play the role of the warmonger. The Firaxian Lead AI programmer bragged about his AI programming skills. But he was taking smack for amateurs have humbled him with user mods. The quality that Firaxis puts forth is lacking big time. I would be surprised if even Sid Meier would Honestly feel differant!!!

Oh man, I am laughing my head off here. See this thread I started:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215158

Let's see, a warmonger-heavy patch, artillery don't work properly, CTD's, late game slowdowns, and now this insult. After all this, can anybody be stupid enough to buy Sword? I am sure not. I have been insulted enough, even if it is inadvertant. Seriously White Elk, I thought you were really ranting earlier, beyond the scope this demanded, but little did both of us realize just how much of it was prophetic. Making an article on getting rich in gaming? What could be worse? I do realize that the article probably isn't Sid's idea, but agreeing to do this after the ripoff that was Warlords, and then making doubtlessly more (and more worth it I would imagine) on Sword is a bit insulting.

Oh well, I guess everything is fine in fairyland anyway.

Oh, BTW, I see the mod deleted my thread and attached it as an entry to this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214946

[illram]

Helped.

Saying the patch made the AI smarter is incorrect. It made the AI not as stupid.

It still gets its main advantages by "cheating" on the higher difficulty levels, which is what the AI has always done in every Civ game. Only an AI which can resemble a human is going to "fix" this problem and that is way far off. Nonetheless, if you manage a minimally competent game, I still find a monarch space race is consistently possible with minimal warmongering. (Minimal = only killing who you need to for the territory and resources to get ahead in tech.)

The problem is that kind of gets boring after a while which is why I have to occasionally take a 2 to 3 month hiatus from the game.

I never win by anything other than space or domination/conquest, so I can't speak of any difference with those strategies. Certainly no war on high difficulties is impossible, but isn't this true of mankind in general?

[vilemerchant]

Originally Posted by illram

Saying the patch made the AI smarter is incorrect. It made the AI not as stupid.

In terms of defending itself from an invasion it made itself infinitely more stupid, since it doesn't even attack invading stacks, except with the very occasional single catapult or treb. This is way it's so much easier to win by warmongering now.

[Wodan]

I'm surprised nobody has yet pointed out the possibility of playing with the Patch, BetterAI, and BetterHandicaps. To be honest, I don't remember what the plain patch plays like. Nor do I quite remember what plain Warlords was like. Nor do I care.

Frankly, WhiteElk, I would suggest that a new patch is, indeed, already out and has been for 2 months. It's called BetterAI. It's programmed by the same people, why wouldn't you want to use it? Simply because it's not "official"? Well, dollars to donuts we'll find BTS is based on it.

Wodan