Agg ais-slow teching-Observations and Reasoning

[Rusty Edge]

Thanks for that....Doh! I just fired up BTS, and its there in the custom menu staring me in the face...now I do feel stupid

It's my new favorite map type. Better suited to Huge.

And it's still too early for anyone to feel stupid for not being familiar with all of the features and aspects of this game.


You mean OCC doesn't stand for Orange County Choppers?

 

[DrewBledsoe]

isn't "low tech/high military" pretty much the entire point of agressive ai??

i never play with it so i'm not sure...but that's the general idea i've gotten from reading up on it.

Yes it is, and I love the idea in principle. However, in practice sometimes ais are reaching a lvl of almost tech stagnation, which they shouldn't. The point of this thread is to discuss/reason why this is the case.

 

[Roland Johansen]

@DrewBledsoe

Big and Small is one of the new map settings. When I got Beyond the Sword, I first tested the new map types by starting the game with a map setting and then checking it out with the world builder. Big and Small was my new favourite because it has a nice mix of islands and continents and you can customise it further. It's nice as you can start on a big island or on a continent and there are plenty of both.

Here are 2 maps from the standard settings of Big and Small except with the last setting 'islands mixed in' instead of the default 'island region separate'. The default version looks a bit artificial with one half of the map a continent and the other half small islands. The islands mixed in version looks more natural (personal opinion of course).

These are blown up versions of the minimap, I didn't know how to get the whole map otherwise. It's of course best to test the maps yourself. A blown up minimap shows too little detail to tell you everything.

Big and Small 1.JPG
Big and Small 2.JPG

 

[Lurking Liu]

The choice of AI depends on the player's style, basically. If you're an aggressive player who likes to fight, then you should be playing aggressive AI so the computer stands an even chance. Perhaps they won't match you in tech, but the number of troops they have will do the rest. Heh, it's hard to take down a stack of 90 troops when you have 30, even if yours are three-times stronger =P

On the other hand, if you're playing a more relaxed-pace game, then you should be playing normal AI so the computer can tech along with you.

Basically, aggressive AI rewards patient, defensive playing (until your tech and infrastructure are so superior you can rampage); while normal AI rewards fast, aggressive playing.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

@Liu, all views welcome, but please, as stated several times earlier, this doesn't need to become another "which ai is better" discussion.Its to try and analyse just exactly why the ai techs slower, especially with agg ais.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

It's my new favorite map type. Better suited to Huge.

And it's still too early for anyone to feel stupid for not being familiar with all of the features and aspects of this game.


You mean OCC doesn't stand for Orange County Choppers?

@DrewBledsoe

Big and Small is one of the new map settings. When I got Beyond the Sword, I first tested the new map types by starting the game with a map setting and then checking it out with the world builder. Big and Small was my new favourite because it has a nice mix of islands and continents and you can customise it further. It's nice as you can start on a big island or on a continent and there are plenty of both.

Here are 2 maps from the standard settings of Big and Small except with the last setting 'islands mixed in' instead of the default 'island region separate'. The default version looks a bit artificial with one half of the map a continent and the other half small islands. The islands mixed in version looks more natural (personal opinion of course).

These are blown up versions of the minimap, I didn't know how to get the whole map otherwise. It's of course best to test the maps yourself. A blown up minimap shows too little detail to tell you everything.

Big and Small 1.JPG
Big and Small 2.JPG

Well, thanks guys, I generated about 15-20 maps with "Big and Small" tried a couple of fledgling games, and I really don't like the maps at all, but thanks for the pointers.

They kind of feel like a Giant broken Archaepeligo (and I don't like those at all) and on most of them, its quite possible (with open borders) to meet just about all the other civs with just galleys (again too early).....so I'm back to hemispheres, but thanks for pointing the option out

 

[Arlborn]

Well, thanks guys, I generated about 15-20 maps with "Big and Small" tried a couple of fledgling games, and I really don't like the maps at all, but thanks for the pointers.

They kind of feel like a Giant broken Archaepeligo (and I don't like those at all) and on most of them, its quite possible (with open borders) to meet just about all the other civs with just galleys (again too early).....so I'm back to hemispheres, but thanks for pointing the option out

At least it is a Archpeligo game in which the AI normally don't do as bad as the original, because they actually have some continents, so they dont need to relay as strongly in naval, and, as you said, everything can be close.
Well, at least in theory.

 

[jam3]

They kind of feel like a Giant broken Archaepeligo (and I don't like those at all) and on most of them, its quite possible (with open borders) to meet just about all the other civs with just galleys (again too early).....so I'm back to hemispheres, but thanks for pointing the option out

Pretty much how I felt as well.

Try my script out its just a mod of Big and Small, Main feature is it allows you to change the Islands into Continents and gives some pretty cool results

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239203&highlight=Continents+Islands

 

[jimbob27]

I think a lot of the problem is the AI doesn't really have long term objectives for war. A good human warmonger is by default, a good builder as well. The human will attack a weaker opponent, take a bunch of cities..... end the war, and go into builder-mode to develop the new cities for a while.l

I think the problem with the AI, is they're not programmed to think like this. They're basically guaged towards war or building, and never the twain shall mix. The AI will attack a weaker opponent, capture some cities....end the war..... and then completely neglect the rebuilding on the new cities. They'll often capture a new city, and start building units in it straight away.

To become better warmongers, they AI need to be able to "cycle" their warmongering. There should be 3 distict stages in warmongering... most human players use them, and the AI should too. The 3 stages are building an army, attacking the enemy, and finally consolidate their gains.. through economy building.

With the regular AI, it seems they're average at all of them. With agressive AI, they excel at building armies, they're still average at using them... but they almost completely loose the third phase entirely, of consolidating their gains.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I think a lot of the problem is the AI doesn't really have long term objectives for war. A good human warmonger is by default, a good builder as well. The human will attack a weaker opponent, take a bunch of cities..... end the war, and go into builder-mode to develop the new cities for a while.l

I think the problem with the AI, is they're not programmed to think like this. They're basically guaged towards war or building, and never the twain shall mix. The AI will attack a weaker opponent, capture some cities....end the war..... and then completely neglect the rebuilding on the new cities. They'll often capture a new city, and start building units in it straight away.

To become better warmongers, they AI need to be able to "cycle" their warmongering. There should be 3 distict stages in warmongering... most human players use them, and the AI should too. The 3 stages are building an army, attacking the enemy, and finally consolidate their gains.. through economy building.

With the regular AI, it seems they're average at all of them. With agressive AI, they excel at building armies, they're still average at using them... but they almost completely loose the third phase entirely, of consolidating their gains.

Excellent point about not consolidating, Some ais do get a warmongering head on from one point, but never seem to switch it off. This may be partly down to some "I think Im winning therefore I'll keep fighting" decisions in the mix, but as you said, there always comes a point when you really SHOULD stop fighting, and actually do something with your gains.

I'd missed them, for a few games, but in my current, good old "suicidal ais" are back, and 2 of them on my east and south borders. Ok, they are both the furious side of very furious with me (mostly caused by their own stupidity-- if they attack me and the only way to get peace , is to raise a stupidly built city I don't want, then thats their own fault). However, they both seem to have got stuck in a cycle. They attack me with about a 20ish stack (and always the same 2 cities, from slightly different angles), I probably lose 5 troops, they lose the stack. I really don't want these wars, Im just in consolidation mode, so Ill sue for peace which they take, plus give me all their cash.

But then all they are doing, over and over again, is building another similar stack, and attacking around 15 turns after the last peace! And every time, Im pulling that little bit further ahead. It will no doubt end up with them as my vassals. But however furious, and however warlike they may be, this just isn't smart behaviour. They are crucifying themselves, and really only being a rather large (for once) nuisance to me.

It seems to be another cycle, kicking in from them being complete mad with me, and me not being quite powerful enough not to attack. As I said, though, its only hurting themselves, building troop after troop and whacking espionage up to something unhealthy like 30% pre feudalism.

Oh well, its only a game

 

[Dnomal]

I know exactly what you mean by stupid AI actions.

For example....

The second game i played was as Byzantium, and I was Christain surrounded by Muslim enemies, the Malinesse (founders and loved by everyone), Incas, Zulus, Mongols and Mayans all surrounded me.

Again and again one would declare war, then others, this happened alot, i would've died if it wasn't for the UU. Zulu must have sacrificed a million men over the centuries.

Axeman with city attack 1 vs Cataphract with strength 1 and 2, again and again....

I was annoyed at Shaka, but i managed to survve, even vassalising a neighbour (the Mongols). He NEVER seemed to attack an7yone else. SO while the Malinesse were advancingin techs and were the LOGICAL choice to attack out of fear, again and again he attacked me (and i was on the other side of the map) with only three Zulu colonies and a long march through the Malinesse Empire to provide troops against me.

Eventually the Mali decided to attack the Zulus and the Incas, a infantry versus musketman conflict, it wasn't nice.

I eventually quit the game, i just couldn't keep pace with the Malinesse, but Shaka's stupidity at attacking me for no reason other than he could, infuriated me.

I don't mind being attacked, but being attacked when I'm on the other side of the world, and there's a greater threat on your doorstep WTH?

With agressive AI turned off my opponnents now seem capable of building non-military buildings and units (not building courthouses in new conquered cities is insane especially after marching so far to take them.)

 

[Lurking Liu]

Oh, no, ack! Geez... That didn't come out right

My point, basically, is that you should pick the AI that's right for you, the individual player. My second point was that that seems to be the difference between the AI's--One techs much slower, but has a bigger army; the other techs on par and has... Well, in my experience, still a very large army, but smaller than the earlier one. Each one has a play-style that's suited to maximize the experience, is all I meant.

And, yet, when I re-read it, what I meant and what I said are two different things, with the first post sounding totally dickish. My bad, sorry =P

 

[sveint]

Marathon and Aggressive AI do not mix, sadly

PSEUDOCODE:
if (research slider below 20% OR some other economic tests fail)
{
disband some units, starting with lowest strenght units first
}

 

[50_dollar_bag]

Could it be possible that with so many AIs on a huge map that once one starts getting a big military it starts a snowball effect with every other civ realizing that they need a bigger army too?
Also perhaps the tech rate for huge maps + Marathon gets skewed somehow.

My 1 game of Agg AI is hardly experience enough to see a pattern emerging but what I saw on a Monarch/Standard size/Rainforest map/Random personalities/Unrestricted leaders/Marathon was that every AI except Gandhi of the Mayans were blitzing through the tech tree until around Civil Service (it was actually quite funny to see Napolean being picked on by Gandhi)
De Gaulle of the English had about half the map after taking out Brennus plus he had about half the wonders of the world and was teching along nicely.
Lincoln of the Chinese picked up Tokugawa of the Dutch and Gandhi and eventually Napolean as vassals but remained behind in tech.
Napolean did alright but only had horses as a strategic resource so it was only a matter of time before he exited the game, courtesy of myself.

Anyway observations I made were that Napolean had a love affair with Workshops, and built few cottages, bananas, rice and pigs were abundant so food wasn't an issue.
De Gaulle built many cottages but usually only on floodplains of which he got many.
Lincoln had a very poor worker force had very undeveloped land.
Gandhi was a ******.

 

[SickCycle]

I'll start by saying I'm a firm believer in Aggressive AI and only play with it.

With that said, I feel as though Normal AI is more of a builders game, I also find that more of the older players enjoy this setting while Aggressive AI is more of a warmongers game and find that more of the younger guys like it.

Not to be stereotypical I just find the younger players like the constant warfare more and the older "dorkier" sorry sorry lol players enjoy more of the micro management slow builder type games hehe.

The reasons I find Aggressive AI superior is simple, as a warmonger and rusher, no matter the map I'll rush and take my continent or most of it leaving a trade partner at most, I find that normal AI can't hold its own, I find it completely without challange and found myself going from noble a few months ago when I bought it straight to Monarch, as soon as I switched to Aggressive AI I got stopped in my tracks at Monarch and started finding the game very challenging.

The AI's could finally handle my warfare, and the new BtS has helped since it has improved the warfare of the AI imo.

Normal AI it just isn't there, it can't handle war and when the only victory condition you want is the total submission of the entire planet it's no fun. I also find the Aggressive AI declares war constantly on eachother as well as the player which I find more realistic.

How many civs go 1000 years without a war..

Aggressive AI techs slower but it fits into my game better, even with the faster pace of teching in normal it just gets destroyed and once you have a continent to yourself it's kind hard to stop you.

It's also offset by the fact that you tech slower unless your a god in diplomacy.

I also find your statement about the cottaging completely false, no offense at all but with BtS I've seen the AI do nothing but cottage spam everything and they usually have cities that are 18+ by the mid-later parts of the game.

I also think your handicapping the AI's to a certain degree by using random personalities, the civs traits and uu/ub are built up around there personalities and they are most effective by there individual leaders, by using random personalities your mixing a leader personality that doesn't play to its strengths.

Aggressive AI also lets me worry less about micro managment and focus more on the apsects I enjoy like the actual game-play

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Could it be possible that with so many AIs on a huge map that once one starts getting a big military it starts a snowball effect with every other civ realizing that they need a bigger army too?
Also perhaps the tech rate for huge maps + Marathon gets skewed somehow.

I only have 13 ais on a huge map, and most wars don't really start until the map begins to get full...(not always the case though). You might have something with the marathon setting, but epic players see it too.

The reason I started this thread, is so that I/or another can find out whats going wrong sometimes, and attempt to fix it (hopefully)

I'll start by saying I'm a firm believer in Aggressive AI and only play with it.

With that said, I feel as though Normal AI is more of a builders game, I also find that more of the older players enjoy this setting while Aggressive AI is more of a warmongers game and find that more of the younger guys like it.

Not to be stereotypical I just find the younger players like the constant warfare more and the older "dorkier" sorry sorry lol players enjoy more of the micro management slow builder type games hehe.

The reasons I find Aggressive AI superior is simple, as a warmonger and rusher, no matter the map I'll rush and take my continent or most of it leaving a trade partner at most, I find that normal AI can't hold its own, I find it completely without challange and found myself going from noble a few months ago when I bought it straight to Monarch, as soon as I switched to Aggressive AI I got stopped in my tracks at Monarch and started finding the game very challenging.

The AI's could finally handle my warfare, and the new BtS has helped since it has improved the warfare of the AI imo.

Normal AI it just isn't there, it can't handle war and when the only victory condition you want is the total submission of the entire planet it's no fun. I also find the Aggressive AI declares war constantly on eachother as well as the player which I find more realistic.

How many civs go 1000 years without a war..

Aggressive AI techs slower but it fits into my game better, even with the faster pace of teching in normal it just gets destroyed and once you have a continent to yourself it's kind hard to stop you.

It's also offset by the fact that you tech slower unless your a god in diplomacy.

I also find your statement about the cottaging completely false, no offense at all but with BtS I've seen the AI do nothing but cottage spam everything and they usually have cities that are 18+ by the mid-later parts of the game.

I also think your handicapping the AI's to a certain degree by using random personalities, the civs traits and uu/ub are built up around there personalities and they are most effective by there individual leaders, by using random personalities your mixing a leader personality that doesn't play to its strengths.

Aggressive AI also lets me worry less about micro managment and focus more on the apsects I enjoy like the actual game-play

I agree with most of that, except about Rand Pers handicapping the ai in any way at all.

Firstly, with "standard pers",it gives you the player much more advantage, by knowing exactly how each leader will react from the very start, and planning your game/tactics around this.

Secondly, if you decide to play as Alex, or Caesar, do you always play the same way, whatever the map? I'd hope not. Why should Alex always be a beligerent fool (and as point one if you know he will be, you can attack him before he attacks you).

Thirdly, Mansa might be a great "techer", but believe me he doesn't even approach a William or Ragnar with a Mansa personality. As Monty and Shaka are great Warmongerers, but again nowehere near as scary as a beligerent Rome (either leader), or a very early beligerent Hatty or Cyrus.

Lastly, on certain maps, each civs UU / UB is useless anyway. If you play a highlands map, isn't it severely handicapping the Dutch and Portuguese? If Rome don't get Iron, Kymer don't get Ivory, Byzantine don't get horses, aren't they handicapped too?

Anyways, this is verging oin "which ai is best", which isn't for this thread, so enough from me.

 

[DrJambo]

I don't yet use Solver's fix might have to install it. So yes all the issues mentioned are with the standard BTS (with just a marathon xml fix for espionage poisoning/unhappiness bug I did a while back)

This is probably the reason then. Solver's fix does a multitude of great things, most notably reducing the AI's expenditure on espionage to more normal levels. As a result they're able to tech more sensibly.

 

[phungus420]

I also think it has alot to do with the stated lack of a consolidation phase for warmonger AIs. You don't see this happen to balanced AIs on a crowded map (but you definatly see it with the warmongers like Shaka and Monty), because it's not as important. But on a huge map with 13 civs, the shear # of cities you have just from peacefully expanding would make maintainance insane after a successful early war. Unfortunatly for the the AI I don't think the best warmongers take this into account, and fail to reasonably consolidate their gains. I think this may be why, the most successful warmonger AIs are the in between aggressives like Gilgamesh or Catherine (actually seen Gilgamesh win a Domination victory, using Solver's Patch), and not the overly aggressive Montys in the world. The Montys just seem to always phail at thier first war, or if they succede end up crushing their economies under their own weight.

 

[SickCycle]

Firstly, with "standard pers",it gives you the player much more advantage, by knowing exactly how each leader will react from the very start, and planning your game/tactics around this.

Secondly, if you decide to play as Alex, or Caesar, do you always play the same way, whatever the map? I'd hope not. Why should Alex always be a beligerent fool (and as point one if you know he will be, you can attack him before he attacks you).

Thirdly, Mansa might be a great "techer", but believe me he doesn't even approach a William or Ragnar with a Mansa personality. As Monty and Shaka are great Warmongerers, but again nowehere near as scary as a beligerent Rome (either leader), or a very early beligerent Hatty or Cyrus.

Lastly, on certain maps, each civs UU / UB is useless anyway. If you play a highlands map, isn't it severely handicapping the Dutch and Portuguese? If Rome don't get Iron, Kymer don't get Ivory, Byzantine don't get horses, aren't they handicapped too?

I can agree with that.

I don't use Random Personalities much as I'm kinda fond of each leader and there personality but the few times I did use it I noticed the challenge in not knowing how they would act. I might actually get into using it again, not positive tho.

I still think that the leaders personality 'usually' is the best for there traits, I will agree there are exceptions such as a Rome with Shakas attitude lol... never seen it but I'm terrified just thinking about it.

 

[SickCycle]

You know what Blake actually said about Aggressive AI is, if you plan to rush and be a warmonger at least give the AI a heads up and check the Aggressive option.

He also said that Aggressive AI is actually easier to win if your going to be peaceful.

He simply stated that if your a warmonger you should check the box to give the comp a fighting chance, which I find to be 100% true and that's all I was really trying to portray in my post.