Aggressive AI = The Real Civ?

[Spearthrower]

Any non-scenario (civ Epic game) is, by definition, sandbox.

I totally agree aelf - too much ego about exactly what settings have to be used to constitute a "real victory" but you just have to make yourself remember that there are many different age groups here.... To make a sweeping generalistion, I'd say that the older generations play the game to have fun - they still want challenge, but they play for the variety civ has to offer, while the younger folk are more inclined to finding the fastest, bestest way to do everything and have more to prove!

It's like MP attitude carried over into SP gaming.

But yes, it can get tiring!

 

[Danielos]

Well, those quotes by Blake make him seem like a rather arrogant, unsympathetic person, belittling players who does´t like constant warmongering and AIs that declare wars on slightest provocation. I can like a casual war now and then, but think it´s far more interesting to compete diplomatically, scientifically, economically and culturally. I would like to play a nice, peaceful civ, not a mean aggressor that attacks, backstabs and exploit as much as possible! I also want the AI civs to usually play fair, if you have treated them well!

 

[BlackJAC]

Note that the vast majority of people who buy the game are not hardcore. Even those that are (proclaim to be) often prefer more of a sandbox style, one of the most common complaints was along the lines of "I don't want the AI forcing me to adopt a play style", in other words the player has to be choose a strategy, and the AI must accommodate them to a degree by not being too aggressive. While Aggressive AI, will be as aggressive as it darn well pleases.

This paragraph pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with any civ game.

Too many people are quick to pick out the faults i.e. this is to easy, too much effort is needed, axe rushes suck, my neighbour back stabbed me on pleased blah, blah, blah...

They then come on here telling everyone how fantastic they are as they've spanked the AI numerous times on immortal. It's boring and not very impressive, as what most of those people tend to leave out is they've dictated to the AI and wouldn't carry half these games on had the AI used surprise tactics.

Anyone can have a 100% record on Immortal, it's not difficult. What is difficult, though, is having to change your tactics accordingly and accepting the AI should have as much say on how things pan out as the human player.

I'd be surprised if most of these Immortal heroes could hold there own on Noble when on a level playing field, never mind being able to win a proper game on Immortal.

Playing game after game knowing from the start that you're going to win seems a waste of ones time, when in fact, they could be out doing other things.

When played properly civ is a truly fantastic game, when manipulated it's one of the most repetitive games on the market.

 

[snarko]

I think this is a pretty biased and crappy point of view. I'm tired of following this logic that somehow the best game is a multiplayer game, and that the perfect AI must play like a human. While we're about it, why not get rid of diplomacy too? Why should the AI do stupid things like care about religion? All it should care about is trying to win in any way it could. It should also gang up on the most powerful civ. Welcome to the nostalgic world of Civ2!

I fail to see what being aggressive have to do with trying to win. I don't try to win yet I play with aggressive AI on, because that is about as aggressive as I am. Also I doubt it makes diplomacy less important. Sure, from time to time someone you have good relations with will attack you. But if you have bad relations with the wrong civ(s) you're not going to survive unless very lucky, so you better pay attention to diplomacy.
Now on your point about AI playing like a human, yes I want that. I want it to play like me. Aggressive AI does just that (even if a bit more stupid)

I'm sorry. I don't think Aggressive AI = the real Civ, and I despise the term "sandbox" AI. It's not the first time that someone has implied some sort of an ego problem on the part of players like me, that we only play to win. The fact is, I win maybe 50% of my games now, even though I play with the "sandbox-oh-so-generously-dumb" AI. I just picked a difficulty level that will still pose a challenge to me.

Now this I agree with. Aggressive AI is suitable for those who play aggressive and likes plenty of wars. The normal AI is suitable for those who don't. Neither is better or worse unless you specificly pick one to use it to your advantage.

 

[Willowmound]

This was...enlightening.

 

[BlackJAC]

Well, those quotes by Blake make him seem like a rather arrogant, unsympathetic person, belittling players who does´t like constant warmongering and AIs that declare wars on slightest provocation. I can like a casual war now and then, but think it´s far more interesting to compete diplomatically, scientifically, economically and culturally. I would like to play a nice, peaceful civ, not a mean aggressor that attacks, backstabs and exploit as much as possible! I also want the AI civs to usually play fair, if you have treated them well!

See, this is what I don't understand. Why play the game in the first place if you're not going to let the AI dictate? Isn't that the whole point of playing any game? If you're wanting a peaceful game, then why not just tick the always peace option?

 

[vilemerchant]

I'd be surprised if most of these Immortal heroes could hold there own on Noble when on a level playing field, never mind being able to win a proper game on Immortal.

Do you really think that? A player that mostly wins on Immortal (at least, the old pre-BtS immortal) is quite an accomplished player, sure, he's a warmonger out of necessity but that doesn't mean he's not very much in tune with all mechanics of the game. The AI techs so slowly now even on Monarch, it's just daft to suggest that player would lose on Noble.

 

[aelf]

Too many people are quick to pick out the faults i.e. this is to easy, too much effort is needed, axe rushes suck, my neighbour back stabbed me on pleased blah, blah, blah...

They then come on here telling everyone how fantastic they are as they've spanked the AI numerous times on immortal. It's boring and not very impressive, as what most of those people tend to leave out is they've dictated to the AI and wouldn't carry half these games on had the AI used surprise tactics.

Anyone can have a 100% record on Immortal, it's not difficult. What is difficult, though, is having to change your tactics accordingly and accepting the AI should have as much say on how things pan out as the human player.

I'd be surprised if most of these Immortal heroes could hold there own on Noble when on a level playing field, never mind being able to win a proper game on Immortal.

Playing game after game knowing from the start that you're going to win seems a waste of ones time, when in fact, they could be out doing other things.

When played properly civ is a truly fantastic game, when manipulated it's one of the most repetitive games on the market.

Then I suggest you do an Immortal game showing that you can spank the AI by 'manipulating' the game, otherwise this is just a lot of hot air. And what the heck is "an even playing field" exactly?

Well, I know that if I play with Aggressive AI on Noble up to probably Monarch, I'd still spank the AI. Not everyone wins just because they overpower the AI with pure brute force. What happened to economic management? And on the higher levels, the normal AI's bonuses more than make up for whatever stupidity it has in BTS. Like I said to deaf ears, not everyone likes to play a games that are war, war, war.

You, sir, don't sound like you know the game well enough to be saying the things that you did.

 

[BlackJAC]

Do you really think that? A player that mostly wins on Immortal (at least, the old pre-BtS immortal) is quite an accomplished player, sure, he's a warmonger out of necessity but that doesn't mean he's not very much in tune with all mechanics of the game. The AI techs so slowly now even on Monarch, it's just daft to suggest that player would lose on Noble.

Not true. On Immortal I win some, lose some. The same happens when I go down to Monarch I win some, I lose some. Whilst my win ratio improves on the latter, the AI can/still can put one over me. I suspect not every Noble game is winnable either if you stuck with every roll you were given.

 

[aelf]

I fail to see what being aggressive have to do with trying to win. I don't try to win yet I play with aggressive AI on, because that is about as aggressive as I am. Also I doubt it makes diplomacy less important. Sure, from time to time someone you have good relations with will attack you. But if you have bad relations with the wrong civ(s) you're not going to survive unless very lucky, so you better pay attention to diplomacy.
Now on your point about AI playing like a human, yes I want that. I want it to play like me. Aggressive AI does just that (even if a bit more stupid)

I wasn't even addressing the current Aggressive AI option. I was addressing the notion some people brought up that the AI must absolutely play to win or it would suck. And if some friendly civs attack you out of the blue, there must be a very very good reason for that or you can forget about diplomacy. Why would you really bother with it? It's not very smart to gamble on something that can't really be relied on. The best strategy would then be to spam units to protect yourself, just like the AI. So instead of the AI playing like you, you are playing like the AI. What amazing adaptive ability!

 

[BlackJAC]

Then I suggest you do an Immortal game showing that you can spank the AI by 'manipulating' the game, otherwise this is just a lot of hot air. And what the heck is "an even playing field" exactly?

Well, I know that if I play with Aggressive AI on Noble up to probably Monarch, I'd still spank the AI. Not everyone wins just because they overpower the AI with pure brute force. What happened to economic management? And on the higher levels, the normal AI's bonuses more than make up for whatever stupidity it has in BTS. Like I said to deaf ears, not everyone likes to play a gams that are war, war, war.

You, sir, don't sound like you know the game well enough to be saying the things that you did.

A level playing field is when players take what they're given and not what the reload gives them. If you happen to get a belter on the first roll, then so be it, but too many folk on here openly admit to rerolling the start if the conditions aren't favourable. Then a week or so later, the same folk are on here telling us how fan-bloody-tastic they are on immortal.

Think what you want, as I'm not here to justify my gaming history on a internet message board. After all, it's only a game and if it makes you happy making snide remarks to myself, then so be it

 

[Spearthrower]

See, this is what I don't understand. Why play the game in the first place if you're not going to let the AI dictate? Isn't that the whole point of playing any game? If you're wanting a peaceful game, then why not just tick the always peace option?

That seems to have as much relevance to what others have been saying as if I said... why dont you just tick the always war option?

Thanks to some AI characters (Monty leaps out), you are never going to have a situation where you constantly dictate the outcome to the AI, no matter if you play with aggressive AI or not.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I play with Aggressive AI, and it's been pretty nasty at times. Like the time Huayna Capac backstabbed me when I was at war with France. I had never bothered to figure out where he was. I had to make a hasty peace with Nappie and reverse fronts. I still managed to lose my capital. It turns out that what I assumed to be the icy end of my continent led into a penisula of tundra, and back south into the fertile lands of the Incan empire. He saw I was diverted, he had run out of room to expand, had a bunch of units lying around, and he put them to use....on an unsuspecting target i.e. me.

Some AIs should play to "win." Wasn't Alexander just trying to conquer everything for the sake of conquering everything? Was his Greco-Macedonian empire not a civilization because he was hell-bent on conquering as much land as possible? Do you think he cared much for diplomacy? He wasn't particularly blood-thirsty, and even seemed like he was a decent guy at times, and he seems to have had big plans for the world, but...ultimately, Alexander was "playing to win."

My point is, the AIs should have goals. The AIs should be as human as possible, because, ultimately, that's what we're trying to get, right? And by humans, I mean the people their pixels represent. Some of them are trustworthy, some of them will war if they feel they have no other option, and some of them are simply out for themselves and see you(and the other AIs) as speed bumps that must be run over as soon as possible. Some of them will just be interested in the prosperity of their nation. It's just not fun if at least some of the AIs are, indeed, playing the game. But it's also not too fun if every one of them is a backstabbing, untrustworthy, vicious war-mongerer...

 

[aelf]

A level playing field is when players take what they're given and not what the reload gives them. If you happen to get a belter on the first roll, then so be it, but too many folk on here openly admit to rerolling the start if the conditions aren't favourable. Then a week or so later, the same folk are on here telling us how fan-bloody-tastic they are on immortal.

You are going way off track. What relevance does this have to Aggressive AI or anything? How does not playing with Aggressive AI manipulate the game like the ways you describe do?

My point is, the AIs should have goals. The AIs should be as human as possible, because, ultimately, that's what we're trying to get, right? And by humans, I mean the people their pixels represent. Some of them are trustworthy, some of them will war if they feel they have no other option, and some of them are simply out for themselves and see you(and the other AIs) as speed bumps that must be run over as soon as possible. Some of them will just be interested in the prosperity of their nation. It's just not fun if at least some of the AIs are, indeed, playing the game. But it's also not too fun if every one of them is a backstabbing, untrustworthy, vicious war-mongerer...

I think your point is you want to feel better because you are playing a game that is more fair, but you also don't want to face the prospect of an AI that plays just like you. Sorry, no such thing. You can't make exceptions to the rules of diplomacy for the sake of feeling better about yourself. You can have diplomacy or you can not have diplomacy.

 

[BlackJAC]

1 You are going way off track. What relevance does this have to Aggressive AI or anything? 2 How does not playing with Aggressive AI manipulate the game like the ways you describe do?

1 It was in answer to your question:

And what the heck is "an even playing field" exactly?

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.

Anyhoo, lets just drop it now, as it's obvious that you hold this game dear to your heart and it will be a cold day in hell before I get into slanging match over a game. I wouldn't do it away from my PC, so I'm damned if I'm going to have one over the net.

 

[Alsark]

I do not play with the Aggressive AI option turned on, because, in my experiences, the AI seems quite aggressive enough without the option turned on. I'm a peaceful player, but every game, I am always dragged into a series of wars, usually because of me refusing to provide tribute. Even when I do provide tribute, I've learned that the AI will declare war on me, anyway. I am forced to play how the AI likes, unlike what several other people have said towards the contrary for the "sandbox" style of play.

To me, not having Aggressive AI on is just fine. Leaders like Montezuma and Shaka will still be very aggressive whereas other leaders will not be as aggressive - that's great. Meanwhile, people like Mansa Musa can be competitive in other fields - mainly in technology, and perhaps other leaders in culture (thanks to Beyond the Sword). It seems to me like having Aggressive AI on makes them competitive in only one field - military, and that's not any fun. It only forces you to play a militaristic game every single time, and there is much more to the game than constantly being a warmonger.

 

[weimingshi]

Is it somewhat umm... realistic?

Like, do all the Civs still have their individual personalities and playstyles? Or, does everybody turn into a clone of Monty?

I wouldn't want to see Ghandi warmongering and razing hell on Earth... though, if he massed a huge army to protect himself better (more than in regular BtS) then that would be great.

With aggressive AI on, The AI still retains there own personalities. I won't talk about warmonger leaders, cause they are always there to bite someone. But those more peaceful types do play their roles. leaders like gandi, hashpesut are easy to please and if you have relation above please with them, they would leave you alone. The thing with aggressive AI is even though leaders like gandi and hashpesut is peaceful, they are not stupid anymore and they are no push overs either, if your relation with them goes ugly and you are weaker than them, they will attack you. In my current game, hashpesut is my neighbor. I'm pleased with her, she never bothered me, but both huyan capac and saladin declared war on her from 2 sides. Guess what, she rolled them all over, beating the crap out of the 2. I then passed the motion to stop the fight between her and huyan in AP. After 10 turn of peace had passed, she declared war on huyan again and reduced huyan to 1 city. They are peaceful so long as you have a good relation with them.

 

[phungus420]

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?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

You are going way off track. What relevance does this have to Aggressive AI or anything? How does not playing with Aggressive AI manipulate the game like the ways you describe do?



I think your point is you want to feel better because you are playing a game that is more fair, but you also don't want to face the prospect of an AI that plays just like you. Sorry, no such thing. You can't make exceptions to the rules of diplomacy for the sake of feeling better about yourself. You can have diplomacy or you can not have diplomacy.

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."

 

[Littlelisa]

I had forgot about the Agressive AI option

So just restarted, turned it on and my neighbour is Boudica ;_;

Am i going to be rushed?