Aggressive AI = The Real Civ?

[Coast]

I was initially scared of Agg. AI myself, but I'm trying it out more and more, and I'm actually enjoying it. Some folks may have used unfortunate language and 'raiders versus casual!' type arguments (Heh, WoW!), but it is true that the AI can force your strategy in this setting.

Diplomacy becomes more heigtened, because you fear bad relations. Attacks become more threatening. Several times in the game I'm in now I've been attacked by hindus because I'm a lone jewish civilization in the middle. It's only through great sacrifice of time and hammers and diplomacy that I've been able to avoid fighting two fronts at once. Heck, I was only just barely able to fight off some invasion fleets, and had to call a cease fire to avoid what was shaping up to be a -nasty- seige.

Now I've finally got the upper hand; after about a thousand years I've finally managed to vassalize the non-jewish nations and my whole continent seems like it'll be one big happy family. Time to go contact the other nations! I've never -had- so much fighting done pre crossbow.

I guess what I'm saying is that diplomacy matters, the attacks weren't unavoidable but when they happened, they gave me a rush of fear, and I really could've been annihilated. Awesome!

 

[phungus420]

Without aggressive AI, the AI is very docile.

This is not true. The Default AIs retain their personalities, and if you fall below the warmongers in the Power ratings, you can still expect an attack.

The main thing Aggressive AI does is it allows the AI to build military units at it's own discretion. The default AI limits the "unit spam" of the AIs. This leads to Agg AI causing the AIs to tech slower (they spend alot more on maintanance, as will the player if they build a military necessary to protect themselves), they become more likely to go to war (as their power graph is increased) and hopefully (if you are playing on an apropriate difficulty level) it makes it so that war is not the optimal strategy, as the hammer investment you use building up a military will not crush your neighbor, and in fact can just be squandered in war, so these hammers can be used more effectively on other pursuits.

It's kind of strange people have the notion that Agg AI is for war mongers, when in fact it's designed to make it so that war is not the optimal strategy. In non aggressive AI war is, bar none, the optimal choice, as if you desire, you can roll over your opponent. With Aggressive AI (on an apropriate difficulty, if you're fighting longbows with your Rifles you're playing below your level) the goal is that their is not an optimal strategy, war is just too costly in many cases. Though many players don't like it, because the AI's use of unit spam forces the player, even only for defensive purposes, to engage in unit spam of their own, just for defensive purposes, hence the AI forces the player to adopt a strategy, espcially if it attacks. With the default AI the player beinging forced into strategies, and playstyles happens far, far less (hence the oft used term "sandbox mode").

 

[Underdawg]

It's kind of strange people have the notion that Agg AI is for war mongers, when in fact it's designed to make it so that war is not the optimal strategy. In non aggressive AI war is, bar none, the optimal choice, as if you desire, you can roll over your opponent. With Aggressive AI (on an apropriate difficulty, if you're fighting longbows with your Rifles you're playing below your level) the goal is that their is not an optimal strategy, war is just too costly in many cases. Though many players don't like it, because the AI's use of unit spam forces the player, even only for defensive purposes, to engage in unit spam of their own, just for defensive purposes, hence the AI forces the player to adopt a strategy, espcially if it attacks. With the default AI the player beinging forced into strategies, and playstyles happens far, far less (hence the oft used term "sandbox mode").

Bold for emphasis.

Yep. With Agg AI, you really have to think about whether or not a particular war will be beneficial and what risks do you take? One example would be the losses in units incurred and what would that do about your world situation? Will you lose too much that your power level becomes significantly lower to that of a neighboring rival which could cause a potential DOW?

 

[Bridog7]

BTS is the best

 

[LDiCesare]

I don't see the value of random levels of aggression. I mean if you randomly got a few normal AI next to a few Aggressive AI... you'd just end up with a lot of dead normal AI and a few Aggressive AI with nice big empires.

Not so sure. If you have 2 continents, one where 2 normal ai's land and one with 2 aggressive ai's, I expect the normal ai's to outtech the others and maybe toast them late game?

 

[Underdawg]

I don't see the value of random levels of aggression. I mean if you randomly got a few normal AI next to a few Aggressive AI... you'd just end up with a lot of dead normal AI and a few Aggressive AI with nice big empires.

Not so sure. If you have 2 continents, one where 2 normal ai's land and one with 2 aggressive ai's, I expect the normal ai's to outtech the others and maybe toast them late game?

I've played many BTS games with AGG AI on (15+ and counting, more than half losses ), what happens with the AI who by default have their Aggression level set to high or very high such as Napoleon, Shaka, Monty, Gilly, etc, etc become either stuck with sub-optimal and a small amount of land or they take over their neighbours and become military superstates by Renaissance and Industrial age, even the military-spam happy AI still build most of the buildings (I checked via espionage) and even tech alright - though they are usually not on good terms with other AI and as such trail in tech because of a lack of trading partners.

 

[Carch]

No, you still have to turn it on. What it does is it makes the AI a threat military-wise. Without aggressive AI, the AI is very docile. Without aggressive AI, the AI is your . .. .. .. .. ..

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing this. With Aggressive AI off, aggressive leaders are far from docile, especially when they're my neighbors and they see targets of opportunity.

 

[vilemerchant]

With Aggressive AI (on an apropriate difficulty, if you're fighting longbows with your Rifles you're playing below your level) the goal is that their is not an optimal strategy, war is just too costly in many cases. Though many players don't like it, because the AI's use of unit spam forces the player, even only for defensive purposes, to engage in unit spam of their own, just for defensive purposes, hence the AI forces the player to adopt a strategy, espcially if it attacks. With the default AI the player beinging forced into strategies, and playstyles happens far, far less (hence the oft used term "sandbox mode").

Excellent post. This is exactly what the naysayers don't realise at all, that if you're playing at a decent difficulty CapableAI actually rules OUT warmongering as an easy way to dominate the game. The people 'exploiting game mechanics' to win are the ones playing the pathetic 'Defenseless AI' where any war at all gives the human player a ridiculous advantage. The NormalAI is so hopeless at defending invasions I'm actually worried it will turn n00bs away from civ, due to the lack of any actual 'game' being played by the AI opponents. The agg-AI option could be easily missed if you don't frequent forums and a new player might not realise there is a version of the AI that is not pathetic.

 

[peter450]

What they need to do frankly an i've said it before is get rid of aggressive & sandbox AI's, since this just locks the AI into a pre determined route, the AI should be taught to decide for itself the optimal strat, of either a large military or fast teck, based on it's proximity to neighbours an percieved risk of comming under attack.

Why people are getting so heated up over which is best an who's the best player for playing what type, your missing the point that neither AI type is suitable for certain situations, sandbox not good congested continent & Agg not good small islands etc.

If they combined the traites of both AI's and they AI could switch between them depending on it's goals (research/conquest), the AI in my opinino would be much improved in the grand scheme of things an we would'nt have pages an pages of argument on which mode was best, since they both have respective + an minus points concerning how hard they are to beat

 

[Gelvan]

I really don't like stacks of 10 units, so I suppose I have to stay with normal AI settings. Surely it would be more interesting, if SOMETIMES a war arose, but if that means, the AI just builds thousands of units, instead of research beacons, I don't think that will enhance my single player experience.

btw. I play on lower difficulty level, because I really hate to overemphasize micromanagement like you have to do on emporer ("I have 1 coin, what shall I do with it, hmmm...")

of course I'm sometimes a bit rushing at a lower diff. level, but nevertheless Railroads before 19th century is not possible for me (because I don't micromanage every coin, I suppose - lol).

If there was an option like "no more than 6 units in a stack, but unforgiving diplomacy" I'd put it on.

 

[hecubus]

I think everyone should just play the game how they want but understand the players that play with the "Real" AI are much better players, even if you can win on Immortal+, they can't do it on aggressive because they would die, they are afraid to hurt there egos, losing to an artificial intell.. Pathetic!



Muahaha

I've read this thread with interest. It reminds me of the bickering and e-peen waving that happens in World of Warcraft between players interested in Player vs. Environment play and those interested in the Player vs. Player game. These arguments usually boil down to PvE players saying, "I play the PvE game because it's what I like," to which the PvP players usually respond, "You're a wimp, the game you play takes no skill, and I'm better than you." See above.

 

[DrJambo]

Well my experiences of my first game of Agg AI in BtS have been extremely positive. I hated Agg AI in Warlords. It was unfair and only penalised the human in relations. When civs you first meet start out as annoyed, it also cripples diplomacy.

Agg AI in BtS is a completely different ball game. There's no anti-human sentiment and the AI will just as likely take out another AI as it would a another human. Diplomacy is very much alive, and I'd argue even more important than under Normal mode. My game's at Monarch level, and despite a somewhat isolated start I managed to use my SE to get to roughly top spot in score and a tech lead of 1 or 2. However, I was by no means the biggest civ. Two of my nearest competitors were quite substantially larger, having waged war on their continent and in the process created a few colonies and vassalised one or two of the other starting civs. So, having acquired Industrialism first, I thought I'd better attempt a small invasion to set the biggest civ (Joao) back somewhat. This worked ok, and I was able to capture his capital and another top city. Things were looking great and I created a colony from these captured cities. Unfortunately, this move had made me rather unpopular with his friendly and powerful neighbours and 2 of his pals (Hannibal and Willem) attacked me with rather dire consequences. My navy was destroyed, all my fishing improvements were pillaged, and to make matters worse, Hannibal dropped two tactical nukes on my top two cities!! (I was actually building SDI at the time.) On top of that Hannibal captured my Portuguese cities (one of which contained the Statue of Zeus - man I hate fighting the civ with this wonder!!) and he's destroyed my colony.

We're now locked in a nip and tuck battle, one I don't think I have the production capabilities to win outright. I have since replied with my own nuclear arsenal and I hope that's crippled him as much as his bomb dropping did to me.

Joao has rather worringly recovered and has taken out the relatively strong Khymer civ, dropping ~5 nukes on him in the process. At the same time we're all trying to win a space race, building one or two improvements at a time.

Definitely the most interesting Civ 4 game I've played to date. Just when I thought I was winning I got stomped on, and I can't say I didn't deserve it. Under normal AI, this would never have happened. THe AI just doesn't have the military capabilities to seriously contend with a late game human invasion. They're still one or two techs behind me, but it doesn't matter since numbers more than make up for the advanced tech.

Agg AI

 

[FrancisMarion]

I think once the slow tech speed issues with BTS are resolved, Aggressive AI will be even better

 

[DrJambo]

I don't believe there really is a slow tech issue, at least not when using Solver's patch. If they're slow teching, up the difficulty level or use Agg AI, which will at least make you build more military units.

 

[LDiCesare]

If they're slow teching, up the difficulty level or use Agg AI, which will at least make you build more military units.

The ai techs slowly because it is Aggressive ai, as Blake pointed out. The upkeep costs lower research speed, and I witnessed a huge difference in tech pace between a normal ai and an aggressive ai games.

 

[Shigga]

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!

That is a very presumtious statement imho. I read Blake's post and it reads like he's p*ssed by the ppl whining constantly, wether it's the whining about the AI being too hard or the whining about it being too weak does not matter.

My conclusion from reading his post is: If you want to play builder-style, you take the standard AI. If you like to kick ass big time and jump in the pile, you turn on agressive. Comparing them is like comparing apples and plums.

I did not read anything in Blake's post about what the "better", "true" or "inferior" playstyle is. Seems like it's a law of nature that communities of a certain size always seem to split into elitists and counter-elitists.

I play builder style on low levels, hell I even rush the poor AI when I'm in the mood and I don't give a fork about what ppl think about that. There's nothing like a lean-back game of civ rewarding you for a hard day of real life. Well, almost nothing. So relax, ppl, it's just a game. Get your self-confidence from real life and not from Civ or CFC then you won't have to have those narrow-minded discussions.

 

[aelf]

People love taking words out of context, and of course this only generates more conflict with less and less middle ground.

Excellent post. This is exactly what the naysayers don't realise at all, that if you're playing at a decent difficulty CapableAI actually rules OUT warmongering as an easy way to dominate the game. The people 'exploiting game mechanics' to win are the ones playing the pathetic 'Defenseless AI' where any war at all gives the human player a ridiculous advantage. The NormalAI is so hopeless at defending invasions I'm actually worried it will turn n00bs away from civ, due to the lack of any actual 'game' being played by the AI opponents. The agg-AI option could be easily missed if you don't frequent forums and a new player might not realise there is a version of the AI that is not pathetic.

Honestly, I have nothing more to say to you people. I'd just like to point out that some people agree with what I say, so I'm not pulling things out of thin air.

The posting content in the BTS forum can certainly get quite apalling, so I'm outta here. See you in the Strategy and Tips forum if you're up for some intelligent discussion!

 

[vodlaian]

The ai techs slowly because it is Aggressive ai, as Blake pointed out. The upkeep costs lower research speed, and I witnessed a huge difference in tech pace between a normal ai and an aggressive ai games.

They also tech slowly with it off.

 

[Lurking Liu]

No, you still have to turn it on. What it does is it makes the AI a threat military-wise. Without aggressive AI, the AI is very docile. Without aggressive AI, the AI is your . .. .. .. .. ..

You're not listening. What you're saying is true if and only if you are going for a Domination or Conquest win. These are the only circumstances underwhich playing with Aggressive AI is necessary. Why? Because the default AI thinks this is a turn-based historical simulation with a war mechanic, not a wargame that has a history mechanic. If you play the game like a wargame, then that's your lookout, not the AI's.

Here, look, play the game on your normal difficulty with the default AI and go for any win other than Domination or Conquest.

 

[Lars_Domus]

(on an apropriate difficulty, if you're fighting longbows with your Rifles you're playing below your level)

Yes, please do continue to ignore my actual point.
If I had any interest in continuing to play with the Aggressive AI option, I would indeed move up a level.. But why should I when the regular AI provides me with a suitable challenge on my current level (and would probably tear me to shreds if I moved up)? I think my problem is that I'm terrible at pulling off axe rushes, and you know what? I have no plans to remedy that any time soon.

Aggressive AI =/= madd $killZ 1337 AI.
Aggressive AI = Emphasize units AI.
All one has to do is to adjust one's strategy accordingly. 'Tis a matter of taste, nothing else.