Aggressive AI = The Real Civ?

[aelf]

I watched a lot of your excellent challenge games which you did here at CFC and a lot of them involved some degree of early rushing. Whilst these were done in Warlords and Agg AI in Warlords was not particularly fair or well done, the Agg AI in BtS might be more suited to give a challenge to this style of play.

Well, 4 games out of 7 can't really be called a lot. And were the games easy after the rushes?

On that note, have you considered just running a challenge game using Agg AI on BtS? It would make a great example in itself, particularly regards the pros and cons of BtS Agg AI, which is actually very different from Warlords Agg AI.

But I don't like managing huge stack of units, which inevitably happens on Aggressive AI, nor do I have the time for it, so I doubt this is likely.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Perhaps you do not understand the subtler challenge of what you call sandbox AI.

Perhaps!

But that has nothing to do with my point. I have already said neither of them are necessarily more difficult than the other. I merely wish to point out the difference between them is not just that Agg. AIs build more units. It seems many people wrongly hold this assumption.

I really don't care what the AIs are called. If it pleases you, I will call sandbox AI "sandbox AI" and I will call Agressive AI "aggressive girlyman AI" to make it fair!

 

[vilemerchant]

But I don't like managing huge stack of units,

Or, perhaps you like managing stacks of units so long as your stack is the biggest and can move unopposed from city to city with little interference from the AI? Just about any early war of aggression against the current Normal AI is little more than a cheap exploit.

I await your condescending answer in which you will refer again to my terrible standard of posting and announce another departure back to the highly intelligent strategy forums

 

[aelf]

Or, perhaps you like managing stacks of units so long as your stack is the biggest and can move unopposed from city to city with little interference from the AI? Just about any early war of aggression against the current Normal AI is little more than a cheap exploit.

I await your condescending answer in which you will refer again to my terrible standard of posting and announce another departure back to the highly intelligent strategy forums

At least I have something to show for it. Do you?

Yeah, I don't hang around here much anymore. Come by the Strategy and Tips forums and say something good for a change, yeah?

 

[aelf]

I really don't care what the AIs are called. If it pleases you, I will call sandbox AI "sandbox AI" and I will call Agressive AI "aggressive girlyman AI" to make it fair!

Sounds good That might rile up certain 'vile' denizens around here!

 

[vilemerchant]

You should really come to Strategy and Tips forum and say something good for a change, eh?

Actually I do have a few handy tips for you..

 

[Arlborn]

Blake always had strong points of view. But if you press him a bit, he will reluctant give it up and do what you are asking him.
Actually, he DIDN'T want to put AI trying cultural victory in the Better AI project(before BTS) because he was afraid that it would be too easy for the humans to rush on them. but some persuasion of me + 2 or 3 other players made him put it on! Now most of people likes this new thing
As he already said, he has compassion if you whin..Ehm, press him hard

 

[DrJambo]

Well, 4 games out of 7 can't really be called a lot. And were the games easy after the rushes?



But I don't like managing huge stack of units, which inevitably happens on Aggressive AI, nor do I have the time for it, so I doubt this is likely.

4 out of 7 is more than half.

Anyway, a better question might be - how many times did the AI declare war on you compared to you declaring war on the AI?

 

[aelf]

4 out of 7 is more than half.

Only slightly. And, more importantly, the games were still challenging after that.

Anyway, a better question might be - how many times did the AI declare war on you compared to you declaring war on the AI?

Why does that matter? The issue is whether the game is challenging enough or not. I've been declared on by the AI quite a number of times, and declaring war on them did not provide me with a one stop solution to any of the games. In fact, Immortal Challenge 2 was lost partly due to excessive warmongering.

 

[dutchking]

I play with Aggresive AI so the AI's declare war on eachother more, it's more exciting than a normal game, more like real history.

 

[DrJambo]

Why does that matter? The issue is whether the game is challenging enough or not. I've been declared on by the AI quite a number of times, and declaring war on them did not provide me with a one stop solution to any of the games. In fact, Immortal Challenge 2 was lost partly due to excessive warmongering.

I'd have thought it would have been self-evident why it matters. If you're always the one making the DoW then you are the one dictating proceedings. If it's the AI making the DoW on you, then that's no longer the case. The former allows you to play by your designated strategy. The latter means your best laid plans can be entirely altered by the AI.

Like I've said before, Agg AI in BtS is now a bit of a misnomer. From my experiences it's not necessarily more Agg, it just tends have more units available, both defensive and offensive. Disparity in power will spell problems, as it should. I almost experienced my first ever AI domination win the other day! Having said that, I also went all the way to Gunpowder without a single war.

 

[Lurking Liu]

I always play with agressive AI...... and it's gotten a lot better in BTS. If I was playing as an effective warmongering civ..... I'd often have to bump up my difficulty level 2-3 places, just so the AI can keep up with my warmongering. With the Romans, I could beat large maps on Immortal. Things have gotten a LOT better since BTS.

Well that's rather the point, isn't it? If you're going to play a lot of warmongering, then you had better play with Aggressive AI, otherwise you're playing Easy Mode regardless of the difficulty level.

If you're not going to invade, invade, invade, invade then you are better off without it, as the AI will devote its resources to keeping up with you and giving you a run for your money.

 

[winddbourne]

I don't know all the details of how the CIv AIs are specifically programmed, but as I wrote earlier, I have programmed AIs before (both decision tree pruning and neural net). I assume that the different AI personalities in civ are a result of different weightings applied to the same AI ruleset (determining probability of a decision path being chosen). In other words, maybe gandhi has a higher weighting towards peaceful pursuits in the probabilities. But the options (the choices the AI can make) are still the same, it's just that one personality is more likely (has a higher probability, as a result of a weighting multiplier) to pursue one path than another one may. Everything I have ever read in these forums supports that conclusion, in fact dj_anon is publishing these weighting factors in his excellent reference sheets.

Anyway, other than winddbourne, who I think also recognizes that the key to improving the game experience is not necessarily increasing absolute militarism, just increasing variability and unpredictability, it doesn't look like my idea of random AI algorithm usage setting (random type of AI used) is gathering much interest

Exactly, variation and unpredictablity are the key. I also dabbled in AI design when I was younger, got out of it mostly because I didn't want to bother with 3D graphic engines and most games started requireing them. Plus I got hooked on the idea of genetic algorithms and A-life.

Every AI in the game currently uses the exact same "brain" so players know exactly what to expect. Even with "random personalities" you can almost guess what the AI is going to do next if you've played long enough. Which lets the human player "exploit" the AI.

Humans can do the same thing against each other, but it's harder. I know how my best friend plays, and he knows how I play, but we both know that the other knows, and try to change what we do against each other.

 

[aelf]

I'd have thought it would have been self-evident why it matters. If you're always the one making the DoW then you are the one dictating proceedings. If it's the AI making the DoW on you, then that's no longer the case. The former allows you to play by your designated strategy. The latter means your best laid plans can be entirely altered by the AI.

No, it is not self-evident. You are oversimplifying things and making the same mistake of putting war as the centre piece of the game. So what if I DoW on one AI? Does that mean the war will go as planned? By experience, that is certainly not true. You are seeing a great power imbalance that others who are derisive of the normal AI like to see, of a huge human stack steamrolling over the AI. So far, on Immortal, this does not prove to be the case. Frequently, we were outnumbered (most of the time greatly so) and only won by strategy, tactics and speed. Now if you say that this is not fair because it uses the advantage of human intelligence, then what is fair? Only if I build more units than the AI?

And even then the victory is probably not that extensive and comes with a price. What about the other civs? What if they zoom past the player in the process? That happened in Immortal Challenge 2. Then the player can no longer just dictate anything to those AI civs.

Like I've said before, Agg AI in BtS is now a bit of a misnomer. From my experiences it's not necessarily more Agg, it just tends have more units available, both defensive and offensive. Disparity in power will spell problems, as it should. I almost experienced my first ever AI domination win the other day! Having said that, I also went all the way to Gunpowder without a single war.

Some people say it means more war, some people say it means less. They have different experiences of what Aggressive AI actually does. One thing is always true, though, which you mention yourself - Aggressive AI causes unit spam. That is what I don't like.

I also do not like the much greater tendency of the AI not respecting diplomatic relations. Some people say that this in fact makes diplomacy more important as you need to keep civs as friendly as possible in order to avoid being declared on unexpectedly. But you can put so much effort into maintaining relations and still run the risk of them not working out anyway. So what's your fallback plan? Did I hear more units?

You know, I really don't wish to rehash everything that I've said before, as I've promised. I'm only doing so now because I respect you as a poster. You are reasonable and haven't resorted to implying that non-Aggressive AI players are dumb or ********. You also have not said things that you have proven to be unqualified to say, such as complaining that the normal AI can be rushed easily when one puts 11 of them on a standard size map. But I do want to hear your views out, so perhaps you could PM me to continue this discussion? If I'm starting to repeat points that I've already said to you, though, I would say so.

 

[floppymoose]

A question about the aggressive AI: will it declare war on you if you are weak, despite having a good relationship? Or is there some relationship level (Friendly?) where it simply won't declare war even if you much weaker?

 

[Spearthrower]

A question about the aggressive AI: will it declare war on you if you are weak, despite having a good relationship? Or is there some relationship level (Friendly?) where it simply won't declare war even if you much weaker?

It does depend on the specific AI character (which is why I play Random Personalities) but even with the standard mode, in BtS many of the civs will declare on you even if Friendly if they are much more powerful than you. The Agg AI setting just makes that all the more likely as you are very unlikely to have an army matching theirs..... so the end result is "yes" most AI's will attack you even at Friendly if the opportunity arises.



Oh and me too Aelf - there's little point in discussing this.... people who enjoy specific settings always seem to think that those settings should be ubiquitous and are clearly more challenging than the next guys. Personally, I think the AGG:AI setting is entirely about emphasis - all it does is emphasise the military aspect at the cost of all the other wonderful elements of civ. I even enjoy that every now and then, but overall, I like a more balanced and generalist game.... but then I don't seek to exploit the AI either.

 

[18lama]

^ I don't know about being weak or not...but Boudica (agg/Spi) declared war on me when my civ was much stronger than hers. She had longbows and muskets, I had tanks and infantry. I even had a +8 relationship with her. All I did was to reject her when she was asking me for some tech as a freebie. I wiped her civ in about 6/7 turns.

 

[Spearthrower]

Boudicca is AGG/CHA but anyway!

Good to see a poster from India! Welcome (a little late!)

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Well that's rather the point, isn't it? If you're going to play a lot of warmongering, then you had better play with Aggressive AI, otherwise you're playing Easy Mode regardless of the difficulty level.

If you're not going to invade, invade, invade, invade then you are better off without it, as the AI will devote its resources to keeping up with you and giving you a run for your money.

And therein lies one of the problems of this 'dual-AI' approach. When I start a single-player game, I have no idea how I'm going to approach it. That will be decided by my starting positions, resources, and neighbors. Some times that leads to early wars, some times I go almost the whole game without one.

So having to decide pre-game if I should make the AI 'better' at fighting accomplishes very little for me. If I get a great start and have enough room and dont need to take out a neighbor then I'm almost assured victory if I play with Aggressive AI (and dont do something stupid like not keep my power up). The AIs will often take each other out or at least weaken themselves in arms races while I cruise up the tech tree for a tremendous advantage.

Conversely, if I get a cramped start but I get Copper/Horse while I have a neighbor who is simply expanding or spamming Wonders, then by all means I intend to attack them as early as possible to capitalize on my advantage of having the Strategic Resource early. In that case, it almost feels like cheating when my 8-10 Axes/Chariots/whatever arrive and fight 2 Warriors and an Archer defending the enemy cities. For these types of games, I would have preferred the AI to have built a few more units to make it a challenge.

But the point is, I dont like having to choose pre-game if I think I'm going to do early conquest or not. This is even considerably worse in MP games (of which I play a lot) since some people will punch out AIs early while other players will sit back and build and tech.

I realize this is probably asking the impossible (or improbable), but I'd prefer if the AI development were not split between Aggressive and Normal. I'd rather see it optimized a little better for one setting and be done with it. Which setting that is concerns me little, but I'd like for the game to be a challenge without me having to pre-determine my likely strat before the game even begins...

 

[Lurking Liu]

It's worth mentioning that in the typical games I've played (Marathon, Noble ((Just moved up to Prince, yay me!)), standard AI, various maps but usually Hemispheres or Big and Small) even if I rush a neighbor early on--which, as Uncle Joe said, is sometimes necessary--it won't necessarily be a cakewalk. Each AI city tends to be guarded by at least one archer and one axeman, with another set of axemen wandering around doing barbarian duty--meaning they're well-promoted--and sometimes a few chariots running around.

It's not like you've got 15 times the troops they have and can just beatstick your way across the continent.