Aggressive AI

[sveint]

Games with Aggressive AI is very random.

This is the key to understanding Aggressive AI.

I mostly disagree with MrCynical. In some games, the AIs will fight each other to death and the human can easily win. In others, well, here's an example:

I play Ethiopia (I think), take over my American neighbour in the early game and share my continent with Joao. Due to me and Joao being slightly ahead in tech and friendly, I decide to go for the space ship. Joao send an expedition to the other continent and vassalises Ragnar after taking a couple of cities.

What happens next simply takes my breath away. Ragnar gains techs as a vassal, goes on a killing spree on his own continent and soon declares independence. Before long he conquers his entire continent, and as I build up my space ship he invades his former master Joao. I desperately gift lots of units to Joao, but to no avail. Joao soon surrenders and two turns after my launch Ragnar invades with over 300 units. Game over, I lose.

In the end though, Aggressive AI could use some adjustment at Marathon speed - it works much much better on normal speed.

 

[sveint]

Indiansmoke, here is my current "basic plan" for Aggressive AIs:

a) 2nd or 3rd city MUST be a production city and ONLY produces military units no matter what (yes I know the upkeep will be costly)
b) stay out of wars if at all possible until hopefully gunpowder or thereabouts (when you can afford wars better)
c) work on diplomacy, it it extremely important that you chose your friends and enemies early - don't try to befriend everyone or you risk getting dogpiled

 

[nullspace]

My experience with aggressive AI has been much more like Indiansmoke's then MrCynical's, maybe because I'm playing on Immortal, normal speed, and standard or small maps. The AI techs well and has large armies but I've never seen one destroy itself with unit maintenance. AI to AI wars often end with the loser being vassalized, making the winner much stronger militarily. Rushing an AI is almost impossible unless you have a good UU, and later offensive wars require a long buildup, heavy drafting, upgrades, rushbuying, etc. In other words, winning is expensive.

I haven't found any strategy that always works, it depends too much on your civ, the map, your neighbors, who's friends or enemies, who the AI fights, and things like that. One strategy worth trying on maps with narrow continents, is to settle very aggressively and block the expansion of your neighbor with your first one or two cities, even if they are far from your capital. This can reserve a large amount of land for you, instead of attacking someone to expand. On the other hand, the maintenance is really bad and will slow your tech very early. It works best if you can get gold or gems with your first few cities.

 

[Indiansmoke]

My experience with aggressive AI has been much more like Indiansmoke's then MrCynical's, maybe because I'm playing on Immortal, normal speed, and standard or small maps. The AI techs well and has large armies but I've never seen one destroy itself with unit maintenance. AI to AI wars often end with the loser being vassalized, making the winner much stronger militarily. Rushing an AI is almost impossible unless you have a good UU, and later offensive wars require a long buildup, heavy drafting, upgrades, rushbuying, etc. In other words, winning is expensive.

I haven't found any strategy that always works, it depends too much on your civ, the map, your neighbors, who's friends or enemies, who the AI fights, and things like that. One strategy worth trying on maps with narrow continents, is to settle very aggressively and block the expansion of your neighbor with your first one or two cities, even if they are far from your capital. This can reserve a large amount of land for you, instead of attacking someone to expand. On the other hand, the maintenance is really bad and will slow your tech very early. It works best if you can get gold or gems with your first few cities.

Yes aggressive settling is an option, but in Bts Agg AI, the AI will immediatelly build military and attack if land is denied. Much more so than in Warlords and vanilla. Unless the denied neighbour is someone like Ghandi.

In a game last night, I went for 5 initial cities and waited for catapults and maces before trying to expand. My first war was successfull and without too much trouble took 3 cities from Hannibal, BUT, meanwhile I had Giglamesh and the Dutch guy, outeching me. They skiped the liberialism path and went for guilds, banking, gunpowder, nationalism (getting Tag Mahal on the way) mil trad.
I wonder if with Agg setting the path (phil, paper education) to Lib is a no go, as the prospect of facing rifles & cavalry when you have muskets and knights is not very entertaining.

 

[axident]

Agg AI is more difficult only if you aren't used to it and continue to build units at a non-Agg-game's pace. (Conversely if you play nothing but Agg AI games for 100s of games in a row and then switch to non-Agg AI games, you might be thrown off for a game or two, until you adjust.)

You need a stiffer defense faster, but once you get a tech lead, perhaps by bribing the Agg idiots into fighting each other, the game is yours. It just goes a lot slower as you need to kill more units on offense or defense. At least you get lots of GG's out of it.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Agg AI is more difficult only if you aren't used to it and continue to build units at a non-Agg-game's pace. (Conversely if you play nothing but Agg AI games for 100s of games in a row and then switch to non-Agg AI games, you might be thrown off for a game or two, until you adjust.)

You need a stiffer defense faster, but once you get a tech lead, perhaps by bribing the Agg idiots into fighting each other, the game is yours. It just goes a lot slower as you need to kill more units on offense or defense. At least you get lots of GG's out of it.

Perhaps you are right about needing to adjust, but it is not as you say that the agg AI always built more units. Part of the Blake interview said that they do take risks similar to humans, send unescorted settlers, beeline better, prioritize wonders better, mix units better, whip more aggressively ets.

My general feeling it is that it is more difficult...maybe I need to play a few more games to adjust.

 

[axident]

Perhaps you are right about needing to adjust, but it is not as you say that the agg AI always built more units. Part of the Blake interview said that they do take risks similar to humans, send unescorted settlers, beeline better, prioritize wonders better, mix units better, whip more aggressively ets.

My general feeling it is that it is more difficult...maybe I need to play a few more games to adjust.

It might just be my own experiences then I guess? My first Agg AI game I was horrified by the number of medieval-tech units Charlie flung at my musketeers. He had so many of them that even the few riflemen I built soon after couldn't do much. After that brutal intro to Agg AI, my subsequent Agg AI games went much better, as I sacrificed a bit of teching for a bit more military. Maybe the AI takes more risks or whatever but the most obvious thing to someone new to Agg AI, like I was, was the part where standard/normal speed saw 100+ medieval units, in 3 close-together waves, attack a single city.

P.S. I vaguely recall that many said Agg AI made the axe-rush strategy harder. And some people are very used to axe-rushing or at least somewhat-early swords rushing/mounted-units rush. So it would be harder for them to adjust. What I've found is that Agg AI is supposed to defend earlier better but an early axe-rush can still kill it if you up your initial army size. Also, some games you find yourself surrounded by Protective leaders (Native Americans with Dog Soldier is one of the worst to encounter) and even though it's a non-Agg AI game, that's pretty painful to rush too. If you're used to rushing someone all the time, I suppose worst of all is to play Agg AI games where you are surrounded by Protective leaders, haha.

 

[Bhruic]

Yeah, the "harder Axe rush" is just bunk. Realistically speaking, unless you are going against a Civ that is specialized for defense (Sitting Bull, etc), there is no way to fight off an early Axe rush. It's a matter of numbers - the attacker is focused on one city, and the defender has to defend many.

Bh

 

[Geon]

Sometimes an axe rush is easier with aggressive ai (monarch/epic)Once I caught Izzy with one archer in her capitol, although I think she may have had barb issues such as her 2nd city was razed.

Also, I've seen a few times where if their capitol is heavily defended, I would march on their 2nd city that's a defended a more weakly, they'll send off some of their capitol garrison to help, which is then crushed in the open field by my stack.

I have never seen the AI have a 30+ stack until late medieval.

 

[Indiansmoke]

It's true, you can still axe rush an agg AI, although sometimes you might face axes as well as archers defending, in which case things are not promissing.

In the end it is all situational, every game is different and I am starting to like Agg AI because it is even more unpredictable that normal AI.

 

[Tyrant Roger]

My last few games I have played Agg AI on both Monarch and Emperor with defalut settings and fractal maps. I like it for the unpredictability of AI aggression. There are certainly more AI/AI wars than with the normal AI. I haven't seen the big stacks others report although stacks of 20 are common. I find the AI unit mix much better with Agg AI. I think diplomacy is more important with Agg AI or you can get dogpiled.

Overall, both styles of AI have their advantages and this thread has overstated the differences between them in my experience.

 

[Handel]

It is true that at the begining you can tech faster than the AI, but it is much riskier not to build at least 6-7 axes - swords even if you don't plan on going to war.

Has anyone played Agg AI? I would like to know what you think, or how you approach the game as I am struggling!

You didn't seriuosly considered building less then 6-7 axemen on monarch, even without a war, did you?

As for playing against Aggressive AI this just is hindering the AI because they are warring very often with each other, not only against the human player.

 

[Indiansmoke]

You didn't seriuosly considered building less then 6-7 axemen on monarch, even without a war, did you?

As for playing against Aggressive AI this just is hindering the AI because they are warring very often with each other, not only against the human player.

If I plan to expand without war I build max 2-3 defenders for the city that is most likely to get attacked, and rush the rest if I get attacked. It is very rare with normal AI that I will not be able to hold an early attack, while if I do the same with aggressive, chances are worst.