AI Aggression levels (please discuss here).

Blake

The AI Guy
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
342
Location
Apolyton
Here is changes I'm thinking of making to the Aggressive AI setting (on vs off) - Agg refers exclusively to the "Aggressive AI's" game setting and not the presence or otherwise of the aggressive trait.

Things which will be changed from current build:
Agg AI's no longer have a diplo penalty towards humans.
Agg AI's no longer more like to dagger - they'll just dagger harder.
Agg AI's will be less likely to pursue Culture.
Normal AI's will train fewer units, favoring infrastructure more.
Agg AI's will build fewer wonders.

Things which already happen (wont be changed):
Agg AI's will be more likely to crush (full-out war)
Agg AI's will be more likely to declare war just for the hell of it.

Maybes:
Agg AI's will dogpile more and generally be opportunistic swine, while norm AI's will have some sympathy for the dogpile victim (maybe try to equalize things).


I acknowledge that different people want to play the game in different ways and I think that tweaking the aggressive AI setting is the best means for achieving this. Feedback, suggestions and general discussion about AI aggression is welcome here.
 

Uncle_Joe

Prince
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
481
I think it looks pretty good from what you have listed.

If I'm reading it right, then the people who want to play a more 'wargame' style of play can simply select Aggressive AI and the players who want to play closer to the 'standard' Civilization can play with out it. If that be the case, then I think it could make most folks happy.

Note that I think that even the 'normal' AIs should still be quite capable of initiating and conducting wars, but they shouldnt be building up extended militaries to the exclusion of other things. And if they do go to war, it should be with the purpose of bettering their lot in life rather than berserkly lashing out heedless of the long-term consequences.

Hopefully this can become a good solution to what I view as the biggest problem currently confronting the 'Better AI'.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio Dev
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
2,657
Location
San Isidro, Argentina.
Agg AI's no longer have a diplo penalty towards humans.

That´s a great change. I hate being special :)
 

marioflag

History Addict
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
1,902
Location
Napoli, Italy
Normal AI's will train fewer units, favoring infrastructure more.

IMO normal's AI should build less units, should be more ineffective in offensive wars, but definitely should be able to defend and to repel an invasion by an aggressive AI or in the oppsite case we would see Builders a lot weakened.

Maybes:
Agg AI's will dogpile more and generally be opportunistic swine, while norm AI's will have some sympathy for the dogpile victim (maybe try to equalize things).

IMO also some of the other Normal's AI should begin Dogpile Wars, in this way they would be more competitive.Why ever all the easy conquests should be left to Genghis Khan and Montezuma? Only some of the most peaceful leaders like Gandhi,Asoka,Hatshepsut,Ramesse,Mansa Musa shouldn't begin Dogpile wars.These leaders could help who is invaded only if they are in good relation with civ attacked and definitely haven't a weak army compared to the aggressor
 

kettyo

Seeker of Reality
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
662
Location
Budapest, Hungary
Marioflag,
You misunderstand the topic.
It's about the 'aggressive AI' custom game option not about warlike and builder type AI's
 

kettyo

Seeker of Reality
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
662
Location
Budapest, Hungary
I suggest that even on normal setting cultural AI's should defend their culture capitals rigorously.

Especially they should be considered under threat no matter the diplomatic relations when nearing legendary status because humans will almost always try to burn them.
 

phungus420

Deity
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,296
Maybes:
Agg AI's will dogpile more and generally be opportunistic swine, while norm AI's will have some sympathy for the dogpile victim (maybe try to equalize things).

That makes perfect sense.
 

Arlborn

Legendary Noob
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,939
I think you shouldent change the agressive(yes with the TRAIT agressive) AIs in normal games.


Now what? 90% of the people wated the AI tyo actually try a conquest/domination victory and now people are complaining? Im a heck of a pacifict guy, I really rarely attack AI or get more than haslf of the power graph of the leader in military, but heck, I want to see the Ai going for other victories and I would LOVE to be in the game that uncle Joe talked about in the other thread.
Dont forget that I was the one who insisted in putting AI to go for cultural victory, so no, Im COMPLETELY not a militar guy, I just want to see the AI going for more victories! And no Uncle Joe, that AI was not trying to stop you from winnig! It was actually trying to WIN! So what is the problem?


Note: I still think that there is too much defensive units.

Other Note: Yes I know he was talking about the setting Agreesive AI, and not the Trait, but IMHO the agressive AIs in normal game shouldent be much different. If what youj are saying ,Blake, will stop the Ai in normal game to try to win a domination/conquest victory, then its just not nice. And I dont like the agressive AI setting on..
 

Uncle_Joe

Prince
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
481
And no Uncle Joe, that AI was not trying to stop you from winnig! It was actually trying to WIN! So what is the problem?

The problem is that its not a very effective strategy FOR winning. At best, he'll take out a few competitors and then be so far behind that any other non-engaged player will dispatch them (or at least be able to easily hold them at bay).

Yep, it was neat to see the AI on a rampage like that. But overall, its detrimental the gameplay if the AI is being so berserk that its killing its own chances of winning to do it.

Look at it like this. Have you ever played a group strategy board game where there was a player who didnt care if he won or lost as long as he got to roll his dice and attack someone? Its very annoying because there isnt anything you can do if he focuses his sights on you except reply in kind. Meanwhile, the other players are actually PLAYING the game while you are embroiled in the conflict with the player who is just attacking to attack.

To me, thats what this type of attack felt like. The Greeks would be HIGHLY unlikely to win the game because they were commiting 100% to the attack and were not doing anything besides trying to kill whomever was closest. But in a game where there are players who arent immediately accessible, he'll run out of steam and stagnate and continue to mass obsolete units in a vain effort to regain some sort of military supremacy. But by that point, its not likely to happen (and its exactly what I saw in my first game...a few AIs came on strong trying to conquer and then petered out and were worthless for the rest of the game).

People complain that the AIs were playing 'dumb' before and being conquered too easily etc. But I dont see this strategy as being any smarter. The end result is that they are still going to lose. The only difference is the 'conquerer' AI might take a few others down with him (which, unless one of them is the human player, is actually making the game easier for the other players).

And to me, it stems from the same thing as the defender spam. The AI doesnt properly moderate its troop strength (always selecting quantity over quality). If the 2.08 was too light, the 1/25 build is still far too high for most normal circumstances. Rein in the rampant excess of troop building (offensive and defensive) and I think the AI would be pretty close to 'Better'.

More effective use of higher tech troops would be FAR superior to simply massing up obsolete troops and trying to bull through. That is not a recipe for success. And thats why I think the AI does much better in the early game (Classical etc)...there ARE no real obsolete troops for it mass. But as the game goes on, its putting too much effort into those same troops and hamstringing its efforts to get more effective troops instead. And the AIs who arent trying to attack are still needing to divert the lion's share of their efforts to defending against those hordes and the cycle continues.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio Dev
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
2,657
Location
San Isidro, Argentina.
Personally I don´t see a problem with "attack early, get lot of land and backwards in tech", only if after that initial rush the civ focuses on building up and strentghtening his empire.

I made that strategy many times with a praetorian rush and it worked very well in the long run.
 

Arlborn

Legendary Noob
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,939
When did you stop the game? In which ERA? Maybe the Ai started to attack from the beggining because, as you said, there is no obsolete troops?

And how you know he didnt have any real chance of winning? Can I please get asave? The last save if possible, I want to put a small city in somewhere by world builder and see how the game goes without the human player, Im curious.

EDITed: Ah nevermind, I saw you did attach saves in the other thread. I will give a look in some hours.
 

glokkonn

Chieftain
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
54
The problem ultimately is:

If each civ adequately defends itself, which they are doing now,
then 1 civ vs 1 civ attacks will pretty much be doomed to fail. Especially if the defender has some siege units and counter attack units to weaken the attacking force.

Or to put it another way:

defending Civ has 4 cities with 25 units each.
10 each are attack units/siege units.

Attacking Civ marches toward a city.
40 units comes to counter-attack the attacking stack (fully utilizing its road mobility bonus)

Now THATS good "D" :)

To have a decent shot of success against such tactics it would likely take 2 or more civs working together to PROFITABLY take down another civ.

Short Term Solution: go along with what Blake is recommending (once the AI civs make good use of the military units that they have), along with a heavy amount of discussion about how fun/unfun the game is becoming and also how effective/ineffective the AI Civs are becoming.

Note that if this knocks everyone down a difficulty level (or even 2), then that alone will reduce the AI bonuses, and thus the size of the armies the AIs can build.

Long Term Solution: once the AI military tactics are decent, and the war-decision AI algorithms gotten to a stable condition, then the diplomacy part of the AI needs to be overhauled, along with additional tactics so that 2 AI civs (or a human civ and an AI civ) could work together somewhat effectively as a team. For example: AI civ 1 gives AI civ 2 a couple of good techs. In return, AI civ 2 uses 10 siege units to hit a city so that civ 1 can then capture that city. That would require a lot of work. But ultimately 1 on 1 wars are going to ultimately not be effective as a means of increasing power.
 

kettyo

Seeker of Reality
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
662
Location
Budapest, Hungary
To to issue of number of defenders:

I think a close to optimal maximum number of defenders in a moderately theatened city (so one which could be attacked without the chance of relieve troops arriving in time) is around 7-8 units.

The breakdown is similar to this in the early game:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antimelee attack unit
-1 fast (mounted) attack unit
-1 antimounted unit
-1 siege unit

Post gunpowder it changes some like this:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antigunpowder attack unit
-1 antimounted unit
-1 siege unit

Post modern it changes like this:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antigunpowder attack unit
-1 antiarmor unit
-1 airdefense unit
-1 siege unit

I mean mature cities of course not 1-3 pop outposts.
Cities that could be relieved from neigboring cities could host less defenders.
Cities considered out of threat could host just a minimum of defenders (like 2 defensive and 1 offensive).
Cities under heavy threat maybe should host more defenders just like top importance cities (capitals, holy cities).
Culture capitals or production capitals building the spaceship should be considered under heavy threat always.

Happy discussion guys and keep up the good work Balke/Iustus.

I understand you Uncle Joe and you're right about too many units are a draw back but i'm sure this will be corrected and i'd never play 2.08 again with AI's defending 10+ pop cities with 3-4 defenders and never actually mounting a dangerous attack on anyone.
 

Arlborn

Legendary Noob
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,939
Ah by the way, Blake, did you put the number of defenders according to the personality of the AI yet?

You are going to do that right?

Something nice would be for example, Isabella put a big number of defenders in it holy cities. Cultrual victory leaders put a heavier number of defenders in its cultural cities and etc..
 

Blake

The AI Guy
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
342
Location
Apolyton
Other Note: Yes I know he was talking about the setting Agreesive AI, and not the Trait, but IMHO the agressive AIs in normal game shouldent be much different. If what youj are saying ,Blake, will stop the Ai in normal game to try to win a domination/conquest victory, then its just not nice. And I dont like the agressive AI setting on..

AI's will have an easier time winning domination on Normal because OTHER AI's will also be less militaristic.... (less defenders, smaller counter-offenses) it's just that default AI's can't stand up to a MILITARISTIC human - well my idea is for the Agg AI's to be able to put up a decent residence to a militaristic human - and also able to badly punish builders who neglect military.

I would rather have a PACIFIST AI settings for the wusses (heheh suck it up you wusses :p) but that is too big a change, and I can't really see a problem with making Aggressive AI the setting for "I'm brutal warmonger and these AI's put up precious little resistance" setting... a major complaint about Aggressive AI is that it makes a "AI vs Human" mentality - well that's on the way out - so if you're a thug and want to play with other thugs, turn on Agg AI. IF you want to play wolf amongst the lambs, well play on Normal... you'll have the choice.

Ah by the way, Blake, did you put the number of defenders according to the personality of the AI yet?

You are going to do that right?

Something nice would be for example, Isabella put a big number of defenders in it holy cities. Cultrual victory leaders put a heavier number of defenders in its cultural cities and etc..
Probably ... I'm not really sure what kind of logic to use for defender count based on personality - the amount of defense needed is more about circumstances and strategy (ie CV definitely indicates a need for more defenders). Protective AI's will actually tend to amass considerably more defense than other AI's but that's a side effect (in short if a unit has a City Defense promotion it wont be as readily recruited to head to war - it'll instead be kept home more often, so when protective goes to war, the war will be more subdued. Protective civs also tend to build more archers, ergo protective AI's do play slightly more protectively than others).
 

Arlborn

Legendary Noob
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,939
Couldent get Uncle Joe save working because it needs a mod..
 

Arlborn

Legendary Noob
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,939


:hmm:




Nice wonders...Now, what about protect it?



-----


And people complaining about unit spam..

EDITED: LOL the other city has only 1 warrior on it...Maybe I even attack Ramses lolz

Ps: Noble, perm ally on, spaceship off.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio Dev
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
2,657
Location
San Isidro, Argentina.
To to issue of number of defenders:

I think a close to optimal maximum number of defenders in a moderately theatened city (so one which could be attacked without the chance of relieve troops arriving in time) is around 7-8 units.

The breakdown is similar to this in the early game:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antimelee attack unit
-1 fast (mounted) attack unit
-1 antimounted unit
-1 siege unit

Post gunpowder it changes some like this:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antigunpowder attack unit
-1 antimounted unit
-1 siege unit

Post modern it changes like this:
-2 city garrison defensive unit
-2 drill defensive unit
-1 antigunpowder attack unit
-1 antiarmor unit
-1 airdefense unit
-1 siege unit

I mean mature cities of course not 1-3 pop outposts.
Cities that could be relieved from neigboring cities could host less defenders.
Cities considered out of threat could host just a minimum of defenders (like 2 defensive and 1 offensive).
Cities under heavy threat maybe should host more defenders just like top importance cities (capitals, holy cities).
Culture capitals or production capitals building the spaceship should be considered under heavy threat always.

I like this way of defending. :)
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
4,292
Location
the Netherlands
I would rather have a PACIFIST AI settings for the wusses (heheh suck it up you wusses :p) but that is too big a change, and I can't really see a problem with making Aggressive AI the setting for "I'm brutal warmonger and these AI's put up precious little resistance" setting... a major complaint about Aggressive AI is that it makes a "AI vs Human" mentality - well that's on the way out - so if you're a thug and want to play with other thugs, turn on Agg AI. IF you want to play wolf amongst the lambs, well play on Normal... you'll have the choice.

A wuss setting...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Blake said:
Agg AI's no longer have a diplo penalty towards humans.

This is one of the things that I didn't like about the aggressive AI setting so I really like such a change.
 

glokkonn

Chieftain
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
54
As a certified Wuss, here my thoughts on having a Wuss setting, and other thoughts about playing Civ.

As a Wuss, if I defend myself inadequately and an opposing Civ waltzes in and just takes over my cities - well bravo to the enemy civ.

But here are some of the issues that make the game less fun for me as a certified Wuss:

1) I have Japan the warmonger civ, and Augustus Ceasar as my neighbors. I am developing fine, and Japan and Rome are at war. So far so good. So they declare peace, and so far so good.

Then Japan declares war on me. I talk to Ceasar and he declares war on Japan. I am worried that with his Prats he is too strong and he, not I, will get the cities close to my border. I am not strong enough solo to take a Japanese city, but with his Prats if we attacked a city together he would be more likely to capture it, not me.

I needn't have worried. Though he had more than enough units to wipe out all of Japan, he just sat there and basically built up. So I have an infinite stalemate war with Japan, where the behaviour of civ A (Japan) is to wear me down so civ B (Rome) can head off to victory.

I suppose it could be argued that Rome's strategy was perfect. Let 2 other civs duke it out while Rome grows. Especially since there is no way to go to Japan and say "Look this Rome guy just stabbed us both in the back good, lets take him down".

These war strats of the AI make being a Wuss very not fun. One civ (the aggressive country, Japan) works as the pit bull slave of his Master builder civ (Rome), who then waltzes on to victory as two countries waste all of our resources on a fruitless war.

In a similiar game, there were 3 civs at the top: Me, the Master builder civ (I forget who), and the slave aggressive civ (Julius Ceasar). We are the top three, and the slave agressive civ and I have borders. Our cities are quite a ways away from our common border, and I have more units than him in our respective opposing cities (plus mine are a bit higher quality).

He declares war, and although he has zero chance of ever capturing any of my cities, he basically plays his pit bull slave role to the hilt. I am strong enough to guarantee the safety of my cities, but he is able to pillage and keep units on many of the tiles inside my developer area. Plus all my production is spent replacing my losses (just as his is).

As a Wuss, I am learning that the only way to be able to live peacefully is not just to have enough defense units to adequately defend my cities, but also to completely destroy any aggressive slave civs, since all of these are willing to destroy their own civs in order to guarantee victory for their Master builder civs. And thats pretty much what I am starting to do in my games.

What I am hoping for with the Better AI is 2 things:

1) I would like the slave aggressive civs to call off wars when it is clear that they have nothing to gain by continuing their attack. While I appreciate the devotion the aggressive civs have for their Masters, it is not fun for me.

2) When I CAN get other Civs to declare war on the slave civs, it would be nice if they kind of sent units into the territory of the civ they declared war on.

3) When a civ declares war on me for whatever reason, the civ then uses that war as a diplomatic penalty against me. And so it becomes difficult to bury the hatchet in any meaningful kind of way. In the game where Japan was the slave aggressive civ, I would have been happy to team up with Japan to take down the backstabber Ceasar. Except that he would not talk with me because... well after all he declared war on me and I brought the battle onto his turf?

I don't mind the slave civs being aggressive. But aggressive and stupid is annoying.
 
Top Bottom