Ai balance.

[greenfieldpark]

Hey fellas. Was wondering if this was just a me thing.

Lately ive been feeling like the ai difficulty has seemed a bit off. Im not entirely sure why Im feeling that way but was wonfering what yalls experience been in this regard.

Do you feel like the ai has been doing a good job with the recent patch?

In previous patches the ai had a hard time expanding. For the most part they seem to be doing a good job now in this regard.

Militarily they seem to be quite week compared to previous patches. It used to be id never be able to match their military power wise. Now im at least on par or larger than them. They needed to have a larger military to compete with humans because at par its no competition.

Tech wise there seems to be wild fluctuations. The beginning they quickly get ahead of human players. Being at least 7 techs ahead and itll take until at least industrial era to catch up.

Its not fun fighting a war with inferior units. Altho because of the previous mentioned issue ive encountered I still can.

I think i preferred the ai to have more units but not to be aggressicely ahead in tech where you cant possibly get any wonders.

I play on immortal, standard speed, standard to large map on comunitus.

Whats yalls experience? And did i miss something in the recent patch notes that could account for this?

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I play on similar settings ( Immortal, Epic speed, standard or large map, 4th UC and some custom civs).
My experience has been almost stagnant -in a good way- for like two years or so and most of my games follow a very similar pattern.
1-anceint and early classical almost all civs are usually on equal foot (maybe besides the maya, the Inca and Egypt to some extent) & building almost any wonder is doable with whatever civ .
2-late classical and early medieval the AI Tech skyrockets reaching around 10 techs ahead of human player (in my last game i was fighting Assyrian Tercios and cannons using archers, swrodsmen and horsemen) with late classical and medieval wonders in general being too risky to even try
3-Renaissance is when i usually catch up; the AI does not gain a tech every 3 or 4 turns like in late classical and medieval and the infrastructure i invest inmy cities usually pays off at this point with trade routes, C.S alliances helping alot with catching up.

4-late renaissance is where my games usually are decided, with some conquest, voluntary capitulation without war i usually surpass the AI in no way they could catch up and winning becomes a matter of Next turn auto click simulator or mobilizing an army to conquer the world.

 

[Zuizgond]

AI expansion is very good in this version.

Agree on the tech aspect : AI still far ahead in early eras and I have to wait until Renaissance to start catching up. Maybe some more tuning here to smooth the AI tech progression (less in early eras, more in late eras).

 

[greenfieldpark]

Sounds like similar experiences to mine. How about ai military power? They used to be consistently double mine but are now on par which makes it too easy.
The ai declaring war on me used to be a major threat. Now its more of a nuisance.

They attack strategically. Just dont seem to have enough units.

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

no nerfs

 

[andersw]

Hey fellas. Was wondering if this was just a me thing.

Lately ive been feeling like the ai difficulty has seemed a bit off. Im not entirely sure why Im feeling that way but was wonfering what yalls experience been in this regard.

Do you feel like the ai has been doing a good job with the recent patch?

In previous patches the ai had a hard time expanding. For the most part they seem to be doing a good job now in this regard.

Militarily they seem to be quite week compared to previous patches. It used to be id never be able to match their military power wise. Now im at least on par or larger than them. They needed to have a larger military to compete with humans because at par its no competition.

Tech wise there seems to be wild fluctuations. The beginning they quickly get ahead of human players. Being at least 7 techs ahead and itll take until at least industrial era to catch up.

Its not fun fighting a war with inferior units. Altho because of the previous mentioned issue ive encountered I still can.

I think i preferred the ai to have more units but not to be aggressicely ahead in tech where you cant possibly get any wonders.

I play on immortal, standard speed, standard to large map on comunitus.

Whats yalls experience? And did i miss something in the recent patch notes that could account for this?

There is still often (but not always) an issue with runaway techer grabbing 90% of the wonders, I would like to see a HEFTY increase in wonder cost scaling for multiple wonders.
If someone have info on where/how I can change it myself in own games Id be happy.
AI does ok but struggles in multipronged wars (dont think this is anything new).
Science is king the and same leaders tend to be on top with some variation (expect babylon, china and inca to always do ok) and I do see warmongers both succeed and fail.
Spain seems to be at the bottom of the barrel.

I agree with tech, Im not a big fan of the enforced medieval gap BUT I know I play something op with a very good start if Im on par here, main issue is that this is a build up phase where you try get settlers out, desperately trying to get some units, workers and the most important buildings out. So getting hit here with an era ahead units (worst case double pronged) is the most difficult part of the game.

Most glaring nerfs needed:
korea hwatcha free logistics (in human hands, AI doesnt spam them and positions them poorly enough so its not a huge deal).
songhai, still banned in my games, AI cant handle that kind of movement and gets overrun too easy.

I can often start rolling a nearby civ with medieval units, (trebs, longswords, h-skirmisher), this wasnt always the case.
Unsure of the reason, part is probably me playing a bit better but as you say there seems to be less unit carpet.

 

[notaspambot]

If someone have info on where/how I can change it myself in own games Id be happy.

It's part of the Defines table. From 1) Community Patch\Core Files\Core Values\CoreDefines.sql:

INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_SAME_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 25;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_PREVIOUS_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 15;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_SECOND_PREVIOUS_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 10;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_EARLIER_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 5; -- all previous eras

 

[andersw]

It's part of the Defines table. From 1) Community Patch\Core Files\Core Values\CoreDefines.sql:

INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_SAME_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 25;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_PREVIOUS_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 15;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_SECOND_PREVIOUS_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 10;
INSERT INTO Defines (Name, Value) SELECT 'BALANCE_CORE_WORLD_WONDER_EARLIER_ERA_COST_MODIFIER', 5; -- all previous eras

Thank you! I will test and double the numbers or go even higher if needed.

 

[hokath]

They used to be consistently double mine but are now on par which makes it too easy.

Yes there was a bug where the AI basically ignored its own supply cap. Since this has now been fixed, it could be the source of your observation.

 

[statusquo]

Honestly im kinda not the fan how difficulties are implemented at the moment. Because AI is not human, and you cannot give them human "smarts and intelligence", you just make
AI life easier, but in my opinion it double dips too much. Every building and unit has some production boost (cost reduction if i recall correctly), but also growth is much easier, and
happiness sustain is much easier, which indirectly improves their production, because more citizens works on mines or as scientist etc, so indirectly AIs have usually more production,
but also everything is cheaper. So.. because AI production can catch up with the new units and buildings that they get trough new technologies, they are able to "freely" use the science
and culture processes to even further skyrocket their progress..while at the same time human struggle to build core buildings..
Imo would be nice to reduce AI growth to the level similar to human, and maybe remove science and culture process, or at least balance them.
If i recall correctly, "internally" every resource have some value lets say production=2, science=2, food=1, gold=1, culture=3, but at the same time all the processes convert the same amount of
production to each resource which kinda makes science and culture process give you the most value out of the same amount of production.. Not to mention, food gives you kinda diminishing returns,
because you neeed more and more to grow new citizens, and there fore capitalise on it.
For me personally, the most annoying part is that AI has production advantage, while at the same time, their cities are much much larger, and much much happier, which, dont forget, excess
happiness in cities is also converted into increased growth, which kinda makes it even a tripple-dipping on production bosts..
I honestly, whatever i do i cant catch up with AI on max difficulty, except for some really unethical starting position.

 

[azum4roll]

AI doesn't have increased growth, but they get instant food from some difficulty bonuses.

 

[CppMaster]

I honestly, whatever i do i cant catch up with AI on max difficulty, except for some really unethical starting position.

That's the point of the highest difficulty yet some people can still consistently beat, so maybe it's not hard enough. Do you have the same problem on Immortal or Emperor?

 

[Rick Drayson]

I too have found the AI military to be easier.
My skill level was mid pack Emperor.
Now i find wars to be won rather easy on the same level.

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

I too have found the AI military to be easier.
My skill level was mid pack Emperor.
Now i find wars to be won rather easy on the same level.

I felt this way I found that they did this vote to nerf the ai in which it gets bonuses like science or gold until the middle ages

 

[statusquo]

That's the point of the highest difficulty yet some people can still consistently beat, so maybe it's not hard enough. Do you have the same problem on Immortal or Emperor?

Emperor is fine, Immortal is hard, but managable, i guess, especially when i make few rerolls for decent starting position, which i usually do, since i dont want invest multiple
hours just to be crushed..

But problem is that, when the game is too easy, you snowball too hard, and the game doesnt have any sense, since its like taking a candy from a baby, but if its too hard,
you sit on every turn like on chess turn, and still get crushed, its frustrating.
There were games even on Diety, that i was doing kidna ok, but some fare away civ conquer some other distant civ, and snowball so hard, i couldnt catch up with
culture/science/army..
I was playing some other game, that kidna have system of infinite scaling, and its just a matter time when even the best builds/decission making will fall off.
I guess the problem is that sometimes, you think, you could do something better, but in reality, you couldnt, because numbers were just not in your favour.
Maybe on diety, you can never assume, that even with your best effort you can win

 

[CppMaster]

Maybe on diety, you can never assume, that even with your best effort you can win

That's possible, maybe Deity is not meant to guarantee you a victory.

Emperor is fine, Immortal is hard, but managable, i guess, especially when i make few rerolls for decent starting position, which i usually do, since i dont want invest multiple
hours just to be crushed..

But problem is that, when the game is too easy, you snowball too hard, and the game doesnt have any sense, since its like taking a candy from a baby, but if its too hard,
you sit on every turn like on chess turn, and still get crushed, its frustrating.

Hmm, if a game is too swingy then how about trying Immortal, but on a bit worse starting position? Maybe it'd sth between your decent start Immortal and Deity.

 

[Saiph300]

Somehow I have the complete opposite experience of other people it seems, the AI went from somewhat balanced to insanely unfair moving from 4.15 to 4.16.

I don't know if it's the VP upgrade itself or something else that I changed (map, option...) but the difference is extreme. I was able to stand a chance in Emperor before (I'd win 25% of the time), now I can't even win in King. What makes it particularly annoying is that I can clearly notice the AI cheating now, while before the bonuses seemed more subtle. Regularly, they reach stats that are blatantly impossible, especially during early game. For example in one of the games, one of the AI had built 4 wonders by turn 70 which seemed completely ridiculous (every other player was at 1 or 0). In another game, at turn 90 I was at war with Sweden, and within 10 turns it generated 3 great generals, which I don't think is possible for a normal player? Because of Sweden's bonus this made the whole army regenerate every 3 turns, making this game exceptionally unfair. I'm an experienced civ player, exploit every little thing, but it feels like the only way I can win is by going full military and heavily exploiting the battle AI, but still I usually die before turn 150 even in this way. Is King supposed to be this hard? I feel like if could almost go peaceful in Emperor before, but I can't do that in King now, by turn 50 the AI already has more of everything than me, units everywhere, more cities, 2x more culture and 2x more production in their capital (culture and production are the most obvious stats - I never manage to match any AI except the ones that are dead). By late game, the production gap between the top AI capital and mine can reach up to 3x, which seems physically impossible because I have built everything in the capital, built 4-5 manufactories around it, and have more population than them - how can they reach more production let alone triple?

So now I'm wondering, not just what changed, but also whether the bug is that my version 4.15 was too easy, or that my version 4.16 is way too hard.

 

[CppMaster]

I think it's a bug on your end that King is this hard if you are "an experienced civ player, exploit every little thing". In my experience King is very manageable.

You could try a modpack, which is usually less problematic to me than a separate mod.

You could also try Prince difficulty, which is the closest to the human player. All difficulties above may result in AI getting sth that it's impossible to the player.

 

[hokath]

Ya it sounds like you have something weird going on, Saiph. I'm not experiencing that on Emperor and I doubt I'm magically playing 3x better than you.

First, are you running other mods on top of base VP? There may be some incompatibility with 4.16?

 

[Saiph300]

Ya it sounds like you have something weird going on, Saiph. I'm not experiencing that on Emperor and I doubt I'm magically playing 3x better than you.

First, are you running other mods on top of base VP? There may be some incompatibility with 4.16?

Yeah I am using this modpack. The one named "4.16.1_VP-SSEM-EUI". I should probably report it in the modpack thread, but first wanted to check if I'm the only one noticing this AI change.

Can you confirm, when you play in Emperor, you can go peaceful for the first 100-150 turns and still stand a chance? (ie. not conquerring enemy cities, only defending). That was my experience with Emperor before.