AI Different; Is this So Good?

[Charles 22]

I'm not so sure where to go with this, only that I would like to see people discussing it.

My first guess is that with time this will ebb away and people will adjust, but I can't discount how difficult the new AI will be for beginners.

Here's a general rundown on how most of my games go that I play very long (I have diplomatic and space wins off). Bear in mind my strategy has changed very little and I'm playing the exact same nation just before 2.08 and after it. The average game has me in the top 3 scores, while my science achievement sees me most of the time in 1st or 2nd. Now post-2.08 I'm in the latter half of scoring, while my science is often close to dead last!!! I am playing the same game (noble) before and after the patch btw. I can't imagine playing a game on noble like this with all victory conditions on!

As much as that may cocern me, here's my larger concern. That is the tendency for total war. Take my current game. I have been at war with the Ottomans for a VERY long time. They have never asked for peace and considering how they don't ask, I'm inclined to think they will not want it when I compare their tendencies to pre-2.08, if I should ask them. I am also inclined not to ask because I used to have a considerable portion of my income from those warring against me chickening out and offering me money for peace. As I customarily let him get his units killed in my territory, thereby driving up his WW, I'm guessing this isn't too crippling for the AI, because it must be true the WW is worse than the handout.

Now you see my dilemma. While it was nice to get handouts for peace, now it appears through the as-yet limited play that the AI is extremely reluctant to even ask for peace on an even basis, though he's got the worst of it to date. Naturally I'm concerned that a considerable portion of my usual income isn't there thereby, but it also concerns me as to what is going on behind the scenes on his end. Is he undergoing torturous WW and is just too stubborn to even ask for even peace terms???? If he is not having WW, hasn't the game been nerfed in a massive way just to make long bloody wars? If you asked me that question, before 2.08, despite my routine of deriving money through war, I could see how having longer wars might be a better idea, but here's the rub (at least for now). What do you do when you have close to half of the civs, if not more, deciding to declare war on you? Now fighting 1 nation for almost the entire game (especially if it's the leading scorer) may be pretty good, but with the tendency to declare war being still as seemingly easy as it was before, this could lead to some major game problems of frustration (not even considering my general lousy results in science and total scoring). As things appear it looks to me as though the new AI swings this game in a VERY MAJOR way towards forcing you to attack and destroy one nation at a time starting very early int he game and then in one major fell swoop so as to hope the others don't get excited against you at the same time.

So do any of these observations concern you? Can you think of any ways beside what I've listed as to how having a better AI may not be as good an idea as you would think? I actually can't imagine winning the game on noble anymore, and I've probably only won it 2-4 times before as it was (but playing very well for a long period). Can I just ask for peace after 20 turns of maiming the opponent in my territory and he gives in with or without payment? Does this force you to take cities when warring and never turtle up any? It's a pretty rude departure in any case.

 

[cabert]

I'm one of those guys who finds the new AI not really balanced.
The bonus it gets at various levels makes it really hard to beat without real war all the time.

But from what I read, you could simply try to adjust your way of playing.
Why not ask Memhed what it takes to make peace, for example?

 

[carl corey]

The problem is that an AI is unlikely to settle for peace while it only loses units in your territory. Maybe only after losing a lot of units and of course if it doesn't manage to conquer any of your cities. If you take the fight to him he'll be easier to negotiate with. I only won one game so far on Monarch after the patch, but I can tell you that a well timed attack that will conquer a couple of cities will easily get the AI to accept giving you techs. In that game I was beelining for Gunpowder with Mehmed and missed a lot of early techs which I later got through extortion.

Anyway, if you're fighting a defensive war there's very little probability that they will give something for peace; but this is only natural! Would you accept giving money/techs for peace if you were the one attacking and there was no counter?

As for improved AI, it just makes for more interesting games. Remember, on Noble it has the same bonuses as you do. You practically start on equal foot, same happiness & health caps and humans still dominate when it comes to war. Try to be a little more efficient and victory will come. Maybe post a game and discuss it with us while you go through it?

 

[aelf]

You're playing for your ego. Move down to Settler.

Nah, I'm joking I agree with what you said about the game being imbalanced in a way that favours the warmonger. I've emphasized this problem so much I've grown sick of talking about it. However, I don't think this is the case on Noble. The AI is better but far from perfect. Like carl corey said, more efficient playing would allow you to beat it. On the higher levels, however, the obsolete set of handicaps pushes the AI over the treshold, making it hard for you to keep up and win without destroying the other civs one by one.

The problem does not stop here. Now that the AI prioritises its economy more, it does not build as many units on the lower levels, making it easier for you to conquer them. Hence, you would also be rewarded as a warmonger on the lower levels (probably what is happening to you right now). The only good news is, Blake, the originator of the AI improvements, is working to improve the AI's military skills. The result of this would be a more balanced version than the current one. Unfortunately, that would only make the game harder, so you better focus on becoming more efficient anyway.

 

[Aldor]

...The only good news is, Blake, the originator of the AI improvements, is working to improve the AI's military skills. The result of this would be a more balanced version than the current one. Unfortunately, that would only make the game harder, so you better focus on becoming more efficient anyway.

This is good news?!? IMO the AIs already build FAR too many units (on noble). I don't play for domination victory, but I usually build a military thats up-to-date and strong enough to repel any serious invasion. Yet, often I look like a dwarf next to the AIs (when looking at the power graph). Now, if the AIs become better at war, I forsee myself going back to warlords, as the game will be no more fun at noble (and once I was looking at going to prince level...).

I like the changes to the AIs builder abilites, but I hope they don't become much better at war. Then again, perhaps I'm too much into playing CIVILISATION instead of CONQUERISATION

 

[oyzar]

the AI allways have mad power graphs but suck at waring. They build walls and barracks and such for no apparent reason. I often find myself able to conquer the AI with about half the units they have.

 

[aelf]

This is good news?!? IMO the AIs already build FAR too many units (on noble). I don't play for domination victory, but I usually build a military thats up-to-date and strong enough to repel any serious invasion. Yet, often I look like a dwarf next to the AIs (when looking at the power graph). Now, if the AIs become better at war, I forsee myself going back to warlords, as the game will be no more fun at noble (and once I was looking at going to prince level...).

I like the changes to the AIs builder abilites, but I hope they don't become much better at war. Then again, perhaps I'm too much into playing CIVILISATION instead of CONQUERISATION

I was referring to an improvement in military skills, not the tendency to build many units. Not building enough military units for defense is part of poor military skills. Building lots of units does not necessarily mean good military skills.

In fact, the AI's focus on economy now, coupled with the old handicaps, makes Civ4 a warmonger's game. That's the only advantage you have and must therefore exploit. If the handicaps are adjusted or the AIs simply become too good at everything, then the game wouldn't be favouring a certain style so much.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

They should make a new patch and make the AI more clever with every level than adding boni to production and research.
I have a hard time winning Monarch when the AI starts to spam cottages, grow huge cities, and chop wonders.

 

[Jet]

aelf, are you quite certain the AI builds fewer units in W 2.08?

 

[aelf]

aelf, are you quite certain the AI builds fewer units in W 2.08?

That's what I heard about Noble and below. If you have time, you can verify whether this is true/untrue.

 

[Charles 22]

I'm one of those guys who finds the new AI not really balanced.
The bonus it gets at various levels makes it really hard to beat without real war all the time.

But from what I read, you could simply try to adjust your way of playing.
Why not ask Memhed what it takes to make peace, for example?

Yes, I did think of that aftrewards, and the scum would only give me even terms, but at least he agreed to that. That's pretty radical to be at war with me, having lost hundreds of units in my territory, apparently with little or no WW effect, and then it's only equal terms. Bah! It makes me wonder if I had lost a city to him, would he then want every tech, money, and just about everything else for peace?

 

[Charles 22]

The problem is that an AI is unlikely to settle for peace while it only loses units in your territory. Maybe only after losing a lot of units and of course if it doesn't manage to conquer any of your cities. If you take the fight to him he'll be easier to negotiate with. I only won one game so far on Monarch after the patch, but I can tell you that a well timed attack that will conquer a couple of cities will easily get the AI to accept giving you techs. In that game I was beelining for Gunpowder with Mehmed and missed a lot of early techs which I later got through extortion.

Anyway, if you're fighting a defensive war there's very little probability that they will give something for peace; but this is only natural! Would you accept giving money/techs for peace if you were the one attacking and there was no counter?

As for improved AI, it just makes for more interesting games. Remember, on Noble it has the same bonuses as you do. You practically start on equal foot, same happiness & health caps and humans still dominate when it comes to war. Try to be a little more efficient and victory will come. Maybe post a game and discuss it with us while you go through it?

No, the AI used to settle for peace quite frequently with promises of money, from attack losses in my territory alone (drives up their WW - or used to anyway) and now appears to have basically lost all WW and has little or no desire to give anything. I understand you -try- to make adjustments for radical shifts like this, but I'm thinking it's gone Way too far the other way and would be an absoilute nightmare for a beginner. To see the propensity hasn't changed for others dogpiling on for war at some point, and then to realize they won't offer for peace, is just more fuel to that fire. I can't recall any AI adjustment I've seen on a game that has me thinking this strongly, for this long, that this was not a good move. It's too bad there's not a switch to turn this off if you don't want it.

 

[Charles 22]

You're playing for your ego. Move down to Settler.

Nah, I'm joking I agree with what you said about the game being imbalanced in a way that favours the warmonger. I've emphasized this problem so much I've grown sick of talking about it. However, I don't think this is the case on Noble. The AI is better but far from perfect. Like carl corey said, more efficient playing would allow you to beat it. On the higher levels, however, the obsolete set of handicaps pushes the AI over the treshold, making it hard for you to keep up and win without destroying the other civs one by one.

The problem does not stop here. Now that the AI prioritises its economy more, it does not build as many units on the lower levels, making it easier for you to conquer them. Hence, you would also be rewarded as a warmonger on the lower levels (probably what is happening to you right now). The only good news is, Blake, the originator of the AI improvements, is working to improve the AI's military skills. The result of this would be a more balanced version than the current one. Unfortunately, that would only make the game harder, so you better focus on becoming more efficient anyway.

I agree with the general concept that the civs were asking for peace too quickly, but at least then I didn't have to agree with the offer in my own personal case (although wasr would go on and off with inter-AI rivalries all the time apparently, which can be pretty dumb), but the problem doesn't end there. I assumed before the patch that they were so eager because their WW had gone up so much, and had seen a few cases of that, so every time an offer was made I just had to make my mind up on which method I wished to torture them; money or WW. Now from what I've seen it appears the WW had been radically altered too, for how can a civ be at war with you approximately 700 turns, losing maybe 300 units in my territory, at roughly a 3-to-1 rate, and still not have WW?

In my own case I consider the old AI good enough on noble, as I lost about 99% of my games, but at least I did very well for a really long period, but thsi just looks impossible. I wonder if the peace you grant a civ will be just as brittle as the old game? It appears to me that if the WW was radically shifted, alongside civs warring forever, alongside no adjustment on the likelihood of them just starting up another war all over again (only a guess on this last concern) this could be a real mess.

The mere fact that people are suggesting what the new neutral setting should be is already an admittance that this game has radically shifted. I've played quite a few losing games to this patch, and it's just seems to be too much and exceedingly difficult, apart, that is, from doing things like founding 3-4 cities and then just going out and continually warring. That's just

I'm all keen on trying to make refinements to my game, but to make up for these changes it to take on a complete other face (like always playing the best civ with resources on every tile - well that's something of an exaggeration, but I can see things like improving this or that some 10-20% of my game, but this is like requiring like a 50% improval and that's just not possible apart from cheating and attack, attack, attack). This seems to have every indication of being nothing more than a wargame, as much as I usually like wargames.

 

[Charles 22]

That's what I heard about Noble and below. If you have time, you can verify whether this is true/untrue.

From playing noble so far I'm thinking this is correct to a small degree, but their inability to offer peace when they should be suffering badly from WW make smaller numbers less important. Basically what this change has done is totally destroy any strategy in turtling up for a sizeable period. Sure I might be able to make jillions of units and lose them all in foreign territory without WW going up, but if it's not going to go up under those circumctances what is the point of WW? I can be an attacker for the majority of the game instead of a defender, but as it appears now you don't even have a choice anymore. The only thing some large scale turtling can do is hope to win space race or something, and since I don't play with that or diplomatic victory on it's a wash. I definitely wouldn't play the current patch with those on; I would never stand a chance. At least with the old way I have won a diplo or space race.

I just think attacking to knock other scores down is going to prove terribly, terribly dull.

 

[carl corey]

Huh, you play defensively and don't enable Space Race or Diplomatic? You're only left with Cultural and Time victories if you don't want to go to war for either Conquest or Domination. And while on Noble it's easy to found a lot of religions and use them for a cultural victory, this also leaves you with small armies most of the time and I don't recommend it if you ever want to go to Prince.

I still say it's ok to make any (reasonable) change to the AI. I'm more than ok with a game in which playing without any bonuses or penalties (like the Noble diff.) means you have to be efficient to win. I'd rather play on Noble against a better AI than on Monarch against a worse one, but maybe that's just me. I remember playing Age of Empire on "hardest" (the AI has insane starting bonuses) against a team of three computers and managing to win. That's just wrong. Though I admit I had fun doing it.

And hey, we're living proof that the AI can indeed be beaten on higher difficulties. I stand by the offer to help you with a game if you're willing to hear my (our) advice. Post something like Sisiutil's or aelf's online games if you want. I promise we won't be mean.

 

[Charles 22]

Huh, you play defensively and don't enable Space Race or Diplomatic? You're only left with Cultural and Time victories if you don't want to go to war for either Conquest or Domination. And while on Noble it's easy to found a lot of religions and use them for a cultural victory, this also leaves you with small armies most of the time and I don't recommend it if you ever want to go to Prince.

I still say it's ok to make any (reasonable) change to the AI. I'm more than ok with a game in which playing without any bonuses or penalties (like the Noble diff.) means you have to be efficient to win. I'd rather play on Noble against a better AI than on Monarch against a worse one, but maybe that's just me. I remember playing Age of Empire on "hardest" (the AI has insane starting bonuses) against a team of three computers and managing to win. That's just wrong. Though I admit I had fun doing it.

And hey, we're living proof that the AI can indeed be beaten on higher difficulties. I stand by the offer to help you with a game if you're willing to hear my (our) advice. Post something like Sisiutil's or aelf's online games if you want. I promise we won't be mean.

I've already won some games, and I don't expect noble's difficulty to go up three levels to play the game that I once found reasonable as it was (despite losing at a high ratio).

You have me wrong on a coupple of fronts. Firstly I play something of a non-cooperative role as Germany a great deal of the time. The turtling is due to a number of factors. Firstly because I found that the ratio of even friendly backstabbings, when you didn't need them, was so high I decided to smash a few civs at one time; hence turtling. So basically what I try to do is ignore most of them and almost never giving up goods to make them happier, and try to stay friendly with maybe 2 or 3. The next reason I turtle is that I don't get enough of a tech lead early on (mostly none at all on 2.08, even briefly) as I see nothing but disadvantage in attacking somebody, and when the opportunity seems fairly ripe, especially if nobody has been at war with me yet, then I have so many cities I have to do something internally to reduce the cost, and attacking and/or taking new cities will make that much worse. If I fail while attacking I'm doomed. Most of the strategy as you see, is an economic one, as I'm trying to stretch a tech lead if I have one. Basically trying to get enough of a lead to where I get something that almost nobody else has to fight with. In this case we're talking about Germans.

I try to not start any offensive wars because those conditions rarely occur, and certainly don't occur any stronger than if I'm the first one with panzers, then I'm off to attack at least one civ. What happens in the majority of games is that they don't get that far because too many gang up on me or I getr too far behind, which of course is greatly exagerrated in 2.08.

Now, another thing, I play ALL the victory conditions but the two I mentioned, so domination and conquest are paramont in my goals to win. You see, I play that late developing civ and to top it off I play without turn or time limits, so my starting late and trying to reap benefit from those attacking me up till that point often pays off. What I pretty much end up doing is being the civ with the most experience going into my offensive, combined with the best type of unit for some time (panzer). My goal is to destroy or occupy every last city sooner or later, but since there's no limit to when it ends the late start matters very little.

A lot of you have no concept of playing in such a manner, even if we ignore the late offensive criteria and I certainly don't cowtow to anyone. Having 3-5 nations at war with me at the same time is pretty commonplace at some point or other in every game (before my offensive) and it can be jolly well invigorating, and that's where I lose the majority of the games I lose (I mostly just quit and call it a loss), but it's something I'm willing to do because I am not the one declaring the war, and there's so many nasty characters in the game that having them gang up on you, even for the games when I had diplo and spacerace on, that it didn't change things much.

Oh, I know quite a bit about playing this game, and I admit I play unconventionally, but to play it conventionally would totally bore me. In any event, even for my more conventional play at times, I can see this AI change makes noble basically impossible (but will keep trying for a while). Just as I consider it sissified and lame to give in to even half the demands all those civs make of you, even the friendly ones, and quite unsportsmanlike of the game to have them so constantly berate you like that, I don't consider this AI change any more favorably at this time. I just can't imagine this change will allow you to play anything but one strategy and one strategy only. The key thing is that this game was built upon playing different strategies with a good hope of success, and this just blows that very largely out of the water, making it not even the same game anymore. And to think I paid about $200 just to get this $30 ripoff expansion to have some hope of playing without bogging down and going to CTD's. I'm sure not going to mimic somebody's surefire strategy that every other knucklehead that just wants to win mimics. Have I made my point yet? Do you think I care about winning so much? How can I accept like a 97% loss ratio and still keep playing otherwise? I like the variety that it "once" had but that seems to have gone by the wayside with this change. Spending over $230 on this expansion and it gets worse and worse, can you tell I'm getting angrier and angrier about this?

With 2.08 I'm now trying to compensate for the lousy WW and war situation by eliminating tech trading. It seems with 2.08, the one civ you get a decent deal with will then trade away with the others, much worse than in pre-2.08, thereby making tech-trading foolish. Maybe that's all my game needs, though it does destroy something of the spirit of the game, but 2.08 seems to have destroyed spirit by itself and I'm left scrambling with what to make of the shambles.

BTW, don't focus so much on my saying winning isn't important. It is, but only in the sense that I have to see it as possible, and that I don't have to go some cookie-cutter route to do it, or go down to being heavily gifted by bonuses from something less than noble rank.

 

[sjm]

Look at it from the other perspective: why would anyone actually want the AI to be piss poor (which it most definitely was, once you'd got used to the changes in civ4)?

I think it's good that the AI is now sometimes actually a challenge on prince (depending on starts) - something that was definitely not the case beforehand. I've noticed one or two AI civs running away with the game much more now, rather than getting bogged down with poorly developed cities and lagging well behind in tech despite their bonuses and cottage spam. Of course building cottages (because the AI is incapable of chaining irrigation) that you can't actually work for lack of food was never a good strategy - an AI favourite.

Just move down a difficulty level or two if you find it hard - that's what they are there for. I was shocked when I first played civ4 that I got absoultely slaughtered on noble (my first game). So I started from the bottom and worked my way up. And yes, each difficulty level seems incredibly hard the first time (apart from monarch for some reason, which I ran away with immediately). The new AI simply means that the AI is actually decent, so it doesn't need such high bonuses to be competitive. If you were previously only playing at noble, you might want to step down a level until you feel more comfortable. There's actually nothing wrong with not being a civ maestro, if your ego can get over it.

That said, it's actually really, really easy to win at noble (at least in vanilla), even with the new AI. You just need to be able to get your economy running properly. If you do, you'll have such an insurmountable tech lead that the game is practically over before you start.

Remember that the AI needs a gazillion units, because it hasn't got the slightest clue how to use its units or of what promotions to give them. You can slaughter the AI with an army that is drastically smaller. The only problem is when several AIs declare war on you and attack from several fronts.

However, getting attacked by so many AIs at once is nothing but your own fault. You do need to build up a military throughtout the game (you can't just wait for tanks), even if only to discourage other civs from attacking you. It would be plain silly if the AI were not programmed to take advantage of your weaknesses. If you have the poorest military, all civs will attack you, not just the warmongers (and it's a good thing they do!)

Furthermore, if you wish to ignore the diplomatic options available, that's your own choice, but you can't blame the game for your style of playing. Maybe civ just isn't for you of course But you ought to learn which AIs are more likely to stab you in the back, and which can be trusted (unless you're using random personalities). If you are playing a builder game, then you will probably want to get pally with some of the other builders, rather than the psycho nuts. Then you've got someone to call on when the going gets tough. On the other hand, if you're a conquerer, you might want to get pally with the psycho nuts. Punish the builders for a lack of military with your allies - they'll be looking for a scrap anyway, and if you get them on your side, you get diplomatic bonuses, plus they'll not attack you while you are sharing a common war.

As for diplomacy between AIs, techs will only be traded between AIs that are friendly (and you can sow seeds of distrust, should you wish so) and that have something to offer, although the price the AI is willing to accept for a tech is related to the difficulty level - i.e. on emperor they'll trade techs between themselves much more cheaply. But actually, the clever thing to do is not to trade a tech to one AI and allow them to trade it to everyone, but to trade it to everyone yourself; you need to do this on YOUR turn btw. If you get the AI popping up asking for a trade, that means it's their turn. Give them the tech, and they can trade it to anyone they want. That's not the case if you do the trading in your own turn. In fact, if you do it right, tech trading is actually a good idea, as you can get, say, 6 techs in return for one.

 

[aelf]

EDIT: Deleted.

 

[DaveMcW]

But actually, the clever thing to do is not to trade a tech to one AI and allow them to trade it to everyone, but to trade it to everyone yourself; you need to do this on YOUR turn btw. If you get the AI popping up asking for a trade, that means it's their turn. Give them the tech, and they can trade it to anyone they want. That's not the case if you do the trading in your own turn. In fact, if you do it right, tech trading is actually a good idea, as you can get, say, 6 techs in return for one.

This only worked in Civ3. Civ4 forces the AIs (and you) to wait a turn before reselling techs.

 

[HardCoder]

However, getting attacked by so many AIs at once is nothing but your own fault. You do need to build up a military throughtout the game (you can't just wait for tanks), even if only to discourage other civs from attacking you. It would be plain silly if the AI were not programmed to take advantage of your weaknesses. If you have the poorest military, all civs will attack you, not just the warmongers (and it's a good thing they do!)

Yeah - my favorite is when Alex dumps close to a dozen units on my coastline near my capital when I am just about done mopping up some other civ, and all my units are half-dead 6 hops away, and war weariness is kicking in. First few times that happens it teaches you a lesson.