It really depends on the map size. I wouldnt recommend it for normal size or smaller, though I set it to 3 in my current game (large), and while the AI still overlaps, this has been minimized. plus for some odd reason, the placement of their cities seems more intelligent, utilizing resources better. I'm currently not using Jooyos, as I wanted to test some changes in my mods.
AI got dumb.
- Thread starter civ_chemist
- Start date
It really depends on the map size. I wouldnt recommend it for normal size or smaller, though I set it to 3 in my current game (large), and while the AI still overlaps, this has been minimized. plus for some odd reason, the placement of their cities seems more intelligent, utilizing resources better. I'm currently not using Jooyos, as I wanted to test some changes in my mods.
I totally agree, the AI totally gets into a shortsighted war footing and never recovers. This isnt just a slavery issue either... I am playing a Marathon game on Noble using the huge world map by Jeelen. Right now its AD 350 and my score is over 1000, with the next closest AI at 300, most of them are at around 100+. Their cities are all size 1 to 3, and they only have 2 or 3 cities max, even after so many (over 100?) game turns. This is regardless of the fact that each capital is in a PRIME spot for growth (tons of food and hammers no matter how you slice it) in the scenario. In Egypt, Thebes is size one, and is working a quarry and NOT a wheat floods plain. Major shortsightedness, is there any way to make the AIs emphasize food/population and not production???
Over 50% of the world's population lives in the Roman Republic (me). I'd hate to have to give up Start as Minors, REVDCM, and Barb Civ, but maybe I need to start playing without it or something becuase this is rediculous. My cities are all at 10+ size, Rome is at 26 and growing, all because of the food bonus buildings from ROM, but the AI doesnt utilize them and FAILS time and again to get past 2 to 3 cities total all with measly 1 to 3 pops (this is my second game like this). Until this issue is solved I dont know if I will be playing ROM. Which is a pity because the TECH tree, units, and improvements, etc are AMAZING, but whats the fun of playing the coolest game in the world with a slobbering moron?
PLEASE help the AI learn to feed itself, and not slavery itself into oblivion...
Right now its an anorexic masochist...
Afforess
The White Wizard
This problem has less to do with Rise of Mankind and more with the AI in general. The default game coding tells the AI to value production more than commerce or food. If you want this altered, you're better bringing it up in the Better AI forum, because Better AI is in RoM.
(Not that I don't disagree with what you are saying, the AI is really stupid sometimes.)
I understand that, but one of the big problems seems to stem from the AI's overuse of the slavery civic. In addition, I never saw this behavior this severe in Civ4 before, it seems like the AI is being stretched too far by the custom techs, civics and improvements in ROM. That really is a pity because this is the coolest Mod that I have played to date, so its that much more frustrating. Massaging the mod so that it plays well with the AI is an important consideration to make, and I think that needs to be done here...
But hey, thats just my opinion, and I am not trying to belittle all the awesome work that Zap and other modders have put into Civ4 modding. Quite the contrary!
Humakty
Happy Goblin
It seems to me the AI is especially bad with revolution mod : at monarch difficulty, I had to wait medieval era to see 1 (one !) civ with more than 4-5 cities. They just seem to have chain revolution during the beginning of the game, till you reach dll civ limits. Maybe because they all take slavery or ?
Anyway, the AI performs much much better without revolution, in my few tests at least. Do they even consider their revolution factor ?
Anyway, the AI performs much much better without revolution, in my few tests at least. Do they even consider their revolution factor ?
Afforess
The White Wizard
Yes. Proof is in the fact that the AI choose different options if a city rebels. sometimes, they choose to fight, sometimes they grant independence.
The next RevDCM that comes out in a week or so will have a lot of AI changes and improvement. It should make gameplay better.
I recently played some games in BTS with BUG (it was newer version then the one included in 2.71 ROM) installed to see how AI behaves with slavery. I made a special game speed for this purpose that had research and culture growth 4x more expensive then the marathon speed but the production and the rest at the marathon speed. It made sure that AI will use slavery for a long time to test it properly. Played with 50 civs on huge maps with 'start as minors' on and turned off Revolutions.
It appears that the AI slavery problem does exist there too. Basically, when an enemy force threatens the city, AI will whip a production of combat units in that city. The longer the threat persists, the greater effect it has on city's population due to the constant whipping. Basically, this is the way AI behaves and is not ROM's fault. If you put a pressure on AI's cities the population and progress as a consequence in there will diminish even if you don't attack it directly or even if you don't raze improvements in city's vicinity.
I do believe there are ways to avoid AI getting constantly stuck with low population cities, though. If you setup your games carefully you may avoid situations where all AI players will get 'stuck' with small cities.
To avoid this you need to make sure AI empires have opportunity to make more then just a few cities before they engage enemy civilizations. Basically, if AI empire has dozens of cities, only those that are on the front line will be whipping their productions while the rest will prosper and advance. You can make sure that happens by making games on larger maps with fewer civilizations. Not sure how much does 'raging barbarians' options affect's this but you may want to avoid it too. Barbarian civs may be allowed since 2.71 version slows down new civ appearance. You can also not use option to 'start as minors' since that won't put AI civs in constant war with each other, allowing them to flourish. Revolutions can be used but using both Revolutions and minors is BAD idea if you want challenging AI. Revolutions will limit civ growth greatly making everyone expand slowly while minors will put them all in a state of war which just calls for constant whipping.
If you play on a maps packed with civs and use start as minor's option, then AI will most definitely have growth problems as it will constantly whip for units to keep itself alive. If you play games where AI has more room to expand, then it will not have much problems with slavery.
Personally, I like games that have many civs on smaller maps so, to give some challenge there, I suppose we need a mod that changes or removes whipping from slavery civic.
It appears that the AI slavery problem does exist there too. Basically, when an enemy force threatens the city, AI will whip a production of combat units in that city. The longer the threat persists, the greater effect it has on city's population due to the constant whipping. Basically, this is the way AI behaves and is not ROM's fault. If you put a pressure on AI's cities the population and progress as a consequence in there will diminish even if you don't attack it directly or even if you don't raze improvements in city's vicinity.
I do believe there are ways to avoid AI getting constantly stuck with low population cities, though. If you setup your games carefully you may avoid situations where all AI players will get 'stuck' with small cities.
To avoid this you need to make sure AI empires have opportunity to make more then just a few cities before they engage enemy civilizations. Basically, if AI empire has dozens of cities, only those that are on the front line will be whipping their productions while the rest will prosper and advance. You can make sure that happens by making games on larger maps with fewer civilizations. Not sure how much does 'raging barbarians' options affect's this but you may want to avoid it too. Barbarian civs may be allowed since 2.71 version slows down new civ appearance. You can also not use option to 'start as minors' since that won't put AI civs in constant war with each other, allowing them to flourish. Revolutions can be used but using both Revolutions and minors is BAD idea if you want challenging AI. Revolutions will limit civ growth greatly making everyone expand slowly while minors will put them all in a state of war which just calls for constant whipping.
If you play on a maps packed with civs and use start as minor's option, then AI will most definitely have growth problems as it will constantly whip for units to keep itself alive. If you play games where AI has more room to expand, then it will not have much problems with slavery.
Personally, I like games that have many civs on smaller maps so, to give some challenge there, I suppose we need a mod that changes or removes whipping from slavery civic.
We gave up on Revolutions for the AI - they fall apart too much and don't make good civs that way. Seems more stable for multiplayer too. Too bad, Revolutions is fun and challenging for the players too. We're always handicapping the players to keep the game challenging. For one we turn off tech trading altogether, you want it, you gotta research it. Sometimes we turn off goodie huts, we do good sized maps with not too many civs (we get large and challenging AI civs that way) and leave on the Barb civ option. Those Barb cities go crazy when they turn though, just a bit much for me! 
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Well said dr. Hyde!
It's what I've been trying to say for sometime now.
And it's why I play mostly Giant Acrhipelago Maps with only 8-10 AI , No SAM, no BarbCiv, No Rev, and No vassals. This way my AI opponents have size 20+ cities when it comes down to dukeing it out. Plus it insures that the whole tech tree is needed (Navies a Must).
The Giant plus Archipelago map means that you might not meet a neighbor for a good part of the ancient Era. Allowing the AI Civs to lay down more than 3 or 4 cities before they "have go to war". And if you do some serious trading/placating they might even be a real challenger come the Industrial Era.
But since Slavery this is getting harder to do. Hopefully zappara's changes will lessen Slavery's death hold on the AI.
JosEPh
It's what I've been trying to say for sometime now.
And it's why I play mostly Giant Acrhipelago Maps with only 8-10 AI , No SAM, no BarbCiv, No Rev, and No vassals. This way my AI opponents have size 20+ cities when it comes down to dukeing it out. Plus it insures that the whole tech tree is needed (Navies a Must).
The Giant plus Archipelago map means that you might not meet a neighbor for a good part of the ancient Era. Allowing the AI Civs to lay down more than 3 or 4 cities before they "have go to war". And if you do some serious trading/placating they might even be a real challenger come the Industrial Era.
But since Slavery this is getting harder to do. Hopefully zappara's changes will lessen Slavery's death hold on the AI.
JosEPh
Well put. I agree, many civs on small maps, gives civ the majestic feel of Paradox Titles (like Europa Universalis, HOI, Victoria, etc) witht he amazing core strengths of civ4 gameplay. I feel confident that Zappara and the other modders will balance this out soon. The issues really are fairly minor. In fact, is there a way to make whipping a game option at start like tech trading/brokering, no barbs/raging barbs, etc? If that were an option i think that it would go a long way in smoothing a slew of AI issues out while leaving the option open for multiplayer or Large map low civ games...
szemek77
Prince
Hello Folks,
Keeping all my admire to Zappara, I have to admit, that AI weakness spoils all the fun from playing. I would agree of course about the slavery, but I think that the problem is broader and simplier - AI just sucks horribly in the newest version of RoM.
Something must have happened with the RoM 2.7x version since the previous ones seemed not to have such problem. I remember that I lost several games playing 2.5x and 2.6x editions. All civs were very expansive (the infos about new cities being founded were just flooding), their cities and economy were strong, and they fought wars between each other and with me.
In my curerrent game (OK, I started on third level, maybe it is lame but previously I usually played
noble (fourth level) and I couldn't survive XVII century) just nothing is happening at all. Map generated two huge continents, I dominated one of them having numbers of cities, many of them of size 30+. I have friendly Victoria with me, and don't tell me that she is whipping her cities being afraid of me, because she has defensive pact with me, and 15+ relalationship ratio. But more surprisingly, on the other continent there are 5 civs and just literally NOTHING is going on. No wars, no contest.... nothing! AI is just sitting quitely, no new cities are being founded (they still have room for many, many cities), each of CIV have around 6-8 small cities. None of AI exceeded 300 points (and the year is 1550!), and my score is over 3000 (!) and going up by 30+ every turn.
I don't know what is going on. I repeat - something just happened with 2.7x version. Why AI
was able to play on 2.4 2.5 2.6 and cannot on 2.7. Is there really so huge difference in number of
new techs/buildings/civics/improvements between RoM editions. The slavery civ was present in the past versions, wasn't it?
Keeping all my admire to Zappara, I have to admit, that AI weakness spoils all the fun from playing. I would agree of course about the slavery, but I think that the problem is broader and simplier - AI just sucks horribly in the newest version of RoM.
Something must have happened with the RoM 2.7x version since the previous ones seemed not to have such problem. I remember that I lost several games playing 2.5x and 2.6x editions. All civs were very expansive (the infos about new cities being founded were just flooding), their cities and economy were strong, and they fought wars between each other and with me.
In my curerrent game (OK, I started on third level, maybe it is lame but previously I usually played
noble (fourth level) and I couldn't survive XVII century) just nothing is happening at all. Map generated two huge continents, I dominated one of them having numbers of cities, many of them of size 30+. I have friendly Victoria with me, and don't tell me that she is whipping her cities being afraid of me, because she has defensive pact with me, and 15+ relalationship ratio. But more surprisingly, on the other continent there are 5 civs and just literally NOTHING is going on. No wars, no contest.... nothing! AI is just sitting quitely, no new cities are being founded (they still have room for many, many cities), each of CIV have around 6-8 small cities. None of AI exceeded 300 points (and the year is 1550!), and my score is over 3000 (!) and going up by 30+ every turn.
I don't know what is going on. I repeat - something just happened with 2.7x version. Why AI
was able to play on 2.4 2.5 2.6 and cannot on 2.7. Is there really so huge difference in number of
new techs/buildings/civics/improvements between RoM editions. The slavery civ was present in the past versions, wasn't it?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
The Official 3.19 patch "may" be a culprit here. Coupled with the changes to the Better AI and RevDCM components.
BtS 3.17 AI Did play better. And RoM was also using the Unofficial 3.17 patch as well.
I do believe the UOP3.19 was included in 2.71.
I really believe that if Slavery was removed the AI would respond more like it did in past versions.
JosEPh
BtS 3.17 AI Did play better. And RoM was also using the Unofficial 3.17 patch as well.
I do believe the UOP3.19 was included in 2.71.
I really believe that if Slavery was removed the AI would respond more like it did in past versions.
JosEPh
There are many things that sum up to result in this issue, but for me also it seems like Slavery is the big problem. I used to have problems in Noble difficulty in regular BtS and RoM 2.4/2.5 versions - with the current version I nailed down the AI playing Emporer and higher.
Last game I had about 10 times the points of the best AI - and though it was 1700 and game tech fairy developed matching the time they all used slavery and whipped their cities to dead
It was no difficulty or fun in doing what I wanted with them. Didn't cared about any diplomacy or whatsoever, used Intolarant, destroyed other holy cities, "killed" several religion until I finally had my 75% - they all hated me, had war with all, but outruled them as never before. The result was a final score of 397361 points ... *yawn*
Last game I had about 10 times the points of the best AI - and though it was 1700 and game tech fairy developed matching the time they all used slavery and whipped their cities to dead
It was no difficulty or fun in doing what I wanted with them. Didn't cared about any diplomacy or whatsoever, used Intolarant, destroyed other holy cities, "killed" several religion until I finally had my 75% - they all hated me, had war with all, but outruled them as never before. The result was a final score of 397361 points ... *yawn*civhelp121
Prince
oddly enough I haven't this problem. For example, in my current game Joao is not that far behind in terms of techs and has a couple cities with populations over 20. I did see a city go down from 25 to 22, but it is increasing in population. That being said, like the rest of you guys I find that the AI bites the dust later in the game.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Yeah. There are certain AI that I find do better with revolutions than the standard game. Personally, I find these AI the best (in order from best to worst)
1.)Savuaryman II
2.) Mao Zedong
3.) Brennus
4.)Joao
The worst AI are:
1.) Elizabeth
2.) Montezuma (He always declares wars on his rebels and fails miserably)
3.) Isabella
Well, I don't play Revolutions. Noticed that Monty is mostly toothless in normal RoM, which is a nice change from BtS.
What a pain!
Suppli the Ur-Ugly also tends to do pretty well, hence the suspicion that cheap workers/settlers fix the broken AI math somehow.
Deity advanced start (oddly, the AI has trouble getting scouts out, so the goody huts are often all yours if you start with a scout or two, then the AI demands the techs you pop, so it evens out) seems to give the best game currently. Now if we could just keep galleys off the high seas...
2ndimpression
Bloody peasant
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 59
I played a very hard game with the options 'any leader any country' and Montezuma had the Indian nation. He was unstoppable, he absolutely destroyed everyone very quickly, I was last to go, no match at all.
generalstaff
Steadfast
Chiang Kai-Shek from my leaderhead pack (unofficial 2) provide me an interesting challenge. He gained a lead in techs due to his Financial trait and the fact that he kept stealing techs due to his Deceiver trait. However, he was eliminated since he started two ill-planned wars, one with me, and one with a AI neighbor (Dido), which I used as an opportunity to finish him off and gain a favorable diplomatic stance.
Similar threads
