Am I Taking Advantage of the AI?

[Lyoncet]

By the time BtS came out for Civ IV, I had started playing on epic speed because I disliked how quickly units became obsolete; even though I wasn't much of a warmonger, it just seemed like the speed was better balanced (played mostly around emperor). I carried that habit over to Civ V, but now I'm wondering if that's really the best idea. I understand that Marathon is a huge advantage to the player, so I assume that Epic is also a serious boost. So have I been unknowingly gimping the AI? Should I dial it back to normal?

Plus, with the speed the game moves at, Epic seems a little more like Civ IV Marathon.

 

[milk steak]

You should play at whatever pace you feel like.

AFAIK, the only major advantage is in warfare since unit movement doesn't scale with era.

 

[filorux]

You know, you pose honest and concise questions, and I find that commendable. I think they lead to a deep conversation (which would probably include digressions having neither quality) that touches on the very heart of gaming in general...and I have gotten so far only to start over again many times in trying to give you my thoughts on that. In the end I could only conclude that I need to either stop taking concerns of 'taking advantage of the AI' so seriously, or stop playing altogether. I know what kind of person I am, and I know what entertains me.

So allow me to do you the service that you have done me by being honest and concise.

So have I been unknowingly gimping the AI?

I can't decide.

Should I dial it back to normal?.

Only if you want to.

 

[Narmical]

To put things in perspective, when a game developer designs an AI his intent is to "babysit" the player, not to beat him. So in other words there is no way to cheat the AI out of a win only your self out of some fun

The question is, do your stetting entertain you for a few hours?

Then everything is fine.

do you find the game boring due to lack of challenge?

Do something to make it harder for you. Change the game settings or impose a handicap on your self. Its the way golf and bowling work.

 

[Zhahz]

The pacing is different in Civ 5. I used to play Civ IV on epic too because it flew by too fast. Normal speed in 5 feels like epic from IV to me.

The reason why slower speeds hurt the AIs in 5 is due to build times on units. Civ 5 AIs have a tendency to lose their entire armies and when it takes that much longer to rebuild them, there's a good chance another AI or a player will wipe them out completely.

 

[tibbles]

Playing a faster speed definitely helps the AI. Though combat as it is almost seems like its more designed for epic speed, there's just soo many units to chew through, you need more turns. I'm doing my first immortal game now and I spent from 200ad to 950ad just fighting off 1 AIs unit swarm and moving across a narrow land bridge before even being able to start hitting his cities. That's a ridiculously long tech period for not even getting to the beneficial part of a war yet and frankly I have no idea how the AIs I wasn't fighting didn't tech past me.

 

[Lyoncet]

You know, you pose honest and concise questions, and I find that commendable. I think they lead to a deep conversation (which would probably include digressions having neither quality) that touches on the very heart of gaming in general...

Hey can I put that on my resume?

Thanks for the responses! My latest attempt to check on how the AI handles combat at different speeds fizzled as after Catherine conquered everybody except for me, and as we got ready for our final confrontation, we got stuck in the permanent peace treaty bug and I just went for space instead.

 

[filorux]

To put things in perspective, when a game developer designs an AI his intent is to "babysit" the player, not to beat him.

I like it. This is a point that I kept coming back to again and again in my head. We (as a species) tend to see agents where none exist. It is certainly entertaining to suspend disbelief and feel as if you are playing against Cathy, Monty, etc...but in reality you are playing with a bit of code. From the perspective of playing against an agent it can feel like you are taking advantage in some situations, but not so much when you are playing with code. Now there may be some merit in standardizing the way we play with the code for the purposes of community, competition, or what have you, but at this point in the lifecycle of civ V I wouldn't want to say, "That's an avenue of play I'm not going to explore," for whatever reason.

Hey can I put that on my resume?

Yes, and for a fee I will be a reference. "Well, sir, I can't speak to that, but he plays a hell of a good round of civ, on any speed."

 

[ShaqFu]

I think a better question would be "is it possible not to take advantage of the AI?"

 

[dannythefool]

I understand that Marathon is a huge advantage to the player, so I assume that Epic is also a serious boost.

The huge advantage mostly comes from things like early rushes being much more viable than they are anyway. It's not marathon or epic speed itself. It's the player cheesing an early game advantage. If it feels too easy in Civ V then that's probably because it is too easy, regardless of game speed.

In the end, what you should do is what is the most fun for you.

 

[SimonSays]

Hey can I put that on my resume?

Thanks for the responses! My latest attempt to check on how the AI handles combat at different speeds fizzled as after Catherine conquered everybody except for me, and as we got ready for our final confrontation, we got stuck in the permanent peace treaty bug and I just went for space instead.

You can nuke to declare war through the bug. I guess if you want things harder, play on faster settings once you reach deity?

 

[Lanstro]

I played civ4 on epic, and I've stuck with it in 5. I think the AI is a bit too weak under any settings so I may as well play at the setting that is most fun for me, for the time being.

I initially, like most, thought that civ5 epic feels like civ4 marathon. But now after about a dozen games I think the game pace is actually roughly the same. By the endgame your quality cities do churn out buildings and wonders quite quickly, you build armies quite quickly (obviously not as fast as in civ4 since a 'big army' in 5 is a lot smaller than a 'big army' in 4), and of course techs still finish in 5-15 turns. Once you adjust your strategy from a civ4 mindset (where science is first priority) to a civ5 mindset (where production and income is first priority), the game pacing feels right again.

 

[Lyoncet]

You can nuke to declare war through the bug.

Huh, I didn't know that. That's quite a useful tip! Although I'd have to load an old save and then go through pretty much the entire bottom of the modern era tech tree to get there.

 

[jdp29]

Honestly, it is not possible to NOT take advantage of AI. Seems like no matter what I do, the AI does something stupid in return. Instead of bombarding the injured unit next to the city, it bombards the uninjured unite two tiles from the city. Instead of finishing me off, it decides to go attack a city state.

I am thinking I will disable city states. Hopefully, that will make the AI focus more on me.

 

[alpaca]

Do you play SP only? If so, why do you care? The AI is just an obstacle, not a competitor, so do anything that's fun for you.

Of course, I guess if you're asking this question you're not playing "just for fun" but because you want to play as well as possible, and if you limit yourself you feel like you're not playing to the best of your abilities. The solution for this dilemma is to devise a set of house rules for each game, such as "no horse rush" or "no unprovoked attacks" and to try to play your best game under these rules.