DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
That's not really giving much away......About what?
"Better" AI sucks
- Thread starter Charles Martel
- Start date
That's not really giving much away......About what?
aelf
Ashen One
That is not very encouraging. I suppose Firaxis is releasing a turn-based Starcraft 2 clone soon?
We've seen testimonies of how the Aggressive AI is illogical when it comes to war declarations, and we know by now that such 'unpredictability' is simply due to dice rolls. I have yet to see any definite proof that Aggressive AI is a more challenging or more correct way of playing Civ, as posters like klokwerk are saying. What's so challenging about building as many units as you can?
In fact, to get a challenge out of Civ, you need not look further than a standard continents map on the next difficulty level. Have fun trying to march your axe army across the continent more than half the time! And the AI knows how to whip in desperation now. If you do succeed, watch your empire sink into a financial hole as some AI on the other continent zooms past you. If you survive to mid or late game, guess what? You actually have to skimp on unit building if you want to keep up and might hence need to bank on diplomacy. If this doesn't happen most of the time in your games, I think you're playing on a difficulty level that is too low for you. So much for comparing <snip> size when all you opt for is switching to a mode that suits single-minded strategy better rather than upping the difficulty level
War is the best part of the game =) I love watching a mighty empire get crushed beneath my heels. Aggressive AI is my favorite as small battles and rivalries can erupt into a world war. I play with at least 9-12 different civs on a single or dual continent or Lakes map for up and close fights! They are rough on emperor but I m still not perfect. I want to win some wars on Deity one day.
That is not very encouraging. I suppose Firaxis is releasing a turn-based Starcraft 2 clone soon?
We've seen testimonies of how the Aggressive AI is illogical when it comes to war declarations, and we know by now that such 'unpredictability' is simply due to dice rolls. I have yet to see any definite proof that Aggressive AI is a more challenging or more correct way of playing Civ, as posters like klokwerk are saying. What's so challenging about building as many units as you can?
In fact, to get a challenge out of Civ, you need not look further than a standard continents map on the next difficulty level. Have fun trying to march your axe army across the continent more than half the time! And the AI knows how to whip in desperation now. If you do succeed, watch your empire sink into a financial hole as some AI on the other continent zooms past you. If you survive to mid or late game, guess what? You actually have to skimp on unit building if you want to keep up and might hence need to bank on diplomacy. If this doesn't happen most of the time in your games, I think you're playing on a difficulty level that is too low for you. So much for comparing penis size when all you opt for is switching to a mode that suits single-minded strategy better rather than upping the difficulty level
You and your friends are the only ones talking about penis here (is there any moderator there - or a psychiatrist ?)
Everything has been said about the subject, you (and your 2 friends) don't agree with Blake or me, ok live with it and let's move on to something else.
Comparing Agg AI Civ 4 BtS with Starcraft 2 is simply ridiculous, I don't think I need to comment further.
If anybody was wondering why Blake didn't post more on this forum, I think this thread (nicely called 'Better AI sucks') and the way people are treated here goes a long way answering this question.
Here's what I think. Agg AI seems to mostly change two things about the AI:
1) They build much more units. IMO this is actually always a disadvantage for them. They are still not as good as City Specialization as humans, humans can still beat AI's with larger armies regularly. This change hurts the AI's economy more than it does the economy of a human. At very high levels this might be offset due to AI bonis. Doesn't mean the AI is smart.
2) They are much more likely to declare war. Now if the AI would declare war in certain situations this would be good. That's not the case and that makes them exploitable. If you get a DOW you can almost always get several other AI's to help you. The AI has no real concept of guarding it's back. They seem to DOW without regard to how many allies you have and often even without regard to your relative strength. I observe this both in the Charlemagne example in this thread and in my own games.
I also have to agree with aelf, the AI should not DOW at random. There's a huge difference between an unexpected attack by the AI and a random attack. Sure, I sometimes attack AI's that have been friendly with me, but I don't do so at random. That would make very vulnerable. I do it if I think I can handle them and gain a noticable advantage. With Agg AI you simply expect the AI to attack at any time. Not much more strategy IMO.
In conclusion, I think Agg AI is noticable more difficult in some cases. Let's face it on the high difficulty levels many players win only by rushing an nearby builder civilization, hopefully with many World Wonders. And, of course, on a small Pangaea map. That's harder. Agg AI is simply more detrimental to the favorite playstyle of many players, it's not really harder. If you adapt it actually seems to become easier.
1) They build much more units. IMO this is actually always a disadvantage for them. They are still not as good as City Specialization as humans, humans can still beat AI's with larger armies regularly. This change hurts the AI's economy more than it does the economy of a human. At very high levels this might be offset due to AI bonis. Doesn't mean the AI is smart.
2) They are much more likely to declare war. Now if the AI would declare war in certain situations this would be good. That's not the case and that makes them exploitable. If you get a DOW you can almost always get several other AI's to help you. The AI has no real concept of guarding it's back. They seem to DOW without regard to how many allies you have and often even without regard to your relative strength. I observe this both in the Charlemagne example in this thread and in my own games.
I also have to agree with aelf, the AI should not DOW at random. There's a huge difference between an unexpected attack by the AI and a random attack. Sure, I sometimes attack AI's that have been friendly with me, but I don't do so at random. That would make very vulnerable. I do it if I think I can handle them and gain a noticable advantage. With Agg AI you simply expect the AI to attack at any time. Not much more strategy IMO.
In conclusion, I think Agg AI is noticable more difficult in some cases. Let's face it on the high difficulty levels many players win only by rushing an nearby builder civilization, hopefully with many World Wonders. And, of course, on a small Pangaea map. That's harder. Agg AI is simply more detrimental to the favorite playstyle of many players, it's not really harder. If you adapt it actually seems to become easier.
MarkM
Cow Herder
Sorry about that. Glad you see the point. After I posted it I worried I didn't put it very clearly. Though you already get it, let me put it the other way I thought of it for people who might not: it sounds like the reason the AI "sucks" is not necessarily because each of the two implementations (normal and aggressive) "suck," but because people have figured out the optimal strategy to beat each, and know in advance to use it because they know which AI they are facing. So, I'm proposing, just have an option to randomize AI type (and better yet, do it on a leader-by-leader basis to further expand the variation). In other words, extend the "fog of war"/discovery process you get for terrain to also apply to rulers (you have to figure out what kind of opponents you have, instead of already knowing everything the moment you meet their first unit). Not only would this be impossible to "pre-script" an optimal strategy for, but it would also be more "realistic" (in the real world some are aggressive & some are not, simultaneously).Put like that, it might just work...Im not completely sure how it would play out in practice though as it really only takes one "wolf" among the sheep (any old nation with a 100% "i am going to be aggressive" mentality is just so powerful now they build so many more troops than a standard ai, and they often tend to produce a "snowball" effect, of vassal after vassal etc.")
But that said its still a nice idea
Btw, somehow you managed to quote Klokwerk instead of me, but no worries
Regarding the wolf & sheep, snowballing, etc -- I'm not sure I see that as a bad thing, as again IMO the goal should be variety of play experiences. A game where one militant leader (a Hitler) "snowballs" over less militant neighbors & you (a Churchill) are left almost alone to face this snowball would be an interesting flavor to have pop up every now & then. Granted, it would not make the players happy who like to play at a level where they can almost always win, but the whole point of what we're trying to do in this discussion is to get AWAY from predictability (some of us), that includes assurance that you'll probably win even before you start. the players who still want that can just leave this hypothetical option off.
kettyo
Seeker of Reality
'Better AI' doesn't suck because it's not worse than the previous one indeed it's really better.
It still has weeknesses though of course.
But way better than the warlords/vanilla AI.
An example the old AI attacked more or less with single units not stacks yeah THAT sucked too much...
I think Aggressive AI is better than the standard because AggAI needs less bonuses to have a competitive economy than the normal AI needs to have a competitive military.
But that's up to personal preference.
Useless to hassle about that IMO.
I think AI's should put more weight on founding religions.
I can easily grab 4 of the 7 with a non-spiritual civ with 8 AI's in.
It still has weeknesses though of course.
But way better than the warlords/vanilla AI.
An example the old AI attacked more or less with single units not stacks yeah THAT sucked too much...
I think Aggressive AI is better than the standard because AggAI needs less bonuses to have a competitive economy than the normal AI needs to have a competitive military.
But that's up to personal preference.
Useless to hassle about that IMO.
I think AI's should put more weight on founding religions.
I can easily grab 4 of the 7 with a non-spiritual civ with 8 AI's in.
DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
, hopefully one day we'll meet on Planet Earth 
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
You've got a damn cheek. You were the one who made with the insults instead of presenting arguments - it's there for all to read, go back to your first 3 posts and see who treated who badly.... i had an opposing point and you made loads of horsehockey little jibes at me because I didnt tow your line.
Funnily, I saw the same attitude in another thread from you - someone clearly posted a screenshot of something gone wrong - Rome in turn 300 ish with 3 pop, no buildings and no improvements.... you told them "That's not a bug"...... I'd like to see you try to claim that as being a productive outlook.... personally, I'd call it mindless fanboyism.
Anyway, my very first post (go back and check) says that this thread shouldn't have been titled with the word "sucks" - don't try to implicate me or the others who have disagreed with your "point" in something unrelated.
If Blake supports all that you said in this thread then either
a) He didnt read all you said because a lot of it was incorrect - and in fact totally contradicted what Blake has said in other threads.... unless Blake is contradicting himself.... which makes me wonder if anyone really knows what's going on
or
b) Is refusing to listen to feedback.... that's ok if you are doing it for the love of modding, but when your work is released in a product that is bought and paid for, then it's not a healthy attitude to ignore well thought out and written criticism.
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
I've played both Aggressive and Normal AI in BtS at the Monarch level. On Normal AI, they tech much more evenly with you, and actually, I've been out-teched and more threatened by Mansa Musa then I care to admit. On Aggressive AI, I built all of the wonders, and founded 3 religions, and eventually had a whole era tech advantage by the mid Industrial period. I was playing as the Dutch to boot, so, where do you think the aggressive AIs with the Industrious trait were dumping their production??? I saw waves of Axemen, Catapults, Crossbowmen, Horse Archers, and Pikemen, but only a few Musketmen and Knights...Why??? Because they had all managed to crash their economies so bad that they couldn't research better militaries.
I find the Normal AI is more adaptable, and more of a challenge if you're going for any victory other than Conquest or Domination.
The best I have ever done with an early Axe Rush with either AI setting is when I started between two civs, each within a 8 turn march from my capital. I managed to show up with 4 axemen one time vs. 1 bowman in a capital that was working on its settler after also building a worker. The other archer was out exploring...Boom...turned the stack toward the other civ, added a couple more axes to the stack (I did lose one to the archer...pitty that). Found that the other civ had actually managed to fortify two Archers, but was also still working on a settler after building a worker...result...Boom, lost 3 Axes, but took the city and wiped out the civ.
That was on Aggressive AI. Then, it was a matter of building a few more cities, and some mixed stack defenses and building and building, while the rest of the world plummeted into economic collapse due to military over burdening. No challenge there.
On the Normal AI game (I do not play Aggressive anymore...too easy to exploit, IMHO.) I was in a situation, where the civs were further away, so I decided not to rush them. Instead, I built 5 cities, forgoing Stonehenge and the Greatwall, and the Parthenon (I had wanted that one...bummer), but managed to build all of the other wonders. I'm playing as George Washington, maintaining diplomatic relations, spreading Christianity, and maximizing the use of the AP.
As to the OP...how would the AI know that they were being baited??? Did you think about what happened before you posted your rant? The AI is not a "learning" AI. Only a Human is intuitive enough to use past experience to consider that they may be being bated. Additionally, many of the problems legitimately posted, concerning corporations, and over militarization should be relatively easy fixes.
Do not play with Aggressive AI. Brad himself, as so cleverly pointed out by Spear, and others, claims quite clearly that it will be easier.
Besides, I think some of you are looking at this all wrong. Rather than congratulating yourself for finding a method to exploit the AI weeknesses, you are claiming that the AI sucks. Perhaps it is that you are too good of an exploiter for the level you are playing on, perhaps you should give yourself credit for how well you did.
Finally, I believe that there are Civ specific AI issues that none of you are considering really.
For example, the Celts have a UB which gives their units Garilla I as a free promo. The Gallic Warrior also gets Garilla I for free. This is a +25% def bonus on hilly terrain. The AI is over-valueing this asset. Additionally, the AI is guaging its attacking force (read this as the force that is actually in your borders) vs. your power graph and what it may/may not know of the forces closest to its attacking force. In the example with the Celtic invasion that went no-where, consider then that what actually happened was that the AI subroutine told it that its units would survive longer if they camped on your hill and would cost you more units in turn also camped on that hill, than if it managed to take your city.
What the Celts should have done was to raze your city and then hop back on their boats and then look for another soft target on your shores.
An AI is only as good as its programming.
How come no one is pointing out that the AI sees the Drill promotions as defensive promotions rather than being useful offensive promotions? No one is discussing why the AI favors beefing up its combat strength promotion over any other promotion.
On the flip side...some AIs favor better than others IMHO. Zara Yaqob, Mansa Musa, Louis the XIV, and either Asoka/Ghandi, all do consistently well. Notice that these are also what you might consider the more well-rounded civs. Thos civs that are very aggressive or very peaceful tend not to do well. So there are multiple factors with this AI issue to resolve.
I find the Normal AI is more adaptable, and more of a challenge if you're going for any victory other than Conquest or Domination.
The best I have ever done with an early Axe Rush with either AI setting is when I started between two civs, each within a 8 turn march from my capital. I managed to show up with 4 axemen one time vs. 1 bowman in a capital that was working on its settler after also building a worker. The other archer was out exploring...Boom...turned the stack toward the other civ, added a couple more axes to the stack (I did lose one to the archer...pitty that). Found that the other civ had actually managed to fortify two Archers, but was also still working on a settler after building a worker...result...Boom, lost 3 Axes, but took the city and wiped out the civ.
That was on Aggressive AI. Then, it was a matter of building a few more cities, and some mixed stack defenses and building and building, while the rest of the world plummeted into economic collapse due to military over burdening. No challenge there.
On the Normal AI game (I do not play Aggressive anymore...too easy to exploit, IMHO.) I was in a situation, where the civs were further away, so I decided not to rush them. Instead, I built 5 cities, forgoing Stonehenge and the Greatwall, and the Parthenon (I had wanted that one...bummer), but managed to build all of the other wonders. I'm playing as George Washington, maintaining diplomatic relations, spreading Christianity, and maximizing the use of the AP.
As to the OP...how would the AI know that they were being baited??? Did you think about what happened before you posted your rant? The AI is not a "learning" AI. Only a Human is intuitive enough to use past experience to consider that they may be being bated. Additionally, many of the problems legitimately posted, concerning corporations, and over militarization should be relatively easy fixes.
Do not play with Aggressive AI. Brad himself, as so cleverly pointed out by Spear, and others, claims quite clearly that it will be easier.
Besides, I think some of you are looking at this all wrong. Rather than congratulating yourself for finding a method to exploit the AI weeknesses, you are claiming that the AI sucks. Perhaps it is that you are too good of an exploiter for the level you are playing on, perhaps you should give yourself credit for how well you did.
Finally, I believe that there are Civ specific AI issues that none of you are considering really.
For example, the Celts have a UB which gives their units Garilla I as a free promo. The Gallic Warrior also gets Garilla I for free. This is a +25% def bonus on hilly terrain. The AI is over-valueing this asset. Additionally, the AI is guaging its attacking force (read this as the force that is actually in your borders) vs. your power graph and what it may/may not know of the forces closest to its attacking force. In the example with the Celtic invasion that went no-where, consider then that what actually happened was that the AI subroutine told it that its units would survive longer if they camped on your hill and would cost you more units in turn also camped on that hill, than if it managed to take your city.
What the Celts should have done was to raze your city and then hop back on their boats and then look for another soft target on your shores.
An AI is only as good as its programming.
How come no one is pointing out that the AI sees the Drill promotions as defensive promotions rather than being useful offensive promotions? No one is discussing why the AI favors beefing up its combat strength promotion over any other promotion.
On the flip side...some AIs favor better than others IMHO. Zara Yaqob, Mansa Musa, Louis the XIV, and either Asoka/Ghandi, all do consistently well. Notice that these are also what you might consider the more well-rounded civs. Thos civs that are very aggressive or very peaceful tend not to do well. So there are multiple factors with this AI issue to resolve.
Seidrik_The_Gray
Seidrik The Gray
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,160
This and that bit about the AI treating the human as another AI, vs. ganging up on the human is what I pray Blake was referring to.
I can at least agree with him on the above points.
However, I submit that the Aggressive AI is easier to defeat and that this has been proven several times over, but that fact does not negate the veracity of the above comments.
Facing a skilled and war-mongering human with increasingly larger stacks of increasingly more outdated units does not make conquering the world harder, just more time-consuming.
I would also like to add that Blake should also seriously consider adjusting how much cash the AI dumps into military support.
Maestro_Innit
Warlord
I think y'all should lay off the coffee and play sommat else for a bit.
IT'S A GAME PEOPLE
Crikey. I have to say that the thread started with a terrible and deeply unjustified title and has decended into utter rubbish. If I were Blake, I'd be offended by some stuff that's been written and never post again.
IT'S A GAME PEOPLE
Crikey. I have to say that the thread started with a terrible and deeply unjustified title and has decended into utter rubbish. If I were Blake, I'd be offended by some stuff that's been written and never post again.
Or give agg AI Research bonuses so it can research faster. Is there a way to adjust the AI research cost?
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I'm glad to see another logical response.
This is exactly what people are trying to get at..... we are not whining about it being hard (as some would be so happy to continually infer).... what we are seeing from play experience is that with Aggressive AI on, it becomes easier to win the game - you can practically choose whichever condition you want to win by and go for it..... no other AI is going to compete with you on those goals!
The other AI are all either a) Going to go for a militaristic goal or b) Hampered by the need to maintain a much larger standing army.
As the human, you are immediately in a better strategic position because you work constantly throughout the game to deal with the first (i.e. you spam units right back) and b) The human can maintain two opposing strategies.... they can specialise a few cities to whack out troops very quickly and keep a few cities to run the economy and other specialised cities to run for tech or GP's.
All it's doing is favouring the human - yes the human still needs to play well, but I doubt that anyone would want to play AGG AI or higher levels if they couldnt already play well.
However, given that the AI becomes FAR FAR less competetive on the other elements that can lead to victories in Civ, I don't see why it is being touted as "more challenging"..... it's by definition less challenging as in the complexity of the game - it is just more challenging to stay alive.
Reducing the challenge to 1 gambit is great when you want to play militaristically.... but you are seriously hampering the AI if you are aiming to win a non-militaristic victory condition.
Stacking the cards is not something I find challenging.
I think y'all should lay off the coffee and play sommat else for a bit.
IT'S A GAME PEOPLE
Crikey. I have to say that the thread started with a terrible and deeply unjustified title and has decended into utter rubbish. If I were Blake, I'd be offended by some stuff that's been written and never post again.
So right. No wonder he never posts here anymore.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Here comes the troll again.
Please read as: I don't know how to counter logical arguments, I need to either misquote a thread or rely on insults to defend my tenuous grasp on the objections being made here.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I expect he never posts here because he is busy.... certainly I can't imagine him only posting where people like you try to metaphorically suck him off every 5 seconds.....
What's really classic is that you.... and I can quote you if you like..... made serious objections to an earlier build of Blake's better Ai..... all but demanding rudely that Blake do something about it...
Of course, they were YOUR objections so they were valid - the other's making valid, logical objections here dont count do they?
If you stopped making such trolling posts, ignoring others and presenting your opinions as facts, insulting and demeaning people and taking the high horse, "we" (the group of "friends" that has never spoken to each other prior to this thread) would be a lot less aggressive with you.....
