That's really bad. I think the AI has its priorities mixed up, I don't think just the handicap costs could account for this
BtS WAY to easy???
- Thread starter Snaaty
- Start date
That's really bad. I think the AI has its priorities mixed up, I don't think just the handicap costs could account for this
MrCynical
Deity
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the OP that BtS, under either AI setting, is a lot easier than vanilla or Warlords. Under normal AI the AI civs are teching about two difficulty levels slower than they were pre-BtS, and most of them seize up completely somewhere in the industrial age. The most likely culprit is the huge obsolete unit stacks the AI maintains, but espionage and corporation mis-management may also be a factor.
Aggressive AI is if anything even weaker. The AI just builds a stack of ancient/classical age units and tries to invade its neighbour. Unit upkeep results in an even slower tech pace. At emperor level, in a game where I've deliberately restricted myself to a small land area, I shouldn't be able to complete the tech tree before any other civ gets techs like fission or rocketry. Only two of them even had medicine! Aggressive AI increases the chance of you losing to an early rush, but if you survive to the renaissance in any decent shape, the game is over.
Aggressive AI is if anything even weaker. The AI just builds a stack of ancient/classical age units and tries to invade its neighbour. Unit upkeep results in an even slower tech pace. At emperor level, in a game where I've deliberately restricted myself to a small land area, I shouldn't be able to complete the tech tree before any other civ gets techs like fission or rocketry. Only two of them even had medicine! Aggressive AI increases the chance of you losing to an early rush, but if you survive to the renaissance in any decent shape, the game is over.
)
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
While the AI techs slower, I am not sure it's easier to win. Please see my monarch post for some of my reasons. The AI seams to try for domination wins, not just a marauding maniac. They try cultural so you could lose the space race. and i found the AI can catchup quickly. Now maybe I am not that good of a player, but to the average CIV player the game is more balanced.
MrCynical
Deity
madscientist said:
It's true the AI goes other victories now, which is nice to see (we've only been telling them it should do this since the day after Civ 4 was released...), OK you can win Cultural with an early tech stagnation, but none of the AI's were that close (maybe 3 cities at 30000 on epic) by the time I won a very leisurely space race.
I'm pretty impressed at this thread; often these turn into arguments between people convinced there is one correct play style for Civ vs. others, and that has been relatively minimal.
I am impressed at all of the settings to increase difficulty, so I'm not sure why people have internal issues against using them unless there is some subconcious desire to be able to compare ones' self to other players. If that's the case, I recommend MP; a truly devilish and fun experience if you are looking for cutthroat nastiness!
I remember when Blake's AI came out there were people who seriously thought that the AI bonuses should be reduced so that the difficulty levels could be more comparable to the normal game. That made no sense to me, but some people had serious issues having to drop a level to play competitively and didn't want to use the AI without it.
I have no problems admitting that I'm playing on Prince and having a challenge doing so! I'm having to re-learn unit tactics, and am not using aggressive AI yet.
Some people enjoy figuring out the system to its details, others like the immersion/role playing aspect and don't necessarily take advantage of of the simulation/modelling part to optimize their behaviors. I don't think arguing correctness is appropriate; rather it is a testament to the vast play experience Civ4 can provide!
I am impressed at all of the settings to increase difficulty, so I'm not sure why people have internal issues against using them unless there is some subconcious desire to be able to compare ones' self to other players. If that's the case, I recommend MP; a truly devilish and fun experience if you are looking for cutthroat nastiness!
I remember when Blake's AI came out there were people who seriously thought that the AI bonuses should be reduced so that the difficulty levels could be more comparable to the normal game. That made no sense to me, but some people had serious issues having to drop a level to play competitively and didn't want to use the AI without it.
I have no problems admitting that I'm playing on Prince and having a challenge doing so! I'm having to re-learn unit tactics, and am not using aggressive AI yet.
Some people enjoy figuring out the system to its details, others like the immersion/role playing aspect and don't necessarily take advantage of of the simulation/modelling part to optimize their behaviors. I don't think arguing correctness is appropriate; rather it is a testament to the vast play experience Civ4 can provide!
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
Funny, in my game Ramses II remaining legendary city candidate was at 110,000 (the other 2 were trashed by Cyrus) before I even got Apollo. I am sure he would have won a cultural victory before I launched the spaceship, and he was too far away to realistically invade. The game was marathon/huge maps.
I think there are basically two sides of the BtS dillemma, which both are true because of the following reasons:
1. The BtS AI is better then all other Civ AI´s
2. The AI gets a production bonus depending on dif level
3. The bonuses from the AI for upkeep, upgrade and inflation are no longer level dependend but have been flattened (around ex monarch level)
...
If you put this together (with or without aggressive AI) you get the following two scenarios:
Monarch level or lower:
Better AI+ normal AI production + moderate change in costs for upkeep, upgrade and inflation for AI
THIS CAN EVEN RESULT IN BETTER AI PERFORMANCE around this levels
Which is good and doesn´t need to be changed
...
Emperor or higher:
Better AI+ high AI production bonuses + way higher costs for upkeep, upgrade and inflation for AI then before
AI A builds lots of units, runs out of money, research slows down. AI B upgrades swords to maces runs broke, but his power rises, AI A has to build even more outdated troops to keep up. Then B has to build more troops and so on...
The higer the level, the worse this gets because of the huge production the AI can muster
THE AI`S LITTERALLY PRODUCE THEMSELVES TO DEATH...
Around 500 AD, the research of the AI on immortal or deity might very well be worse then on monarch, because with every turn played (and every unit build/upgraded) things get worse
Here is the problem, this must be changed (and some more beta testing would have been nice)
1. The BtS AI is better then all other Civ AI´s
2. The AI gets a production bonus depending on dif level
3. The bonuses from the AI for upkeep, upgrade and inflation are no longer level dependend but have been flattened (around ex monarch level)
...
If you put this together (with or without aggressive AI) you get the following two scenarios:
Monarch level or lower:
Better AI+ normal AI production + moderate change in costs for upkeep, upgrade and inflation for AI
THIS CAN EVEN RESULT IN BETTER AI PERFORMANCE around this levels
Which is good and doesn´t need to be changed
...
Emperor or higher:
Better AI+ high AI production bonuses + way higher costs for upkeep, upgrade and inflation for AI then before
AI A builds lots of units, runs out of money, research slows down. AI B upgrades swords to maces runs broke, but his power rises, AI A has to build even more outdated troops to keep up. Then B has to build more troops and so on...
The higer the level, the worse this gets because of the huge production the AI can muster
THE AI`S LITTERALLY PRODUCE THEMSELVES TO DEATH...
Around 500 AD, the research of the AI on immortal or deity might very well be worse then on monarch, because with every turn played (and every unit build/upgraded) things get worse
Here is the problem, this must be changed (and some more beta testing would have been nice)
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I would say monarch+ and prince- The AI is much worse on monarch than before. I'm not sure if production is as MUCH of a factor as on immortal/deity but there are certainly aggressors with larger power graphs early that are tech-backwards mid-to-late game.
I think espionage has to be considered as part of the problem as well and possibly poor tech decisions and poor empire-development (e.g., commerce-city specialization)
I think espionage has to be considered as part of the problem as well and possibly poor tech decisions and poor empire-development (e.g., commerce-city specialization)
The espionage issue has been addressed (but to what extent, I cannot say) in the latest version of Solver's patch. Perhaps that will help out?
You must remember that the AI bonuses is heavily nerfed in bts so its no surprise the AI performs worse.
I'm curios how hard is it to win for you guys without tech trading enabled?. Then you can't bribe the AI to fight eachother as easy and cant trade yourself to a tech lead as well.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
The bonuses were nerfed on par with Monarch in Warlords. I am playing on Monarch in BtS. So, it should feel the same, right? But it doesn't.
Also, tech trading is not the issue. I self-research the entire tech tree from medieval onwards. The AI doesn't tech fast enough for me to MAKE any trades. Frankly I could self-research the entire tech tree no problem.
Incorrect, I'm afraid.
At my BtS machine again, so here is the XML comparison:
BTS AI BONUSES- MONARCH
Spoiler :
WARLORDS AI BONUSES - MONARCH
Spoiler :
The important differences are: Unit Upkeep and Upgrade values are up to over twice their original value, and the Inflation value is up by over half. So the BtS Monarch AI bonuses have indeed been nerfed compared to Warlords.
I don't think it's as simple as the reduction of unit upgrade handicaps or inflation. CoL comes before either would have any effect anyway and the AI kept the same base tech cost/production bonuses as Warlords didn't it? I think the slow tech rate is simply because it's working too many mines and too few cottages.
Also we have the broken corporation maintenance in industrial age, but that's going to be fixed.
Also we have the broken corporation maintenance in industrial age, but that's going to be fixed.
AFAIK there is no special tech cost modifier for the AI in the XML. I haven't looked at the AI behaviour code, so I can't say if their preference for CoL has been lowered.
The broken corporation cost (i.e. AFAIK the coupling to inflation) has been fixed in Solver's patch.
[EDIT]
The tech data for code of laws in CIV4TechInfos.xml (which amog other things controls how much an asset the AI thinks it is) is unchanged between Warlords and BtS.
Or rather, since the tech costs for the human are increased on higher levels the AIs pay less relatively than the human does.
Thing is people complained that the AI expanded and went tech crazy with too little defence and that was exploitable, now they complain that the AI builds too much defence and techs too slowly and this is exploitable in a different way. There's a balance somewhere between the two extremes.
No. The tech costs per difficulty level (as controlled by the iResearchPercent flag in CIV4HandicapInfo.xml) are unchanged between Warlords and BtS.
DaviddesJ
Deity
I don't think he said exactly that. But I agree that Blake is generally on your side, he thinks a good way to make Civ4 more difficult is to make the AIs more aggressive and more "human-like". I don't. So it's not surprising that I come to different conclusions than you or him about what makes for the most interesting and enjoyable game.
Come on. This makes no sense. People are asking for the game to be harder so that they don't have to drop down in level??
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
I believe I've mentioned it many times before, but rather than trying to write an optimal AI strategy, just do what Blizzards do. Review online games, then tell the AI to do (approximately) the same. Especially build orders. I'd admit, though, that war strategy is very hard to program.
Similar threads
- Sticky
