BtS WAY to easy???

[jihe]

That's the whole point, that is not how *you* play, but that is how *Alex* should play. A good game of civ should not be you doing whatever you like, you should be forced to deal with your neighbors, and if Alex is your neighbor you better have some darn good defense.

It's not how I play. I don't build up a big pile of troops and then decide whether to attack with them based on my neighbor's power formula.

But I also don't want the AIs to play like humans. Again, whether that's a good thing or not depends entirely on personal preference. I like the fact that they have diplomatic attitudes, and ways of relating to the human and each other, that can be manipulated, and are part of the game.

 

[GenocideBringer]

It doesn't make it unit spam...It makes the civs more unique. Yes, believe it or not, Montezuma IS going to try to conquer . .. .. .. .! From what I've read, BTS aggressive AI doesn't mean that peaceful AIs start attacking....they just know to defend themselves from the more aggressive AIs and players.

This is excellent. Oh, you want a more peaceful buildup, you say? Then be diplomatic and avoid wars when possible. You are still being slowed down because you are being forced to have a standing army as a deterrant to war...which is good. It doesn't mean you're necessarily fighting with those units, it means you are slowed down, making the AI stronger.

Really, if you are that desperate to play SimCity with Civ IV, then just use the worldbuilder to remove enemy stacks coming at you, or start the game with a bunch of non-aggressive civs. Or, simply set "Always Peace" in game options.

It's not how I play. I don't build up a big pile of troops and then decide whether to attack with them based on my neighbor's power formula.

That's not what the AI does either. The AI will only attack you if you are

a) Weak and

b) if that Civ is a militaristic civ or really pissed off at you.

You SHOULD have a good amount of troops as defense in case you are attacked and to deter enemies from declaring war on you in the first place. You aren't playing in a vaccum, you are supposed to be forced to react to your neighbors' actions. If your neighbor has his eyes set on your land, then damnit you should be ready to defend it.


Again, if you want a peaceful game, use

a) WB to delete enemy troops,

b) Game settings for Always Peace

 

[DaviddesJ]

That's the whole point, that is not how *you* play, but that is how *Alex* should play. A good game of civ should not be you doing whatever you like, you should be forced to deal with your neighbors, and if Alex is your neighbor you better have some darn good defense.

There's a whole lot of "shoulds" in there. Who appointed you king?

 

[jihe]

No one. I am just stating my opinion. And I think a lot of people would agree that Alex should be aggressive and try to take over his neighbors. And if you disagree then at least give some reasons instead of taking a potshot.

There's a whole lot of "shoulds" in there. Who appointed you king?

 

[DaviddesJ]

And if you disagree then at least give some reasons instead of taking a potshot.

I gave my reasons for liking it otherwise, in the very posting that you quoted (#81 above). I also said it's a matter of personal preference. You then told me that the game "should" be some different way than what I prefer, and I "should" not have the option that I prefer. Why not?

"A good game of civ should not be you doing whatever you like." I don't think that's an accurate characterization of vanilla Civ4, but suppose it were. Suppose I like it that way. Who are you to say I "should" like something different?

 

[FrancisMarion]

Look all the Aggressive AI groupies are saying is

You find BTS too easy? Try the Aggressive AI feature. It's been designed to make the AI more competitive. It knows how to protect itself better from the player while at the same time posing a greater threat to the player.

Aggressive AI is not about mindless unit spam. Yes the AI builds more units, but it also actually uses them intelligently rather than building up a large military it never uses.

Aggressive AI is not about eliminating the importance of diplomacy. In fact, diplomacy is far more important in Aggressive AI games because the AI poses a much greater risk to the player.

Yes it's not for everybody but to complain about BTS being too easy while at the same time not using a feature that's DESIGNED to make the AI more competitive seems silly to me.

 

[frob2900]

Aggressive AI is not about eliminating the importance of diplomacy. In fact, diplomacy is far more important in Aggressive AI games because the AI poses a much greater risk to the player.

Yes it's not for everybody but to complain about BTS being too easy while at the same time not using a feature that's DESIGNED to make the AI more competitive seems silly to me.

Yes. Like I posted above, that seems to be Blake's sentiments as well. If aggressive AI makes the AI "tougher" in war without penalizing the player specifically (like was done in Warlords), then I suppose it's a useful option.

On the flipside, many people probably feel its a "special setting", so I don't know how consensus can be reached..

(Personally I guess I'd choose Aggressive AI for a challenge, and leave the AI at normal when I'm a bit sleepy and just want to play idly)

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Even though I still always use aggressive ais, I actually call the setting "suicidal ais" because that's a more accurate description in my experience. I totally understand that many people hate the idea completely, and I think all they are asking, is for a "difficult" game, where they don't either have to unit spam or die.

Myself, Im just about past caring on the subject.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yes it's not for everybody but to complain about BTS being too easy while at the same time not using a feature that's DESIGNED to make the AI more competitive seems silly to me.

The feature is designed to make the game more difficult.

Always War also makes the game more difficult. Does that mean that anyone who doesn't use the Always War option shouldn't complain that the game without it is too easy?

One City Challenge also makes the game more difficult. Does that mean that anyone who doesn't use the One City Challenge option shouldn't complain that the game without it is too easy?

I think no one questions that the Aggressive AI makes the game more difficult. However it seems perfectly reasonable to ask for the difficulty options that existed in all previous versions of Civ4, and cost nothing to implement, for people who don't want to make the game more difficult in that particular way.

There seems to be a contingent of people who feel the Aggressive AI is the "right" way, or the "best" way, to make the game more difficult, and everyone "should" play the game that way. Those are value judgments that different people will have different views on, because different people enjoy different aspects of Civ4 play.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yes. Like I posted above, that seems to be Blake's sentiments as well.

Blake also says in that thread that he's convinced that the "Normal AI" does need some more help at higher difficulty levels, apart from making it more aggressive.

So it seems he's not entirely on the side of those who say, "If you aren't playing Aggressive AI then you have no reason to complain about difficulty."

 

[jihe]

If you are happy the way it is then that's fine.

I gave my reasons for liking it otherwise, in the very posting that you quoted (#81 above). I also said it's a matter of personal preference. You then told me that the game "should" be some different way than what I prefer, and I "should" not have the option that I prefer. Why not?

"A good game of civ should not be you doing whatever you like." I don't think that's an accurate characterization of vanilla Civ4, but suppose it were. Suppose I like it that way. Who are you to say I "should" like something different?

 

[DaviddesJ]

If you are happy the way it is then that's fine. But who is the one that complains that AI techs too slowly and wants more handicaps?

I liked the way it was in Warlords. In BtS, they dramatically reduced the handicaps that the AI gets, but, unless you turn on Aggressive AI, the AI is now too weak.

Blake seems to say that he's going to make the "Normal AI" more challenging at higher difficulty levels, without being so Aggressive. So it may be that the problem is already in hand.

 

[frob2900]

So it seems he's not entirely on your side when it comes to "If you aren't playing Aggressive AI then you have no reason to complain about difficulty."

Side? What "side" am I on? I am quite willing to discuss both points-of-view on the issue, and I have indeed done so throughout the thread

 

[Ankh]

The options for a more difficult game are there you just have to use them.

To easy guarding your cities with warriors while teching 100% to rifles play with aggressive AI.

To easy tech trade abusing just to be able to keep up, play with no tech brokering or better no tech trade (i feel the default tech trading in the game is far to easy for a human player to abuse.)

To easy to predict how the AI will play? Use random personalities.

The options are there you just have to use them to make the game challenging enough for you.

I whouldn't call standard/continents/normal speed/agressive ai/random personalities/no tech trading/no reloading game easy on emperor but hey maybe thats just me?.

 

[Quornix]

The feature is designed to make the game more difficult.

Always War also makes the game more difficult. Does that mean that anyone who doesn't use the Always War option shouldn't complain that the game without it is too easy?

One City Challenge also makes the game more difficult. Does that mean that anyone who doesn't use the One City Challenge option shouldn't complain that the game without it is too easy?

I think no one questions that the Aggressive AI makes the game more difficult. However it seems perfectly reasonable to ask for the difficulty options that existed in all previous versions of Civ4, and cost nothing to implement, for people who don't want to make the game more difficult in that particular way.

There seems to be a contingent of people who feel the Aggressive AI is the "right" way, or the "best" way, to make the game more difficult, and everyone "should" play the game that way. Those are value judgments that different people will have different views on, because different people enjoy different aspects of Civ4 play.

Aggressive AI is not the "special" setting. Oh yeah, it has a checkbox next to it, and it's not automatic. But the guy who designed the AI has indicated that, if he hadn't been too busy with everything else, he'd have made it the default, and added a "Peaceful AI" setting. When you play without Aggressive AI, you are playing a version of the game that Blake said was made "wussier" to satisfy the "whines" of people who don't like unit spam.

We aren't pulling this opinion out of thin air.

Suppose that, rather than giving the AI massive bonuses, the AI instead kept only a skeleton army, and invested much more of their time and effort on research. At high levels, they'd be able to out-tech you, but I bet you'd get over your dislike of constant warfare in a hurry, and instead focus on attacking them, even if it cost you the tech lead. Why shouldn't the AI do the same?

If what you want is bigger and bigger speedbumps on the road to victory, then I guess that Peaceful AI with changed XML settings is for you, but I'd rather have opponents.

[EDIT] I also think that people don't want to drop down a level or two to deal with the Aggressive AI. They want to feel like they are still Immortal players, or whatever, rather than have to step up their game.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Blake's got it wrong. Aggressive AI is actually weaker than the normal one.

For starters, selecting war as the focus for the AI is the worst possible choice, as coding effective warring for the AI depends on so many variables (map, tactics, production, diplomacy, etc) it makes the space race code look elementary. Basically, the aggressive AI is targeted at the human players most advantegous skill.

On top of that, BtS changed the siege units in a way the AI apprently cannot comprehend, botching the AI's offensive power because it brings too much siege.

Worst of all, however, is that the normal AI and the aggressive AI even more so leave the human player the tech lead. I'm astounded at the ease I become the tech leader even on "normal AI" deity! As the aggressive AI keeps more troops and tech slower, the human player tech lead is guaranteed.

So? They would still stomp me, right? Well, wrong. Tech lead is the single most powerful diplomacy tool. It's so easy to bribe the AIs to war against each other now.

Here's what happened in my last deity game: Bismark sneak attacks a city of mine (1 axe garrison) with 8 units. I whip a longbow and my two units successfully defend the city because Bis has five catapults and only three combative units. While in theory Bis is a major AI power with a huge army, in practice he does not have Machinery, and soon my Heroic Epic city (specialized in military production beyond the AI ability) is pumping maces that turn the tide and I capture a German city. At this point, about 500 AD (?!?) I become the second civilization to discover Paper. On the next turn, I bribe Ceaser, Churchill, and Brennus to attack Bismark. Needless to say, soon my diplo bonuses are insane, with mutual military struggle and fair trade to the maximum. I have all the AIs where I want them.

In this example, we can see all of the "advantages" of being an aggressive and belligerent AI: such as overwhelming numbers and sneak attacks. They aren't worth much to superior technology, tactics, and diplomacy.

Not to base my case on one game, here's another one I played because of this thread. Someone wrote he finds aggressive Emperor impossible so I played it a bit. Had France and Korea on my continent, conquered most of France, Korea did nothing. We even had barbarian states on the continent past the 1 AD. Then I retired to see how the other continent was doing, turns around they were all peaceful and backwards.

Imagine that we had the option "Tech AI" instead of "Aggressive AI". I'd be a lot more worried when not on a pangea (which I rarely get from fractal map anyway).

 

[Unconquered Sun]

By the way, was BtS beta-tested? Blake does know some of the best players around (i.e. acidsatyr's succession team). Anyone?

 

[Snaaty]

I haven´t too much BtS experience and I don´t want to continue discussing about the "agressive AI setting" without trying it out myself now. But I´m slightly biased towards Unconquered Sun opinion, because what he describes is quite the way I always used to play quite successful on vanilla/warlords...

get a tech lead, be prepared to whip/upgrade some units in case of emergency, have one or two highly producitive cities, NEVER neglect diplo:

tech-lead + clever diplo = in the previous version at least, this was saver then tons of units (as he has described in his post)

EDIT:

@ Unconquered Sun:

Maybe post a save from the games you descirbed above, because it will really SHOW how backwards the AI even on deity is...

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Considering your 99% guaranteed victory save got bashed by people who don't understand how deity plays out, I hereby prefer to avoid flaming on posts like "Owww, Churchill has twice your cities. It's unwinnable!" Suffice to say the said largest AI empire has no Code of Laws in 760 AD on normal deity.

 

[Ruler]

I played my first game on Emperor with aggressive AI and I must say AI teched even slower so what if AI builds more units, make a couple military town more in fact this was better for me as I've always liked to defend my empire even for the cost of victory usually my second town start to pump out units immediately. Basically, build a little bigger army, take a tech-lead, bribe AI to kill each other and capture cities with advanced units. Not fun. I'm going to try Immortal next.