BtS WAY to easy???

[madscientist]

Well, as I posted over at RB, I've one exactly one out of the five Immortal games I played with BTS, compared to somewhere around 2/3 win rate in Warlords 2.08. In all five games, even the one I won, the AI teched much better than 2.08. I've noticed that sometimes the AI has trouble with certain types of terrain, especially on Emperor where it doesn't start with a Worker anymore. Its odd, hopefully there will be more consistency after the changes going into the next patch. It reminds me a bit of the Better AI mod development, only now there are a lot more testers giving feedback .

Darrell

What size and type of map? Was the setup snug or was there room to expand alot?

 

[DrJambo]

The financial civs always seem to tech well, even in BtS. In fact they usually represent the biggest challenge. The warmongering AIs tend to build too many units which invariably get outdated by the time they want to use them.

If they're concentrating on building large numbers of units then they should put them to some use, so that the newer units they build are more modern. The AI has never been good at maintaining a sizeable treasury and therefore even upgrades at 50% cost will represent a problem for most AI civs.

However, I do not want to see another Warlords where the AI was only made more 'good' by giving it horrendous tech bonuses. These resulted in a monotonous gameplay, where conducting warfare was the only way to keep pace. When I play BtS at Monarch level I do feel I'm playing varied games from one game to the next. In some the AI does tech fast, in others, not so fast.

Whatever they do to tweak BtS, I pray they don't make it into another tech-obsessed Warlords.

 

[futurehermit]

Whatever they do to tweak BtS, I pray they don't make it into another tech-obsessed Warlords.

I agree. I want warmongerers to be good at war and dangerous that way. I want them to sometimes win dom victories on me. I want religious nuts to pursue cultural victories and to win sometimes (I had Issy win one on me once so far, which is good). I want tech nuts to RACE me in the space race. I want some leaders to prefer diplo victories and to beeline mass media and work on diplomatic relations.

I would also like to see this without giving the AI large cheat-bonuses.

But then again it IS the AI so there will always be limitations unfortunately. The game is complex and AI ain't human intelligence.

What I'd like is to see more of the aggressors coded like Shaka (who can actually fight wars!) and more of the techies coded like Mansa/Gandhi (who can actually give you a run for your money in the space race). Too many of the average-joe AIs just never end up doing ANYTHING and I think they need to be given a preferred victory condition that they actually try to pursue when the circumstances are good enough. Too many AIs just sit back and don't really develop to do anything.

 

[frob2900]

What I'd like is to see more of the aggressors coded like Shaka (who can actually fight wars!) and more of the techies coded like Mansa/Gandhi (who can actually give you a run for your money in the space race). Too many of the average-joe AIs just never end up doing ANYTHING and I think they need to be given a preferred victory condition that they actually try to pursue when the circumstances are good enough. Too many AIs just sit back and don't really develop to do anything.

I actually thought this already back in the Warlords days!

One of my favorite masochistic pastimes was playing against 3 shakas and 3 mansas. Jesus H. Christ was that a headache (make them 3 teams with a shaka+mansa each and you have the closest approximation to Purgatory that Civ can offer)

 

[darrelljs]

What size and type of map? Was the setup snug or was there room to expand alot?

Fractal/Standard/Epic. If memory serves, three of the games were fairly peaceful expansion and two were rushes (one a dismal failure against Tokugawa). I dunno...it is entirely possible I just played poorly, it happens. But I figure losing 4/5 is enough to spot a trend. In all the games the AI was beating me in tech.

Darrell

 

[DrJambo]

It is already in BtS too. I had a game starting beside Shaka and he just wouldn't leave me alone throughout the game. He declared war on me about 3 times and it would've continued like this indefinitely, so I eventually decided to remove him permanently from the continent we started on. Then he pestered someone else...

 

[Snaaty]

Some more feeback to this subject from my recent game (still running):

I play again on continents and happened to be on the big one this time. I switched aggressive AI on but ended up with 3 financial AI´s... ...but now comes the good news:

a) They are actually doing quite fine in research (I will be first to lib around 1000 AD, but quite close)

b) They have build WAY less units then in my last two games

c) The AI city placement has really changed, they keep their cities closer togheter and the human player has more room to expand early on (with some blocking cities, I managed to build 9 or 10 cities)

d) The non agressive AI´s really don´t do much backstabbing even with aggressive AI switched on (only one war going on so far on my conti, I wasn´t involved)

e) keeping a decent amount of defenders really slows down (I tried not to fall below 50% of AI power and kept building troops all game so far in one or two cities, something like 25-30 units I would guess I have right now), but against the financial civs the slower tech speed seems right

f) I like some of the new wonders (Statue of Zeus, The Mausoleum). Esp. the Mausoleum really changed gameplay, beause now golden ages are better then lightbulbing

...

I think the problem are mainly the warmongers, because all others simply have to build massive stacks of troops to keep up, and that might slow them down to a halt if a warmonger is near

I can e-Mail the current save again for posting if someone is interrested...

 

[gettingfat]

Yesterday I played a really odd game (hemisphere map, standard size and speed, monarch, default aggressiveness, using Solver's patch) I've got 3 relatively peaceful AIs (Mansa, Huayna, Charlemagne) on the same continent. I played Oranjie and tried to play a peaceful game this time. It turns out to be a nightmare game eventually.

Huayna was able to spread Hinuduism to everybody so everybody is friend to each other. It suddenly went back to the good old Warlord tech club time. I won the liberalism race, but out of no where Huayna suddenly took off. I realized he was basically at 3-4 turns per tech. In 20 turns or so my tech lead dissipated and fell behind by about 3 techs. Huayna's land has more resources, rivers and hills than mine, which is flat all the way. He built wonder after wonder using his industrious trait. His holy shrine was funding his research like crazy. I didn't see too many CE so I think he's actually running a good SE. Another 20 turns I had to admit I couldn't beat him anyway, even playing Dutch I'm supposed to out-tech others.

So my conclusion is, as long as the AIs are committed to play a peaceful game (in this game Huayna didn't feel threatened at all because of all his friends), they can still out-tech you in BtS if you hold similar number of cities as them. In a normal BtS the AIs feel threatened and get distracted to unit stockpiling and meaningless espionage. If Firaxis fixes this aspect, I don't think they need to throw the AI bonus back.

 

[Via]

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).

100% agree with this
AI's best power is Space Race
warring is a AI weakness as well as cultural

Maybe extra garrison for culture cities, and longer run for Culture Victory with science slider instead of turnig of the research would be better for AI. Culture slider only for last 30 turns or so.

 

[madscientist]

My current game, Monarch/huge big/little map/marathon speed. Roosevelt. Using solvers patch.

On a continent with Brennus and he is friendly (both Hindu/OR). Ragnar is on a continent to myself but next to us and within gally reach, he is the only agressive AI in the game. All the other AIs are buddhist and on a mega continent.

Bottom line is the AI is teching just fine, maybe slightly slower than Warlords but it is not broken. I beat the AI to liberalism, but not by that much arround 1200 AD.

 

[Bast]

Gave BtS a second try last night after I had aborted my first game (immortal), this time on deity... ...I picked England, so I could better compare it to the game I´m actually running on warlords here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230955

...the result wasn´t very good either, althoug I´m VERY far of beeing any good in BtS (like I said, was only my second try, so I didn´t build any of the new wonders, discovered the espionage sceen about 10 turns before I quit):

I was on the big conti with Alex, Huyn and Wash. Alex and Wash decided to go to an early war, in which I joined for obvious reasons on Alex´s side (he was my direct neighbour...)

Not much barb activity either... ...I survided earlygame without bronze and horses, my first strat resource was iron...

I managed to block off more land as usuall (I think I ended up with 9 cities) and used some more units for show(but not much more...) to avoid beeing dogpiled in my farest borderland city

Around 400 AD, I could have reached lib, but I delayed it until around 1000 AD, because the AI´s were teching that slow... ...(I picked rifling as feebee from lib btw)

Alex and Wash not even had Guilds at that time (Wash not even CoL, and CS and Machinery he only had because I gifted it to him, to survive the war agains Alex...), Huyn was doing better, but mainly because I traded exclusively with him (he was friendly) and did some quite ridiculous trades (like printing press for guilds, edu. for banking)

...

Aborted game again... ...not much fun in slaughtering harchers, pikes and lbows with rifles... ...they REALLY should do something about that terrible tech speed of the AI´s

...

I still have the last save before I aborted (880 AD) but no DB space left. If anyone is intereded in it, I can e-Mail it so it can be posted

Maybe you should try multiplayer.

 

[Snaaty]

@ Bast:

I played quite a lot of multiplayer in good old heroes of might and magic 2 & 3 times

But civ and multiplayer doesn´t go along too good with me... ...tried it once with 2 friends in a local network... ...I do this, I do that, I take my time... ...I earn only hatread because I´m playing to slow... ...I try to rush and my brain starts to hurt and swell (which takes some of the fun out of it)

...

@ all:

Some more input after I have played on the game with the financial leaders nearby:

1. While our conti was doing fine in research, the other was locked in stonage (2 aggressive AI´s + one "normal"), so I really think now it has to do something with aggressive AI´s and their neighbours just producing too many troops to early (no calendar & paper in 1200 AD...) in some circumstances (which seem to happen quite often)

2. The AI doens´t priorise rifles high enough. Democracy, physics, communism & bio are nice, but don´t change the fact that without rifles, the AI is toast once you reach them, because there is absolutely nothing to counter them now they pushed back cav and grens. CR2 rifles (upgraded maces) don´t even need siege to have like 80% odds to kill a fortified lbow in a grown city.

 

[Hawe Hawe]

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)

Interesting thread, because mostly high level players are posting and so the general opinion seems to be so contrary to mine.
I am only Noble/Prince-Player, but the quoted post sums up my experiences: I think BtS is actually harder than Warlords on noble! The tech race is a bit slower also on noble, but the AI does more intelligent things with their aquired techs. So i am not complaining, but i understand the mechanics that make the game so boring easy for you high-level-players. The AI economy ruined by large outdated longbowstacks and high espionage rates can be found already on prince, but not within every civ, some are doing better while some decline in the early industrial era.

 

[colony]

@ all:

Some more input after I have played on the game with the financial leaders nearby:

1. While our conti was doing fine in research, the other was locked in stonage (2 aggressive AI´s + one "normal"), so I really think now it has to do something with aggressive AI´s and their neighbours just producing too many troops to early (no calendar & paper in 1200 AD...) in some circumstances (which seem to happen quite often)

Interesting, how much variation have you noticed between individual AIs that are on the same continent? What I seem to find is that normally 1 or 2 AIs will be able to keep up with me, through having larger than average land areas, with a couple more a few techs behind and then 1 or 2 very backwards ones (on Emperor difficulty), with predictable consequences for them.

2. The AI doens´t priorise rifles high enough. Democracy, physics, communism & bio are nice, but don´t change the fact that without rifles, the AI is toast once you reach them, because there is absolutely nothing to counter them now they pushed back cav and grens. CR2 rifles (upgraded maces) don´t even need siege to have like 80% odds to kill a fortified lbow in a grown city.

I agree that this is a big problem, even if I'm equal on tech with an AI I somehow seem to be able to keep a monopoly on Rifling for a long time. They don't even go after Military Science for Grenadiers. Some get Steel early but Cannon aren't going to take out a whole stack on their own without support.

 

[uberfish]

Yeah, the AI typically rushes for democracy, economics and communism now, this pushes their rifling date back but doesn't really have anything to do with the handicaps which is my point.

However I find that if you attack a healthy Deity AI which took the above path with rifles they can still throw so many cuirassiers, airships and suicide catapults at you to buy time that it's still a tough fight to make much progress before they get rifling themselves. Surprisingly, an attack of catapults and flanking 2 cuirassiers with the home ground mobility advantage and Deity level production can cripple a rifle/cannon stack because you have to hold some units back to guard your front line cities.

 

[SevenSpirits]

Actually, playing on Emperor last night, the AI (well, Cyrus, who was in the lead, and had Mansa as a vassal) got rifles before I did, way before going after even Scientific Method, let alone Bio or Communism or Physics (or Democracy, in fact).

So maybe there actually is more variety than we thought.

 

[axident]

BtS Monarch seems to be easier, but BtS Emperor is about the same in that early warring is harder and set you back farther.

My first BtS Emperor game was a cakewalk.

My second is painful. It took a lot more troops than I anticipated to mostly kill my Khmer neighbor, who actually went on to become my voluntary vassal later on.

Izzy got the AP and caused me to lose my best tech trading partner, and by the time I missionary-spammed enough to dethrone her from the AP vote and thus reset the "trading with infidels" thing, I was still lagging in tech enough to lose several wonders, including Uni of Sank and Statue of Liberty. I would have lost Pentagon too but I kept a GE on reserve for that one.

No oil, coal, or iron. Though 2 turns ago, coal popped up in a mine so at least I can start railroading.

Update: NO RIVERS AT ALL I HATE THIS MAP. Big and Small pain in the ass, I can't build 3 Gorges Dam or anything involving rivers at ALL. I do have most of the world's aluminum, but this map has royally screwed anyone in my part of the continent.

I like it. For once my tanks (assuming I get oil somehow) won't be fighting inferior units. I might lose a space race too.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Actually, the final report of the deity game I mentioned earlier is encouraging. My CE fell behind in tech because of WW when I conquered Persia. By the endgame I caught up with all but the largest AI: Churchill.

The spotlight, however, went to Gandhi who tried a cultural. All three of his greatest cultural cities were deeply inland (which I attribute to the holy cities random allocation than to actual AI defense plan; G founded five religions). When it became clear Gandhi will beat Churchill to space and that neither I nor the English can win diplo, Churchill invaded India. It was a full-blown modern war and Churchill used a dozen tactical nukes, some on Gandhi's cultural centres. The English AI captured a few coastal cities and headed inland to be narrowly defeated by Gandhi's world wonders (there wasn't much else left) in a 1862 cultural victory.

 

[futurehermit]

Actually, the final report of the deity game I mentioned earlier is encouraging. My CE fell behind in tech because of WW when I conquered Persia. By the endgame I caught up with all but the largest AI: Churchill.

The spotlight, however, went to Gandhi who tried a cultural. All three of his greatest cultural cities were deeply inland (which I attribute to the holy cities random allocation than to actual AI defense plan; G founded five religions). When it became clear Gandhi will beat Churchill to space and that neither I nor the English can win diplo, Churchill invaded India. It was a full-blown modern war and Churchill used a dozen tactical nukes, some on Gandhi's cultural centres. The English AI captured a few coastal cities and headed inland to be narrowly defeated by Gandhi's world wonders (there wasn't much else left) in a 1862 cultural victory.

Wow, nice!!!

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I wonder if there isn't maybe some typo or bug in AI overvalueing espionage buildings making demo/commun much higher a priority than rifling, which gives two good units?