For the record I was not suggesting using std 10/20 Large map but rather 9/2x high sea lvl Large map... For std map I'd suggest using low sea lvl regardless of # of AIs/CSs in the game. Then here's always the possibility of adding a 9th civ or replacing x CSs by 9th civ.
For this series, my strong preference is to use the common default settings as much as possible. I want fewer variables, but also enough similarity to what people play most often. I agree, eight games in a row with the same civs is tiresome. Let’s just aim for six. The AI behavior of Alexander and Sejong is pretty predictable, which is why they will be in the series, but there is no strong reason to for the player to take a turn running them..
Yup, I totally agree and as I screwed up the first decent Askia map I'm inclined to use Large map as a base for the Askia CDG and it'll be cooked one way or another to favour wide play in general. Let that act as the entry level Large map instead of this series.
Does that mean Shaka is back on the list? I hope not, that would doom me; although I'm having terrible trouble with Monty too in this game. Only reason I'm not dead is because I managed to block the isthmus with a city.
Also wanted to mention, if you include a lite version I think you'll need to do the same thing to each civ and not just the ones close to the player. Otherwise that will skew the results. An alternative is to give something to the player instead of taking away from the AI. I know someone previously said that giving a worker to the player was blasphemous, and I understand because it helps so much! But I'll be lucky to finish even one game even with taking a settler away from all the AI so my results probably won't help the experiment. (Unless there's a way to just let the game play after I'm dead? It would be fun to watch the AI play. I've seen it done online but don't know how.)
I agree, eight games in a row with the same civs is tiresome. Let’s just aim for six. The AI behavior of Alexander and Sejong is pretty predictable, which is why they will be in the series, but there is no strong reason to for the player to take a turn running them..
If the player is Alex (or Sejong), then the AI isn't...
If you don't care about observing Alex/Sejong, then you are observing less AI per game, not playing less games.
I did say that I can't give the player a worker and still call it Deity but if that's going to be the way of lite version at least use a some roundabout way like giving a nearby AI an extra worker but placing it by the player's starting unit(s). Then the player gets a worker but with a cost of a DoW and revealing the capital location early on.
I did say that I can't give the player a worker and still call it Deity but if that's going to be the way of lite version at least use a some roundabout way like giving a nearby AI an extra worker but placing it by the player's starting unit(s). Then the player gets a worker but with a cost of a DoW and revealing the capital location early on.
That might make it harder. Especially if its a warlike civ. What would the diplomatic reprecussions of that be, war from T0? Do other civs you later meet know you are at war or is the diplo hit only if you DoW when you are known to other civs? I guess you could follow it hoping a barb takes it. But that would be wasting time. Either way, I wouldn't like this idea.
No, Shaka is not on the list. I have not settled on who will replace him, so everyone, please be encouraged to keep advocating for your least favorite AI!
I'm having terrible trouble with Monty too in this game
There is something called FireTuner, but it not Mac compatible. Probably someone has already used it to more rigorously address the question as to which civs the computer plays best.
If the player is Alex (or Sejong), then the AI isn't...
If you don't care about observing Alex/Sejong, then you are observing less AI per game, not playing less games.
That might make it harder. Especially if its a warlike civ. What would the diplomatic reprecussions of that be, war from T0? Do other civs you later meet know you are at war or is the diplo hit only if you DoW when you are known to other civs? I guess you could follow it hoping a barb takes it. But that would be wasting time. Either way, I wouldn't like this idea.
DOWing an AI early for a worker is quite the art, and is something you should experiment with. I cannot not do it reliably, but it really smooths out the early game!
To your general question, DOWing itself is a very minor diplomatic hit. Early era DOWs (and taking cities) are less serious than warmongering in later eras. There is no diplo hit (for warmongering) to AIs that you have not met.
My feelings about the map scripts in general are well known and the most positive view I can give is unfortunate - most of them belong to category of BS while some are only bad so my views can be pretty much ignored when deciding the map - I will always vote TI/Continents/something similar.
I can't stand maps that don't allow circumnavigation, I despise the snaky one or two tile wide land masses, I hate maps where Navy is useless and I don't like how CSs are on clusters. I also have several other minor objections.
This resonates with me strongly. My least favorite thing is that so many maps RNG you out of any reasonable expansion location due to the following reasons:
1. An AI, or multiple AIs, start so close to you that they plant cities in your spots long before you ever have a chance. This is particularly a problem on deity when they are dropping their third cities as you get to like 2 pop.
2. You have only 2-3 luxuries in your starting area where it's reasonable to expand and defend on deity.
3. Your luxuries are located in a mass of hills where you don't want to expand because there is no food, or in a mass of grassland/jungle where you don't want to expand because there is no production. Or you get that desert marble that's "your luxury," but you can't use it because there are 0 tiles to work around it. Adding insult to injury, you have to babysit this marble the entire game because the AI will forever try to expand there like a bad date who doesn't understand the word "no."
4. You spawn coastal, but you have a city state 6 tiles in either direction, cockblocking any coastal expands and trade routes.
It's one thing to reroll starting locations until you see something you like. It's another to have to play 40 turns of a game only to realize you can't put even a second city anywhere. Tradition is the default opening SP in 99% of standard-type games because it's not feasible to plant more than 4 cities, if you can even get that many.
I've taken to playing the Hellblazers map because it puts out several luxuries and gives you a mix of growth and production around them. It also seems to give a nice variety of Tradition and Liberty suited starts.
As for the topic of this thread, it seems to me that the AI is most successful with an ICS strategy, contrary to how humans play. I tend to see either warmonger civs or aggressive expanding civs do the best. These types often overlap. Think Zulu, Greece, Aztec, Huns for the former, and America, Rome, Iroquois for the latter.
My guess is that the AI is only capable of taking advantage of raw numbers, and struggles with the nuances of specialists, great people, trade routes, and so on, that make playing tall optimal. Thus, the civs that plant the most cities, or acquire the most cities through war, end up snowballing purely by having the most raw population points, working the most raw hammers, and feeding that into the rest of their game. It makes sense then that the difficulty scaling of the game would be as simple as the AI starting with more techs and units, and getting free hammers/gold/etc.
One exception would be civs that have a propensity to target CS', like Mongolia. I always see it get shot down before it snowballs, because it builds up warmonger hate early and gets attacked by everyone.
I meant that it would be harder than if a settler is deleted from the AI. Some of us need to be OP; a straight up deity game is 99% of the time not winnable by me. Beetle wrote he's going to delete a settler and worker from all AI for lite version so that should be ok.
This resonates with me strongly. My least favorite thing is that so many maps RNG you out of any reasonable expansion location due to the following reasons...
Yes, that is why it is so nice when people share maps. The issues you describe, I think they apply to about 80% of the maps I roll for myself!. For the games I end up sharing, I try to play 100-150 turns before deciding if the map is okay. And still I miss huge flaws!
I've taken to playing the Hellblazers map because it puts out several luxuries and gives you a mix of growth and production around them. It also seems to give a nice variety of Tradition and Liberty suited starts.
Please be encouraged to volunteer a game for the CDG seriers, we still have a quarter of the civs to go through! I have not found HB settings that I like enough, as there is too much land for my tastes with the default settings.
As for the topic of this thread, it seems to me that the AI is most successful with an ICS strategy, contrary to how humans play.
My guess is that the AI is only capable of taking advantage of raw numbers, and struggles with the nuances of specialists, great people, trade routes, and so on, that make playing tall optimal.
For sure. Which is why I never begrudge the advantages the AI gets, except that with III and IV they never were spread evenly between difficulty levels. With V, it is just the extra settler and worker (on top of everything else) that is a little much.
One exception would be civs that have a propensity to target CS', like Mongolia. I always see it get shot down before it snowballs, because it builds up warmonger hate early and gets attacked by everyone.
I meant that it would be harder than if a settler is deleted from the AI. Some of us need to be OP; a straight up deity game is 99% of the time not winnable by me. Beetle wrote he's going to delete a settler and worker from all AI for lite version so that should be ok.
If you rather, for this series and the lite versions, I could leave all the AI alone and give the player a worker. That is less trouble for me, but I think deleting the extra settler is a better balance. (FWIW, without the second settler, deleting the second AI worker is actually making things a bit harder on the player. The second worker without a second settler would just be a handicap for the AI.)
If you rather, for this series and the lite versions, I could leave all the AI alone and give the player a worker. That is less trouble for me, but I think deleting the extra settler is a better balance. (FWIW, without the second settler, deleting the second AI worker is actually making things a bit harder on the player. The second worker without a second settler would just be a handicap for the AI.)
I do think for this particular experiment that deleting the settler and worker from all the AI makes sense. The extra worker for the player may disadvantage the closest neighbors too much compared to the far away AI. I think the second worker is a big bonus to the AI though. It means faster development and when they do build that second settler, the second city will be improved faster. Plus then they have to spend time building a worker.
It means faster development and when they do build that second settler, the second city will be improved faster. Plus then they have to spend time building a worker.
A worker on T0 is generally not of much help, as all it can do is build a farm in the first ring. Unless you have a wet hill, you do not immediately have any tiles worth working that benefit from early improvement. It is not until you unlock Animal Husbandry or Mining that there is anything actually productive for an early worker to do. Until then, the worker costs more in gpt than they they are worth, and having two would only compound the problem!
On top of that, the AI does not plan ahead. The AI only improves tiles after it has an idle citizen, it is kind of ridiculous. In lieu of planning ahead, the AI uses workers as scouts, so they are just bait for the barbs and/or the human player. Letting the AI keep the extra worker after I have taken the extra settler would be one more gift to the player.
Oh, so on the current Poland game you deleted the settler and worker? I thought you just deleted the settler and were going to try and give us even more help by deleting the worker.
So I changed my mind, if you haven't started making the map yet, if it were up to me I would prefer to have the starting worker for the player in the lite mode game. It will give us less talented people an actual chance to get far in the game and contribute. This Poland game is still a beast and Monty doesn't seem to have missed the settler and worker, hahaha. Its up to you though, I'm good with whatever you decide. And if you've already started no reason to change it.
This Poland game is still a beast and Monty doesn't seem to have missed the settler and worker, hahaha. Its up to you though, I'm good with whatever you decide. And if you've already started no reason to change it.
Agreed, I cannot even win the lite version. First I lost by CV. Then I restarted from the middle, playing much better, but lost by SV by quite a large margin.
So I changed my mind, if you haven't started making the map yet, if it were up to me I would prefer to have the starting worker for the player in the lite mode game.
I think if you want an early worker, you should practice taking one from AI. The new game is up, and the early game went very smoothly for me. I built one worker, took the rest (6+, I lost count).
Some of us need to be OP; a straight up deity game is 99% of the time not winnable by me. Beetle wrote he's going to delete a settler and worker from all AI for lite version so that should be ok.
Then that to a degree proves my point that a free Worker on T0 is OP and the game shouldn't be seen as Deity anymore. Beetle is obviously free to do implement the Lite part as he sees fit but I will use different means to an end. I rather see every AI getting a dozen extra workers - surely enough opportunities to steal a hefty bunch of them but with a cost of a war(s)
We must be playing a very different game though I admit that the difference in Liberty games is much greater than in Tradition openings. That extra food from ~T6 will quickly turn into 2-3 extra hammers T12 and on T30 the difference might be +2 pop, 3 improved luxes, few mines for Settler turns, few 3 food tiles, some resources to sell or roughly like that depending on the dirt - with some luck one can have one or two CSs allies by that..Much like finding a NW first as Spain on T5 the game is effectively over at that point though the benefit for early 500G is easier to see.
as all it can do is build a farm in the first ring. Unless you have a wet hill, you do not immediately have any tiles worth working that benefit from early improvement. It is not until you unlock Animal Husbandry or Mining that there is anything actually productive for an early worker to do. Until then, the worker costs more in gpt than they they are worth, and having two would only compound the problem!
That farm will turn quickly into hammers and/or gpt, one gets Mining around T8 at latest and meeting CSs easily pays the upkeep unless one steals half a dozen workers by T20 which rarely happens.
I am being a little disingenuous. The T0 worker often has something to do. You might be on a river (and those farms you will work all game) or there could be Wheat in your first ring. Attila might be able to start on a pasture. As you note, by T8 the worker can chop or build a mine. It is just the first half dozen turns where maybe the worker builds a dry farm that you don’t end working (until Fertilizer) once better tiles are available. Still, from what I can tell, without the second settler, the AI uses the second worker for scouting. So that is why I delete it too.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
though I admit that the difference in Liberty games is much greater than in Tradition openings. That extra food from ~T6 will quickly turn into 2-3 extra hammers T12 and on T30 the difference might be +2 pop, 3 improved luxes, few mines for Settler turns, few 3 food tiles, some resources to sell or roughly like that depending on the dirt - with some luck one can have one or two CSs allies by that..Much like finding a NW first as Spain on T5 the game is effectively over at that point though the benefit for early 500G is easier to see.
