Different playstyles and how game mechanics & exploits affect your preferred playstyle and enjoyment

[Buttercup]

Of course. I know you're joking, but this happens to me all the time. Beaten by another settler.

Part of it, or all, could be good analysis combined with too much fear (it's more than a game) and too little satisfaction (it's just a game after all).

I'm convinced that I've often sent out a settler party in the right time for it to be beaten, and unconsiously wanted that. People often fail the last bomb- or wall jump in Super Metroid too, or get "nerves" when about to win in sports.

Being such a bad loser, and lazy, chieftain level is probably what I should be playing. But then I don't get to see the units of the industrial age.

Well, the reason I joke about it is because, yes, it does indeed happen all the time

But, no, its not some psychological thing, it's just game balancing. There's a myriad of things the AI is concerned about doing, and most of them involve you and making sure you play by their rules. This is something that Civ2 was criticised for, but they doubled down on it for this game, but just made it more subtle. The AI settler, or AI Barbarian Camp, or sudden AI declaration of war from seemingly inexplicable circumstances are all in a very similar category, that being "how can I slow the player down a bit and make sure they proceed in a balanced and expected way".

As someone who reloads a lot to find a 'nice looking' but not 'obviously overpowered' start, I have become very familiar with the game's sense of 'balance', and as a result have long-since been very sensitive to any examples of balance-coincidence that happens in any of my games, always taking care to make a mental note of any that are repeaters, and particularly heavy repeaters. The above Settler blocking at the exactly specific moment is a heavy repeater. Even when you are aware of it and play for it, it can still catch you off-guard sometimes.

 

[r16]

ı feel like the game learns and starts wonders earlier than it should , if ı reload , might also give a military leader to an Al civ to steal them wonders .

 

[Chicken Pizza]

But, no, its not some psychological thing, it's just game balancing. There's a myriad of things the AI is concerned about doing, and most of them involve you and making sure you play by their rules. This is something that Civ2 was criticised for, but they doubled down on it for this game, but just made it more subtle. The AI settler, or AI Barbarian Camp, or sudden AI declaration of war from seemingly inexplicable circumstances are all in a very similar category, that being "how can I slow the player down a bit and make sure they proceed in a balanced and expected way".

As someone who reloads a lot to find a 'nice looking' but not 'obviously overpowered' start, I have become very familiar with the game's sense of 'balance', and as a result have long-since been very sensitive to any examples of balance-coincidence that happens in any of my games, always taking care to make a mental note of any that are repeaters, and particularly heavy repeaters. The above Settler blocking at the exactly specific moment is a heavy repeater. Even when you are aware of it and play for it, it can still catch you off-guard sometimes.

I'm usually not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I buy this

Why wouldn't there be balancing in the not seen AI behaviour code, when there's a lot of it in the seen user interface?

Maybe an interesting comparison is the NES game R.C. Pro-Am, where all cars keep up with you no matter how good you play.

I can play those games and have fun too. A couple of minutes of racing, making sure that I have enough missiles to stop the red (or what was it's color) car when it gets super speed.

But maybe not in a many hours strategy game? Would a game of chess be fun to watch if it all came down to the last move? What have you been wasting your time with during the other moves?

Hard words from a hard man.

 

[Buttercup]

Not even trying to look for examples, just trying to find a nice map to play, I get the following examples:

This is a Huge Archipelago with maximum water, minimal land, 11 other Civs, all other setting set to middle, playing the English on Regent, As you can see, the start is appealing, but not necessarily overpowered. Today's mood was to try and find a start where I can just max tech and have the fun of maxing tech. [at 4000bc, I obviously have no idea whether I'm alone on the island, it's just a nice start and I quickly get out of Despotism and out of the Ancient Age:

However, the game starts to grind to a halt as soon as our dear friend the AI turns up to my north, forward settling and spamming cities. After investigating with a boat and then establishing an embassy, the AI civ, is, of course, starting at an even better starting position for pumping Settlers:

Where I have Floodland and Corn on Plains and Desert and my luxury just outside the bounds of my first expansion and in a forest (which also blocks quick irrigation of my second city if I make my second city in a way that captures the luxury), the AI has Rivers and a Cow and a luxury within the first expansion radius and many a grassland cow littered throughout their immediate vicinity.

And another thing I regularly notice is that if I start one of these types of scenarios next to the facility to strongly produce population, then that's a sure fire sign that there's also going to be an AI nearby as well. But I'll continue this one later on in this or the next post.

So they have loads of horses within easy reach. Ok, so let's see if I get any Iron and where it decides to put it:

As you can see, it's at the worst possible location. Not only is it on the furthest rock from me, but it's also surrounded on all sides by Jungle, so even if I use some 'quick' way to attain it, I'm still going to have to sacrifice a lot of workers to get it active, not to mention 'wasting a Settler or two by placing them in a less optimal place than they could have gone to at a time in the game when every move counts so highly.

The following picture shows the forward Settling of the AI:

Kadesh was Settled waaay back from this screenshot, before I'd even sent out my boat or settled my two towns next to it. When I started sending my boat round, much of that middle area between my capital and theirs was empty apart for the a couple of towns.

Now, there's only two explanations for this, and one of them is furious forward settling. The other is unthinkable and would mean the AI got a Settler from a hut and just plomped it down where it was found. If this is the case, then the AI does not play by rule of balancing that suggests that you only get a settler if you're lacking towns, because the AI had no shortage at all. Either way, it's just so demotivating, it's like a big ol' siren saying Uh-Uh-Uhhhhhh, slow you down there please.

And you'll also note that at the other side of the continent/island, the AI has had absolutely zero interest in settling to it's capital's south. It has great swathes of unoccupied land to it's south, but, no, it is hell-bent on heading my way. And, of course, we've already been at war once, even at this stage. A couple of hundred years back and it just marched two Warriors onto that Gold Mountain, brazen as you like. I asked them to leave & the AI declared war on me. Luckily, by the time their real stack arrived they were prepared to sue for peace.

And this is unusual because the AI doesn't usually care about declaring war until there's no more land left to settle. No, that's most certainly not the case here.

And here we come to one we were just talking about, the dreaded perfectly timed settler clash:

And isn't that amazing, we were just talking about it and then it happens again, oh so immediately. Looks like I'll win this one though, even though Emar's border expanded at exactly this moment. Interesting, this particular 'gap' has been glaring for quite a while, quite why the AI waited for me to turn up to show interest in it is beyond me. Emar clearly has loads of cows and it's had time to expand but not make a settler, let alone the rest of it's empire? Anyway, it doesn't stop there:

The AI retreats its Settler and in the same move, move forward a bunch of archers shielded by an Elite Warrior. They march right into Oxford's boundary and have just one intention. I ask them to leave & they declare war... again. I defeat those three but it looks like I'm not going to get away with this one, straight out from the dark, as if by magic:

And, yeah, so much for a nice tech-based starting position. No-sir'ee-bob, you silly player you, this was a pure combat start, there was no other option here. Didn't you realise? So how about you just stop right there with your Republic Monothesium in 480BC, oh no buddy boy, you should'a been exhausing your every last drop of effort on settler spamming and military units. Tut-tut.

And I just get a pain of frustration in my stomach and stop playing this game and reload to a different start, perhaps somewhere (without using civassist) the game will find me a 'nice' start where I can just practice playing a pure-tech game...

[More to follow in a second post, the story doesn't end here!] Back in an hour, don't you go postin' yet.

 

[Buttercup]

So yes, I press the 'new game' button, don't change any setting and start flicking through some starts. Quite quickly it offers me another start which is vaguely similar to the one above.

Oh joy! How's my 'luck' this time...

Well, I settle my second town and what do I see:

Oh gfaw gfaw gfaw.

So Ok, I'm now pretty much in the mood for kicking some AI butt, oh abso-freakin-lutly. Lemme at'em. So S o D it I say and immediately start building a Barracks in both towns. I convert my mindset to all-war and Hoe-boy, is the AI gonna get some ventin'.

Just as I convert to Barracks, oh, where did you come from all of a sudden:

To which the random hapless Barb then just fortifies next to the Corn. You know, shall I put-off building the Barracks for a bit and just build some regular Warriors just so I can irrigate my Corn? Or shall I bull-headedly stick to my plan of focusing on crushing the AI ASAP?

I stick with the Barracks. Harumph, the AI thinks, perhaps he needs more persuasion to stop building up his army of lightning Warriors:

Just as I have about 5 Warriors stacked in York I decide to send out my original solitary Regular Warrior to deal with the Barb. Which he does. By doing so he then sees the Barb camp on the Hill there, so off he trots to keep them occupied. He gets rid of all of them, so about four or five, but doesn't get a single promotion. When he goes to kill the last one, of course, he deals zero damage and dies in quick hits. At the same time two Byzantine Warriors decide this is the moment to come and have a look around, one each side of me.

Oh, right, so now I'll have to keep some Warriors back to defend and, oh look, that Byzant Warrior to the left is heading for the 25 gold I magically left him on a plate. So I block off the Byzant to the left with my Veteran Warriors. In the mean time the Barbs have made a reinforcement, who reduces one of my Veteran Warriors to one health bar (seen above), meanwhile the Veteran I send in to finish off the Barb camp once again dies without being able to take out the last Barb. Oh look, the way is now clear for the Byzant Warrior to go and finish the job while the other Byzant Warrior occupies my rear. if you'll excuse the accurate pun.

Well, this turned into a ball of nonsense all over again didn't it. Pain in stomach. Re-roll time. Three hours of gaming time wasted so far now.

Somewhere, somewhere out there is a 'nice' start for a 'nice' tech game...

Ooooo, what's this!

Cows! Plural! And a River! And Corn! OMG, what horrors is it going to impale me with to balance out this seemingly 'overpowered' and much more than I even wanted start? Ohhhh, of course, its just a titchy little island with extremely limited growth potential.

Oh well, it's better than the other offers the game can provide, so it'll do for at least practicing the early parts of the tech game.

What did my boats discover? the next island to me, within any galley distance, is a motherchunkin' massive island with 2 civs on it, so it looks like I'm going to be expanding with many soldiers attached after all... Still, it's really the best you can hope for most (99%) of the time and the version I usually end up playing when in a tech mood. At least with a small island start you don't have to put up with the stomach aches. The above days play includes about 40 rejected starting positions.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Sorry for missing the moved discussion. I don't have any relevant experience w.r.t. the game consciously trying to hinder the human player.

I would hearken back to Buttercup's analysis of the chances of different AA unit types taking a city. While I quibble a bit with the predictions, to wit
stack up 10 Veteran Warriors and use them to invade any random AI Town with its obligatory 2 Regular Spearmen, you'd be amazed. Then try the same thing with 10 Archers in the next game. Then try with 10 Swordsmen in the next game, and tell me the results of your findings - I predict the Warriors will lose maybe 3 or 4 units before taking the city, 5 at a stretch. The Archers will lose maybe 2 or 3 units before taking the city and the Swordsmen will lose maybe 1 or 2 before taking the city - That's the variance.

My quibble is that my experience has been that I only lose 1 sword (out of 5 or 6 that I usually have) and that I lose 4 warriors trying to take that same city with its two regular spears (fortified) as defenders. That's within the error bars that you stated, but the actual impact is huge. If I've composed my invasion force of (say) 4 swords, 2 archers, and a warrior or two, I can:

• take that city easily
• hold it with a sword, defending at 2, same as a spear
• still have enough troops left to take and hold the next city

If I had a cheaper strike force of 10 warriors, I could take the first city while losing 4 units in the process, leaving me with insufficient strength to take the next city. Swords -- in my experience, and in the guidance I've read here -- are significantly better on offense than warriors.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your extensive economic analysis on the cost of producing that invasion force. Yes, I get your gist. I feel the examples are a bit synthetic, to make your point. I tend to look at those costs as a part of overall empire management.
Swords cost 30 shields, and so do settlers. As @justanick pointed out in response to one of my questions in another thread, production is plentiful in the late game but is scarce in the first 50 turns. Many, many key decisions are made about how to use those first, scarce shields.

In the first 10 turns, I need to make warriors for scouting (assuming I can't make scouts). Regular warriors, not vets. While my capitol grows to size 3, it may only be making 2-3 shields per turn. I don't do the micromanagement needed at high difficulty levels to make sure that each build completes with no wasted shields. Do I prioritize a barracks, while growing back from producing a settler? If so, more turns will be needed where I can't be building more warriors.
During this time I am still researching, and trading techs with other AI's that I meet. By turn 50 or 60, I will be close to completing the Philosophy slingshot and will have traded for Iron Working.

What is my point? That no one "happens to have" a strike force of 10 veteran warriors by turn 75 or turn 100 unless you make a conscious decision to build one. By the time I get to turn 75, I can decide to build swords, archers, or warriors or some combination. My empire management usually has me building units in one or two cities with a barracks, building cats in a food rich city in between building settlers, and at least one coastal city building boats. Yes, I agree that a strike force of 10 warriors costs fewer shields than a strike force that includes swords and archers. But I don't agree that comparison is relevant, given the many other things I want to build.

Given the higher attack value of swords, I build them as soon as I can and as many as I can. In my experience, the numbers do matter. An attack stack of 5 swords and 3 archers is much more effective in achieving my military objectives than a stack of 12 warriors. The increased survival chances for swords and archers means I am more likely to get them to Elite and eventually generate an MGL. I can't remember *ever* generating an MGL from a victorious warrior. The fact that higher A values have a deterrent affect on AI aggression is a nice side benefit.

The Middle Ages ... that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[r16]

me myself very happy with the current game . What do you call those things that measure time with sand , an hourglass ? Have ended in such a continent ... Am at the bottom , the waist is held by these agressive guys always ready for war - they will not let anyone tresspass , ı meet a second Al only at 175th turn . Because the Great Library equivalent would give bronze working , which knocks out my small wonder that autoproduces the best defensive unit and ı love them for their proven ability to kill hundreds of Al attackers , defending the first town ı will capture on some other continent . Found 6 cities myself , as my neighbour filled a huge void by itself . By blocking Al settlers and escorts peacefully with my units ı caused 7 cities established where ı would if ı had the settlers . Of course land to grab finally ended . Leading to war . Al is really dumb , in a plot where ı might have squeezed 7 or 8 it only creates two and they are of minute sizes , to be destroyed when ı capture them . Al always goes to lowest possible goverment , population rushing albeit with no war weariness , some Als live an extra 50 or 100 turns , because ı will not be able to replace destroyed cities , considering Al refuses to settle where my cultural borders are like close .

that island Buttercup has above ? Never had 8 cows , because it would be just about what ı would have settled as my core (4 or 5 cities maximum) and incidentally the type of start ı look for 80 or 90% of the time with 10 to 15 tries until ı get such an isolated place . Saves on early efforts with 1-1-1 start units only built as a police force / enough numbers to surround huts with 9 units if that's what it takes . And every shield thus devoted to development .

 

[Buttercup]

Sorry for missing the moved discussion. I don't have any relevant experience w.r.t. the game consciously trying to hinder the human player.

I would hearken back to Buttercup's analysis of the chances of different AA unit types taking a city. While I quibble a bit with the predictions, to wit
stack up 10 Veteran Warriors and use them to invade any random AI Town with its obligatory 2 Regular Spearmen, you'd be amazed. Then try the same thing with 10 Archers in the next game. Then try with 10 Swordsmen in the next game, and tell me the results of your findings - I predict the Warriors will lose maybe 3 or 4 units before taking the city, 5 at a stretch. The Archers will lose maybe 2 or 3 units before taking the city and the Swordsmen will lose maybe 1 or 2 before taking the city - That's the variance.

My quibble is that my experience has been that I only lose 1 sword (out of 5 or 6 that I usually have) and that I lose 4 warriors trying to take that same city with its two regular spears (fortified) as defenders. That's within the error bars that you stated, but the actual impact is huge. If I've composed my invasion force of (say) 4 swords, 2 archers, and a warrior or two, I can:

• take that city easily
• hold it with a sword, defending at 2, same as a spear
• still have enough troops left to take and hold the next city

If I had a cheaper strike force of 10 warriors, I could take the first city while losing 4 units in the process, leaving me with insufficient strength to take the next city. Swords -- in my experience, and in the guidance I've read here -- are significantly better on offense than warriors.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your extensive economic analysis on the cost of producing that invasion force. Yes, I get your gist. I feel the examples are a bit synthetic, to make your point. I tend to look at those costs as a part of overall empire management.
Swords cost 30 shields, and so do settlers. As @justanick pointed out in response to one of my questions in another thread, production is plentiful in the late game but is scarce in the first 50 turns. Many, many key decisions are made about how to use those first, scarce shields.

In the first 10 turns, I need to make warriors for scouting (assuming I can't make scouts). Regular warriors, not vets. While my capitol grows to size 3, it may only be making 2-3 shields per turn. I don't do the micromanagement needed at high difficulty levels to make sure that each build completes with no wasted shields. Do I prioritize a barracks, while growing back from producing a settler? If so, more turns will be needed where I can't be building more warriors.
During this time I am still researching, and trading techs with other AI's that I meet. By turn 50 or 60, I will be close to completing the Philosophy slingshot and will have traded for Iron Working.

What is my point? That no one "happens to have" a strike force of 10 veteran warriors by turn 75 or turn 100 unless you make a conscious decision to build one. By the time I get to turn 75, I can decide to build swords, archers, or warriors or some combination. My empire management usually has me building units in one or two cities with a barracks, building cats in a food rich city in between building settlers, and at least one coastal city building boats. Yes, I agree that a strike force of 10 warriors costs fewer shields than a strike force that includes swords and archers. But I don't agree that comparison is relevant, given the many other things I want to build.

Given the higher attack value of swords, I build them as soon as I can and as many as I can. In my experience, the numbers do matter. An attack stack of 5 swords and 3 archers is much more effective in achieving my military objectives than a stack of 12 warriors. The increased survival chances for swords and archers means I am more likely to get them to Elite and eventually generate an MGL. I can't remember *ever* generating an MGL from a victorious warrior. The fact that higher A values have a deterrent affect on AI aggression is a nice side benefit.

The Middle Ages ... that's a whole 'nother discussion.

There's quite a lot to unpack here, while at the same time not really enough specific information to know whether each point you make is indeed relevant to the conversation.

For example - you state "I don't have any relevant experience w.r.t. the game consciously trying to hinder the human player" and then use the rest of your post to detail how you always play the game exactly as the developers want you to play the game in its most text-book way possible - which, ironically, doesn't actually disagree with anything I've said, and, in fact, reinforces what I've said, in that it is wandering away from the assigned path that gets all the weird things happening.

And you play the game in that way because that's the way the mechanics have 'encouraged' you to play, not because you've started the game thinking "I want to play the game in a different way today".

Regarding the details of how you always play the game, the kind of details you miss are all the settings you usually use. For example, a tiny archipelago map on Warlord difficulty is going to be a very different experience to a huge sid Pangea game, not to mention all the other options the game gives you. You also don't illustrate what kind of starting positions you 'always' play at when describing the above list 'what always happens with me'. And the screenshots would be useful for seeing your starting position, where your Iron is, exactly what turn you get the Philosophy bump, and, more importantly, What turn you are learning Monothesium in. Because running pure tech is a lot more than just getting a quick Republic bump anyway, especially if you're just going to slow down any future progress from that point on with continuous warfare.

Yes, 5 swords and 3 archers is indeed going to be more efficient that 12 Warriors, 5 swords and 3 archers = 210 Shields and 8gp whereas 12 Warriors is only 120 Shields and 12gp, so, yes, it's a kind-of odd comparison, in that during despotism, where it doesn't matter about losses and unit allowance is high, you should have said "I prefer 8 stronger units over 21 warriors", whereas if your war is taking place after you've gone into Republic, then, sure, the number of losses is more important and some tiles now offer you more Shields to help compensate.

You make an excellent point at the end of your post about the AI knowing what strength of army you have and behaving accordingly. Why does the AI magically know this information? What is the purpose of the AI always making its diplomatic and strategic decisions based entirely on what your military value is? Surely, in an ideal game, shouldn't one be able to perform such manoeuvres as "bluff" and "illusion". What you are saying here is a reinforcement once again of my point, the game is inherently forcing you into its preferred style of play, if you don't expend heavily on those more expensive units then, well, the AI will know about it... and... presumably... do something about it - which you wont notice because you're always happy to go along with the one exact way the game wants you to play.

 

[justanick]

As @justanick pointed out in response to one of my questions in another thread, production is plentiful in the late game but is scarce in the first 50 turns.

It is closer to 150 turns. It takes slightly less than 100 turns to become a republic without the slightshot. It takes about 100 turns till settler production comes to an halt because all free territory has been taken.Then it still takes some turns till city size has been reached. After city size has been reached production per city will soon reach and likely exceed 10. Still some essential buildings need to be built and building up a basic military would still take few turns, but no more than a few turns and it is likely that you already have basic military as without it AI will make sure you need some military.

My point so far: Somewhen between turn 100 and turn 150 production will no longer be so scarce that it makes sense to built warriors.

I do however agree on Buttercups main point. Until the arrival of cavalry more advanced units donnot increase the combat power per shield, it only stays approximatly the same. This means that in a mostly production limited environment there is no strong reason to use more expensive units. Early on prioritizing military techs is not needed.

Once production is reasonably plenty you do of course need to put the same total combat power into fewer units and thus less unit support. Else you will drown in unit support and this will be a major consideration. Once you have become a republic you need to go for few units per combat power and even if you stay in despotism it does not take that many turns till building warriors would reduce your research output by say 50%.

Within free unit support it does of course increase research output via content faces via military police.

If I had a cheaper strike force of 10 warriors, I could take the first city while losing 4 units in the process, leaving me with insufficient strength to take the next city. Swords -- in my experience, and in the guidance I've read here -- are significantly better on offense than warriors.

You need to compare at same amount of shields. 4 swords and 3 archers equal 18 warriors.

The fact that higher A values have a deterrent affect on AI aggression is a nice side benefit.

3 warriors are no less a deterent than 1 sword. Probably more as 3 warriors have more defence. In terms of F3 the warriors are in the advantage.

Arguably in terms of F3 there is no point to build anything but warriors, except for unit support.

That no one "happens to have" a strike force of 10 veteran warriors by turn 75 or turn 100 unless you make a conscious decision to build one.

It is unlikely that barracks will be used to build warriors. Warriors are usually built before barracks. Warriors and possibly archers can be build without barrack. Spears and swords should wait till after barracks. As you need to compare at same amount of shields you need to take the costs of the barracks into account as well.

For 440 shields you can have either

A: 2 barracks, 8 4/4 swords and 6 4/4 archers.
B: 1 barrack, 2 4/4 spears, 1 4/4 archers, 4 4/4 swords and 22 3/3 warriors.
C: 44 3/3 warriors.

Now imagine those forces clash into each other. Which one has the best chances of winning?

I need to point out that C requires less specialisation. Any city can build 3/3 warriors. So this force will be available at an earlier turn and losses are probably easier to replace.

A reasonable compromise can be to build one barrack and use it for 2 spears first, some warriors second and archers after that if time permits, which most likely it will not. You want to have the military ready soon. All other forces would be mostly 3/3 archers and a few 3/3 warriors. Offensive units are better suited to be recruited as mere regulars. As 4/4 warriors make reasonable defenders they should take priority over archers for limited barracks. Losing 3/3 warriors and 3/3 archers during attacks is acceptable. They still weaken the enemy in sensible manner.

Once you are a republic war weariness and unit support force you to think different and even before that you need to prepare for becoming a republic. Having to disband a few 3/3 warriors is fine. Having to disband huge amounts no so much. At this point production is still limited and warriors are not a great choice for transfering shields via disbanding. Archers are better for that and MedInfs are better than archers.

 

[Chicken Pizza]

Gently rounded (from 28%, 31% etc) probabilities for a veteran warrior dying after damaging a fortified regular spearman on flat land...

0 HP - 30%
-1 HP - 30%
-2 HP - 20%
Wins - 20%

Including the 1/2 promotion chance to veteran, against a military civ, by taking half from each of the losses and moving it up one step:

+1 HP - 15%
0 HP - 30%
-1 HP - 25%
-2 HP - 10%
Wins: 20%

Not too happy about those odds compared to a swordman's 70% to win right away, but with three warriors per swordman, maybe...

I've probably underestimated warriors in the early game. Let's say 10 turns to make 10 warriors, rush an AI town and kill some more troops, then make peace for warrior code, iron working and whatever?

 

[Lanzelot]

But, no, its not some psychological thing, it's just game balancing. There's a myriad of things the AI is concerned about doing, and most of them involve you and making sure you play by their rules. This is something that Civ2 was criticised for, but they doubled down on it for this game, but just made it more subtle. The AI settler, or AI Barbarian Camp, or sudden AI declaration of war from seemingly inexplicable circumstances are all in a very similar category, that being "how can I slow the player down a bit and make sure they proceed in a balanced and expected way".

As someone who reloads a lot to find a 'nice looking' but not 'obviously overpowered' start, I have become very familiar with the game's sense of 'balance', and as a result have long-since been very sensitive to any examples of balance-coincidence that happens in any of my games, always taking care to make a mental note of any that are repeaters, and particularly heavy repeaters. The above Settler blocking at the exactly specific moment is a heavy repeater. Even when you are aware of it and play for it, it can still catch you off-guard sometimes.

I'm usually not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I buy this

You are giving the AI developers at Firaxis too much credit...
If they had really been capable of programming such advanced algorithms into the game, then why did they produce such a lousy AI? The stupidity and non-ability of the AI to cope with the simplest game-strategies and -mechanisms is well-known and laughed at in this forum for years... Best example: how often have you seen it when establishing an embassy or investigating an AI city, that the AI is building a settler in a size-1 town, the shield-box already full, but the town still needing 15 turns until it grows to size 3? All this time the town is wasting it's shield-production turn after turn for 15 turns, when it would have been a very simple calculation to make sure the town does not start the production of a settler before it is guaranteed that the town reaches size 3 before the settler would be complete. Even a non-computer scientist can do this calculation in his head...
So apparently the AI does not even know, that a settler can only be produced in a town of size >= 3, (one of the most basic rules in the game), but it has all kinds of complicated algorithms to check on the human player's actions and start appropriate counter-measures to swart them just in time? No way...

 

[need my speed]

Indeed; this is the human's mind being hyper-evolved to see patterns, even where there are none.

Just think about it logically; unless you have highly advanced machine learning algorithms - and this AI obviously doesn't learn new things - there is no way for anyone or anything to predict exactly that, 50 turns into the future, the human player will attempt to move a Settler on one specific tile.

 

[Buttercup]

You are giving the AI developers at Firaxis too much credit...
If they had really been capable of programming such advanced algorithms into the game, then why did they produce such a lousy AI? The stupidity and non-ability of the AI to cope with the simplest game-strategies and -mechanisms is well-known and laughed at in this forum for years... Best example: how often have you seen it when establishing an embassy or investigating an AI city, that the AI is building a settler in a size-1 town, the shield-box already full, but the town still needing 15 turns until it grows to size 3? All this time the town is wasting it's shield-production turn after turn for 15 turns, when it would have been a very simple calculation to make sure the town does not start the production of a settler before it is guaranteed that the town reaches size 3 before the settler would be complete. Even a non-computer scientist can do this calculation in his head...
So apparently the AI does not even know, that a settler can only be produced in a town of size >= 3, (one of the most basic rules in the game), but it has all kinds of complicated algorithms to check on the human player's actions and start appropriate counter-measures to swart them just in time? No way...

And they still make terrible AI even to this day, and yet the games still have balancing structures even to this day. You make a whole post about one example of the AI being silly, when this doesn't really prove anything, other than that the AI is as capable of silly things as it it complex things.

We know that balance was a big factor in the design principles of the lead designer, that's why tech is limited to four turns minimum, that's why infinite city sprawl is limited in effectiveness by corruption, that is why tech-favourable governments suffer the worst war weariness, so it's really more absurd to assume there are no other balancing operations in effect than take the rather blaze view that the developers are 'to stupid' to do things which are supposedly not that difficult to do.

 

[Buttercup]

Indeed; this is the human's mind being hyper-evolved to see patterns, even where there are none.

Just think about it logically; unless you have highly advanced machine learning algorithms - and this AI obviously doesn't learn new things - there is no way for anyone or anything to predict exactly that, 50 turns into the future, the human player will attempt to move a Settler on one specific tile.

50 turns is a massive over-exaggeration. Since the AI knows everything about you and the world around them, it's really not that difficult for it to asses how long you have left to make a settler and your likely range for that settler.

There are some things the AI does well and there are some things it doesn't. Why is this so difficult to accept? When people point out what the AI is crap at, everyone laughs and integrates that knowledge into their game, and we call it 'exploits', but when someone highlights what the AI is good at, suddenly it's a 'mad conspiracy theory', even after proof after proof is shown? Now there's a human psychological state, though what the name of it is...

 

[Chicken Pizza]

Indeed; this is the human's mind being hyper-evolved to see patterns, even where there are none.

Or company where there is none.

 

[need my speed]

but when someone highlights what the AI is good at

But it isn't; why does the AI settle so terrible, if it can exactly predict your own future city spots?

And really; calculate it out. There's travel time of the AI's Settler and of your own Settler. There's production time, of the AI's Settler and defensive unit(s), and that of your own Settler - and who knows if you will wait for defensive units to build or not. The AI must, by necessity, camp its Settler in the fog of war all the time until your Settler shows up, to be able to make this move. If you use a map reveal programme, you will see that the AI doesn't do this.

 

[Chicken Pizza]

If you use a map reveal programme, you will see that the AI doesn't do this.

And if you take the red pill, you'll realize that flying turtles in Super Mario aren't really enemies that's kind of cute and probably could be your friend, but rather just algorithms and sprites. It won't make you any happier.

I think my problem with Civilization is that it tries to be too much - build an empire from 4000 BC to space and control everything from relations down to city managent - while having an AI and UI that doesn't live up to it.

 

[r16]

there is this thing about controlling resources and whatnot , if not within the zero culture city limits , then certainly within the first cultural expansion . You look at a place , me myself would consider rivers to increase trade , having two or more resources or bonuses to used directly by that town , so start up moving that way and there will also be Al settlers on the way , because there is a gap there and it has to be filled , mostly with a disgraceful location that will waste tons of options and capturing the city will still be of no use , because ı wouldn't be able to replace it . Yesterday ı got the Al park into a spot where a previous city had existed and razed in war between 2 civs , and ı could two settlers of a different Al stop and turn back because the spot they marching to was already taken . Two settlers , let me tell you .

 

[Buttercup]

But it isn't; why does the AI settle so terrible, if it can exactly predict your own future city spots?

And really; calculate it out. There's travel time of the AI's Settler and of your own Settler. There's production time, of the AI's Settler and defensive unit(s), and that of your own Settler - and who knows if you will wait for defensive units to build or not. The AI must, by necessity, camp its Settler in the fog of war all the time until your Settler shows up, to be able to make this move. If you use a map reveal programme, you will see that the AI doesn't do this.

Firstly, the AI doesn't settle terribly, this is an absurd statement. It simply settles by a set of criteria that are different from your own and that it's criteria works perfectly fine for what it wants to achieve.

Regarding your second point, firstly, how do you even know that using a map reveal program doesn't change the program, and, secondly, and more seriously, no the AI doesn't need to camp their settler anywhere, it merely needs to know what you're doing in order to form its own build structure and then whether to bother sending a unit in a certain direction.

 

[Buttercup]

And if you take the red pill, you'll realize that flying turtles in Super Mario aren't really enemies that's kind of cute and probably could be your friend, but rather just algorithms and sprites. It won't make you any happier.

I think my problem with Civilization is that it tries to be too much - build an empire from 4000 BC to space and control everything from relations down to city managent - while having an AI and UI that doesn't live up to it.

You say some really weird things that appear to have no context and have little meaning to anyone who isn't in on your own personal in-jokes, such as company (as in business or social?) and coloured pills (who are you suggesting is on pills, you, me or the person you're replying to? And what does a red pill do anyway?), are you aware that this comes across as complete gibberish?

Regarding the age old question and controversy of whether Civ games are worthwhile games because of the easily abusable AI, and generally 'unintelligent' AI, you have to ask yourself, would many people actually play the game if the AI was as intelligent at computer games as Sir Pleb?

If you start on a regular Pangea on Regent difficulty and you are surrounded on all sides by 4 Sir Plebs, each of whom are entirely concentrating on removing the human player first, don't you think that rather a lot of people will be getting rather quickly turned off from the game?

Isn't it more understandable that the whole reason people like the Civ games is precisely because they are so easily exploitable, and that many people play them precisely because they enjoy the fact that finding exploits is actually the biggest part of 'the game' for them.

And if you do want a 10 Sir Plebs versus me scenario, then you just have to find some people to multiplay with you.

Part of what I'm saying is entirely related to your point here, in that the primary function of the Civ games is to motivate you to play 'just one more turn' - to which seeing another Settler racing you to a settling spot is indeed exactly the kind of thing that makes you 'play just one more turn' - I'll just play until I find out if I settle this guy (to which, of course, once you've done that you're just 2 turns from a wonder completion, so "I'll just play till I get that", then when that's complete you are two turns from learning Republic, and so it goes on). Regardless of the intelligence or need for settlers, it is beneficial to the game design to have Settler races rather than optimal settling precisely because the game's intent in 'one more turn', not 'let's provide Sir Pleb levels of competition'.