I don't really know much about this, so anything I say is really just guesswork... I was under the impression that they AI always played at noble regardless of what difficulty the humans choose - in the sense that AI research and such was based on noble difficulty, and human players need more or fewers beakers depending on their own difficulty. The AI will be less kind towards players on higher difficulties (uneven trades, more likely to go to war etc)... but in single player, I know the AI gets special advantages such as starting with archers or starting with two settlers, depending on the difficulty. I have no idea if the AI gets these bonuses or not in multiplayer. Maybe I'll test it tomorrow.
I've recently been playing some multiplayer games with my girlfriend with me on emperor and her on warlord. It does feel easier than single player, but that could just be because we are nice to each other with tech trading and such and I never have such close allies when it is only the AI.
I have a couple of questions on that.
I've started a multiplayer yesterday night with a friend of mine [bts 3.19]. We both play usually at monarch in single player. It might be only a feeling, but i think the pc plays in a
much less effective way than in single-player monarch. As karadoc says, i also think that in some way that may be due to the more-effective tech trading between humans (humans trades techs in a more or less balanced way, while AI trades almost only when they can make a net gain from the trade). But i don't think that this is the only factor that plays a role. I've rushed my neighbour (Zara) with swordsmen after beelining iron working (no bronze in my reach) and i took his entire empire (3 cities) with 6 swords , 1 axe and a couple of impis.
That's may be luck, but now i've six cities and maces, and i'm approaching wang-kon, who does not have even bowman - i think i will eat his whole domain in something like 10 turns.
Maybe my monarch level has improved over time and browsing the forum, but hell, this is too much! I've never had such a good performance on this level when i play alone.
For the records, my friend invaded Louis XIV around 300 AD with swords and axes, and he had no problem in taking paris and some other cities. Furthermore, we are both way ahead in the tech race.
Now, the point is: TeraHammer (which i trust) says:
TeraHammer said:
case 1: all players pick the same difficulty level: The game plays at that difficulty level for every player as though it was a singleplayer
I feel anything a little 'easier', even if me and my friend are not 'openly' cooperating; i mean, we exchange tech and resource from time to time, but the match is mean to be competitive - only one winner in the end. Maybe that the 'attitude' of the AI is 'milded' in multiplayer? I mean, he has the same bonus of monarch level, but is less inclined to militarize? I don't know, it's just a guess, but it is a matter of fact that warring is way more easy on this match. I wonder on what could happen i we scale up a level, i.e. to emperore, when we multiplay - note that emperor is for the moment unbeatable for us (to be hones i've never tried that, i can achieve roughly a 50% victory rate at monarch)
TeraHammer said:
case 2: not all players pick the same difficulty level: The AI plays at noble.
What if a player choose monarch and the other, for example, emperor? It would not make sense for the AI to play at noble. I would definetly be better if the AI plays at the
lower of the different difficulty level choosen. Do you agree on that?
Thanks in advance for your feedback
