Do you play with aggresive AI turned on?
- Thread starter CivCorpse
- Start date
Roland Johansen
Deity
Most of my games, I use the aggressive AI. I do like some military challenge next to a research challenge. The option does tend to slow the technological development of the AI a little, but it also slows your technological development if you want to be able to defend yourself against the AI.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Aggressive AI is the way it is meant to be played, not having it on is for more casual play in my view. I almost always use it, I like when the AI has the same play style as myself, opportunistic and ruthless. 
Roland Johansen
Deity
Aggressive AI is the way it is meant to be played, not having it on is for more casual play in my view. I almost always use it, I like when the AI has the same play style as myself, opportunistic and ruthless.
I don't think you should insult those who don't use the aggressive AI option. It doesn't make you a better player.
There are just two options which result in different gameplay. It's good to have such options in such a diverse game with players with very different playing styles. The aggressive option shifts gameplay a bit from economic competition to military competition, that's all.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I was playing on noble for a long time but when someone pointed out that if you're winning almost every time you're not really playing at your skill level. I won a game on prince, but I thought there's a difference between losing and not winning. I started using aggressive so I'm not just trying to be the first to a victory, I have to make sure I don't get beaten.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I have not come to a real dicission yet on Agressive AI. On one hand I dislike trying to build diplomacy or going after an AI only to have someoen come out of nowhere to backstab me.
On the other hand it can make the game somewhat easier if you are fortunate enough to be far away from the AI's fighting or can knock out you continentla rival early.
I play most of my games as they come, meaning some I war-monger and other peacefully depending on teh AIs, situation and chosen leader. I don't think I like the AI of forcing every game into a military campaign.
On the other hand it can make the game somewhat easier if you are fortunate enough to be far away from the AI's fighting or can knock out you continentla rival early.
I play most of my games as they come, meaning some I war-monger and other peacefully depending on teh AIs, situation and chosen leader. I don't think I like the AI of forcing every game into a military campaign.
It's not insulting... Blake (the AI designer) said that it should have been an option to pick peaceful AI's instead of the other way around, but it wasn't important enough to be changed it that way. For warmongering not having Aggressive AI on is almost cheating (the early rush is soooo much more powerful) so in a way his statement is true meaning "not having it on" is more casual.
Everyone plays their own way and thats good, but keep in mind doing peaceful victories with Aggressive AI can actually be easier if you are able to stay out of wars because of the slower AI tech pace, so Aggressive AI is not necessarily only for warmongers.
I play with Aggressive AI, and i'm loving it and will likely never change back
Well if one person said it, it must be true!
Both playing with and playing without Aggressive AI on are perfectly valid choices. Implying that one is the "correct" way and the other an "incorrect" way of playing is insulting. For Blake, and for others, playing with a more military-inclined AI fits their playing style better. That doesn't make that playing style any better than anyone else's playing style. Suggesting that it does is simply elitism, and unfounded elitism at that.
Bh
Roland Johansen
Deity
It doesn't matter what Blake said. Repeating someone else's words without saying something like 'John said: "...." ', just means that you're saying it. The fact that Blake said something similar earlier doesn't mean it thus cannot be insulting.
BTW: I'm not quite sure which Blake post you're referring to, but if you're talking about a certain post on Apolyton where Blake talked about the differences between the non-aggressive and aggressive AI, then I have to say that he didn't say that 'aggressive AI is the way the game is meant to be played'. Maybe he thinks that, but he didn't explicitly say so.
I want to avoid a pointless discussion about which AI is 'better'. Such a discussion will lead us nowhere and no person taking part in such a discussion will be convinced by the other side. I've seen such a discussion before, dozens of pages of posts where the same arguments are repeated to death. Really pointless.
I replied to this particular post, but the arguments presented are intended for all posts that assert that one AI is not better than another, for some definition of better.
It depends what you mean by "better". If by better you mean "more fun", "more rewarding", or "more interesting", then you are right that many different play styles are suitable for many different people and personalities. If by "better" you mean "more optimal" where you are optimizing your chances of winning, then for sure some human play styles are better than others, just as some AI play styles are better than others as well, and to point that out is hardly insulting.
In fact this is the strategy and tips forum, where practically every thread is about PLAYING BETTER, and most of the discussions are precisely around what is better. I don't see a lot of people jumping on threads and saying "specializing your cities isn't better, it is just a different play style" - it's all about having a good discussion about improving your game. I don't see why AI should be any different. If there were a super aggressive option where the AI didn't build a single building or tech a single tech and just built warriors, would people argue that this AI wasn't worse than the standard AIs? Or a version that hardly built any military at all? I doubt it.
Blake's core point is that Aggressive AI is closer to optimal from a game theory point of view, in playing against Aggressive AI, the player has a simple, nearly always optimal strategy - rush the AI with lots of units. For a given level of AI bonuses and player skill, this overall strategy is likely to net a much higher percentage of wins than against a more optimal AI, such as Aggressive AI. If you are playing a sub-optimal game yourself (which usually falls on the builder side), then you may not find Aggressive AI more difficult. In any case you may not find it more fun.
Now, using this logic to argue for Aggressive AI assumes that Blake got the metagame approximately right, and his assumptions on maximizing the AIs chances of winning were correct enough. I've seem anyone dispute that, however - only some hand-waving arguments that it's somehow wrong or insulting to suggest that one AI could possibly be better than another, or that some players could possibly be playing a more challenging game than others. There are lots of settings that affect the difficulty of the game - why is it so difficult to accept that "Aggressive AI" is one of them? In fact, Aggressive AI means that while playing optimally you can reduce the bonuses the AI receives and still have a challenging game - and a game with fewer AI cheats seems better to me.
Well if one person said it, it must be true!
You missed the point completely, the person responsible for the new AI said that it should have been the other way around (Aggressive AI default) and an option for a more peaceful AI instead, which makes it comparable to the "Always Peace" option for instance. Whoever said this is irrelevant, my point is this statement from him makes sense to me and it comes from a credible source (Firaxis employee) and might explain a few things to people who get "insulted" from nothing. My bad it's more interesting spouting irrelevant nonsense about me quoting other people instead of the point..... seriously if you want to do crap like that at least disprove my source or the point in a way else it's just a waste of time. If it was that hard to believe ask for a link to the statement....
Good points and i agree with most, though for some people the default settings are the "correct" ones. Which i think was the point the "insulting" poster tried to say and why i mentioned Blake's comment about this.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Why can't people just say whether they use aggressive AI or not without adding the remark that their setting is a more difficult game setting and causes a more challenging game.
The remark that I think was insulting went further than that by the way:
Calling someone else's game settings useful just for more casual play is insulting, calling someone else's game settings the incorrect game settings is pushing someone else down so that you yourself arrive on the top, it's elitism and it's just plain unnecessary.
What results in a more challenging game for someone depends mostly on how that player plays the game.
I myself like to use the military aspect of the game when it is to my advantage. I'm not really a rush-player as I play on huge maps that aren't overcrowded with AI and thus the rush is not that effective. But I do use the military aspect when I can take advantage of it. The normal AI is not that effective in attacking other players or defending itself. The number of units needed to crush it, makes war in general a fairly efficient way of improving your civilisation. The aggressive AI makes war far less efficient and can pose a military threat to your civilisation. I like that. For me that leads to a more challenging game because I can't exploit the military weakness of the AI (as easily).
However, if you like the builder part of the game more and don't like the militaristic part of the game very much, if you aren't rushing the AI and aren't taking advantage of every military weakness that you see, then you will probably find a more challenging and fun adversary in the normal AI. This AI will not invest in the huge armies it needs to defend itself against an aggressive human player and thus will be better in the technological development of its civilisation. It can challenge you more in a pure space race game without extensive military conquest. This AI will let the human player develop his/her empire without using every weakness it sees to declare war. Many players prefer that setting. Against a human player capable at defending itself and not interested in military conquest, this setting will probably be more challenging (and fun).
Now if you start to think about what would be a more challenging AI opponent to a theoretical optimal playing human player, a player who uses every loophole to win the game and knows every strategic trick to win the game, then I would think the answer to that question would be very map dependent. The answer would be different on an overcrowded pangea map compared to a isolated start on an archipellago map with no contact between players until astronomy.
Even if you would arrive at an answer to that question, it wouldn't be an answer to the question how the game was 'meant to be played'. Game theory will never answer such a question. It just tries to discover the optimal strategy to win the game, not the 'way the game is meant to be played'. That last question is a philosophical one and while I do believe in mathematics, mathematical game theory can't answer that question.
The remark that I think was insulting went further than that by the way:
Calling someone else's game settings useful just for more casual play is insulting, calling someone else's game settings the incorrect game settings is pushing someone else down so that you yourself arrive on the top, it's elitism and it's just plain unnecessary.
What results in a more challenging game for someone depends mostly on how that player plays the game.
I myself like to use the military aspect of the game when it is to my advantage. I'm not really a rush-player as I play on huge maps that aren't overcrowded with AI and thus the rush is not that effective. But I do use the military aspect when I can take advantage of it. The normal AI is not that effective in attacking other players or defending itself. The number of units needed to crush it, makes war in general a fairly efficient way of improving your civilisation. The aggressive AI makes war far less efficient and can pose a military threat to your civilisation. I like that. For me that leads to a more challenging game because I can't exploit the military weakness of the AI (as easily).
However, if you like the builder part of the game more and don't like the militaristic part of the game very much, if you aren't rushing the AI and aren't taking advantage of every military weakness that you see, then you will probably find a more challenging and fun adversary in the normal AI. This AI will not invest in the huge armies it needs to defend itself against an aggressive human player and thus will be better in the technological development of its civilisation. It can challenge you more in a pure space race game without extensive military conquest. This AI will let the human player develop his/her empire without using every weakness it sees to declare war. Many players prefer that setting. Against a human player capable at defending itself and not interested in military conquest, this setting will probably be more challenging (and fun).
Now if you start to think about what would be a more challenging AI opponent to a theoretical optimal playing human player, a player who uses every loophole to win the game and knows every strategic trick to win the game, then I would think the answer to that question would be very map dependent. The answer would be different on an overcrowded pangea map compared to a isolated start on an archipellago map with no contact between players until astronomy.
Even if you would arrive at an answer to that question, it wouldn't be an answer to the question how the game was 'meant to be played'. Game theory will never answer such a question. It just tries to discover the optimal strategy to win the game, not the 'way the game is meant to be played'. That last question is a philosophical one and while I do believe in mathematics, mathematical game theory can't answer that question.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I have some dificulty in believing that Agg AI is per se more dificult or challenging than the default one..... My experience with Agg AI is that yes, it is more dificult to survive to the first round of wars ( and forget early wonders.... ), but, unless a techie is in game in a confortable corner, the Agg AI starts to stall in research and from that point, you can wipe them with better units.... OTOH in regular AI, you may survive easier to the early game, but there is always a AI plotting a cultural or space win. And I'm not sure that beating regular AI to space is necessarily easier than beating Agg AI in battle.....
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I agree 100% with this. One of the best things about BTS is the balance approach the AI takes towards victory. The Agressive AI tends to steer the game towards battlefield victory alone.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
My point was not to insult anyone, I made an emphatic remark and then moderated it with "in my view" and a smile, so please don't take offense if it's not very important for you to do so.
If I come off as arrogant to some, it is all the better to spark a debate. Wheter I succeeded in that or not, I leave for you to decide.
If I come off as arrogant to some, it is all the better to spark a debate. Wheter I succeeded in that or not, I leave for you to decide.
nullspace
King
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 728
I think it's just to opposite. On the default AI, an easy solution to any problem you encounter is to attack. You'll win the war because you can fairly easily build a bigger military than your target, because he has not built enough units. When you can easily win wars, that makes strategies like axe rushes too powerful, and you can always stop an AI culture or spaceship victory by attacking them. Overall, it makes warfare too strong for the player, so the player should war a lot if he wants to win.
On the other hand, aggressive AIs have enough units to be costly to conquer. So, you have to look for other solutions besides war, you can't just kill your problem. Tech, expansion, spies, diplomacy become more important because war isn't always the easiest solution.
Well, that's why I always play with aggressive AI.
No, I didn't miss your point, I just don't think your point is correct. I don't care if Blake happened to design the new AI. That doesn't give his opinion on the subject any more validity than anyone else's. He's approaching it from the way his playstyle affects the game. Fine. But that doesn't mean his playstyle is the one that should be considered when determing the manner in which the game is presented. If you'll note in the post where he said that, the majority of people disagreed with his viewpoint. I find that very telling.
I don't consider the default settings "correct" either. But they are the settings that I suspect the majority of players are going to be "most comfortable" with. While I'm sure a lot of the hardcore players (which makes up a disproportional percentage of the posters on this forum) are able to handle Aggressive AI, the more casual player would likely get quickly overwhelmed. Again, it's a case of having a narrow viewpoint. When you're a particular type of player, it's very easy to assume everyone plays like that, and then make your conclusions based on that belief.
(Not trying to single you out here, that's more of a "generic" point)
I agree with Roland tho', let's talk about having fun playing with AggAI, and skip the whole "the correct way to play" comments.
Bh
Florian
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 337
I haven't tried Aggressive AI yet. I'm curious though, so maybe next game. From what I hear, it might make the game easier for me, because I tend to be much more a builder than a warmonger. But I guess we'll see. Often my building starts with a nice chunk of land that I've taken in an early Axe-n-Sword war. If I can't do that, maybe I won't be able to build as well either.
It's nice to have options.
It's nice to have options.
