Does "Aggressive AI" Make the Game Easier or Harder?

bardolph

King
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
739
Does the "Aggressive AI" setting make the game easier or harder?

On the one hand, getting attacked when you are peacefully teching can be a pain in the butt.

On the other hand, if your rivals are too busy warring to tech themselves, wouldn't it be much easier to out-tech them first and dominate them later?
 
The consensus when BTS first came out seemed to be that Aggressive AI made the game harder for warmongers (because they couldn't conquer as easily) but easier for builders (because the AI is easier to out-tech if he's building too many troops). I don't know if opinions have changed since then, or if the patch has altered anything relevant.
 
I'm trying to find the ideal balance of an AI who likes to build lots of units, send them my way relentlessly, but still keeps up with military tech enough to keep sending modern units. Anybody know an existing civ that acts this way, or has anybody made a custom civ with these AI behaviors?
 
On high difficulties (Immortal+), HARDER

There are always exceptions, if you play with the settings in your favor. But for standard settings, high difficulties, it gets alot ALOT harder.
 
According to my experience (prince/monarch) AGG AI makes isolated starts easier since AI techs so slow and fight between themselves, but with neightbour(s) it slows player down because there constant need to build troops to not get attacked (i suck at diplomacy anyways).
 
I've tried both quite a lot and I'd say it makes it harder. I've yet to be militarily smashed by an AI using the standard AI and that's at Monarch level. However, on Agg AI I've been levelled to the point of submission. His navy was humungous with 3 full carriers and if I hadn't been on an island or the amphibious invasion order had been more sensible, I'd have been completely smashed.

Plus, there's a pretty standard formula for building an early axemen/catapult rush which no standard AI can properly withstand. On Agg AI I've found my early wars stalemating where in the past I'd have normally conquered.
 
Agreed on "harder", with what everyone else said.
Also, on larger maps you'll generally find that at least one or two civs have conquered the hell out of their neighbours and are thus massive superpowers in their own right (as well as having a bunch of vassals) that are much harder to beat militarily or economically.
 
I find that Agg AI is somewhat easier than the normal AI , if ( and that is is a big if ) you manage to survive the initial onslaught and you're in the mood ( and in position of ) fighting a defensive war. Then grind the enemy stacks while you tech to safety ( i.e. better military ).... After you're using MG vs rifles or something like that the game is in the bag ( P.S This was in Monarch... can't talk about higher levels )
The first time I played Agg AI I felt that I was going back to Civ III in terms of enemy stack size.... thank God I still remember how to make kill zones ( in Civ IV is even easier: we have medic units and enough siege units make wonders ... just put some well placed forts in forest/hill sites with cg units and a medic to seve as first wave breaker)
 
For me, it has made the game a bit easier, and let me make the jump to Monarch.

Before, I hated playing on Monarch, as I felt forced into a pure warmonger strategy. I couldn't tech with the AI's, so the only choice was to try to beat them up, which usually put me even further behind in tech.

With aggressive AI, I can play my usual hybrid builder/warmonger strategy, and the game is a nice challenge throughout. I'm almost always middle of the pack techwise, and winning wars is tough but doable. For me, it is the perfect balance.
 
Top Bottom