Does reducing the default number of AIs on a map affect their performance?

[Astennu]

Hey guys,

I like playing on large/huge maps, but always find that I'm always way too boxed in and can only find like 2 cities before the AI expands right into me. I find this extreming tedious and prefer games where both myself and the AI can built up a little bit before enroaching on each others territory.

I read a post a while ago that changing the default number of AIs, ie reducing the players on a huge map from 12 to 10 affects the AI's performance negatively. Can anyone confirm this? I'm about to start a huge map with 10 players and would like to know.

Cheers

 

[GWashington]

I did a large map with 8 players not too long ago. Every civ had at least 5 cities and had their own part of a continent (or continent at whole). If the AI chooses to make the cities successful (higher populations) then there is really no negative effect. France was No.1 in everything for a while, having like 20 cities. So from my experiences, it gives no negative effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seabastian Civ]

I always add AIs.

I think it improves the game in two ways. First, that "runaway" AI (Greece, Hiawatha, Poland, Germany, etc.) will find less room to sprawl and will have to get aggressive if it wants to expand. AI on AI wars are always welcome developments in my single-player games, as it adds so much strategic decision making.

Second, more AIs means that YOU will have to expand quicker and more aggressively to stake out what should be yours. Sure, it's awesome when Venice is your only companion on a medium sized continent, but does it lead to a fun game? Wouldn't you rather have a game where you've got the Huns massing on your border to the north, fresh off a conquest of some lowly Indians, and the Arabs converting your cities as fast as you can build inquisitors and prophets to get your tithe-religion off the ground?

Perhaps it all depends on what you're looking for in a game, but I highly recommend you remove two or three city states and add two or three civs. The AI can't handle too much room for expansion, and thrives with pressure.

 

[DrZero]

I always add AIs.

I think it improves the game in two ways. First, that "runaway" AI (Greece, Hiawatha, Poland, Germany, etc.) will find less room to sprawl and will have to get aggressive if it wants to expand. AI on AI wars are always welcome developments in my single-player games, as it adds so much strategic decision making.

Second, more AIs means that YOU will have to expand quicker and more aggressively to stake out what should be yours. Sure, it's awesome when Venice is your only companion on a medium sized continent, but does it lead to a fun game? Wouldn't you rather have a game where you've got the Huns massing on your border to the north, fresh off a conquest of some lowly Indians, and the Arabs converting your cities as fast as you can build inquisitors and prophets to get your tithe-religion off the ground?

Perhaps it all depends on what you're looking for in a game, but I highly recommend you remove two or three city states and add two or three civs. The AI can't handle too much room for expansion, and thrives with pressure.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[slo]

agree, i always add at least 4 ai's.....makes for a much better game.
slo

 

[Majestic Emu]

I tend to play small maps, just for less time between my turns late game, but I always add a couple AI's and turn down the number of city-states, more on standard maps. Why have boring one-city entities who don't try to win or expand at all when you can have a more competitive, interesting game?

 

[njmfff]

I always add AIs.

I think it improves the game in two ways. First, that "runaway" AI (Greece, Hiawatha, Poland, Germany, etc.) will find less room to sprawl and will have to get aggressive if it wants to expand. AI on AI wars are always welcome developments in my single-player games, as it adds so much strategic decision making.

Second, more AIs means that YOU will have to expand quicker and more aggressively to stake out what should be yours. Sure, it's awesome when Venice is your only companion on a medium sized continent, but does it lead to a fun game? Wouldn't you rather have a game where you've got the Huns massing on your border to the north, fresh off a conquest of some lowly Indians, and the Arabs converting your cities as fast as you can build inquisitors and prophets to get your tithe-religion off the ground?

Perhaps it all depends on what you're looking for in a game, but I highly recommend you remove two or three city states and add two or three civs. The AI can't handle too much room for expansion, and thrives with pressure.

Couldn't agree more. I recently started adding half+ the number of civs that are defualt for map size (12-13 on standard map eg). Makes game little fun to play, especially if there are some aggro civs like Huns or Zulu. Much more fun to play then boring "click-next-turn-until-I-get-to-that-tech-victory"

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

I wholeheartedly agree as well. I usually play on a large shuffle map with random everything (civs included) with 12 civs and 15 CS's. Decreasing the CS number beyond that hurts the civs that rely on CS's, so I find this to be a good balance. This is great for some early war , especially on Emperor (and sometimes on King as well).

I have debated changing that AI number from 12 to 13 so that I could knock out one more AI (using the 25% rule) before everyone gets so "peeved" about my actions....

 

[Barghaest]

Well, in my experience, the AI performs worse when there are more or less than standard for the map.

Previously, I would frequently drop the number (Civ and CS alike - like a Huge map with Large map settings) so maps were less crowded and noticed the AI tended to stagnate (falling behind drastically in tech on Prince and lower difficulties - and I mean like an Era or two even when I didn't wonderhog and I never beeline GL/NC) and there would be expanses of unclaimed territory well into Atomic.

Adding AIs had less of an impact, but I still noticed it. Those that typically made wide, sprawling empires became hemmed in and stagnated after certain points (frequently saw AI with settlers parked in their cities draining their economy) while aggressive civs had a greater frequency of becoming runaways due to closer/smaller targets for conquest (one game I found the Mongols had completely conquered the other continent by the time I reached Renaissance - eliminating not only all the other civs but all CS as well).

Replacing a small amount of CS with Civs (or vice versa) would have less - if any - impact on AI performance, I suspect.

 

[joncnunn]

For concerns about the major AIs being too boxed in with standard map settings; it's more effective to thin down the number of city states than to remove a major AI; removing a major AI will give a space advantage to two of the AIs, while having reduced city states from the standard 2:1 ratio down to 1:1 will spread the effect out.

 

[Helmling]

I always max out the civs and AIs on the map. I just find it more interesting when the world is as populated as possible. I hate seeing big empty spaces on the map in the mid game.