Dragging Late Game When Victory Inevitable

[ElliotS]

I still ask me, if it wouldnt be easier to simply give the AI some small discount on policies, techs and growth, instead of a complex system of yields by events, new era or lost units (and so on).
It would be at least calculable and man-comprehensible.
The production bonus of the AI I would prefer to refer mainly to units and only half to buildings.
Or reduce it in principle to half and increase only in times of war to the current value. This would give the player the incentive to end AI wars as quickly as possible.
But the smartness of the AI could be increased, making the best decision already at king difficulty. Ive seen sometimes even in Emperor difficulty some strange pantheon picks (india starts in a giant desert with plenty of bonus ressources but picked goddess of festivals (bonus for every unique luxury)

The series of events is a serious improvement over vanilla because it can ramp smoother and avoids many of the quirks of an only discount system. It's also good because it rewards good AI for doing good and doesn't reward bad AI for doing nothing.

Interesting - I would have thought that at lower difficulties, randomization wouldn't be necessary because a human will beat an AI with equal resources handily (unless the AI is REALLY smart). It seems unnecessary for there to be a randomization handicap on top of the already-being-not-human handicap.

Has there been any thought of implementing Google's Swift Mind or whatever it's called, the learning AI that can trump human players by learning?

Randomization is necessary because it's most similar to how lower-level players play. The reason they're not playing at higher levels is because they don't make the best choices.

Also more casual players want to see more randomization because they don't like seeing the AI make the same choices every game.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The series of events is a serious improvement over vanilla because it can ramp smoother and avoids many of the quirks of an only discount system. It's also good because it rewards good AI for doing good and doesn't reward bad AI for doing nothing.

Vanilla was: AI get units and techs for free at start and after you have closed the gap, it was easy.
This was fortunately undone and is now replaced with a scaling system. (But you can ask yourself, why the AI is still receiving extra starting units at the start of the game, which is against the initial thought of no starting advantages like in vanilla.)

Its also questionable why there should be rewards for good play of the AI. If the AI is doing good, the result of the good AI decision should be the reward. Rewarding the AI for good play is in favor of runaway, but in the same time, there are so many catchup mechanics in the game, which is the complete opposite of it and plays against the runaway. So why giving the AI extra yields for doing "good" things if its countered by other mechanics?

I dont say I want back to vanilla. nononono.....The thing I imagine is:
Equal start (no extra starting units) (but create an extra high importance of protection for workers in the early stage, to disable the easy option of stealing one from AI and disable early crippling effects)
Small flat discount at start of the game for growth/policy/tech/production. None at lowest difficulty, high at highest difficulty.
Increasing discount with each era for growth/production. (No need for further decrease of policy or tech cost, cause it already has a small chain effect, earlier unlocked policies and techs create more benefits earlier, which enable earlier policies and techs and so on.)
Production discount for infrastructure is generally halfed and in war time, the discount for units is increased.

For me, this would be the optimum.

 

[tu_79]

Vanilla was: AI get units and techs for free at start and after you have closed the gap, it was easy.
This was fortunately undone and is now replaced with a scaling system. (But you can ask yourself, why the AI is still receiving extra starting units at the start of the game, which is against the initial thought of no starting advantages like in vanilla.)

Its also questionable why there should be rewards for good play of the AI. If the AI is doing good, the result of the good AI decision should be the reward. Rewarding the AI for good play is in favor of runaway, but in the same time, there are so many catchup mechanics in the game, which is the complete opposite of it and plays against the runaway. So why giving the AI extra yields for doing "good" things if its countered by other mechanics?

I dont say I want back to vanilla. nononono.....The thing I imagine is:
Equal start (no extra starting units) (but create an extra high importance of protection for workers in the early stage, to disable the easy option of stealing one from AI and disable early crippling effects)
Small flat discount at start of the game for growth/policy/tech/production. None at lowest difficulty, high at highest difficulty.
Increasing discount with each era for growth/production. (No need for further decrease of policy or tech cost, cause it already has a small chain effect, earlier unlocked policies and techs create more benefits earlier, which enable earlier policies and techs and so on.)
Production discount for infrastructure is generally halfed and in war time, the discount for units is increased.

For me, this would be the optimum.

As you've seen, the system allows the AI that manages to get a small advantage (luck, starting bonuses, or lucky synergies) to make it into a runaway. This makes the game more epic, when you face a civ that has turned into a juggernaut. Problem was that there was always one runaway, rarely two. Now there are always more contenders.

 

[chicorbeef]

Vanilla was: AI get units and techs for free at start and after you have closed the gap, it was easy.
This was fortunately undone and is now replaced with a scaling system. (But you can ask yourself, why the AI is still receiving extra starting units at the start of the game, which is against the initial thought of no starting advantages like in vanilla.)

Its also questionable why there should be rewards for good play of the AI. If the AI is doing good, the result of the good AI decision should be the reward. Rewarding the AI for good play is in favor of runaway, but in the same time, there are so many catchup mechanics in the game, which is the complete opposite of it and plays against the runaway. So why giving the AI extra yields for doing "good" things if its countered by other mechanics?

I dont say I want back to vanilla. nononono.....The thing I imagine is:
Equal start (no extra starting units) (but create an extra high importance of protection for workers in the early stage, to disable the easy option of stealing one from AI and disable early crippling effects)
Small flat discount at start of the game for growth/policy/tech/production. None at lowest difficulty, high at highest difficulty.
Increasing discount with each era for growth/production. (No need for further decrease of policy or tech cost, cause it already has a small chain effect, earlier unlocked policies and techs create more benefits earlier, which enable earlier policies and techs and so on.)
Production discount for infrastructure is generally halfed and in war time, the discount for units is increased.

For me, this would be the optimum.

Rewarding the AI for playing good has a very simple benefit. It makes it so that the AI will try to play good and do good things first and foremost and that is exactly as intended-if it was just a discount, then the AI would be static and this would make the game too predictable and boring for a human player. Catchup mechanics are built on controlling runaways-there need to be powerful civs in the first place for them to work. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

As you've seen, the system allows the AI that manages to get a small advantage (luck, starting bonuses, or lucky synergies) to make it into a runaway. This makes the game more epic, when you face a civ that has turned into a juggernaut. Problem was that there was always one runaway, rarely two. Now there are always more contenders.

The point is: Why is this a problem?
If you chose the difficulty right for you and you play a good game, YOU are the runaway. In almost all games, this is what the player want to be. But would you complain about beeing the runaway? Every player want to be the mightiest, most influencial nation on earth. But when an AI plays well and becomes the strongest power, is it complained that the game is not balanced? I see these mechanics as more of an instrument, so that the player can catch up and thus his ego is not hurt. If someone can play better than me through ability, then I have to accept that first and then try to be better next time.

Rewarding the AI for playing good has a very simple benefit. It makes it so that the AI will try to play good and do good things first and foremost and that is exactly as intended-if it was just a discount, then the AI would be static and this would make the game too predictable and boring for a human player. Catchup mechanics are built on controlling runaways-there need to be powerful civs in the first place for them to work. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That is nonsense. The AI cant TRY to play good. The AI chooses options based on mathematical calculations. Trying to play well would require an ego or ambition. I didnt even believe she knows getting those extra yields, if she is triggering an event like a birth of a GP.
Also the second part is nonsense. Why should the AI be static with a discount-only-system? The main advantages the AI has is done by the production cost discount. And I know the AI get yields by founding a city, reaching a new era, the birth of a GP. I already know that, not exactly how big, cause its hidden, but I know that, but it doesnt change anything to know that.
Tell me whats the difference from getting yields by new era if your discount towards policy and techs have the same size as the gifted yields? Do you have any influence towards it, does it change anything to know it? No, it doesnt. So, how would the mentioned sytem be different to the old system?

 

[Gazebo]

The point is: Why is this a problem?
If you chose the difficulty right for you and you play a good game, YOU are the runaway. In almost all games, this is what the player want to be. But would you complain about beeing the runaway? Every player want to be the mightiest, most influencial nation on earth. But when an AI plays well and becomes the strongest power, is it complained that the game is not balanced? I see these mechanics as more of an instrument, so that the player can catch up and thus his ego is not hurt. If someone can play better than me through ability, then I have to accept that first and then try to be better next time.

That is nonsense. The AI cant TRY to play good. The AI chooses options based on mathematical calculations. Trying to play well would require an ego or ambition. I didnt even believe she knows getting those extra yields, if she is triggering an event like a birth of a GP.
Also the second part is nonsense. Why should the AI be static with a discount-only-system? The main advantages the AI has is done by the production cost discount. And I know the AI get yields by founding a city, reaching a new era, the birth of a GP. I already know that, not exactly how big, cause its hidden, but I know that, but it doesnt change anything to know that.
Tell me whats the difference from getting yields by new era if your discount towards policy and techs have the same size as the gifted yields? Do you have any influence towards it, does it change anything to know it? No, it doesnt. So, how would the mentioned sytem be different to the old system?

No offense dude, but you're dredging up arguments that died years ago. Leave them bones alone.

G