Is the BtS AI on average teching much slower than in Warlords?

[frob2900]

​

There has been some discussion (see e.g. here and here) that the AI is teching slower than in Warlords. While it's impossible to say definitely (since each game develops differently), what's your general opinion on the issue?

In case the issue is bothering you, two possible fixes are:​

• Solver's unofficial patch (addresses espionage and corporation issues, among other things).
• Increase the AI Bonuses in CIV4HandicapInfo.xml back to Warlords levels (if there's enough interest/consensus on this I'll upload a fixed XML file and attach it here).

 

[dozenlong]

At equivalent named difficulty levels I have observed this to be true. Bear in mind the AIs have a lot more penalties at the higher levels than they used to, so even without new features and different AI, just applying those would likely slow down the tech rate of the AI.

I like it so far; it's nice not to rush by everything and spend at least a little time in each age, especially since Marathon seems so broken right now.

 

[madscientist]

I played Warlords basically on Prince and always won. Monarch on Warlords I always lost.

BTS I won easily on Prince, way outteched AI. Monarch AI techs slower compared to Monarch Warlords, but I still lost (barely).

My feeling is the Ai techs slower, but plays better, so I rate BTS Monarch right between Warlords Prince and Monarch which happens to be perfect fo my abilities.

Also note I play marathon/huge maps so I do not know how that factors in.

 

[IronCrown]

I can't vote because
-many AI civs tech a LOT slower while
-one or a few AI civs tech about the same as in Warlords

So yeah the average is certainly slower but it's irrelevant whether most AIs tech slower if there is one AI that wins the space race

 

[BARBEERIAN]

I play on Monarch, and the AI definitely techs slower than before. I can pretty much nab Liberalism at will, so I can hold off for awhile and get a really expensive tech from it (steam power, or steel, sci.method, etc..) and never worry about the AI beating me to Lib. However, I find the new AI is actually more of a threat to actually win the game. I doubt I'm the only one who's neglected the victory screen because of my tech lead and had an AI sneak a cultural vic on me.

I think alot of the AI's bad tech isn't just so much from the unit support, but from the AI's willingness to use those units. Inter-AI wars are much more frequent, and it hurts the tech pace of all the civs involved.

 

[madscientist]

I can't vote because
-many AI civs tech a LOT slower while
-one or a few AI civs tech about the same as in Warlords

So yeah the average is certainly slower but it's irrelevant whether most AIs tech slower if there is one AI that wins the space race

Which is my point regarding map size. On huge maps I get 11 other AIs. One or 2 soar to space, 1 or 2 do the culture thing, the rest are usually fighting. So if you have a nutty agressive AI building armies and espionage next to you and they need to be addressed that take sinto account your techpace, if you want to live. Also games are slower, I find it takes longer to get to space, whether it's lack of trading partners, the newly designed space ship, or additional techs. I played over 1000 turns on my prince space and diplo wins, and played over 1000 turns on my monarch loss (I think Monarch has 1200 max) .

 

[frob2900]

I can't vote because
-many AI civs tech a LOT slower while
-one or a few AI civs tech about the same as in Warlords

So yeah the average is certainly slower but it's irrelevant whether most AIs tech slower if there is one AI that wins the space race

Which is my point regarding map size. On huge maps I get 11 other AIs. One or 2 soar to space, 1 or 2 do the culture thing, the rest are usually fighting.

Which is why the poll asks if the AI techs slower on average. But, yes, these are of course valid points.

 

[UncleJJ]

There has been some discussion (see e.g. here and here) that the AI is teching slower than in Warlords. While it's impossible to say definitely (since each game develops differently), what's your general opinion on the issue?

The AIs are teching slower than in Warlords and that is a good thing, Warlords was absurdly fast. I want the speed of the game to approximate the real world. Liberalism in 400 AD is crazy and rifles in 850 AD is 1000 years before they were used as the weapon for line troops and both of those were possible in Warlords. If the tech rates are too fast then there is insufficient time to build and use a military technology before it's obsolete. So far the changes are for the better but I need to play much more before being sure.

 

[MrCynical]

Definitely slower. I never used to be able to bag Liberalism and the free great merchant off economics consistently at emperor+ before. There are one or two civs (Mansa Musa and the new Ethiopian leader) that tech at a respectable rate until the late renaissance, but then even they stagnate. In most games all but one or two of the civs are write offs by medieval times.

It can't be corporations, because the AIs are stagnating before I get to them. Espionage may be a factor, but they don't seem to have very good ratios against me (and I keep that slider at zero virtually all the time). My money's still on a combination of over optimistically reduced AI bonuses at high level, and AI unit overproduction.

 

[Percy]

The AIs are teching slower than in Warlords and that is a good thing, Warlords was absurdly fast. I want the speed of the game to approximate the real world. Liberalism in 400 AD is crazy and rifles in 850 AD is 1000 years before they were used as the weapon for line troops and both of those were possible in Warlords. If the tech rates are too fast then there is insufficient time to build and use a military technology before it's obsolete. So far the changes are for the better but I need to play much more before being sure.

I agree, but then the human player must not be able to tech very fast still.

 

[uncarved block]

As one of the few who regularly play Noble, I would like to note that the AI tech rate (with a few notable exceptions) has slowed dramatically. The usual suspects (Shaka, Monty, Caesar, etc) weren't really surprising; what is a shock is seeing otherwise decent tech AIs (Wang Kon, Ragnar, Hannibal, etc) getting left in the dust after Feudalism. The only thing that seems to help is if the AI starts with Gems or Gold (or two!) in their capitols BFC. Anything less and I never feel pressure tech wise, unless I expand too slowly.

So what is the difference? There's no bonus on Noble for the AI to lose, so that's out. Espionage is a factor, and not just the slider-- some of the AIs will just send Spy after Spy into my territory, for little or no gain. Over expansion was an early suspect, and may still be true. Units? Maybe. After some trouble with warring in the first few games, I tend to strike much, much earlier now, so I haven't noticed a huge change in the otherwise peaceful civs. I still maintain there's some issues with city terrain development, but haven't looked at a lot of examples closely yet.

I dunno. Something has definitely changed, but what it is- if there's only one or two things- is very difficult to say for sure.

 

[namliaM]

I think the AI just puts way more intrest into Espionage than we humans do

 

[madscientist]

I agree, but then the human player must not be able to tech very fast still.

We that's the point. The human can match the AI by overexpanding, overbuilding military, or upping the EP slider thereby running teh science slider at like 30, 40, 50% rather than 80, 90, 100%. Or you can turbo science and take you chances, but the AI is doing something and my guess is they are spying and building military.