Rushing AIs... Are you turning on Aggressive AI?

[PieceOfMind]

The following is largely a look back at the beginnings of Better AI and how changes were made to Agg in that mod. I don't wish to argue what "optimal play" is, that is not the point of this thread. Whether the mantra is go for early rush, or play to the map and adapt to your surroundings etc. is not the issue here.

Agg AI when it was altered by Blake, was intended to become the setting designed for players who use an early rush. If players did not use the early rush (which ironically in Agg AI is probably a better strategy than rushing) then Agg AI became even easier. If you play your settings however you like in each of your games, then you may very well be an excellent player and think it is absurd to have to play a certain setting to a particular strategy.

The reason the following discussion is tricky, and why I took the OP down for a short time, is that it's seemingly paradoxical to tell a player that he must use early rush on Agg AI and must not rush an AI on regular AI. Players are wired to adapt to their situation, far more than an AI can, and it is probably why humans can compete against AIs at such high difficulties where they play at a severe disadvantage to the AIs. But whether you are a good player or not, there could be some merit in accepting what Agg AI was designed for.

The opinion, that stirs so much controversy is this:
If you usually rush AIs, then you should choose Agg AI because, at least in theory, these AIs are supposed to stand a greater chance against that strategy. If you choose Agg AI and don't rush the AIs you are supposedly taking unfair advantage of the situation, by adapting to the new military climate.

If your opinion is that even if you rush you find Agg AI easier, then your comments are valued here because at least I hope to see where Agg AI becomes so lacking. If your opinion is that you find the Agg AI easier than the regular AI when you don't rush, then you might as well be telling me something as obvious as moving down a difficulty makes the game easier. By design, Agg AI should be easier when you religiously avoid the rush and also if you intelligently and based on your situation decide to avoid the rush. It doesn't make you a bad player, and I certainly don't want to be the police on how you should play your game, but I am suggesting you reconsider how Agg AI can best be used for an enjoyable, challenging game.

If it comes to my personal opinion, even though Agg AI may be easier when you don't rush, it makes about as much sense as turning on raging barbs and beelining the great wall. It is legal by the game rules, and probably not even considered an exploit by many, but it is adapting IMO perhaps a little too well to the situation at hand.

So my last word in this new piece is this, I don't wish to argue with anyone what optimal play is. "Play to your situation" is obviously going to be a better mantra because it already is far more general and may include the possibility of the alterantive mantra "rush an AI". Besides I myself am not an optimal player - I will usually play regular AI and intentionally not rush the AIs. My opinion is that this is fairer on the AIs, particularly the one that would have been the victim otherwise.

What I also wanted to do is to give a bit of a history lesson for the civfanatics who may not have been around when the debate fired up back in 2007 because if you could see past the occasional flaming, there was some really valuable discussion about the way AIs play and how they should perhaps best play against aggressive humans.

Spoiler :

Way back in the middle of 2007, when BtS had barely hit the shelves, the Better AI mod was in its infancy and its main programmer - Blake Walsh - was creating controversy. In the Better AI mod, Blake began to take the Agg AI setting in the direction of what could be described as the true setting for players who used the early rush in all their games. Back then, most high level players were of the opinion that the only way to compete at the high levels was to take advantage of the early opportunity to rush AIs (typically with axes) while they barely had any defenses up.

There was a bit of a stir when Blake began to call the regular AI 'sandbox' AI, as most of the players who used the early rush strategy on regular felt they were being insulted. To put it simply, the AI civs in Agg AI were more ruthless and less of a pushover than they were in the regular game, at least when it came to games where the human nearly always chose early rush. The thing about Agg AI that most people noticed was that the AIs 'spammed' more units. Also, originally in Civ4 vanilla, there was a lot of code in Agg AI that had an anti-human bias (leftovers from Civ2 or Civ3 I think), and this was gradually removed by Blake and the final parts are just now being removed by the people currently working on Better BtS AI, if I understand correctly.

I'm sorry. I don't think Aggressive AI = the real Civ, and I despise the term "sandbox" AI. It's not the first time that someone has implied some sort of an ego problem on the part of players like me, that we only play to win. The fact is, I win maybe 50% of my games now, even though I play with the "sandbox-oh-so-generously-dumb" AI. I just picked a difficulty level that will still pose a challenge to me.

It's not what I said. I said, that if your default strategy is one of total militarism, then let the AI know. There's a large number of skilled players who play all rush, all the time, because it's the optimal strategy. Well Aggressive AI setting makes it a less optimal strategy.

If you are the kind of player, who pursues optimal strategies, then you should play Aggressive AI because the optimal strategy is not trivially, "Rush" (in game theory terms, the equilibrium strategy for normal AI is "Rush", because it always gives you tremendous high yield for your hammer investment, it's not so clear that the same is true of Aggressive AI - if you don't pursue equilibrium strategy's it doesn't matter)

Now, to understand where I'm coming from:

Q: Where did I post this information originally?
A: Realms Beyond Civilization

Q: What is RBCiv famous for?
A: Variant play.

Q: What is the point of variant play?
A: Reducing the effectiveness and use of cookie-cutter strategies.

I really have just as much respect (or even more, being one of them) for people who want to "play another way" as opposed to people who always pursue the "optimal" strategies (meaning, cookie cutter).

My only point is: If you are someone who is compelled to play optimally, then play on Aggressive AI. If you are someone who likes to play their own way then use whatever setting you want.

However for truly competitive games, it's probably better to have Aggressive AI on such that a greater variety of strategies are (hopefully) employable, while still being competitive.

source: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5745679&postcount=48

This was the Better AI mod for Warlords. The Better AI mod for Warlords basically died when Blake was scooped up and employed by Firaxis to contribute to the AI programming for the Bts patches (he was even credited in the BtS manual - page 45), and all contact with civfanatics was broken (presumably a confidentiality agreement). And so the BtS AI was born.

Now in BtS, the legacy of the original Better AI mod remains, and the Agg AI setting is still arguably the right choice for rushers. Whether it is the right choice or not for rushers is open to debate. It can be argued that Agg AI is more of a cakewalk than regular AI at high levels, and many players are of this opinion. (By the way, the Better AI project has now become Better BtS AI and is truly beginning to show great success thanks to jdog5000.)

The word "optimal play" is thrown around a lot on these forums. The best players will always tell you to adapt to the situation, but often it boils down to rushing your neighbours near the start of the game for a land grab, giving you that early edge. Whether this is optimal play or not, many would agree that generally playing your civ in a more aggressive way is a stronger strategy - one that is more likely to lead you to victory. Sometimes you can take an enemy capital (sometimes more than one), giving you an advantage big enough to possibly win you the game from there.

People who do this and who never try the Agg AI setting are allegedly abusing, whether intentionally or inadvertently, what is possibly the weaker AI. If you are going to rush the AI just about every single game then do them a favour and let them know by choosing Agg AI. If you try Agg AI and find it is significantly easier, then it would be nice to find the ways in which it falls behind.

You might say, there's nothing against the rules about rushing AIs on regular AI. But when Blake suggested making even the regular AI more ruthless and unit spammy, there was vehement rejection from all directions. Many people (probably the majority) felt strongly against this, as they didn't want the game to become even more focused on warfare. The solution was that regular AI would be left alone, and Agg AI would be where the truly scary AIs would lurk. Some of the more arrogant posters continued to lay scorn on those who chose regular AI over Agg AI, calling them wusses and so forth. This attitude was definitely not justified, as regular AI still would provide a challenge, possibly a greater challenge, but the point was it was a different challenge.

Unfortunately, it's also possible to abuse the Agg AI setting by ensuring you don't end up fighting. Very crafty players who could stay out of wars (whether by playing islands games, clever diplomacy or whatever) found the game even easier than before because the AIs had their tech pace slowed down so much more due to unit costs, and possibly less trade due to more wars breaking out. Going for space race with Agg AI on, was frowned upon by some. However, under many circumstances these were still perceived to be great achievements because even surviving at all on Agg AI required a different set of skills, especially in diplomacy.

The end result? Agg AI remained the setting for rushers and the setting for only rushers (note I am not saying it is the only setting for rushers - read my words carefully ). Using Agg AI when you deliberately didn't rush was considered inappropriate (but not greatly), and using regular AI when you always rushed was considered inappropriate. This was the opinion held by Blake and some other posters. Others disagreed with this opinion and it was never clear which side held more weight.

There was pretty much unanimous agreement that AIs should never be programmed to rush. People were right to reject that idea because AIs at higher levels started with more units, and theoretically the AIs could rush you with their starting archer! So in a way, AIs are cutting you - the human player - some slack. Perhaps we should cut them some slack by not rushing them without using Agg AI. Perhaps Agg AI just debilitates them further?

So my question to you, my fellow civfanatics, is this...

Are the good boys and girls using Agg AI when they rush the AIs? Do you think Agg AI only ever crippled the AI further in games where you early rush?

EDIT
Some things were added in the hope of making the post less flame-baity. Do not take offense to any opinions expressed in this post - your disagreement will be welcomed with due respect in your reply.

 

[Gumbolt]

Yeah set up a map with 10 Shakas and yourself with Agg AI. let me know how long you last on a pangea map. On a plus side with Agg AI you dont have to DOW the AI. So less diplomatic points lost.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I usually always use Aggressive AI for more AI-AI wars in the middlegame.

 

[Outshined]

I don't think the problem is so much that the player can rush and conquer a civ or two early on to seize the advantage, but that the AI doesn't follow suit.

It's been my general experience that the AI is fairly unwilling to wage an early war itself (unless it is against a poorly defended human player), to expand, grab more land, and remain competitive against the player's growing empire. I almost never see an AI eliminate another AI, unless there was somehow an extremely large disparity in their empire size to begin with (European nations forced to play OCC due to start situation in the Earth map come to mind) All too often, the AI's play nice, allow themselves to be boxed into a tiny area, and in the midgame you see a bunch of smaller nations coexisting on the other continent, while you have monopolized yours. If the AI were more willing to eliminate rival AIs so it could keep up a landmass parity with the player, then maybe the early rush strategy wouldn't create such an overwhelming advantage for the player in the mid to lategame.

It might also pose a more significant challenge if multiple smaller AI nations were more likely to dogpile you if one were declared upon by a significantly larger human-controlled nation. From a diplomatic standpoint, it seems a bit silly that the AI nations would not become alarmed when the player begins systematically conquering one smaller nation after another. When it becomes obvious that the player's objective is to eliminate all other nations, you would expect the remaining ones to unite against the greater threat and attempt to curtail the runaway power leader before the player annihilates them all. This makes more sense from a "historical" standpoint, as well.

That was a bit longwinded, but the point I am getting at is that there are other ways to make rushing and war oriented strategies (with the eventual goal of a domination win) more challenging without necessarily altering the AI so it makes the early rush more difficult, specifically.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't think the problem is so much that the player can rush and conquer a civ or two early on to seize the advantage, but that the AI doesn't follow suit.

It's been my general experience that the AI is fairly unwilling to wage an early war itself (unless it is against a poorly defended human player), to expand, grab more land, and remain competitive against the player's growing empire. I almost never see an AI eliminate another AI, unless there was somehow an extremely large disparity in their empire size to begin with (European nations forced to play OCC due to start situation in the Earth map come to mind) All too often, the AI's play nice, allow themselves to be boxed into a tiny area, and in the midgame you see a bunch of smaller nations coexisting on the other continent, while you have monopolized yours. If the AI were more willing to eliminate rival AIs so it could keep up a landmass parity with the player, then maybe the early rush strategy wouldn't create such an overwhelming advantage for the player in the mid to lategame.

It might also pose a more significant challenge if multiple smaller AI nations were more likely to dogpile you if one were declared upon by a significantly larger human-controlled nation. From a diplomatic standpoint, it seems a bit silly that the AI nations would not become alarmed when the player begins systematically conquering one smaller nation after another. When it becomes obvious that the player's objective is to eliminate all other nations, you would expect the remaining ones to unite against the greater threat and attempt to curtail the runaway power leader before the player annihilates them all. This makes more sense from a "historical" standpoint, as well.

That was a bit longwinded, but the point I am getting at is that there are other ways to make rushing and war oriented strategies (with the eventual goal of a domination win) more challenging without necessarily altering the AI so it makes the early rush more difficult, specifically.

You are right that there are other ways to make rushing more difficult, but Agg AI does more than that. It not only makes it more difficult for the player who does the early rush, the AI armies become far more intimidating and devastating, for the entire game.

Also, I think part of the reason an AI is unwilling to wage early war is that it is programmed not to. I'm not sure what the earliest date is that it can declare war, but even at that date I suspect it is unlikely to do so because it does not really prepare for war very early at all. Some of the more aggressive leaders will of course, but a great many of them won't. With Agg AI, most of the leaders become more willing to declare war if it will benefit them, and I reckon they would also be more willing to DoW earlier. I would suspect that with the new Better BtS AI and Agg AI, the AIs will be extremely competitive.

Even without Agg AI, Better BtS AI is starting to demonstrate AIs taking over other AIs - even getting domination wins - on regular AI setting (I think it was regular anyway).

 

[dirtyparrot]

I generally don't rush unless after 3 or 4 cities I notice that the AI is woefully weak that it becomes their fault. I do enjoy more wars although I wish for more AI vs AI wars. Generally what I do is put aggressive AI with the max number of AI's allowed to force them to go to war. I find they're still too peaceful, but there are significantly more wars. Right now, I'm playing with 17 other AI's on a large map continents. It will be survival of the fittest on this map.

 

[Roller123]

I must say there are a lot of unsupported claims in the first post. And i mean a lot. "Better" AI, "true" setting, "optimal play", "abusing the weak AI", "Agg AI required skill", "Agg AI would be where the truly scary AIs would lurk".

Common gimme a break.

"the final parts are just now being removed" - i dont think this is possisble, link?

You ought to cut them some slack and not rush them every game unless you are playing with Agg AI.

Agree. Extending the above, there is no point of rushing at all in a game that handles history and empire development. If anyone wants to play Starcraft, devs added an option for that, no probs. But the above callings really are just asking for a pointless flamewar. Especially as having 10 troops or 100 doesnt matter after Construction.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I must say there are a lot of unsupported claims in the first post. And i mean a lot. "Better" AI, "true" setting, "optimal play", "abusing the weak AI", "Agg AI required skill", "Agg AI would be where the truly scary AIs would lurk".

Common gimme a break.

"Better AI" was the name of the mod.

"Optimal play" was not used in an unsubstantiated way be me. How I described is is pretty much what it means to many players. If you disagree with this, I'm absolutely happy to hear your view.

"true" setting means it literally was programmed as the setting for rushers. This was stated explicitly by the programmer who had the main influence on the AI modifications for BtS. I can direct you to some more posts made by Blake, which help reveal his intentions. He was genuinely making the mod for the rushers, to provide them with a greater challenge. He was not doing it to spite them.

Spoiler :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5038827&postcount=43
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5003908&postcount=1708
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5031279&postcount=1
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5033136&postcount=15
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5036324&postcount=26
Keep in mind the specific details of AI in these posts could be outdated, but the basic idea is there.

"Agg AI required skill" is IMO a fair claim. I am not denying that regular AI does not require skill. Some people went so far to claim that Agg AI often equated with one difficulty level higher. It certainly required different strategies, and I think that makes it fair to say it required skill.

"Agg AI is where the truly scary AIs would lurk." I feel this is justified too. Have you experienced the SoDs of warmonger AI civs on Agg AI? They truly are scary. Blake really wanted to turn Agg AI into a setting where, as he said, "WAR IS HELL". He didn't do that to regular AI because everyone objected (and I have no problem whatsoever with those people objecting). The AIs in Agg AI, even the ones that are usually considered the more peaceful ones, are more ruthless and unit spammy. This makes them scarier.

"the final parts are just now being removed" - i dont think this is possisble, link?

I'm talking specifically about the anti-human bias in the code specific to Agg AI. I'm not about to suggest the anti-human features of diplomacy etc. are disappearing.

I may be mistaken but I think jdog has recently removed one or two anti-human pieces of code from the Agg AI code. If he did not, it may have been the case that Blake really did get rid of it all.

Agree. Extending the above, there is no point of rushing at all in a game that handles history and empire development. If anyone wants to play Starcraft, devs added an option for that, no probs. But the above callings really are just asking for a pointless flamewar. Especially as having 10 troops or 100 doesnt matter after Construction.

I don't really know starcraft, so I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Because of how profitable warfare can be in civ, strong strategies will often involve making sure you have the bigger stick with which to whack your enemies. Human players are so successful in war because they can make use of large stacks of units combined with the fact they can exercise greater tactical skills in manoeuvring those stacks and other units.

I understand completely the objection many people have to unit spammy AI. I'm not a big fan of it either. But I feel that if the AI is to have a fair chance against me when I am dominating it militarily, it should be allowed to spam more. Especially as the AI becoes more proficient in tactical combat as in the Better BtS AI mod, I think it makes the game fairer.

I respect your right to disagree.

EDIT
By the way it is not difficult for a discussion to remain free of flame wars. It only requires the posters to maintain their composure and civility, rather than lowering to personal insults.

 

[KingMorgan]

I think i agree with you there Piece, i've never played Agg AI, and only once i have i ever had to face an early AI rush - Vicky if memory serves.

The standard AI has very limited situational awareness, you make a good point in the OP, I'd be wary of Agg AI and more keen to see the AI expolit weakness. I do notice that barbs given the choice between attacking the AI scout on a plains/grassland will choose to attack my warrior either on a hill or in a forest/jungle tile. I have noticed that they will pass if your woody 1 or 2 and sitting in a forest, so there is a little inteligence in the code!!

 

[Roller123]

PieceOfMind
Now youre going straight ahead and pick up all the points which should be avoided in the first place, and im not the one who is going to discuss skill in Civ4. Its the wrong game for measuring skill. Besides in that above multipaged thread the Agg AI setting was completely trashed already. Good day.

Why would you do that? His(Blakes) word is the most biased on the whole issue. When you've developed something, you lose dispassionate critical thinking. That's not a knock on him, the same thing would be true of anyone in the same situation.

All I know is that if I play on Monarch with Agg AI off, I usually have AIs that are challenging. If I play on Monarch with Agg AI on, I usually have a cakewalk. I'm sure I could move up to Emperor and get back to a challenging game, but I don't see why I'd want to do that.

Oh, and from personal experience, I haven't found the AI any better against early rushes with Agg AI. They are still extremely easy to pull off. Even the early-mid game, I don't find the AI any more militarily challenging. It's only when mid-late game comes around that they can pull off their enormous stacks - which is only useful if they have a tech parity.

Bh

 

[PieceOfMind]

PieceOfMind
Now youre going straight ahead and pick up all the points which should be avoided in the first place, and im not the one who is going to discuss skill in Civ4. Its the wrong game for measuring skill. Besides in that above multipaged thread the Agg AI setting was completely trashed already. Good day.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of Bhruic. I also had some respect for Blake, despite his sometimes arrogant nature.

What Bhruic said may be true. It would make me sad though if Agg AI was trashed and never treated again. I believe the purpose Blake wanted to give to it was a good one, even if it risked offending a few people. If Monarch Agg AI really is such a cakewalk then perhaps there are ways it can be improved? Did Bhruic ever refer to any specific reasons why it was a cakewalk?

In fairness, I was probably wrong to say rushers ought to use Agg AI. It is probably more reasonable to say rushers outght to try Agg AI, if they have not already. I will revise my post in this light. The reason I say a military player should at least try Agg AI at some point is not because I believe I have the moral high ground or am a better player. The point is more that I believe they may enjoy it, and they may even discover they enjoy the different type of challenge. I would imagine there are a number of players out there who have never tried the option and perhaps don't even know what it does.

Agg AI could turn out to be an easier or harder game, even for the rusher.

I know it was a contentious issue but I always found it really interesting to discuss.

Especially now with the Better BtS AI where there is potential for the Agg AI to be improved, if there are obvious areas in which it is lacking (you seem to be suggesting this) then it would be good to bring them up and direct them to jdog. My opinion is that jdog is more careful about the changes he implements than Blake was, so it could really be worthwhile. If you remain optimistic, there is no real limit to how far the AI can be improved, both in regular and Agg AI.

Having said that, I don't wish to put the responsibility on him to receive flame after flame if he does go ahead with some changes in Agg AI. I think he has already treated Agg AI separately with some of the changes he has made, and there has not been any severe backlash.

 

[Belisar]

I have experimented with both and while AggAI spams more units the problem is, I have that info too and adapt to it.
Another problem is that AggAI tends to lower the tech pace, the only real pressure you get from the AI, so as the game goes on and you overtake the AI starting advantages, it gets easier and easier.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I have experimented with both and while AggAI spams more units the problem is, I have that info too and adapt to it.
Another problem is that AggAI tends to lower the tech pace, the only real pressure you get from the AI, so as the game goes on and you overtake the AI starting advantages, it gets easier and easier.

I'm not sure whether you implied this, but the intention of Agg AI is that you are sort of meant to rush. The point is to make it a harder game for the players who choose to rush in most of their games. If you don't rush, then pretty much by design it will be an easier game.

This was stated by Blake in the quote I put in the first post. Only if you rush should you use Agg AI. If not, it's more appropriate to not rush the AIs too early. With that in mind, are you saying that Agg AI is easier even when rushing?

Players who do not rush (and I am usually one not to rush) should supposedly find greater challenge in regular AI. When I wish to rush an AI, I sometimes feel I should be playing Agg AI, but generally I'll just not do so anyway, especially because the leaders I have been playing more recently are Protective, not really suited for rushing.

Please accept my apology if you had taken this into account.

 

[Belisar]

I'm not sure whether you implied this, but the intention of Agg AI is that you are sort of meant to rush.

I'm not a scripted AI, I can adapt on map, distance to AI, ressources ....
An early rush is one trick of the toolbox that fits in certain situations, there are other tricks as well, I hope you know that too.
Even if I rush, I know that AggAI is on and adapt.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm not a scripted AI, I can adapt on map, distance to AI, ressources ....
An early rush is one trick of the toolbox that fits in certain situations, there are other tricks as well, I hope you know that too.

Of course. But I am not the one who designed Agg AI, nor am I the one called Blake who wanted to turn the Agg AI setting into the setting for rushers.

If you adapt to the situation then I guess the logic is you shouldn't use Agg AI. If you are one to rush the AI every game (well, mabye > 90% is better to say) then maybe Agg AI is for you.

If you refuse to make a sacrifice in your opening, then you will find the game even easier than non-Agg AI (supposedly), and you can enjoy winning an easy game. I know you think it is highly absurd that there's a way you should play the setting. I don't think it's any more absurd than other variants where you place one or more interesting restrictions on yourself. If you start a game where you're not meant to chop any forests, and you choose to chop forests because the game doesn't stop you, you're only cheating yourself and the rules of the variant, but you can still win the game.

Even if I rush, I know that AggAI is on and adapt.

If you're basically saying that you will always take the best strategy depending on settings that is fine - that is what most good players do. However, at least for the Agg AI setting, IF it is meant only for rushers, then I believe playing with the knowledge that you probably won't rush is taking advantage of the setting.

Every player has the capacity to place restrictions on themselves each game. IMO, it is more fun to not rush AIs on regular AI, at the difficulty I play, because I believe overcoming them in the later eras is both more challenging and more interesting.

I never play Agg AI with the intention of teching ahead of the AIs (at least not through deliberately avoiding war). It may not be "optimal play", but it could perhaps be better described as the way the setting is meant to be used. If you can't help yourself but to take full advantage of the situation there's nothing I can do.

 

[fugazi]

While not wholely representative for the Agg AI option, you could give Gumbolt's Washington game a shot. Post some screenies of how you're doing

 

[TheMeInTeam]

AGG AI seems to have a hole in its tech ability, but plays more soundly otherwise. Unfortunately in my experience this means that the roles are flipped ---> you defend an "early rush" by the AI, and the AI is often toast. Even with its enhancements it won't win when it's an era back. It could make some starts hell though.

I lost an AGG AI game recently because I wasn't used to the implied variance on diplo . An AI that almost 100% would have declared on someone else normally went after me despite both targets being below its power threshold. Inherently, that bothers me a bit (the AI in AGG AI is rigged so that it plays less to win and more to impair the human, although in reality the AI very seldom plays to win effectively regardless), but it can be overcome if one plans for it.

Basically, you spam more troops, tech slower, but so does the AI, then when you get a window you use it. Of course works equally well.

Now, the betterAI mod is a whole different ballpark. I've only played with it a few times, but there was one insurmountable problem with the betterAI mod as far as I'm concerned: the extra time between turns...!

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, since the can of worms is open...

Agressive AI is only that, a more agressive AI. It will be more prone to wars, make bigger armies, acept refusals much less lightly and it will be less clement with the weak. That does not make it in any sense more dificult to cope with, mainly because Agressive AI is not in any sense smarter than the non-Agressive AI ( they don't settle their cities diferently, they aren't smarter in terms of terrain improvements, their military tactics aren't in any way better.... ) and because the Agressive AI shuns wonders, in spite of performing very badly without them ( c'mon Mids in Monarch open in 1300 AD ? ). So, like you said, rushing a non-Agressive AI is basically the same that avoiding wars in Agg AI: it is exploiting a somewhat dumb AI failure to adress diferently to diferent human play.

 

[PieceOfMind]

AGG AI seems to have a hole in its tech ability, but plays more soundly otherwise. Unfortunately in my experience this means that the roles are flipped ---> you defend an "early rush" by the AI, and the AI is often toast. Even with its enhancements it won't win when it's an era back. It could make some starts hell though.

Exactly, and that seems to be the paradox that most people can't get past.

If I am very good at rushing, I might decide to try out Agg AI for once. When I do so, I encounter far more resistance, and I start to consider whether against this setting I would be better off building in the early stages, REXing or whatever, and then waiting til I had a real advantage before I attacked. But then I find the game easier, and I decide to go back to the regular AI. But then I'll go back into my old habits of just rushing the AI again.

I have to admit it feels very unnatural to not play in the way that would make you most likely to win. It can feel so unnatural that a competitive player just won't bring themselves to do it.

Now, the betterAI mod is a whole different ballpark. I've only played with it a few times, but there was one insurmountable problem with the betterAI mod as far as I'm concerned: the extra time between turns...!

You know it's funny because of all people I reckon you'd be one of the ones most impressed with some of the changes in Better BtS AI. But it mightn't ever satisfy your never ending demand for fast turns!

 

[Belisar]

I can tell that I like an early rush but cause I have done it so often I also know very well that it's a situational tactic.
Starting a random game with the intention to use a specific tactic is either variant play or weak play, not optimal play.
And every smart play is exploiting the dumb AI, if you play like an AI, you are supposed to lose on higher levels.
The question is, where to draw the line, but handicaping yourself from turn 0 before you see the map would be something like a poker player that moves all-in before he gets his cards.