Some Thoughts on 2.08 Changes

[Blake]

We'll have to see, more games need to be played, but I'm am starting to get the horrible feeling that no-one has realised the tech ramifications of the Blake AI inspired changes, in that at Monarch (probably even Prince now) and above, a peaceful path to victory is all but obsolete.

Speak for yourself. Peaceful victories are still entirely possible. But bear in mind that they shouldn't always be possible - if the game is an approximately level playing field and if there are say 8 players in the game, then you should only have a 1 in 8 chance of winning. If you can always win by your victory of choice then the game is broken - it's not even a game, just a sandbox for playing in.

The easy way to get a peaceful victory is to bribe the thug AI's onto the builder AI's to keep everyone busy (ie manipulate religion). Skillfull use of wonders and great people is also key, but you sort of need marble or stone and a suitable start point (2.08 AI's aren't very wonder happy, altough my newer AI will chop wonders). Trade is extremely important now that the AI grows bigger cities, compass is an awesomely valuable tech since the AI undervalues it.

Basically, a peaceful victory is now a puppetmaster victory, which is probably how it should be, the idea of being able to win without investing in diplomacy or war is a bit wrong.

 

[Mongolia]

Ok, I'm used to playing Huge maps/ Monarch / marathon and an still doing so...BUT....hmmm, I'm wondering if some of the recent additions have changed the game to an extent never really intended.

Bear with me, and I'll give an example, and try to explain what I mean. Current game I randomly got Victoria, found myself totally isolated on an island continent with enough room for 15 cities (eventually)..I really wouldn't have played this particular game any different if I started over, really to my estimation haven't put a foot wrong. I've founded conf, christ, and tao, have used all the "isolated techniques" i.e. skeleton army, wonders etc, and was even found to be the 2nd most advanced nation in around 1 AD.

And yet, its now 1350AD and Im exploring the world, and Ive found several 26 size cities (how the frick can they possibly be kepy healthy without modern health improvements?) and as for tech its a joke.

Capac and Saladin have both entered the Industrial age. In 1350AD. I'll pause and say that again. The age of Steam Power and Railways in 1350AD.
I'm still researching Education, to put matters into perspective, and am just starting to build knights. I've seen several machine guns in cities.

Now even though this may be a slight fluke of a game (all AI nations on a pangea continent..me solo), to my mind this must derive for the cumulative effect of the "new AI improvements", that is growing large early, using land more effectively etc etc. Which is fine in principle, but even before the patch, the AI was science obsessed, and now it had the ability to get science crazed.

Which brings me back to the earlier point, of changing the game in ways never really intended. The tech tree is no longer big enough. Its fine for the early times, but is now becoming increasingly compressed, due to AIs going science mad. Before the patch ( and Ive played dozens and dozens of marathon / huge / monarch games), the industrial age was generally reached by someone in around 1600-1650 on average. If this is pushed back by 300-350 years more, then the tech tree has become completely whacked out of sync.

Anyways, pls don't bothered posting "just drop down a level" or something along those lines, because that isn't really my point. I just think that the AI changes from 2.08, have overall ramifications on tech progression, which weren't actually thought through properly. Their either needs to be more techs in the game, or the ones from medieval times onwards need to cost a lot more for everyone.

Your comments welcome

I think the problem you describe only happens on marathon and epic games, but I am not sure, and it must be fixed. It is about 1800 in my game and most Civilizations (including me) have tanks (I am currently researching rocketry!). I think the solution lies mainly in increasing the length of the renaissance, industrial and modern techs.

 

[aelf]

What I worry about is the increased emphasis on warmongering, as if we need more of that. If you're a regular warmonger, you might not be affected that much. But people who prefer a more balanced playstyle might suffer. That doesn't seem fair.

I haven't installed the patch because I'm still running a pre-patch play-along game, but from what I hear that's what seems to be happening.

If I want to play a rush game I'd play Rise of Nations. Civ4 should be so much more, even on the higher levels. Not everybody wants to play MP-like games. Sure, a more intelligent AI is good, but please adjust the AI handicaps accordingly.

 

[Mongolia]

If we're talking about tech tree variety, though, I'll throw in my two cents and say I'd like to see more techs before the Space Ship, and less techs after. Building a SS can be made tough enough without the pain of having to research seven or so techs just to get all the components. (Do Ecology and Genetics really have to be researched on their own?) Maybe an early version of Flight, that allows Dirigibles and Biplanes, and another science tech between Scientific Method and Physics. The details could be worked out later, but the chance of getting real choices after Rifling, say, would be a welcome change IMHO.

Man, I can't even imagine what Diety is like now.

I agree.

I think its silly there is only one tech to research computers! There should be two or three, Computers and Advanced Computers or something along those lines. To separate the massive computers in labs owned only be goverments and big companies in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s (and all the other old fashioned computers) from the desktop computers, laptop computers, and intergrated computers (in mobile phones ect) that most of us own (not to mention the modern mainframes and super computers owned by big companies and goverments) and all the other modern computers, I think computers have had a big enought effect on real life Civilization to have 2 or 3 techs in the game. I think it would also be cool if after researching advanced computers (or a tech along those lines) you could build a wonder that gives you 7 hit computer games (computer being a gereric term for all computers, PCs and games consoles).

 

[DrJambo]

THe problem is the AI is generally very peaceful with other AI and freely exchanges tech in the mid game. What this does is make the mid-game go quicker than it should. If the AI was more guarded with its tech as it is with the human player, then possibly the game would move along at a more normal pace. This effect is exacerbated at the higher difficulty levels because the AI gets bonuses towards research.

 

[Eskel]

Dont you think you exaggerate here a little? Crying about how unbalanced is game on the Immortal, Deity or Monarch level is unreasonable, because the difficulty levels are designed this way. If you dont like it or have no fun with this, just play on prince, which is balanced. Personnally I play prince - beacuse of fun. I could go higher, but this can be too frustrating.
However, I agree that this trading thing exploit is really annoying - unrealistic and destabilizing, because lot depends on luck rather than long term planning and development.
Maybe restricting tech trade possibilities by limited number of techs trades per turn or setting time needed to aquire each traded tech would solve the problem?

 

[aelf]

Dont you think you exaggerate here a little? Crying about how unbalanced is game on the Immortal, Deity or Monarch level is unreasonable, because the difficulty levels are designed this way. If you dont like it or have no fun with this, just play on prince, which is balanced. Personnally I play prince - beacuse of fun. I could go higher, but this can be too frustrating.

Is the point of the patch to make the game harder? I think we must make a distinction between the quality of the game and the difficulty of the game. Improved AI, if I'm not entirely mistaken about it, is meant to improve the quality of the game. Making the game more difficult by not adjusting the AI handicaps accordingly restricts gameplay to an increasingly aggressive style of play. Now, don't try to sell me the idea that it's what is supposed to be done on the higher levels. I know. But it's not very funny when even Monarch or Emperor requires you to be a warmonger throughout the game.

Like I said, there's a reason why I don't play MP. I'm not fool enough to think that I can win on Emperor without much fighting, but I like to be partly a builder and know that I can still win on this challenging level. I think Civilization has to be balanced like that. Yeah, sure, I can go back to Prince. But this would prove that a more peaceful style is only for 'noobs' and I won't feel like I have any expertise in this game. It will certainly restrict discussions of strategy except for the lower levels. Imagine: "Playing on Emperor? Declare war asap and kill almost every other civ one by one, if not you're toast. No other way about it." How fun is that?

However, I agree that this trading thing exploit is really annoying - unrealistic and destabilizing, because lot depends on luck rather than long term planning and development.
Maybe restricting tech trade possibilities by limited number of techs trades per turn or setting time needed to aquire each traded tech would solve the problem?

Limiting the tech trading the AIs can do is a step in the right direction. It might even make enough difference to warrant not touching the prevailing AI handicaps. But I can't really tell until I have a lot more experience playing with the new patch.

 

[miller4242]

I must say this is a very good thread. I bought Warlords last night because I had been waiting for the patch. I played for 8 hours on prince and was constantly getting my rear handed to me by 1000 ad; in regards to tech, military, and land. On Vanilla, I could rock n roll thru Prince and I have put a few Monarch under my belt, playing as both builder and warmonger.

I was blown away on how badly I was doing on Prince. I got to the point where it was taking 5-10 minutes to decide every turn. Playing as Celts, I finally did decently after I went to war with Korea, but I was still behind. Can anyone here please give some me little piece of advice that would help me to fine
tune my strategy? or point me to a thread that might help.

As much as it is going to hurt my pride, when I play tonight I am going to drop down to Noble.

 

[Eskel]

Making the game more difficult by not adjusting the AI handicaps accordingly restricts gameplay to an increasingly aggressive style of play. Now, don't try to sell me the idea that it's what is supposed to be done on the higher levels. I know. But it's not very funny when even Monarch or Emperor requires you to be a warmonger throughout the game.

So whats the problem? You can find "adjusted" AI handicap at prince - there is no handicap. Or will you feel better when firaxians just rename Prince to Monarch?
About warmongering - what you probably know, in Civ on higher levels (i mean above Prince) you cannot simply outbuild the AI, but only use it dumbness, especially in war situations and diplomacy. What is harder by now, as AI was improved and its playing style is more human-like.
Moreover, in fact all great empires were built on conquests and wars. I cannot imagine why game shouldnt reflect this sad truth.

Yeah, sure, I can go back to Prince. But this would prove that a more peaceful style is only for 'noobs' and I won't feel like I have any expertise in this game.

Here you gave yourself answer to all your questions. I play for fun, thats why I dont bother playing on prince. And you? Arent you by chance trying to prove yourself that you are not a 'noob'?
The game IS balanced. You can find the same level of challenge as before playing on prince. Though you are right that difficulty levels design shouldnt be based on handicaps only, I still find your criticism unreasonable.

BTW: I like playing builder as well. Thats why I agree that some game concepts should be changed to favour small, but well managed and organized countries (say, based on archetype of Europe or Japan). But than we talk about completely different game than Civ4! To gain such an effect, changes couldnt be just simply minor tweaks, but whole concepts rebuild from scratch! For example I think governing settings from Europe Universalis were very good solution, and civics management in Civ should evolve towards that direction.

 

[mutax2003]

Well, post a save, and people on this forum can give you some detailed advice by looking through your game.

I must say this is a very good thread. I bought Warlords last night because I had been waiting for the patch. I played for 8 hours on prince and was constantly getting my rear handed to me by 1000 ad; in regards to tech, military, and land. On Vanilla, I could rock n roll thru Prince and I have put a few Monarch under my belt, playing as both builder and warmonger.

I was blown away on how badly I was doing on Prince. I got to the point where it was taking 5-10 minutes to decide every turn. Playing as Celts, I finally did decently after I went to war with Korea, but I was still behind. Can anyone here please give some me little piece of advice that would help me to fine
tune my strategy? or point me to a thread that might help.

As much as it is going to hurt my pride, when I play tonight I am going to drop down to Noble.

 

[aelf]

So whats the problem? You can find "adjusted" AI handicap at prince - there is no handicap. Or will you feel better when firaxians just rename Prince to Monarch?
About warmongering - what you probably know, in Civ on higher levels (i mean above Prince) you cannot simply outbuild the AI, but only use it dumbness, especially in war situations and diplomacy. What is harder by now, as AI was improved and its playing style is more human-like.
Moreover, in fact all great empires were built on conquests and wars. I cannot imagine why game shouldnt reflect this sad truth.

Yes, but not all great empires had to constantly conquer somebody to survive. Some need to fight wars in the game is good, but the reliance on war is too strong now.

Here you gave yourself answer to all your questions. I play for fun, thats why I dont bother playing on prince. And you? Arent you by chance trying to prove yourself that you are not a 'noob'?
The game IS balanced. You can find the same level of challenge as before playing on prince. Though you are right that difficulty levels design shouldnt be based on handicaps only, I still find your criticism unreasonable.

You're not understanding my point. I'm against the concept that builders are 'noobs', which this game is endorsing by strongly favouring an aggressive style on the higher levels. I don't think that's being fair to me and to many others. There's another thread here, in which other posters and I have hammered this point to death. Maybe if you had done your homework, you wouldn't be talking about what I said here piecemeal.

 

[IdiotWind]

@ Eskel
what you say is spot on.

I have played civ since civ I and have never played on higher than monarch (or equivalent). I must be a pretty crud player, no? Or is it that playing above this level (and most games on monarch) you have to play an aggresive style that seems false and unsatisfying, more like you're playing a *game* , having to rely on exploiting the AI's weak point, which is above all its inability to wage credible war....
By the same token a 100% builder game, as well as being completely unrealistic -is there an empire in history not shaped by war?- talk about a snooze fest, hit space bar, let world history pass you by....

To me, a *real* game of civ has periods of peace and war, should keep you guessing all the way, surprise you, make you cuss, make you think about throwing in the towel once or twice (or more), force changes of tactics/strategies -and still you emerge triumphant at the end by the skin of your teeth.

Needless to say that doesn't happen v often -but it happened in my first 2.08 game on prince. I was LAST (on points) for the first half of the game, managed to sneak to up to halfway in the rankings (but trailed louis by 500pts) and pulled off the cheekist of cheeky space victories. In short, it was one of the best games i'd had in ages -normally i sack off the endgame because its boring. Blake's main stated purpose with modding the AI was so it gives you more of a run for your money in the endgame. From where i'm sitting its paid off in spades.

Of course it could just be a fluke game. More playtesting is required! But before the patch i was thinking about moving to monarch. If i get more games like that, i'll cheerily stay on prince.

 

[Eskel]

Written by aelf:
You're not understanding my point.

Maybe I don't understand your point. But please explain to me what you had on mind:

Written by aelf:
Sure, a more intelligent AI is good, but please adjust the AI handicaps accordingly.

Problem of difficulty doesnt need any attention from firaxians. Lowering difficulty by handicaps only because of sb's ambition is just pure nonsense for me. Player can simply choose a level that might enjoy, the only con being moral inconvenience .
Notice please, that difficulty levels differs only in handicap, not AI efficiency nor its playing style. Moreover, the AI acts normally - game is balanced, mixed builder and warmongering strategies are effective - only in situation when handicap is relatively small (Noble, Prince, Monarch). In all other situations the bigger handicap, the more bizzare results it produces.
If you ask me, I would preffer the difficulty design based on AI's intelligence, not handicaps. But, unfortunately, it has been main Civ weakness since its first release. And nothing indicates it will be different in future.

 

[Wodan]

Couple of thoughts.

If one of us is playing and gets on a continent with a handful of AIs, tech trading and whatnot, early wars emphasize techs other than Optics so we have you-name-it perhaps even Riflemen before we discover a single AI with an isolated start. Say, Monty. "How cute, Monty has Longbows. I'm going to send over a couple of Riflemen to take his entire empire."

Do any of us feel bad for him? Even for a second? It probably doesn't even occur to us to feel bad.

Anyway, just goes to show how turning the tables changes one's perspective.

So, first question, is this bad for the game? Would it be better if tech trading was ramped waaay back, across the board? Not just between AIs but between human and AI.

e.g., each side has to pay an equivalent # of gold to the beaker cost, which goes to the game (diplomatic expenses to transport the knowledge/equipment/whatever). Just an idea.


Secondly, seems to me the AI needs help on warfare, period. Regardless of this issue. Ideas:
1) If the AI falls below a neighbor on the power chart, then the AI builds more units. Perhaps it already does this; if so, then exacerbate it. There needs to be some point of diminishing feedback because otherwise two AIs would get into a power escalation where they do nothing but build units.
2) Certain events should trigger the AI going into more of a defensive stance. e.g., if a neighbor gets a new unit. Seriously, if I'm in a MP game and I see that a neighbor has just got Maces, you're darn right I'm going to start churning out whatever I have that best counters them. Cats, Axes, HAs, you name it. Why should the AI not do the same thing?
3) Another example... program in civ-specific events. e.g., a neighbor is Viking and has just got Berserks. The AI should fortify all coastal cities. Duh.
4) Have a self-feedback loop in the programming that raises the aggression level. Right now, if I declare an early war and wipe out an AI, then I might get a -1 "you declared war on our friend", if that. If I have proven myself to be a warmonger, shouldn't the AIs be more aggressive toward me in addition to having a negative diplo modifier?
5) Have the AI do a better job at reacting to a "rush" invasion. Stop working on buildings, wonders, etc and make more troops. Use Slavery and drafting. Move units to the front. The AI has some pretty bizarre criteria such as keeping a ton of units in the capitol, even if the capitol isn't threatened in the slightest.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Problem of difficulty doesnt need any attention from firaxians. Lowering difficulty by handicaps only because of sb's ambition is just pure nonsense for me. Player can simply choose a level that might enjoy, the only con being moral inconvenience .
Notice please, that difficulty levels differs only in handicap, not AI efficiency nor its playing style. Moreover, the AI acts normally - game is balanced, mixed builder and warmongering strategies are effective - only in situation when handicap is relatively small (Noble, Prince, Monarch). In all other situations the bigger handicap, the more bizzare results it produces.
If you ask me, I would preffer the difficulty design based on AI's intelligence, not handicaps. But, unfortunately, it has been main Civ weakness since its first release. And nothing indicates it will be different in future.

What does need attention from Firaxians is the AI's lackluster war management.

I totally agree with aelf that this de facto requires a warmonger strategy on higher levels. Which does several things: it reduces player creativity and enjoyment, and it defines "skill" as being the best at warmongering. Both of those things are terribly wrong IMO.

To me, the requirement to exploit the AI weakness at war in order to be successful at high skill levels is NOT skill. Actually, it's the opposite of skill. It's an exploit. It is an admission that you have to exploit the AI rather than using intelligence and creativity to beat the AI at its own game.

If a patch enables the AI to manage war better at all skill levels, then this will remove the requirement and emphasis on war (especially early war). This will then put war down on par with other strategies as all viable paths to victory. It redefines skill to more of a reasonable definition: exercising player options to adapt to the given situation and to choose the best path to win.

It also will mean the average warmonger will have to drop down to levels which non-warmongers currently play at. And, it will mean that only the truly top-notch players will be able to rise above and play at higher levels.

Just my opinion.

Wodan

 

[aelf]

Maybe I don't understand your point. But please explain to me what you had on mind:

I did explain what I meant. Your indication that you still don't understand my reasoning is a good sign that we should just agree to disagree (or you could insist you're right, if you wish). It's quite clear that the bigwigs have other concerns besides this and a humble poster like me doesn't wish to have the label 'spammer' stuck to him.

PS: One last word, I agree with what Wodan just said. That is indeed, if it can be implemented, a good solution to the situation.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I did explain what I meant. Your indication that you still don't understand my reasoning is a good sign that we should just agree to disagree (or you could insist you're right, if you wish). It's quite clear that the bigwigs have other concerns besides this and a humble poster like me doesn't wish to have the label 'spammer' stuck to him.

PS: One last word, I agree with what Wodan just said. That is indeed, if it can be implemented, a good solution to the situation.

Aelf check your PM if you will

 

[aelf]

Aelf check your PM if you will

Oops, I read your pm before seeing your post Sorry if there's any repetition.

 

[ownedbyakorat]

The AI has some pretty bizarre criteria such as keeping a ton of units in the capitol, even if the capitol isn't threatened in the slightest.

Wodan

Civ IV isn't the first of the series with a wildly disproportionate emphasis on the disposition of the capital. I remember even back in Civ I and Civ II, that merely building city walls in your capital would make a vast difference in the willingness of neighboring AIs to attack you... no matter how far from those civs you capital actually was.

Speaking of capitals, I miss being able to capture a superpower's capital and split them into two countries...

 

[Wodan]

Civ IV isn't the first of the series with a wildly disproportionate emphasis on the disposition of the capital. I remember even back in Civ I and Civ II, that merely building city walls in your capital would make a vast difference in the willingness of neighboring AIs to attack you... no matter how far from those civs you capital actually was.

Why dredge this up again? It's been 3 months.

Anyway, check out the BetterAI mod, the whole point of which is to improve things such as AI poor garrison choices.

Wodan