Space Race easier but more time consuming? Domination easier but still takes hours?

[futurehermit]

Ok, after playing a number of games now of BTS (Monarch, Normal, Hemispheres) I have come to the conclusion that space race is easier but takes longer than before.

It is easier because the AI is simply abysmal at teching now!!!

It takes longer because you have to self-research pretty much completely from the end of the medeival onward.

For these same reasons, domination is quite easy now because once you beeline late-industrial, early modern military tech no one in the world can compete with you (assuming you nabbed an average-good amount of land early-to-mid game).

I'm currently finishing a game with the Mayans (they are fun). I didn't have a close neighbour so I went math-currency-col-monarchy-CS-astronomy beeline-liberalism beeline (got it free tech in 1200, took democracy). As you can see getting liberalism in 1200 after getting astronomy and taking democracy as free tech my tech pace was pretty sweet. Pretty much 0 trading and limited lightbulbing (I think only phil).

I took out my first neighbour with cuirassiers (backwards Freddy). My main competitor was the only other person on my island (huge-empire Gilgamesh, we were friendly). Mansa was isolated and backwards. Genghis was constantly at war with Pericles and Washington and as a result all three were backwards.

So, what to do, what to do? I could've simply teched out the space race with Gilga friendly with a large empire but no tech threat. But once I started really pulling away in tech the temptation was too much and I took him out quickly with tanks, gunships, and bombers (good combo I found out).

Now I have an enormous empire with 4 remaining backwards AIs. I've just finished teching to laser, modern armor, mech inf, and stealth and have at ca. 1900AD attacked Genghis with modern armor, mech inf, stealth bombers, mix of strong navy, jet fighters, marines (amphibious), and gunships. He is defending with longbows and attacking me with cav and rifles...

No one is better off tech wise.

I just don't get it...1900 and the AI is defending with medeival units?!?!?! I built the space elevator to deny it to them. You should see the demographic charts for gnp, prod, and power...they're funny.

I'll eventually move up full-time to emperor if this keeps up, but I must say I'm disappointed with the slow AI tech pace. It really slows the game down imho. Combine that with having to slog through lengthy wars with piles of units and I just feel like games are taking much longer now!

 

[Ruler]

BtS - Monarch is easy as hell. Sounds very similiar than my games in BtS. I didn't bother to trade with AI as they were so slow and eventually I ended up same situation as you are. Anyway, doesn't it mean time to move on Emperor?

 

[futurehermit]

I guess, but I fear the problem will only get worse. In uberfish's immortal mayan game he was able to get liberalism in 1400AD!!! And the AI will make even more units. It took him 11 hrs to finish the game. In warlords monarch I was used to space race games taking 3-4 hrs.

 

[lilnev]

I think BtS is easier if you get enough land to expand peacefully. If you're not land-constrained, you can out-builder the AIs on Immortal. But it's significantly harder to take land by force from a larger empire. My first two games were fairly easy space races -- one an isolated start and a totally peaceful game (except Ragnar tried to invade at one point, but it was pretty pathetic), the other I was able to block off land for 9 cities and eventually take down a weak neighbor with maces/trebs/rifles.

The current game I only managed to block off 5 spots. I declared on Suleiman with cats and dogs (Sitting Bull, ), taking the first city easily. Marched to the second city and encountered, um, 12 defenders. After an extended period of whipping more units, and some wasteful play on his part (seriously, who charges horse archers into fortified spears in a forest), and a lot of bloodshed, I managed to take it. But I'd been sitting on zero research for over 20 turns, falling badly behind. The Philosophy lightbulb and some clever trades got me almost caught up, and I tried a war against the giant Asoka with trebs/maces. Much the same result: took two cities quickly, but then he was sending truly massive stacks at me, and I had to give the second one back for peace. So two difficult wars for three cities total, and again I'm off the tech pace.

Now that the AI builds more units, and knows how to whip, and still has significant production bonuses ... an AI with more larger cities can just out-mass me. And seige has been seriously nerfed, so even greater local superiority is required.

So I think wide open games got easiers, but good luck fighting out of a cramped starting position. And a cramped position without metal might just be hopeless (one of the things I liked about over-powered cats was that it always gave you a chance to fight your way out of a corner).

peace,
lilnev

 

[colony]

The AI doesn't really tech significantly faster on Emperor either. I always had trouble keeping up on Emperor in Warlords, so finding myself getting a tech lead in the Classical age is definately a new experience. I haven't noticed games taking much longer than before in the Ancient/Classical/Middle Ages, but in the Industrial Age when all the stacks become a lot bigger, I agree there everything does take longer.

At least to me BtS Emperor feels more like Warlords Monarch, which if you consider how much the AI bonuses have been reduced by, isn't too surprising. I might try the next game with Agg AI on to see what it's like, but that'll probably just exaggerate everything.

 

[Validator]

My experiences with BtS have been similar in regards to slow teching from the AIs. The problem with moving up in difficulty is that the AI still offers a challenge at the beginning of the game and an increase in difficulty may make the early game too hard.

It seems that with BtS the disparity in early and late game difficulty is greater than it was in Vanilla and Warlords, which is ironic since BtS was supposed to make the late game more interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait for the patch to see if Firaxis can fix the problem.

 

[mice]

I read in the SG forum that unit maintenance was supposed to mean the AI could not afford to mass huge armies. Well it is massing them and at a cost to it's tech rate.

So long drawn out wars and a slow tech rate, make 2 good reasons for Blake to re-visit the AI before the patch.

 

[futurehermit]

Well it is massing them and at a cost to it's tech rate.

So long drawn out wars and a slow tech rate, make 2 good reasons for Blake to re-visit the AI before the patch.

verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting. i think this combined with too much spent on espionage are a couple things to consider. if the ai is going to mass that many units, it needs to USE it in a reasonable time frame to EXPAND instead of sitting around falling further and further behind in tech. i have no problem with certain ai falling behind in tech if it means they have a huge power graph (think shaka, he actually DOES this) and are conquering territory.

So I think wide open games got easiers, but good luck fighting out of a cramped starting position. And a cramped position without metal might just be hopeless (one of the things I liked about over-powered cats was that it always gave you a chance to fight your way out of a corner).

This is very true. A cramped position without metals could be gg now that siege have been nerfed (I've finally figured them out now and think they are still good...I thought originally that now they suck, but I was wrong). But I think being cramped with metals isn't the end of the world. Since the AI techs so poorly I think you could go pure production (farms/mines/whipping) for a good long while to take out your opponent and then catch up on tech later quite easily.

 

[illram]

I'm still finding that on my monarch games the AI tech leader is teching about 4 or 5 turns per tech, no matter what the era. That's not very slow. I think the slower pace is because of the new technologies the AI wastes their time on.

I'm still feeling out this new game but I agree the time lines are all different; liberalism later, space race later, etc. etc., but I am also getting slower than I was on warlords, at least as far as what year I am getting what tech. E.g., usually I would get lib. around 1100 or so and be building the apollo program in the early to mid 1700s, but I have not matched that time frame yet with BtS. I bet that has more to do with me sucking so far with the new version than anything else, but I don't think the AI is necessarily "slower" as much as they are just wasting their time on other stuff.

 

[NaZdReG]

finished a space race with the mayans.. damn yeah they are fun ballcourts are crazy good. their uu is mediocre (i dislike super early uu's) but their traits more than make up for it.

space race takes forever.. I mean honestly by then you could just go stomp everyone so why bother. I did it once because In all these years i've never seen that ending. I usually start going for the dom win with calvary and pre industrial boats.. just get my army over there already

in bts peaceful expansion is awesome, and it can be HARD to take cities from the enemy if you do not have a signifigant military tech advantage (knights curisairs calvary super early macemen etc)

and that stupid reminder (we want to peacefully rejoin our old civ) NEVER STOPS which gets irritating

ai doesnt really tech hard enough.. spends too much on espionage and doesnt use it well. I may also move up to emperor if this keeps up. that great wall/ oracle build I put up probably isn't doable on emperor.. if it is then any ai teching advantage could be nullified.

NaZ

 

[futurehermit]

I'm still finding that on my monarch games the AI tech leader is teching about 4 or 5 turns per tech, no matter what the era. That's not very slow. I think the slower pace is because of the new technologies the AI wastes their time on.

I'm still feeling out this new game but I agree the time lines are all different; liberalism later, space race later, etc. etc., but I am also getting slower than I was on warlords, at least as far as what year I am getting what tech. E.g., usually I would get lib. around 1100 or so and be building the apollo program in the early to mid 1700s, but I have not matched that time frame yet with BtS. I bet that has more to do with me sucking so far with the new version than anything else, but I don't think the AI is necessarily "slower" as much as they are just wasting their time on other stuff.

in my games my slow tech pace really comes from a lack of trading opportunities. if the ai was just going for strange/different tech, no problem because then i could trade for it (you need most techs eventually). but in my mayan game i had 0, nada, zilch trading opportunities from the renaissance onwards, which is c-r-a-z-y on monarch, especially considering MANSA was one of the distant AIs!!!

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I found that on Monarch they tech slowly during the REX phase - probably because they expand too quickly and need to build defenders for lots of cities. Once they reach the renaissance teching seems to catch up to Warlords speeds again.

 

[futurehermit]

I don't know. I was playing a game last night and I got to around 1950AD (was fooling around with obsolete's strat) and no one had even completed Apollo yet

 

[Snaaty]

Well, I had a similar (dissapointing) first BtS game (immortal, dutch):

Was isolated, but an island connected me to Ghandi who also had a small conti for himself

Couldn´t techtrade with Ghandi because he didn´t want to (AI needs contact with at least 2 nations)

Managed to build around 8 decent cities

Teched faster then Ghandi all along early game... ...got lib around 1000 AD, still teching faster then Ghandi... ...got Dem around 1400 AD, still no cavarels looking for me

Researched optics myself because becoming bored, found the big conti... ...some of them even were lacking paper, phil etc. around 1400 AD

Oh, and I could have stomped Ghandi whenever I would haved wanted to, because I always had a decent tech lead on him and some emergency troops haniging around (first 8 swords, then 8 maces etc...). Wouldn´t have been very difficult to do some drafting/whipping and killing...

...

Aborted game... ...kind of sensless going on like that... ...umpf, back to warlords

...

Oh, btw. Future, your TE (transition economy) is incredible powerful, no matter if you go for space or dom (simply buyrush). I nowadays always use it

 

[madscientist]

In Warlords I was a classic Prince player on marathon speed/huge random maps. A Monarch win in warlords was truely heroic. My first 2 wins on BTS seamed like my old Nobel warlords games. Now I am trying Monarch for BTS and doing about the same as Prince in Warlords. A few observations

1) Barbarians are much less of an issue. I warlords I had to really focus on early military just for survival since huge maps frequently have alot of realestate between civc.
2) AIs tech slower but build espionage. I have found keeping the EP slider at zero and teching faster to the espionage techs (COL, cosntitution democracy, etc..) offsets the AIs Ep slider. I also place one spy defensively in each city which greatly limits AI mischief.
3) My wins were both arround 1900 (one space and one diplo) which is 200 years later than warlords prince, but I notice each turn lasts 1/2 a year after 1800.
4) AIs are building BIGGER armies and going to war with anyone, not just the human. This means the human has to build bigger armies for defense, or use bigtime diplo skills.

Overall I think BTS monarch is comparable to Warlords Prince, weaker early barbs offset the early AI advantages in my opinion. This is fine for me but I can understand some of the better players feeling a bit frustrated.

 

[DrJambo]

So far I've won 2 at Prince and 1 at Monarch, and also lost 1 at Monarch. The one I lost was due to a very isolated start. My current Monarch game as Suleiman looks like heading to an easy Domination win, but I was fortunate enough to start on the 'Big' island on the Big_and_Small map script.

It's strange, but sometimes the AI research seems to stagnate while at other times it goes through the roof. In my current Monarch game the Mayans research was going nuts, but they were a comparatively smaller empire and after a few wars, sheer numbers won out over tech. Meanwhile, the rest of the civs remained rather backward... It could be the AI's love for liberating colonies hurts its late-game? The formation of a weaker AI colony can be used the human's advantage for extorting resources, money and tech. This is because they'll generally perceive themselves as weak even though they have a big protecting civ.

One thing's for sure and that's an isolated start for an AI civ really hurts it. If a human gets and isolated start then the naval side will become paramount. I'm not sure the AI does the same.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

Space race can actually be a bit harder now if you don't have a decent military (key point, keep your army strong and you're fine). I've noticed many pleased/friendly AI's DoW on me when I get the spaceship about halfway completed. Last night in a game Gilgamesh was at about +15-20 relations with me (same religion since the early BC's, huge mutual military struggle stuff, etc...) and he tried in vain to stop my space program. His infantry/artillery stacks just couldn't handle ye olde Modern Armour.

It was kinda cool that he was like, 'Screw it, I know he's my best friend forever but I wanna win... BANSAIIIIIIIIII!'

But yeah overall it's waaaaay to easy to out-tech the AI on monarch now. Even the top of the crop AI's in the game tech quite slowly, and don't pick up much steam along the way. Once I start to hit the Education/Liberalism/Astronomy portion of the tech tree I just start pulling away in GNP and MFG by such a wide margin that they won't overcome unless I gifted them all my techs and maybe sat around not researching for awhile.

 

[Haika]

The slow AI problem in BtS has been bothering me a bit, but after thinking about it, maybe it is not that the AI is teching slower but that humans are teching too fast!

During a typical medieval -> renaissance infrastructure buildup phase, how much military do you usually put out? If you are like me, you'd have maybe 1-2 modern units on your border cities, some outdated cardboard cutouts in your backline cities doing military policing, and maybe the remains of your early game SoD sitting around. Meanwhile, the AI is mining a lot of their land instead of cottaging, churning out huge medieval stacks that would pulverize your 5 CR axemen, and...

..sitting on them, waiting for you to get rifling so you can run over them. Of course, a human who focuses entirely on tech will come out ahead if the AIs don't exploit their production to punish a runaway human player.

The solution, I am starting to suspect, is to play Aggressive AI on as a default. Although I don't have a link to it at the moment, there was a post where Blake admits that aggressive AI was supposed to be the real, normal level of opportunism presented by the AI, and that the non-aggressive AI was a pacifist, toned down version that shipped with the final game so that new players wouldn't complain.

Of course, still in the middle of my first BtS game, so take my words with a giant boulder of salt. However, I would like to hear how other people have fared playing with AA on.

Edit: Tracked down the post: Blake's Reasoning on the AI

 

[futurehermit]

Oh, btw. Future, your TE (transition economy) is incredible powerful, no matter if you go for space or dom (simply buyrush). I nowadays always use it

good to know. i think i might try it out a bit more.

 

[obsolete]

Couldn´t techtrade with Ghandi because he didn´t want to (AI needs contact with at least 2 nations)

Hmm, I can think of a few reasons why this rule is so, though it seems this also can have problems.

Remember the good old days when you could sell or purchase contacts with other civs?


P.S. TE is another term I'll have to remember.