Sucking after the patch

[Charles 22]

I don't think it's a problem with the AI's apparent lack of war weariness as much as that weariness after the patch seems to really clobber the human player. For all I know, it clobbers some of the AIs too, but there are a half dozen of them, and only one of me.

A game called "Warlords" should IMO be a little more lenient in allowing long wars with stable war economies, especially in the Classical and earlier periods where wars went on for generations and to some extent centuries. Since the 1800s war will send a country back in time quickly, so severe weariness is more appropriate from the standpoint of realism.

Yessss, but that wasn't the bill of goods we were sold with warlords was it? I expected a somewhat better game than vanilla while sticking to it's core values of multiple paths to victory. Besides, this warmongering turn, for better or worse, didn't occur with vanilla warlords if you will, but with a blasted AI change on a patch! If the expansion said this is an expansion that will turn civ4 into a much more war-oriented game, then at least I was forewarned, but it sneaking in off a patch isn't the same thing (and no, having some chessy name such as warlords doesn't constitute a fair warning of a fundamental game shift. This was apparently named as such largely on the fact that more barbarous leaders were being introduced).

Yes, I can re-load the whole thing and not add the 2.08 patch, but what I would like to do is have the patch without the AI changes, but that's not going to happen. I guess I will have to continue to play as-is and see if over time I still cannot stand it and just go back to the previous patch. I guess that would pretty much eliminate me buying any more of these ripoff expansions then wouldn't it? I put over $230 into this expansion only to find the 2nd patch is quite unsatisfactory in it assuming a fundamental shift.

BTW, on the war weariness note, I don't have war weariness problems, or at least haven't played the latest patch long enouigh in any one game to have it, as I'm playing so defensively as I always did, that it should be the other civs that are having the problems, but none of them ever seem to. I am finding it's not quite as difficult as I thought to get them to agree to peace, but they still aren't willing to give you much of anything in return. Understand, if I went and demolished 3-4 of their cities, they should be willing to pay more, but I am comparing this on equal terms, as any civ that I had been at war with 100's of turns while knocking out 100's of their units, whilst destroying one of their cities, pre-2.08, would have been crawling all over the place with peace and offers of reparations.

 

[aelf]

Yessss, but that wasn't the bill of goods we were sold with warlords was it? I expected a somewhat better game than vanilla while sticking to it's core values of multiple paths to victory. Besides, this warmongering turn, for better or worse, didn't occur with vanilla warlords if you will, but with a blasted AI change on a patch! If the expansion said this is an expansion that will turn civ4 into a much more war-oriented game, then at least I was forewarned, but it sneaking in off a patch isn't the same thing (and no, having some chessy name such as warlords doesn't constitute a fair warning of a fundamental game shift. This was apparently named as such largely on the fact that more barbarous leaders were being introduced).

Yes, I can re-load the whole thing and not add the 2.08 patch, but what I would like to do is have the patch without the AI changes, but that's not going to happen. I guess I will have to continue to play as-is and see if over time I still cannot stand it and just go back to the previous patch. I guess that would pretty much eliminate me buying any more of these ripoff expansions then wouldn't it? I put over $230 into this expansion only to find the 2nd patch is quite unsatisfactory in it assuming a fundamental shift.

Some excellent points there. Unfortunately, too many people are blind to the downside of the AI changes in the patch. I'm beginning to doubt this whole better AI thing will lead to anywhere good for people who don't like to play Civ4 as a total war game. From what I know, the programmers have this idea, consciously or subconsciously, that SP should almost be like MP.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

A big part of the problem, IMO, is not so much the AI enhancements themselves, but their effect when mixed with the monolithic difficulty bonuses the AI gets. I wipe the floor with the AI on Noble....but once I hit Prince...I can't do anything it seems. I am, unconditionally, last in tech, really....last in everything, unless I get a very favorable position and a lot of luck, it seems. I can't even do anything with Rome, for crissakes, but I can win Noble handily with "weaker" leaders like Izzie. It's just ridiculous. There's no difficulty that's fun for me right now. I'm not a master or anything, but I specialize my cities, whip fairly responsibly, even war alright, but I can't even begin to get it done.

That being said...I have bit of a builder-bent and had to teach myself to war, so maybe my instincts are off. I just feel some of the more egregious AI bonuses(see diplomacy) just combine with this to make it over-the-top for many.

Oh....I've mentioned this before, but I was on a continent with Saladin and Izzie. They both founded religions, and stuck with them. I adopted Saladin's religion. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, he liked Izzie....no, not just liked her....LIKED HER MORE THAN ME. Now, Izzie, who didn't border me at all(I was on one end, Izzie on the other, with Saladin in the middle), declares war on ME, even though she her army is composed entirely of warriors and archers and I have axes and chariots, and she marches her army through Saladin's land to attack me. I officially cannot stand the diplomacy hacks the AI gets.

What is truly stupefying to me are the following:
1)Why Isabella declared on me, from a power stand point. I know she's Izzie, but still...
2)Why Saladin didn't declare on Izzie. I even had Aggressive AI on. I know he's not super aggressive...but, c'mon! He was the most technologically advanced civ, and Izzie was trailing him massively in power. If I was Izzie, he would've declared on me at the drop of the hat.
3)Why Saladin didn't care about Izzie declaring on me. We were both Pleased with him, but not only does he refuse to dogpile an obviously weak opponent, he also refuses to even stop trading with her.
4)Why supposed "religion nuts" regard eachother as heathens and get along perfectly fine.

This was on Prince, btw, and I was Asoka...

 

[Eggolas]

Regarding WW, I've found that the culture slider works exceedingly well with theaters and coliseums, and jails of course.

The AI is better at warfare in that it won't fling troops against a stronghold simply because it's on the border. Instead, it will send stacks into the human player's territory and attempt to pillage or take a weakly defended city. Longer wars are possible, especially on marathon speed.

Countering the War Weariness becomes a matter of planning and execution. Fighting solely on one's own territory will likely prolong the conflict, although if the AI loses enough units it will agree to peace.

It is better to repel the attack and then go on the offensive (the best defense is an effective offense). I have little problem getting an AI to agree to peace if I've taken one of its cities (perhaps some turns later, but still no problem).

I almost always head for Drama right after Literature and build theaters, as the culture slider helps with WW. The same can be said for the coliseum with its 1H/20%Cult effect. Since Civ IV is fairly heavy on conflict, especially when one turns on the aggressive AI option, the best way to deal with WW is to prepare for it before there is a war.

 

[futurehermit]

RE: Winning on Prince...imo you don't have to war like a madman to win on prince. However, you absolutely CANNOT neglect your military (and diplomatic relations). When I played as a builder when I was playing at this level I often thought that meant neglecting my military and once aggressive civs' power ratings climbed above mine I often had an attacker and a dogpiler on me ending my game. I've even heard that it is possible to win peaceful games at pretty high levels (e.g., emperor) but you simply must attend to the power graph and diplomatic relations. Sometimes, as King Arthur said in the movie First Knight: "Sometimes there is a peace that only comes on the other side of war". If you have a nearby aggressor (esp Monty, but incl. Alex, Ragnar, etc.) and the rest of your continent has peaceful civs (Mansa, Gandhi, etc.) sometimes the best move a peaceful player can make is wiping out the aggressive civ early and then booming the combined empire following the war. Also, and this goes for all skill levels, you simply must take your time and make good decisions. Every bad decision you make has an accumulative effect over time and bad decisions in the early game REALLY mess you over, so do take your time in the early goings. Like chess, the more moves you think ahead, the better off you'll be. And *read the games on these forums like the ALC and the EMC*. These threads will seriously raise your Civ4 IQ by at least 30 points. I know they did for me. Post-patch I was struggling on Monarch but after reading through some of Aelf's EMCs I am now cruising to a domination win on my most recent Monarch game. And what was the difference in my game? ***Better decision making. Taking my time to make good decisions and thinking ahead: Ok, so this is what my worker will be doing for the next 7 turns, but what will he be doing 7 turns after that, and 7 turns after that, and 7 turns after that and what techs will he need in order to do those things***

RE: AI and difficulty level. It is kinda too bad that the way they are going about increasing the AI is making war more necessary at the higher skill levels. However, making an AI good at war is very difficult and therefore how else to make the AI a challenge for the elite players??? IMVHO, the "problem" is that it is very difficult (due to the length of the games) to play this game online. In rts games that I've played, like Age of Mythology, single player familiarized you with the game, but then it was all about multiplayer. Real I is always superior to AI and the best of the best played the best of the best. In Civ4 we have the best of the best playing AI and that is always going to be a contest the AI will lose (unless the AI is given bonuses that alter the way human players need to play the game to compete--e.g., being a war psycho--this was evidenced in the rts games I mentioned as well). I'd love to see this forum's best players going at it. 4 on each continent. But, alas, the length of time required is too long. In the rts games I mentioned games would last 20-60 minutes max

I just don't think that the upper-level AI is ever going to be good enough at war and therefore they're always going to be uber-builders meaning human players are always going to have to compete by being a warmongerer. This is just the nature of AI: it doesn't work very well when it comes to certain kinds of reasoning.

 

[Tyrant Roger]

Future Hermit makes many good points, but I am not quite as pessimistic about a future improved AI war making ability. Blake has demonstrated the power of code changes in the AI building ability. Even if AI warmaking ability cannot be easily improved to the same degree, a partial increase in AI warmaking ability would do much to return balance to Warlords 2.08 between the advantages of warring and building. If that really can't be done, then player warmaking can be made modestly less effective [by increasing player WW or something] in a way which will restore more balance.

In a turn based strategy game like Civ 4 IMO the principle appeal is the difficult strategic and tactical choices the player continuously confronts and the intellectual challenge they entail. I find most real time games to be primarily a test of hand eye coordination, finger and wrist speed, and the like. I could care less about that kind of gaming.

Bottom line, Firaxis, we want a better AI warmaking ability. Get on it. You have our money; get on it.

 

[Charles 22]

Some excellent points there. Unfortunately, too many people are blind to the downside of the AI changes in the patch. I'm beginning to doubt this whole better AI thing will lead to anywhere good for people who don't like to play Civ4 as a total war game. From what I know, the programmers have this idea, consciously or subconsciously, that SP should almost be like MP.

Now that's an interesting concept, that they are trying to turn SP into MP; I hadn't thought of that, but it still sounds more to me as it's just a matter of suiting uberplayers who are bored, which in the end is probably pretty much the same thing as SP into MP.

 

[Charles 22]

A big part of the problem, IMO, is not so much the AI enhancements themselves, but their effect when mixed with the monolithic difficulty bonuses the AI gets. I wipe the floor with the AI on Noble....but once I hit Prince...I can't do anything it seems. I am, unconditionally, last in tech, really....last in everything, unless I get a very favorable position and a lot of luck, it seems. I can't even do anything with Rome, for crissakes, but I can win Noble handily with "weaker" leaders like Izzie. It's just ridiculous. There's no difficulty that's fun for me right now. I'm not a master or anything, but I specialize my cities, whip fairly responsibly, even war alright, but I can't even begin to get it done.

That being said...I have bit of a builder-bent and had to teach myself to war, so maybe my instincts are off. I just feel some of the more egregious AI bonuses(see diplomacy) just combine with this to make it over-the-top for many.

Oh....I've mentioned this before, but I was on a continent with Saladin and Izzie. They both founded religions, and stuck with them. I adopted Saladin's religion. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, he liked Izzie....no, not just liked her....LIKED HER MORE THAN ME. Now, Izzie, who didn't border me at all(I was on one end, Izzie on the other, with Saladin in the middle), declares war on ME, even though she her army is composed entirely of warriors and archers and I have axes and chariots, and she marches her army through Saladin's land to attack me. I officially cannot stand the diplomacy hacks the AI gets.

What is truly stupefying to me are the following:
1)Why Isabella declared on me, from a power stand point. I know she's Izzie, but still...
2)Why Saladin didn't declare on Izzie. I even had Aggressive AI on. I know he's not super aggressive...but, c'mon! He was the most technologically advanced civ, and Izzie was trailing him massively in power. If I was Izzie, he would've declared on me at the drop of the hat.
3)Why Saladin didn't care about Izzie declaring on me. We were both Pleased with him, but not only does he refuse to dogpile an obviously weak opponent, he also refuses to even stop trading with her.
4)Why supposed "religion nuts" regard eachother as heathens and get along perfectly fine.

This was on Prince, btw, and I was Asoka...

Your situation there reminds me of one thing, the ol' concept of the civ that isn't beside you warring with you. And why is that? Well, you know, because you can't attack your new enemy very well with another civ between you. I'm pretty much experimenting with almost not allowing any tresspassing on my borders at all, and when I do allow it it's always pretty late in the game, but now you've got me thinking. Suppose I had open borders with all my bordering civs, would those civs somewhat far off be so willing to go to war with me? Of course if you do that regularly, you may find it's the bordering civs that are warring with you instead. If you end up founding a religion, usually the bordering civs aren't so adventurous anyway due to the same religion being fairly likely.

 

[Charles 22]

futurehermit: Part of the bad thing here is that the AI changes are part of the patch. I guess they didn't realize that taking AI changes for elite players might upset the non-elite players, but why not give a choice? If the elite players want a better AI then go find his file somewhere, but not a part of the company patch. In my own case, this is a first, as I can't ever recall that before now I ever had a problem with a game that had AI improvements as part of a patch, so it is pretty unusual that they would make the AI improvements separate, but in this case I think it's warranted (and I won't be getting any Blake 'updates' that's for sure). As things are I can't take any of the other improvements from the patch without the AI thing, but in the long haul I might just have to do without 2.08's other improvements and go back to the original vanilla and original warlords spirit.

 

[Charles 22]

Future Hermit makes many good points, but I am not quite as pessimistic about a future improved AI war making ability. Blake has demonstrated the power of code changes in the AI building ability. Even if AI warmaking ability cannot be easily improved to the same degree, a partial increase in AI warmaking ability would do much to return balance to Warlords 2.08 between the advantages of warring and building. If that really can't be done, then player warmaking can be made modestly less effective [by increasing player WW or something] in a way which will restore more balance.

In a turn based strategy game like Civ 4 IMO the principle appeal is the difficult strategic and tactical choices the player continuously confronts and the intellectual challenge they entail. I find most real time games to be primarily a test of hand eye coordination, finger and wrist speed, and the like. I could care less about that kind of gaming.

Bottom line, Firaxis, we want a better AI warmaking ability. Get on it. You have our money; get on it.

You do realize that quite a lot of this thread has to do with some of us wanting the opposite of what you're proposing, do you not? Increasing player WW? The AI already seems to have none, or at least if you take my sample from playing the same way pre- and post-2.08. Approximately 700 turns, smashing one of his cities, slaying somewhere between 200-300 of his units, in my territory, to perhaps 50 losses of my own, and he doesn't ask me for peace once (bear in mind that pre-2.08 there would have been AT LEAST 10 offers for peace in that situation)????

Now this brings up another point which I have noticed. If you war with somebody and turtle up, and what I say happened to me, happens to you, will the AI civs EVER ask for peace????? I'm starting to think part of the AI adjustment was to get them to stop entirely asking for peace, as their pleas can get pretty much a nuisance at times. But even so, that doesn't justify their now total unwillingness to give out any mentionable reparations. I can't speak any at all about how willing they are to settle for peace without you asking them, or how much they are willing to give out if you're taking 3-5 of their cities, as I don't play very long that way, but I can tell you the large difference it's making on turtling. Now maybe they turned it off for turtles and for those taking the aforementioned amount of cities they compensate somewhat by having them more eager than they were before 2.08 to offer reparations, I don't know, but I have to suspect that the pleading for peace has been DRAMATICALLY cut back just for the reason that people may be fed up with it.

I suppose there's not a whole lot of difference between me asking them, or them asking me, but take for example the situation where you've really been fixated on a civ that has really wronged you. They have 10 cities originally and you're in the razing mood and they have 3 cities left. Suddenly, despite whether they have been pleading for peace all that much to that point, they make you an offer that saves you from another civ amassing on your border with a sudden greatly increased reparation offer. If you are in your mood, you will have no idea that he ever was willing to give you the crown (since post-2.08 they aren't asking), practically, to keep your vengeful self away from them, because you aren't wanting peace and can't imagine he will give you much of anything to stop. Kiss that part of the game goodbye.

 

[aelf]

If only they would adjust the AI bonuses accordingly. I think it's that simple. But no they wouldn't.

 

[pigswill]

Isn't adjusting the AI bonusses the same as going down a level (where they get fewer bonuses) ?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Isn't adjusting the AI bonusses the same as going down a level (where they get fewer bonuses) ?

Some things are fairly constant....such as the bias the AI has towards other AIs in diplomacy. Basically, the fact that most AIs behave like Mansa Musa to eachother(but not the player) combined with the fact that it is now fairly competent at placing and improving cities inflates the difficulty and makes war a necessity, rather than an appealing option, particularly once the AI starts getting major help from the difficulty...

 

[aelf]

Isn't adjusting the AI bonusses the same as going down a level (where they get fewer bonuses) ?

Not really. Some people have pointed out that currently while a lower level, say, Monarch is too easy for them, Emperor is too difficult. I think making the increment between levels smaller would help solve that problem. Also, since there is a possible limit on how much the AI's military skills can be improved, the likely way to really counterbalance the AI's economic strength is to nerf its bonuses. This will make warmongering less of a necessity on the higher levels. Why should Civ be skewed towards war on the higher levels more than it originally was?

 

[Charles 22]

aelf:

Why should Civ be skewed towards war on the higher levels more than it originally was?

I'm under the impression that it's across the board, as noble, the even lavel, is that way too. Everyone will find their familiar level of play has been touched in a very significant way to where it appears that to hope to achieve to same level of play as before, you might have to go down a level. For me, I don't believe in getting bonuses, which stepping down from noble would mean, so the alternative is to change play enough, be that through cottaging more throroughly or playing only with very good starts, etc.

 

[aelf]

Well, in the midst of the many suggestions to go down a level or two, people are forgetting that the primary aim of reprogramming the AI should be to enhance the quality of the game, not make it more difficult. The important thing is you're playing against an AI that is relying less on built-in bonuses and more on intelligence, as rightly it should. In this light, so what if adjusting the difficulty levels would make, say, Emperor after the better AI similar to the one before? That does not detract from the game. Forcing SP players to be more militarily aggressive does.

 

[cabert]

Well, in the midst of the many suggestions to go down a level or two, people are forgetting that the primary aim of reprogramming the AI should be to enhance the quality of the game, not make it more difficult. The important thing is you're playing against an AI that is relying less on built-in bonuses and more on intelligence, as rightly it should. In this light, so what if adjusting the difficulty levels would make, say, Emperor after the better AI similar to the one before? That does not detract from the game. Forcing SP players to be more militarily aggressive does.

this is perfectly true :
a better AI for a better game is OK, a better AI for a tougher game isn't
Meaning that better AI should gradually come into play the higher you go in the levels.

aelf:

I'm under the impression that it's across the board, as noble, the even lavel, is that way too. Everyone will find their familiar level of play has been touched in a very significant way to where it appears that to hope to achieve to same level of play as before, you might have to go down a level. For me, I don't believe in getting bonuses, which stepping down from noble would mean, so the alternative is to change play enough, be that through cottaging more throroughly or playing only with very good starts, etc.

right, see my answer to Aelf.

Isn't adjusting the AI bonusses the same as going down a level (where they get fewer bonuses) ?

No. Some "hidden" bonuses apply at every level. They are what I called ishuman() stuff. Meaning that :
- an agressive AI will be friendly with other AIs but not with the human
- AIs want rip off prices for techs only for the human player
- unit upgrade price is only 25% for the AIs
...
When the AI is inept at building stuff and building up an economy, those bonuses are alright.
After the patch it isn't so anymore. So the hidden bonuses should be removed (or nerfed, at least).

RE: Winning on Prince...imo you don't have to war like a madman to win on prince. However, you absolutely CANNOT neglect your military (and diplomatic relations). When I played as a builder when I was playing at this level I often thought that meant neglecting my military and once aggressive civs' power ratings climbed above mine I often had an attacker and a dogpiler on me ending my game. I've even heard that it is possible to win peaceful games at pretty high levels (e.g., emperor) but you simply must attend to the power graph and diplomatic relations. Sometimes, as King Arthur said in the movie First Knight: "Sometimes there is a peace that only comes on the other side of war". If you have a nearby aggressor (esp Monty, but incl. Alex, Ragnar, etc.) and the rest of your continent has peaceful civs (Mansa, Gandhi, etc.) sometimes the best move a peaceful player can make is wiping out the aggressive civ early and then booming the combined empire following the war. Also, and this goes for all skill levels, you simply must take your time and make good decisions.

of course you're right.
About winning without wars, I managed a monarch culture victory with 0 battles (only barbarians), and just 2 phoney wars to make good with my best buddy, my neighbour Montezuma (you know, this really cool guy who will attack your enemies if you ask him politely).

Still, I think making the game tougher on every level is a mistake.

Not everyone is going to be a civ master, and most of us players enjoy winning at our "comfort level".
I don't want to go back to settler level!

 

[Twiglet]

Not really. Some people have pointed out that currently while a lower level, say, Monarch is too easy for them, Emperor is too difficult. I think making the increment between levels smaller would help solve that problem. Also, since there is a possible limit on how much the AI's military skills can be improved, the likely way to really counterbalance the AI's economic strength is to nerf its bonuses. This will make warmongering less of a necessity on the higher levels. Why should Civ be skewed towards war on the higher levels more than it originally was?

I'm entirely with aelf here - I think an intermediate level between Prince and Monarch and another one between Monarch and Emperor would both be a Good Thing as from reading these forums those are the transitions most players find themselves at (for a long time post-patch I could totally pwn Prince but have the AI wipe the floor with me on Monarch - I'm still significantly <50% win rate on Monarch). I also think de-emphasising the necessity for warmongering on higher levels would enhance the game significantly; in particular making beeline-for-early-war less of a must-do strategy and more one-of-the-many-options.

 

[Twiglet]

About winning without wars, I managed a monarch culture victory with 0 battles (only barbarians), and just 2 phoney wars to make good with my best buddy, my neighbour Montezuma (you know, this really cool guy who will attack your enemies if you ask him politely).

I've won a culture victory on Monarch with my only war being a "look he's about to win let's invade him" effort 10 turns from the end (a rubbish war really, pillaged my fishing fleets and landed a total of five units, even my puny military had no trouble and I still got the win). This on an Archipelago map.

Still, I think making the game tougher on every level is a mistake. Not everyone is going to be a civ master, and most of us players enjoy winning at our "comfort level".

I think that's right; I also think the recent changes restrict strategy choice whereas one of the things I love about Civ is the range of different options available. I hope that future enhancements re-address the balance (and also have the AI going for e.g. cultural victories, something I've never seen - this could dictate radically different paths through the tech tree, in turn making the trading scenarios more interesting, etc etc etc...)

 

[lilnev]

On the bright side, the AI now places its cities on the correct squares, so I don't have to raze them as often. I'm of the opinion that a smarter AI makes for a better game. I would like to see the ishuman() trading skew reduced, however.

For those who find themselves between levels, try varying the map. I find small pangaea to be about a half step down from continents, for example.

Re: warmongering. In a sense it's inevitable. Land is power, and the only way to get more land is to take it from someone else. Civ IV actually does a better job than some of its predecessors by adding incentives for big cities, not just more cities. War interacts with difficulty level because of the way the AI bonuses are set up: they become better and better builders, but don't get any combat bonuses. It becomes the only facet of the game in which the human can still gain an advantage. What would happen if the AI got smaller building bonuses but also got combat bonuses at high levels? You could even add a variable at the start of the game to let the player choose what balance of builder bonuses and combat bonuses he wanted to play against.

peace,
lilnev