The Immortal Challenge 1: Apocalypto

[aelf]

The purpose of WFYABTA isn't to make the game "harder". It's to address a specific problem, namely, that humans can play the trading game much better than AIs (unless the AIs conspire against the human, which tends to get people up in arms), and so games at very high level tend to degenerate into researching just a small number of techs and trading each around for lots of others. I think it's good to address this, even though WFYABTA is not a perfect mechanism by any stretch of the imagination.

The purpose of the Better AI wasn't to make the game harder either. But somehow it has degenerated into a suggestion box for people who are out to look for a 'challenge'. I make a distinction between quality and difficulty, but my comments have frequently been rebuffed by people who say that I'm just complaining because I have to move down a difficulty level or two. I don't see why there's a need to make the game harder, whatever difficulty level I'm playing on, though I agree that the AI should be improved to provide a better gaming experience. If you improve the AI, you need to start reviewing and modifying the current elements of bias that favour the AI when it was too feeble to manage on its own.

Likewise, I understand the need to limit tech trading, but, like Winston, I also see WFYABTA as a crude mechanism that serves to create some sort of AI bias towards humans, which indirectly encourages you to simply crush the 'useless' AI. Why bother coexisting? They are not trading with you anyway. This, among other factors, leads to the other complication of turning Civ into a total war game, but I'm not going to go into that right now. Although they are somewhat difficult to deal with, I feel that these are pertinent points, for which, in making them, I have even received verbal abuse. All these things are what I was trying to get across.

Secondly, whilst the capital certainly could be used as a GP farm, it's got the potential to be a strong production city (esp. with bureaucracy), which I would see as a better long-term use of the site. Rheims wouldn't come into its own so soon (which might lead you to prefer the capital), but it could do the job nicely in the long term, hence my suggestion that it could be considered for that role. Too many times I've built the NE in my capital, only to find that I hardly run any specialists there as time goes on, because I'm too busy using its bureaucracy-powered production to pump out units etc.

I don't really agree here. I don't see why being a GP farm and a Bureaucracy capital are mutually exclusive. Given the amount of food the capital has, I believe it can run specialists and still have high production. How many specialist slots do we have anyway? And we're not going to run all sorts of specialists just to increase the GPP, are we? That's my point. It may seem counterintuitive to have a city that is both a GP farm and a production centre, but I think that is very possible simply because the concepts of 'pure GP farm' and 'pure production centre' are not really grounded on realities, especially on higher difficulty levels, where short-term interests often overwhelm idealistic long-term considerations.

I'm not trying to shoot down your points. I'm just offering my views on the matter

 

[Mutineer]

I actially agree with UF there.
Better production specialisation become more impotant mostly because of GG. Most other building you will have to build anyway, because you need happiness/health.
GranariesAcveducs, Markets, groseries, harbors - needed for happiness/health and grow.
Forges/factories/plants needed for happiness and production, needed to build other building.
Theaters/courhouses, colliseums, Jails needed to combat War wareness and upkeep.
At the end of the day, you do not save that mach on buildings.
GG have mach bigger effect. L3 collateral damage giove +100% collateral damage. Cyiciding collateral units do not survive that often to self promote. They needed to be promoted from start.
Even L2 collateral give +50%, which is a lot.

Collateral damage units the best to br produced in higth expirience cities.

 

[aelf]

Yeah, that's what I did. The cost wasn't onerous, as I recall, and it meant no more hassles about bandwidth or storage space for the foreseeable future.

I don't live in North America and don't have a credit card and will not get one anytime soon, which means I am unable to make such a decision independently I'm afraid I can't say that I'll be able to do that and solve the problem once and for all.

 

[Sisiutil]

No. Specialization is important so that you aren't trying to build everything in every city.

GG's could easily be done without, of that I have no doubt.

Well, DUH--we did without them in vanilla for nearly a year!

None of the changes introduced in Warlords or its patch are radical or game-breaking, but one's gameplay should not ignore them. The new wrinkles like Great Generals are tactical rather than strategic, in my estimation.

The purpose of the Better AI wasn't to make the game harder either. But somehow it has degenerated into a suggestion box for people who are out to look for a 'challenge'. I make a distinction between quality and difficulty, but my comments have frequently been rebuffed by people who say that I'm just complaining because I have to move down a difficulty level or two. I don't see why there's a need to make the game harder, whatever difficulty level I'm playing on, though I agree that the AI should be improved to provide a better gaming experience. If you improve the AI, you need to start reviewing and modifying the current elements of bias that favour the AI when it was too feeble to manage on its own.

Agreed. If the AI is smarter, it doesn't need to be spotted, or at least not nearly as much.

Likewise, I understand the need to limit tech trading, but, like Winston, I also see WFYABTA as a crude mechanism that serves to create some sort of AI bias towards humans, which indirectly encourages you to simply crush the 'useless' AI. Why bother coexisting? They are not trading with you anyway. This, among other factors, leads to the other complication of turning Civ into a total war game, but I'm not going to go into that right now. Although they are somewhat difficult to deal with, I feel that these are pertinent points, for which, in making them, I have even received verbal abuse. All these things are what I was trying to get across.

I'd rather have the WFYABTA than nothing--I never played Civ III but it sounds like it had a lot of exploitable holes.

Frankly, I think the emphasis on war in Civ IV (and I agree, it is there) is a direct result of the effort to mitigate (or even eliminate) REX more than anything else. You need territory (cities and resources) to win the game, pure and simple. If you have to stop gaining land peacefully early on, which you do, there's only one way to get it later: Again, I don't want to go back to previous versions' exploits like REX, but Firaxis might need to look at balancing early expansion better. Right now the only way I can play anything like a peaceful builder game is if the fractal generator gives me a decent-sized continent all to myself.

I don't really agree here. I don't see why being a GP farm and a Bureaucracy capital are mutually exclusive. Given the amount of food the capital has, I believe it can run specialists and still have high production. How many specialist slots do we have anyway? And we're not going to run all sorts of specialists just to increase the GPP, are we? That's my point. It may seem counterintuitive to have a city that is both a GP farm and a production centre, but I think that is very possible simply because the concepts of 'pure GP farm' and 'pure production centre' are not really grounded on realities, especially on higher difficulty levels, where short-term interests often overwhelm idealistic long-term considerations.

I'm not trying to shoot down your points. I'm just offering my views on the matter

I agree with aelf here. I'm also fond of using the capital as the GP farm; in most of my games, it gets Oxford, the Great Library, and the National Epic so it can churn out Great Scientists. For a good chunk of the game you can't run more than two scientists anyway (though with the GL you can run 4) until you either research Education and build Oxford or research Astronomy and build an Observatory. Aren't Great Scientists the best type of GP to generate anyway?

I realize we've lost out on the GL in this game, but that's happened to me before and I've still won. It gives aelf some freedom in finally deciding where the science city (now determined by the location of Oxford) will go. But it also means that until the late game, when aelf finally switches civics away from Bureaucracy, the capital will likely be the best science city.

I don't live in North America and don't have a credit card and will not get one anytime soon, which means I am unable to make such a decision independently I'm afraid I can't say that I'll be able to do that and solve the problem once and for all.

Well, then, multiple accounts might be the way to go, if PhotoBucket allows that sort of thing.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If you improve the AI, you need to start reviewing and modifying the current elements of bias that favour the AI when it was too feeble to manage on its own.

If you make the AI better, you can also set the handicaps for "Immortal" to those that were previously used for "Emperor", so that new-Immortal is about as hard as old-Immortal. Or you can not change the handicaps, so that new-Emperor is about as hard as old-Immortal. It doesn't really make any difference at all, since it's just a name. Either choice is equally good.

Likewise, I understand the need to limit tech trading, but, like Winston, I also see WFYABTA as a crude mechanism that serves to create some sort of AI bias towards humans

I agree it's a crude mechanism. I can imagine something better. But this is what we've got, and I still think it's better than nothing.

And I don't think it's biased against humans. Doesn't WFYABTA apply to AI-AI trading, also?

 

[aelf]

If you make the AI better, you can also set the handicaps for "Immortal" to those that were previously used for "Emperor", so that new-Immortal is about as hard as old-Immortal. Or you can not change the handicaps, so that new-Emperor is about as hard as old-Immortal. It doesn't really make any difference at all, since it's just a name. Either choice is equally good.

Yes, we can change this ourselves. But now the problem comes with standardization. Are you playing your own modified version of the game? While this is perfectly fine to some people, I prefer to experience gaming as a community activity, such as what's happening here. It's so much more difficult when you are not conforming to some sort of official standard of the game. Who's going to be able to participate easily? And if the official standard is broken, then...

And I don't think it's biased against humans. Doesn't WFYABTA apply to AI-AI trading, also?

I've heard someone mention that it doesn't. Any evidence? I admit I'm not too good at deciphering the SDK.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yes, we can change this ourselves. But now the problem comes with standardization. Are you playing your own modified version of the game?

Change what yourself? I thought you were talking about AI improvements, like those that were developed by others and incorporated into Warlords 2.08. The new AI plays better than the old AI. That means that Warlords 2.08 Immortal is harder than Vanilla 1.61 Immortal. I understood you to say that Firaxis should have an obligation to reduce the AI handicaps when they do this, so that the new Immortal isn't any harder than the old Immortal. I'm saying that I don't think there's any reason they need to make the new Immortal line up exactly with the old Immortal. There were a range of difficulties in the old game, there are a range of difficulties in the new game, and it doesn't matter whether or not they exactly line up. What matters is just that there's a sufficient range of difficulties so that everyone can get the level of challenge that they prefer.

 

[aelf]

Change what yourself? I thought you were talking about AI improvements, like those that were developed by others and incorporated into Warlords 2.08. The new AI plays better than the old AI. That means that Warlords 2.08 Immortal is harder than Vanilla 1.61 Immortal. I understood you to say that Firaxis should have an obligation to reduce the AI handicaps when they do this, so that the new Immortal isn't any harder than the old Immortal. I'm saying that I don't think there's any reason they need to make the new Immortal line up exactly with the old Immortal. There were a range of difficulties in the old game, there are a range of difficulties in the new game, and it doesn't matter whether or not they exactly line up. What matters is just that there's a sufficient range of difficulties so that everyone can get the level of challenge that they prefer.

Well, I wasn't actually referring specifically to 2.08. I was talking about the philosophy behind a better AI, which 2.08 introduces in a very limited way. As it is, there's still a fair range of difficulty that can be played. However, when the prevailing philosophy of a better AI is followed through, I'm afraid the game will become 'challenging' on Noble or Prince and nigh impossible on Emperor because of the failure to modify current elements of bias that favour the AI (including the handicaps). Or it will simply force you to aggressively pursue war as the only reliable way of winning even on moderate difficulty levels.

Some people are saying that we can do the modifications ourselves, but my reply is that, no matter what, the official version matters. I don't think we need to make the game more difficult or more war-oriented. An improved AI is good, but, in fact, to me an improved AI means one that is not so feeble at war but less godly in teching, so that war becomes less attractive or necessary as a sole gambit.

 

[aelf]

Sorry, a little bit of OT time while I look for a solution to the Photobucket problem

 

[cabert]

Sorry, a little bit of OT time while I look for a solution to the Photobucket problem

Just play your game, and post screenshotless writeups for a while .
There is also room on this forum for a few images.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't see why being a GP farm and a Bureaucracy capital are mutually exclusive.

I don't think they are; it often provides the best way to get a few quick GPs early on, especially if you land the GL there. However, as I said, my GP-production always seems to dry up as I move into the mid-late game (and if you don't grab the GL, it is much less effective in the first place). Hence, I've been having more long-term joy running a dedicated GP farm.

For example, in the monarch game I'm just finishing (getting some space race practice before finishing off my first attempt at that victory on emperor), my GP farm has been consistently running 5+ specialists since fairly early on, guaranteeing a nice steady flow of GPs throughout the game, despite missing out on the GL. The only difference between that city and Rheims is that it had a bit more production, which meant I didn't have to do as much whipping to get it up and running.

Also, I've found that I've been getting better results from merchants than scientists as the game goes on. With troop production concentrated in the capital and one other city, and with the rest focused almost exclusively on research, the GP farm works nicely as a gold producer. With the GMs providing a big cash boost every 15-20 turns (on average), I can run at 100% research pretty much constantly (even with a large empire).

By reducing the science rate to 70%, I lose well over 10% from my total (multiplied) commerce production, since all my cities except the GP farm have lots of science multipliers, but few gold multipliers. So it makes sense to keep the rate up as high as possible at all times.

Plus, I find it most useful to have a decent stack of gold available, should an emergency troop upgrade be required (as it was when my 'friend' Monty decided to stab me in the back; five grens instantly upgraded to infantry saved my capital from his treachery).

 

[uberfish]

I find making a heroic epic city that maxes production at the expense of anything else and doesn't attempt to generate commerce or build science/cash enhancers at all to have improved my game, and the GGs enhance this.

Remember that the AI has GGs too, and builds a lot more units in 2.08 than 1.61.

 

[futurehermit]

For those interested in what happens when the AI is improved and the bonuses are not taken away check out the acidsatyr group deity succession game. They played with Hatty and used Blake's improved AI mod. They got mauled late-game by Shaka and Toku who made many many units and were constantly upgrading them for basically free. Eventually, it became insurmountable

 

[carl corey]

Yeap, seems like Deity is unreasonably difficult right now (from what I read, I only play Monarch for now). People who liked to play on Deity could go down to Immortal, but the fact remains that Deity will be a useless level if nothing is done about it.

 

[darrelljs]

thread jack
Well, a lot of Deity is getting lucky with your neighbors. If you take this game and start next to Caesar instead of Louis, things would have played out a lot differently. If you don't hit someone like Caesar early you are going to be in for a real slog. In Acid 4, they had some of the worst neighbors possible, but if they play again with say Mansa as a neighbor I am sure they can win even on Deity + better AI. At the higher levels most of the time you just can't afford to be passive, you either need to be in a war or building up for you next war constantly. It's why I still play the bulk of my games at Monarch and Emperor, you can play around a lot more.

Well, that's not totally true some players have shown counter examples, like uber's Goddess of the Oasis. It is possible to win some games without constant conquest if things break a certain way, but it won't be a consistent option.
/thread jack

Darrell

 

[aelf]

Well, I don't think even the current version of the Better AI has fully lived up to the philosophy that many of its supporters adhere to. But AFAIK it has run into some rather telling problems recently, such as the AI unit spam. And I can't believe some people actually like the idea of having to spam units of their own. You call that a 'challenge'?

I believe more than one party is in blind pursuit of certain objectives without really considering the ramifications of what is being done.

Back to the thread, Photobucket has informed me that I have exceeded the bandwith limit, although I can still see the screenshots in this thread. Well, this certainly means I can't post any new screenshots until the 19th if I don't do anything about it. I haven't had much time to look for a solution, though. I'll try to do so within the next few days. And I may play the next round in the meantime.

EDIT: I realised I made a typo earlier in the thread. It's 77000 hits per month, not 7700. No wonder Photobucket is complaining

 

[Syndrome Zed]

Just play your game, and post screenshotless writeups for a while .
There is also room on this forum for a few images.

Ahhh...you're just bored while everyone debates game difficulty.


What about those crackheads over at Geocities or Angelfire? Do they even exist still, and could they be used for posting screenies? If I hadn't just dumped my regular Earthlink account for the 5 buck a month cheapie, I'd offer to host some myself.

 

[DaviddesJ]

However, when the prevailing philosophy of a better AI is followed through, I'm afraid the game will become 'challenging' on Noble or Prince and nigh impossible on Emperor because of the failure to modify current elements of bias that favour the AI (including the handicaps).

I think it's unlikely the AI can be improved that much. But suppose that it happens, and new-Prince equals old-Emperor in difficulty, new-Emperor equals old-Deity, etc. Why is that a problem? It just means that, if previously you chose to play at Emperor, then afterward you will find that Prince is the right level to give you a good challenge. New-Prince is old-Emperor, just with a different name.

 

[aelf]

I think it's unlikely the AI can be improved that much. But suppose that it happens, and new-Prince equals old-Emperor in difficulty, new-Emperor equals old-Deity, etc. Why is that a problem? It just means that, if previously you chose to play at Emperor, then afterward you will find that Prince is the right level to give you a good challenge. New-Prince is old-Emperor, just with a different name.

Yeah, but what is the point? I doubt the programmers have ever asked themselves that. Suppose now Deity is impossible and previously Immortal players are playing on Monarch. It seems as if everything's just the same (it is not). But why make Deity impossible and Monarch the equivalent of Immortal, if you can help it? You are only limiting people's options while really only benefiting those who have previously mastered Deity level (and how many of such people are there?). I don't see that better AI means the game has to be harder or more war-oriented or both.

Anyway, I read VoiceofUnreason's thread on WFYABTA. It seems that WFYABTA applies between AIs as well but is affected by difficulty level handicap. Since the AIs are playing on Noble, I suppose they are applying Noble-level WFYABTA rules on each other while applying Immortal version on us. This still creates a difficulty-influenced bias against the human player. Maybe it's a necessary evil, but it's evil nonetheless

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yeah, but what is the point? I doubt the programmers have ever asked themselves that.

I think the point is very well understood. The point is that strategy games are more enjoyable with a smarter opponent and a lower handicap, than using a dumber opponent and a higher handicap to achieve the same level of difficulty. It's pretty clear that Civ4 would be less fun if you made the computer opponents even dumber, and gave them even more free units and even larger discounts in order to make the game challenging. Civ4 is enjoyable, but it would be more enjoyable if you didn't have to give the opponents such huge bonuses (as in this present game) to create a challenge that keeps you interested in the game.

But why make Deity impossible and Monarch the equivalent of Immortal, if you can help it? You are only limiting people's options....

First of all, I want to repeat that it's not realistic to improve the AI that much, so I think you are exaggerating this concern.

But, secondly, if that did happen, you aren't limiting anyone's options, because everyone can just stay at the "same level" of difficulty. As I said, players can go from old-Immortal to new-Monarch, from old-Monarch to new-Noble, etc. Everyone can have the same challenge, except for those who were already playing below Noble and may not be able to go any lower. But I would recommend "artificial stupidity" (intentionally worse AI decisions) for levels below Noble, which eliminates that problem, too.