What gives you Civ4 gamer rage?

[TheMeInTeam]

So Sitting Bull is always going for a diplo win? (He won a diplowin in one of my games. F**n AP.)

The only programmed victory condition attempt is culture, and before BTS there weren't any. Anything else the AI gets is total random chance luck...it doesn't actively plan for or follow any designed scripts to win any other VC in the game.

You'd think at LEAST warmonger AI would have a "keep rolling with wars" type of script, but nope. If it likes everyone even someone like shaka will just sit there on 30% land and let his vassals win the game on culture while he does nothing.

 

[rah]

When you play aggressive AI, does that increase their nature for a domination win or is that too just coincidence?

 

[Tatran]

You'd think at LEAST warmonger AI would have a "keep rolling with wars" type of script, but nope.

I disagree with this statement.
I've seen in enough games where a vassal collector goes into the pre-war mode within 3 turns after their last war. Especially Shaka.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I disagree with this statement.
I've seen in enough games where a vassal collector goes into the pre-war mode within 3 turns after their last war. Especially Shaka.

I don't care what you disagree within this case, the code simply isn't there. Look into the BBAI project with guys like Danf5771 and jdog5000 working on it and you can probably still find a breakdown of the code by them, along with them actually adding in said VC attempts.

Yes, someone with a low inowarprob might chain-declare by chance, but it's 100% sheer chance, not any planned victory attempt. That AI could just have easily waited 20+ turns, or gotten to friendly then never declared again. "RNG rolls having stars align to luck the AI into this VC" is not the same thing as "dedicated strategy/script designed to win the game in this fashion". BTS actually has the latter for culture, and it shows as it is by far the most typical way the AI wins if left unchecked.

When you play aggressive AI, does that increase their nature for a domination win or is that too just coincidence?

They don't try for domination even then, however they do roll war more frequently and are less predisposed for culture/teching. Interestingly, it also does some odd things under the hood like make the AI consider the presence of troops near its cities in peace deals (it otherwise doesn't...). I'd suggest looking into it as I don't know the full details offhand but AGG AI does things you might not expect.

 

[rah]

Thanks, I was wondering about the coding implications since I usually play with that option on. I always wondered because everyone talks about AI culture wins but I don't think I've ever seen one using AGG AI. You always wonder if it's because games don't seem to go as long since domination usually occurs. I always wondered if it was coded that way or just anecdotal. And yes, I think they're more likely to stumble into a dom win.

 

[noto2]

The only programmed victory condition attempt is culture, and before BTS there weren't any. Anything else the AI gets is total random chance luck...it doesn't actively plan for or follow any designed scripts to win any other VC in the game.

You'd think at LEAST warmonger AI would have a "keep rolling with wars" type of script, but nope. If it likes everyone even someone like shaka will just sit there on 30% land and let his vassals win the game on culture while he does nothing.

Yes, this is one of the reasons I play Kmod and also one of the reasons why that mod is more difficult. In the base game, high level players are able to use diplomacy and "game" the system to a ridiculous extent. You KNOW x leader will not declare on you at pleased, so you can ignore the possibility, even when they would win the game by attacking you.
The first month or so I played Kmod I kept losing because an AI would get a vassal or two and then try to take over the world, which caught me off guard.

I don't like roleplaying AI in the base game at all. I think roleplaying AI certainly has a....role to fill, in certain games, but not like this. For example, if you make a WW2 mod for Civ it makes sense to script that the Italians are not going to suddenly attack the Germans at the beginning of the war. Imagine a WW2 mod that took place before the war and Germany didn't even attack anyone, it would be boring and pointless, so you script Germany's behaviour to get things started. In that case Germany has a role to play, roleplaying AI is called for.

In Civ, however, we play game after game. I don't need Ghandi to be a pushover in every game I see him in, while Monty is a maniac. It becomes boring and tedious. It's more interesting if I can't predict their behaviour.

 

[noto2]

Before I discovered better BTS AI and Kmod I experimented with the "aggressive AI" setting and played a few dozen games with it. I found the AI built a LOT more units and was thus always prepared for war, but it really hurt the AI tech pacing. I noticed wonders being built much later and religions being founded later and liberalism was pushed far, far back.
So...it's more difficult in a way (when you get attacked you will deal with massive stacks, and when you attack someone you deal with their enormous military) but then it's easier in a way because you can very easily grab a tech lead and key wonders if you want them. With aggressive AI I found that trying to war early was often too costly, and I found turtling was usually the best strategy, so I found it didn't really add much to the game. All I had to do was survive until the middle ages and then winning was guaranteed, as all the AI's would fall behind in economic output and tech pace.

 

[MrG]

My pet hate is rivals vassalising civs particularly if you are battering them in a war.

Particular kudos goes to Hannibal who peacefully vassalised 3 rival civs in a game I was playing leaving me, then vassalised Monty, who I'd spent 100 years reaming militarily.

That left me, monty and Louis I made the worst mistake ever and declared war on Hannibal, dragged in Louis to help,had to bail when things got hairy and lo and behold Louis was vassalised to, despite losing just one city.

That wasn't fun...

 

[pspboy7]

*OTHER*

The controls in this game still do not work properly.

- Accidentally "auto explore" units because a promotion used to be in that spot, but the game moved it just before you clicked TROLOLOLOLOLOL #freakingidiots

- Game will "think" you're pressing alt when you're not sometimes, allowing DoW on allies w/o prompt. Game over.

- Alt-click. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit. Okay, I've selected the whole stack. Shift click to unselect a unit.

(Hey failaxis, shift click selects and unselects individual units...usually).

- Control click to select all swords. Yes. Control click to select all marines. Nope. Control clicking on the marines selects the navy this time, even though sometimes it actually selects the marines, and even though if you wanted to select the navy, you'd control-click on the navy. #freakingidiots

- Queued orders from a previous turn are done automatically at the start of the next turn. Forcibly. Even if you attempt to cancel them. This makes queued orders effectively useless since new situations arise and using them puts you at an actual disadvantage for no reason at all.

- Can't hit end turn. Won't let you hit end turn. You must wait several seconds while nothing happens before you can hit end turn #freakingidiots

I could go on, but nothing in the gameplay itself is nearly so grating as the UI's refusal to let me play the game.

I think that about sums it up, this and Apostolic Palace. Controls are still a nuisance aka nightmare, and the AP just gets in the way of my style of play. I like the game, but it's the little nitpicky details that can ruin it for me sometimes. I voted the AP since I either get it 50% of the time and when I do, somebody in the world will hate me for it, and when somebody else gets it, it's bound to cause problems for me later on. Why is heavens name they added the AP is beyond me... sigh...oh well, enough ranting hehe!

 

[paulcarri]

my last battle- heavily damaged longbows in the target city thanks to my catapults...

apparent odds of about 70% when i sent the macemen in

Yet i lost 3 macemen on the trot...was swearing slightly before realizing that was silly

EDIT

Oh yes accidentally selecting ALL the defending units in a city during war and moving them out, then losing the city.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

EDIT

Oh yes accidentally selecting ALL the defending units in a city during war and moving them out, then losing the city.

I rage quit a MP game over that once...it very well might have been the only time I rage quit in a MP civ game with more than 2 people (I play regularly with a friend where either of us might, but we use hard settings on purpose). I selected my stack of axes and spears on a hill city (about 6 or 7 units) and tried to take combat I. Right as I clicked on combat I, the buttons shifted and it became auto-explore. My stack vacated the city and the AI stack of 4 axes and a sword or some junk like that walked into the city untouched.

I couldn't take it back, but if the game worked the AI never could have taken it (I'd have had a high chance of stack wiping it while losing nothing). It was a pretty heavy blow as that city was my 2nd in production and had infrastructure...the kind of thing that sets you back dozens of turns. I have no patience for that trash, I prefer games that actually work.

It is completley mind boggling to me that something like true full-blown controlscrew fake difficulty is not even a poll option, and that more people are bothered by things like optional settings or 100% preventable occurences. I simply can't conceive how "fast longbows" or "surprise DoW" (where if you know the mechanics, it's never actually a surprise) can possibly be more grating than the controls not working...to the point where it's not even a poll option!

Actually, that's my greatest source of gamer rage. The typical player doesn't care if the game doesn't work, mostly prefering pretty graphics and a little role play here and there. Optimization so it runs well? Consistently having units do what they're commanded to do? Not having units auto-suicide before you can give orders (IE actually playing the game)? NOPE NOT IMPORTANT!!!

Because enough people don't care and buy it, they destroy the incentive to make a good product. If I were a developer I'd probably pile crap on people over time also. It's more lucrative. As much as I fault failaxis for releasing a game where "select all infantry = select all destroyers" or in civ V "ranged attack = don't attack at all and move instead", it's really the consumers who buy these things and like them that incentivize this practice. In a basic market, the companies create what the consumers demand. Apparently, wanting a quality product as a consumer puts me in a minority, and that is indeed frustrating.

 

[paulcarri]

ha, before reading this i thought it was just me who had problems with unit selection

 

[reddishrecue]

It really is a hassle selecting units particularly in a stack where all the units get selected and you have to unclick them one by one to organize the stacks and umselect the troops in the stack that you don't want to give orders to.

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

Or you click Select All Units and it only selects the four air units. That drives me crazy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Shift + click after selecting all units NOT unselecting a unit is "fun" too.

But remember, enough people are "fine" with this that it didn't get patched since vanilla despite being a known issue. "I don't really use hotkeys anyway, so I don't care if this aspect of the controls doesn't work". Failaxis response: "Really? Great. Let's make barb galleys spawn 4x more often and introduce a bug in overflow then". Pretty rage inducing.

 

[qazq2]

Penniless... but Darn liberals and Burnside lets me down piss me off too

 

[Seraiel]

Sry, but there are 2 things, that beat all of those:

1. Ai comes towards you when you have something like 5 units and are already in war "Hey, mind to join us in our war? If you do, we'll quit it and you and your 5 units will be alone in war with 2 Civs! Oh, you don't wanna join? How dumb of you, we'll hate you until the end of the round, -1!"

2. And the other one most definately is the AP. Last game, Brennus built it (AI with lowest peaceweight) and he and Peter adored each other. Rest of the world was against them, but guess what: AP-Vote #1: Declare War on XY. Hmm. Brennus and Peter have 90% of all Voices, what am I with my 10% do? Yes, DEFY YOU SUCKERS!"

World considers you as a villaign, 30 rounds of -5 in all jewish cities ... uke:

But there are things when AI makes up for such , like when Peter conquered that city from Darius, which was surrounded by his culture, so he couldn't move out his units.

"Hey Peter!" TATATATA "Oh, you can't defend? Believe me, I'm so sry " and something I always love, are things like AI attacking with 1 Catapult, and bombarding the city defenses for 10 rounds, so one can get enough defenders into the city, or grab the city after AI suicided its stack...

Still a great game.

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

Shift + click after selecting all units NOT unselecting a unit is "fun" too.

AARRGGHHH! Groups and subgroups and adding and subtracting and shifting when control would make sense and controlling when shift would make sense. Pain full. At least the nonfunctional little scroll arrows from Vanilla are gone, that is an improvement.

And then this, an AI DoWs you, usually--if not always--when you are already at war, and then seems to AP itself back to peace the very next turn. A one turn war. I have had that a couple of times recently. And while it most certainly does not induce rage, it does confuse matters a bit.

Which makes me realize, the AI threatens us into joining their wars while we have to pay them to join ours. I would love to have Isabella drop by and offer me HBR for joining her war against Gandhi while I threaten some hapless AI into DoWing Shaka because I can.

 

[s.bernbaum]

2. And the other one most definately is the AP. Last game, Brennus built it (AI with lowest peaceweight) and he and Peter adored each other. Rest of the world was against them, but guess what: AP-Vote #1: Declare War on XY. Hmm. Brennus and Peter have 90% of all Voices, what am I with my 10% do? Yes, DEFY YOU SUCKERS!"

OTOH, sometimes the AP works really nice for you. In my current game, Sury built the AP while in the same religion as Isabella, Hammurabi, and myself. I have the largest pop, so I am the other candidate. A few turns after building the AP, Sury founded another religion and switched to it. So, I have a lock on the AP Residency. Ain't no way Isabella or Hammy are going to vote for the guy in some other religion. I just have to be careful not to capture the city that it is in, so he remains the other candidate. As is, I can sic all the AIs with even one city in the AP religion (including Sury) on any of the heathens that I choose and get the 2 hammer bonus, with no worry that any Resident will choose an item for vote that I don't like, since Sury will never get elected.

 

[paulcarri]

I still keep accidentally marching all my troops out of newly captured cities ;/

I dont think the troop selection works very well