When is bulbing the right choice

[damerell]

Sorry, but Soren's opinion on this completely sucks. In a balanced game, an AI that plays well *is* fun. You don't create an idiotic AI then heap bonuses on it and pidgeon hole the player and call that "fun". That's called "lazy". Nice try though, Soren.

I disagree. If I want to play with players that just try to win, I'll play with humans; but normally I'd rather do that on the tabletop, playing a game like Diplomacy or Illuminati, where you get the maximum interaction *.

The diplomatic game in Civ is interesting - but it works because the AI doesn't just try to win, because it can actually like you and not DoW on you the moment it thinks it can win. If the AI just tries to win, the space race and cultural victories become irrelevant - just as in multiplayer, there's no getting close to them without being stomped.

I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground - and indeed I think the Civ IV AI is too far over in one direction, something which is particularly well illustrated by the standard "stop research" culture victory. The game would be better with a fine line to walk there between defence and culture. But I don't think an AI that simply seeks victory is the best option, either.

* interaction, noun: attempting to tell plausible lies until your tongue turns black.

 

[noto2]

damerell I appreciate what you're saying. Most video games have an AI that roleplays to an extent and it's an integral part of the game experience. I guess I find that the replay value of Civ is far higher with more competitive AI's, however.
However, you say that space is pointless in competitive Civ? Not at all. Making a competitive AI and playing multiplayer are different. I can say that in Kmod I win by war less often than in standard BTS, and I win by space/culture more often. Why is that? Because in standard BTS the AI was far better at building/researching than it was at conducting war, so often the easiest way to win was to simply go to war. You could be behind in tech, using older units, with a smaller military, and still end up winning the war. In Kmod, however, the AI fights unbelievably better, it's like a different game, in fact it's almost like multiplayer. You really have to fight tooth and nail to beat the AI in a war when you're numbers and tech are evenly matched. Thus in Kmod there are many times in the late game when war would be too risky and I win by culture or space instead.
As for multiplayer, I would love to play MP Civ. MP is the ultimate gaming experience...most other games I play are strictly MP because playing against humans is more fun than playing against AI. Sadly, for a game like Civ, playing a standard settings MP game can take 8 hours, and that's with no breaks. Also people leave in the middle of a game. Unfortunately MP just isn't realistic, unless you have a lot of friends who also play Civ and you all have the same day off.

 

[damerell]

However, you say that space is pointless in competitive Civ? Not at all.

Yes, absolutely. The space victory is telegraphed an enormous distance in advance, with regular updates on progress. You can't win space in MP (unless you can fight every opponent in the game simultaneously, in which case you're just wasting time you could be winning Conquest with) because the opponents are playing to win and know they have to stop you; you could also not win space against AI that played to win.

You win space in K-Mod because - although the AI is different, and certainly has more of an understanding of the victory conditions - it doesn't just play to win. Otherwise you would inevitably, as you approached a space victory, find yourself at war with every AI on the map.

 

[Kaosprophet]

As for multiplayer, I would love to play MP Civ. MP is the ultimate gaming experience...most other games I play are strictly MP because playing against humans is more fun than playing against AI.

I guess tastes will vary, because the few times I've tried playing against humans I found it about as much fun as swimming in a latrine.

 

[noto2]

I agree that it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to win a space victory in MP where survival doesn't matter. If you view the game as either win or loss and nothing in between, then humans would declare war and throw everything they have at another civ going for space. I remember in Civ 3 we played a ladder called Cton where coming in second, or third, or fourth, actually mattered, and in that case space victory would be possible because coming in second place would be better than going to war and losing the war and getting knocked out of the game. So it really depends. Also in MP who would ever become a vassal? Again...with cton ladder rules players might do that. I have pondered this, not that I'll ever be able to run a tournament, but if I did, you would have to come up with some system more elaborate than win/loss to make the game more fun. In single player a big reason why space wins happen is because of alliances. The same could be true of a MP game, again, where coming in second mattered.
Also, it would be difficult for anyone to win by space because of inherent imabalances in the game, such as nuclear weapons.
Even with all this said, I still say that space wins are possible even when everyone is playing to win. Fighting a defensive war is easier than an offensive one. If you can fight on your own turf you have many advantages - better healing, faster movement, and faster movement wins all land battles because siege damage beats everything else (although nukes somewhat change this). So in an endgame situation you could have one player stronger than anyone else, deciding to build a spaceship but do it slowly so that it's basically a race against time. He wouldn't have to win a war to win the game, he'd just have to defend his land. You would have to win the war, and you'd be fighting on his turf.
Also, this is somewhat possible even with nukes. If I have the SDI and bomb shelters and 25 nukes, are you really going to use your 5 nukes on me? They won't do much damage and I'll just throw some back at you.
You can think of a space win as almost like a time win.

 

[damerell]

Also in MP who would ever become a vassal?

That's easy to answer; someone otherwise facing extermination who thinks they can sneak out a cultural victory. But, without much greater restrictions on what vassals can do, who would ever take one?

Even with all this said, I still say that space wins are possible even when everyone is playing to win. Fighting a defensive war is easier than an offensive one. If you can fight on your own turf you have many advantages

But one fundamental disadvantage; ie, everyone else is attacking you.

Put it this way, I know some of the keen MP types have records of all their games and suchlike. How often do space victories actually happen between experienced players, playing to win?

Also, this is somewhat possible even with nukes. If I have the SDI and bomb shelters and 25 nukes, are you really going to use your 5 nukes on me? They won't do much damage and I'll just throw some back at you.

Sure. I have nothing to lose - and I have every other player and their 5 nukes apiece as my allies (but even if I don't, I have nothing to lose, so I might as well push the button. Worst case, I lose the game a bit quicker.)

 

[BurN]

I hear this from immortal/deity players all the time. Sure, this works in retail BTS on a pangea map. I play with Kmod where the AI is so far improved, no one can win on deity and almost no one can win on immortal. It's effectively 2 difficulty levels higher than retail, 1 diff level higher than better BTS. Retail BTS AI is so horrible but then playing on deity where it gets ridiculous handycaps really distorts the game. Certain strategies are useless and others are a necessity, you end up having to do the same thing every game (drafting rifles).
But imagine you weren't playing against someone who got handicap cheats but instead was a good opponent because they were smart, like in MP or in Kmod. I don't think the average person on these boards plays immortal/deity. If you're still playing retail BTS I urge you to try one of the AI improving mods - JUST ONE GAME. Seriously just try one game. Obviously I'd recommend Kmod. Better BTS is the bare minimum you would be playing with, it doesn't alter gameplay at all, just improves the AI. Kmod is as close as you can get to multiplayer without actually playing multiplayer. Then again, some people like the fact that the AI is stupid and they can beat it on deity through manipulation and using tricks. To each, their own.

N/o but I played kmod (immortal) once and was unimpressed. It was certainly not +2 difficulty lvls. More like AI's randomly dowing each other .. at least that's my limited experience.

 

[noto2]

You played it once? Then your opinion is worthless. Btw, you lost that immortal game

 

[fed1943]

Where can I download that K-Mod, please?

 

[shulgi]

You can download k-mod here http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=16331

It's section in these forums is here http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=470. It is mostly dominated by one mega thread as I believe it only recently got it's own subforum.

I am enjoying k-mod quite a lot but I have kept quiet during these debates since I have only finished two games and noto and TMIT are much more informed on the topic than I am - TMIT saying that he would play k-mod exclusively if it was what Strategies & Tips should tell you it is worth some consideration for any of us reading these threads.

The original topic and k-mod are definitely the two things I am trying to understand the most right now so lucky me that they both ended up here

 

[BurN]

You played it once? Then your opinion is worthless. Btw, you lost that immortal game

If you say so..

I think you overvalue the importance of how the AI behaves. If I am at a point were it tips to a 'winning' position it doesn't really matter how the AI responds. If I am mass producing a superior military unit it doesn't matter one bit if the AI is now better at achieving cultural/military victory. In fact it will probably never be able to realize I am now 'winning" eventhough I didn't even attack anybody.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with the AI as it is. Also I don't mind a better AI. My point is that it doesn't matter because it is clueless in the end.

What makes or breaks a game imho is the fairness in land and/or resources and how you develop it. The 'intelligence' of AI doesn't have much to do with it. Making AI is quite difficult and I would never expect it to be smart in any game, especially true in a complex game like this. A 'smart' deity AI would zerg rush me with his archers, making the game unplayable.

I will agree the Kmod AI behaves a bit differently but I couldn't tell it was necessarily better.

OT: Bulbing is almost always superior to settling, especially on higher dif.

 

[shakabrade]

I won on K-mod deity. The key is not getting dowed by 4 Archers while you are still producing initial worker (luck, yuck!). Then you can totally ignore relations and diplo since AIs dow at friendly too. That makes game one dimensional and totally not beyond the sword. Culture mechanism is a pain and unpredictable. Tech pace is slower and wars are more tedious since more units are involved. AIs are a bit smarter and raze distant crap cities. And if you don't annihilate your neighbours, you'll get pillaged. AIs who just signed peace and have huge standing army declare war on nearest target regardless of relations. So, difference is, you need to build army constantly and war constantly. What I did was getting to construction first of all and it was GG.

What is good about K-mod is technical side. It runs noticeably smoother than BUFFY and short keys always work like a charm.

 

[shulgi]

@shakabrade

Grain of salt, I know you are a stronger player than I and I don't have a ton of experience with this mod

I think k-mod, or perhaps BBAI in k-mod, helps the AI press an advantage against an opponent, whether that be you or an other AI. I believe the AIs that declare at friendly or pleased in k-mod are the same as in BtS and those that are on the war path are doing so because they "think" they can win something from their opponent. Getting the first vassal is big for whichever Civ does that and after that, from a stronger position, there is a bit more freedom to choose a different strategy - though war is probably the strongest.

I don't mind the concept of early wars though it definitely would make deity even more luck of the draw than BtS. Having Shaka as a close neighbor, I think differently. I realize my experience of the game is different than those who play deity and this probably accounts for a lot for our different experience. The boost to production quickly translates to a big difference in power and I shudder to think what that does in this mod. That's a problem with the level-scaling system as a whole.

 

[shakabrade]

@shulgi

AFAIK, there's only one AI in BTS who can declare at friendly. And that is Catherine who can be bribed by a friend against the friend. You can be attacked by friendly AI if it was plotting against you while you were not friendly but begging trick solves that issue. If every AI can declare on you like in K-mod, the only reliable, non-gambling strategy is war.

Regarding vassals. I find myself often in position to refuse capping someone because it'd mess my diplo too much (if you cap someone all other AIs hate, they'll like you less too). In K-mod you can presume everyone hates you anyway and always cap. Just another example of killing game elements.

We don't actually try to beat AI in the game. We beat ourselves. Making that road so straight forward, like with K-mod aggressive AI takes away too much fun and diversity from the game. It somehow misses the point for me.

I respect if others feel differently. Also, must say I don't have too much experience myself. Couple early defeats and win and then stopped. Maybe I missed something.




BTW: Bulbing is always a right choice if it will give you edge over rivals or keep you afloat. Like pursuing Lib, or bulbing Maths so you could chop HA rush, bulbing Currency in BCs when you capture dozen of cities and are deeply in red. Also, bulbing something no one has for trade bait is often a good call. So, on higher levels, it is almost always good to bulb. On lower difficulties trades are reduced and it is often better to settle GPeople or save them for GAges of huge REXed empires (cause it is possible).

 

[noto2]

Burn that's what I'm talking about. Smart AI is better than cheating AI. Obviously if it is both smart and cheating it is unplayable.

Shak: you didn't beat kmod diety

 

[shakabrade]

Burn that's what I'm talking about. Smart AI is better than cheating AI. Obviously if it is both smart and cheating it is unplayable.

Shak: you didn't beat kmod diety

Of course I didn't. It is so unbelieveable someone could beat kmod. There is auto defeat pop-up past turn 150.

Cute, noto.

 

[noto2]

I'm just saying... you can make good points without blatantly lying.

 

[shulgi]

I'm just saying... you can make good points without blatantly lying.

Is there a point in being confrontational here?

 

[shakabrade]

I'm just saying... you can make good points without blatantly lying.

I almost like the way you insult me. I know what I managed to pull off and I know people here who could do that in more impressive way (from sandwiched position, better date, bla bla).

When you learn playing this game, maybe we'll talk as equals. No intention of starting a flame war. Just stating the facts.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Burn that's what I'm talking about. Smart AI is better than cheating AI. Obviously if it is both smart and cheating it is unplayable.

Shak: you didn't beat kmod diety

There is no smart AI yet. Even K-mod isn't smart AI. It's dumb AI, tweaked to better mimic/counter the general behaviors of better players than the default AI - which I believe was designed to mimic the behaviors of the average noble/prince level players, or at least what the design team saw as such.