Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ellestar
Of course i expected that answer (after all, i'm a strategy player and i use my opponent's answers to my benefit) and it further proves my point. AI sucks anyway, it's just more obvious in non-standart settings. No matter how many times i'll play with Deity AI's on future, it will die exaclty the same way (unlike multiplayer).

Obviously, you realized that the ease of winning with your chosen settings was moreso than with standard ones. That is why you chose them, to guarantee the win. But then you are saying your win is exactly the same as any other win, ignoring your own assessment.

That is not "strategy", unless your strategy is to make yourself sound like a fool who has no grasp of logic.

But the thing is that AI will die the same way in any other settings if you know what you should do so to win. Unfortunately, it just isn't as obvious for some players.

No, the AI may die in other settings, but it won't be the same way. You really think a Modern era start plays out the same way as an Ancient era start? Priceless!

Actually, there are no wins against AI that are meaningful. AI is a sitting duck.

Like there are no "wins" in debating with you either. Unless I define "wins" as having a lot of laughs at the absurdity of your reasoning.

As for "meaningful". It is not an on/off switch. If you beat someone in MP who has had a stroke and is lying senseless on the floor, it's a bit different "meaning" than if you have beaten an alert, well versed MP player. There is a range to the challenge presented, and the "meaning" is based off of that.

(For those using a similar system to judge by at least. There are some people who think a win is a win, even if it's against a friend playing a throwaway nic who throws the matches over and over again purposely to boost w/l percentage of the keeper nic. Or those who cheat in general.)

Same applies to the AI. If you beat it in a scenario it has no chance to compete in, it is far different than beating it in a scenario where it does. You assume there is no scenario where it does moreso than your chosen settings for your first game (and yet clearly state that you chose them because they were infact less challenging)... well then show me your AW Deity wins on Pangaea maps from Ancient start with no reloading, mods, or cheats. Since you say there is no variation on "meaning", that must mean it is as easy a scenario to beat as the one you devised for your first game?

And all that aside, beating the AI isn't the real SP challenge. It's by how much, how fast. Which can be compared between players. Just because you ignore this every time I say it doesn't mean it isn't so.

Bruce Lee once said "break brick is good, but bricks don't hit back" in a Bloodsport movie. And what you do is fighting bricks. But martial arts were made for fighting other people. I guess you'll understand the analogy.

What I do is what I like. Doing what I don't like to gain enjoyment would be the stupid pointless thing.

You can't see past w/l vs other people to other potential avenues of enjoyment or even challenge. Not everyone is as blind as you are. Some people climb a mountain to prove something, some people have to fight another person to do so, and some people don't feel they have to prove anything. They all are correct in the assessment of themselves, but incorrect if they assess the others as they do themself. They are clearly motivated differently.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by zerza
To defend something, you have to defend all points. You cant pick and choose points to defend and pretend the rest go away.

I'm still waiting on your response to my refutation of your statements here... Or have you given up on defending your position?

[zerza]

Originally posted by Aeson


I'm still waiting on your response to my refutation of your statements here... Or have you given up on defending your position?

You made your post so annoying to read, that I likely missed your point. I believe I tried however to respond, but am not going to go back myself and look on the grounds I could care less

[necrom666]

I can think of absolutely no scenerio that would make me want to build a settler before I built a worker. If there were no opponents I still couldn't recommend it.

I would bet not only my left nut but both my nuts that I will out expand and out tech you everytime with any start location if you go settler first. I throw down the gauntlet for a space race. Or maybe I'll just slap you across the face with my glove. Take that, good sir!

Vel may have some words of wisdom in this thread but that surely isn't one of them. All would do well to discount it as nothing more than a mind exercise.

P.S. Tommy would problaby go for a friendly little wager as well. I here he's rich.

Edit: I should amend that last comment. I speculated he's rich.

[Blake]

There are situations in which it is very wise to go Settler first.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by zerza
You made your post so annoying to read, that I likely missed your point.

I'm sure it is annoying to have everything you said refuted in a manner in which you can't respond to. I apologize if I was too thorough for your tastes. If you need me to further explain my points to you, just ask for clarification on a specific point.

I believe I tried however to respond, but am not going to go back myself and look on the grounds I could care less

To ease the task for you...

The response(s) refered to you are posts 440 and 441. You have not addressed them in any manner other than your reference about them in the message that I have quoted here. If that is the result of your efforts to respond to them, you did a very lackluster job of it.

Of course even with my initial response to you, you didn't directly address any of the points I made either. Instead you quoted Vel repeatedly in your response to me instead of addressing my statements. The part of the initial post I made over at C4P directed at you you ignored as well, prefering instead to insinuate that all SP are reloaders and just hating on MP because they can't deal with it.

I find this ironic given your standpoint on why SP players don't play MP. You have been derogatory of that choice, and yet in your interaction with me you are displaying the tendancies to avoid confrontation that you mistakenly attribute to SP players as a group.

[necrom666]

I guess I could think up a situation that it may be better to build a settler first. As a matter of fact, that does sound like a fun mind exercise. Let me get started on that. How's this dang map editor work again.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Aeson
Obviously, you realized that the ease of winning with your chosen settings was moreso than with standard ones. That is why you chose them, to guarantee the win. But then you are saying your win is exactly the same as any other win, ignoring your own assessment.

That is not "strategy", unless your strategy is to make yourself sound like a fool who has no grasp of logic.

No, i don't. Because there is some sequence of actions in existence that gives you a win vs AI in most other settings.

No, a fool is someone who starts to call names on a forum when he has nothing to say.

Originally posted by Aeson
No, the AI may die in other settings, but it won't be the same way. You really think a Modern era start plays out the same way as an Ancient era start? Priceless!

... Note that putting words i didn't said in my mouth is a common board warrior tactics. Please, don't use a board warrior tactics in responces to my posts. Thank you.

Once again...
AI plays exactly the same way in all settings. Yes or no?
If you know a sequence of actions that lead you to a win on some settings, AI will die all the time because it can't adapt and it doesn't play to win (that is if you'll not be too unlucky in hard settings). Yes or no?
If you answer "yes" on both questions then i was right.

Originally posted by Aeson
As for "meaningful". It is not an on/off switch. If you beat someone in MP who has had a stroke and is lying senseless on the floor, it's a bit different "meaning" than if you have beaten an alert, well versed MP player. There is a range to the challenge presented, and the "meaning" is based off of that.

Well, actually a win doesn't mean much in both cases. There may be a random involved or just a bad day for a player. A player's perfomance in a given settings is more important than an absolute results (like a win or whatever else). Also, generally we know who's a better player out there and that is more important than just a single win.

Originally posted by Aeson
Same applies to the AI. If you beat it in a scenario it has no chance to compete in, it is far different than beating it in a scenario where it does. You assume there is no scenario where it does moreso than your chosen settings for your first game (and yet clearly state that you chose them because they were infact less challenging)... well then show me your AW Deity wins on Pangaea maps from Ancient start with no reloading, mods, or cheats. Since you say there is no variation on "meaning", that must mean it is as easy a scenario to beat as the one you devised for your first game?

Correction: AI never competes.
It can't do it. It doesn't learn, it doesn't adapt and it doesn't play to win. So it can't compete. Ever. Period.
So the same can't apply to AI.

There is no variation in meaning. If you can beat AW Deity on Pangea etc. (i bet you can't) then i will be able to do it as well if i'll waste as much time as you playing singleplayer and learning how to exploit AI weaknesses. But what's the point if it comes to time spent finding and perfecting exploiting weaknesses of some static artifical virtual thing? For me, a win is meaningless in either case. I just guessed an easiest way to expoit same weaknesses.

Note: Perfecting your strategy/tactics/micro or finding new ways is one thing, it's possible to do it in Single as well and it's what i respect. But you can't win without a cheesy exploits on that settings (basically, everything that will not work against you if you'll play on a place of an AI will be in that category). And perfecting cheesy exploits is a waste of time, it's pointless and not competitive.

Originally posted by Aeson
And all that aside, beating the AI isn't the real SP challenge. It's by how much, how fast. Which can be compared between players. Just because you ignore this every time I say it doesn't mean it isn't so.

The problem is that it also includes the abovementioned cheesy exploits

"Its like beating up a ******, and then bragging about it." (c) Elledge

Well, enjoy your so called "competition" "who will beat a ****** better and faster"

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And that's heartening to hear. I understand that much of this change came about as of the latest patch. That's fantastic. But my comments were made prior to this patch, during a time when you grudgingly admitted that Rush was much more powerful (in which case, my comments, for the timeframe they were made in, rang true). I'm glad it has changed, I really am, but surely you have to see the shaky validity of comparing what MP has changed into Post 1.61 with comments I made well before it was a twinkle in anyone's eye?

Well, actually it's not that straightforward.

Chopping was nerfed so it's harder to make 2nd city if 1st one lacks metal. Also, if you got a bronze or, say, horse in capital you may go Mathematics route instead of Iron Working and your rush will be even more powerful than 1.52 one if your enemy researchs iron but still doesn't have any resources in capital.

However, now in big teamers everyone starts with scouts almost all the time so 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 chocking with a starting warriors doesn't exist (it was especially harsh with a warrior vs scout start). Before the patch, it was able to slow down a first worker and sometimes it was able to prevent connecting a resource in time even if a player had one (that is if teammates were too far away to help).

So, in the end, it's probably even easier to rush in ctons. But rush in ctons is not an effective tactics most of the time if all players are skilled. In teamers rush is weaker than before in almost all situations.

Of course, rushes still do happen. Everyone makes mistakes and there may be some luck involved so... For example, i remember 2 last rushes happened in my Ancient games.

First one was on a Standart Pangea map, 5v5 (IIRC default size for 10 players). Starts were really close for these 2 players - 8 squares between capitals while a normal range is about 14 squares (that's why generally we don't play Pangea - it's too random), and terrain was mostly open. One forest near a city should have slowed down War Chariots by one turn but of course it was chopped first. So War Chariots needed only 3 turns to travel and they were able to attack it on 4th turn.
Of course, with Egypt that close to enemy we decided to research Animal Husbandry first. Also, other player that was close sent first starting warrior to help Egypt chocking enemy player. Unfortunately, Egypt didn't have a horses in capital. However, i noticed that i have a horses 3 squares from my capital and there is a river between me and Cpukilla who got Egypt civ (we played random civs, as usual for Ancient) and he needs to make a road only on one square so to be connected to me. So, i connected horses with my 1st worker and traded them to Egypt after which Cpukilla chopped 2 War Chariots and attacked a capital on a hill that was defended by warriors. Still, even with one more Chariot reinforcing and one more chariot coming in 3 turns we barely was able to kill that city because there was a spearman coming from their ally in 2 turns that should have been able to protect capital on a hill from the remaining War Chariots. Actually, if enemy team researched Archery just to be safe (starts were definately much closer than normal) instead of grabbing 2 early religions it shouldn't have happened because even 1 archer should have been able to defend a capital vs wounded chariots until the arrival of a spear.

2nd one was on a Team Battleground map, 14 squares between capitals (7 turns of movement and attack on 8th turn with chariots due to terrain), capital was on a hill. A player what was killed had iron in capital and a bronze in 2nd city (it wasn't connected yet). Despite the huge spike on power graph of an enemy player to which he was a closest enemy, he had 2 Que'Cha's, one of which was scouting and one was in a capital. Even when he saw chariots really close (thanks to allied scouts), he continued to make a 3rd worker. 1-2 spears should have been enough to stop any such rush. Well, when someone is 2nd last in power graph is closest to someone with a highest power graph and doesn't make any defence he dies. I don't have any idea why that player didn't make any defence (after all, he wasn't a newbie).

Anyway, 1st case was very uncommon (starts are too close, against Egypt, Egypt has horses very ealry) and in 2nd case a player made a grave mistake (literally ).

[Velociryx]

Before the patch, it was able to slow down a first worker and sometimes it was able to prevent connecting a resource in time even if a player had one (that is if teammates were too far away to help).


What was all that talk earlier about cheesy exploits?

Seriously, and thanks for the detailed descriptions.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ellestar
No, i don't. Because there is some sequence of actions in existence that gives you a win vs AI in most other settings.

You are saying the same sequence of actions leads to a win every time?

You can't even perform the same sequence of actions on a Future start as an Ancient one. It's simply impossible, given the extreme difference in available actions. Not to mention map type and other settings. You think OCC might also be something that impacts your sequence of actions? (Like, you won't be building any Settlers... right?)

... Note that putting words i didn't said in my mouth is a common board warrior tactics. Please, don't use a board warrior tactics in responces to my posts. Thank you.

Saying the same sequence of actions leads to the same result regardless of settings is saying that the game will play out the same way regardless of settings. I did not put words in your mouth. I explained the full implications of your statement to you.

AI plays exactly the same way in all settings. Yes or no?

No. The AI routines (the code making the decisions) are the same on all settings. Their actions (thus the way they play) are not the same on all settings, as their decision making takes into account game variables that are impacted by the circumstances (even the player's choices), as well as the RNG. Even in the same exact map (played again with another RNG seed), same actions by the player, their actions are not the same, because of the influence of the RNG on their decision making.

That is not even considering AI "personalities" and the randomize personalities option. Or the ability to set the AI to aggressive.

(To say the AI plays exactly the same way in all settings is no different than to say I do, or you do. At some very abstract level, it can be true. I almost always play to be as efficient as I can for instance. Another person might always play to have fun. Someone else may always play to win. But that does not mean their choices, the actual way they play, will always be the same!)

If you know a sequence of actions that lead you to a win on some settings, AI will die all the time because it can't adapt and it doesn't play to win (that is if you'll not be too unlucky in hard settings). Yes or no?

No. There are random influences on the map, AI decisions, and battle outcomes. If you think the map generator, AI decisions, and battle outcomes play no part in deciding the course of the game, feel free to say so...

If you answer "yes" on both questions then i was right.

No. Then I would be wrong. (About my answers.) You would still be wrong too.

Well, actually a win doesn't mean much in both cases. There may be a random involved or just a bad day for a player. A player's perfomance in a given settings is more important than an absolute results (like a win or whatever else).

Which is exactly my point. You can judge a player's performance outside just wins or losses. Against players, AI, or whatever criteria you decide to use.

Correction: AI never competes.
It can't do it. It doesn't learn, it doesn't adapt and it doesn't play to win. So it can't compete. Ever. Period.
So the same can't apply to AI.

So you are saying the AI is just as likely to win in any scenario?

First of all, "compete" means to try to win. It does not mean to learn or adapt. So we can discard that part of your attempt at being pendantic. That leaves us with trying to win. The AI does try to win in the manner it was programmed to do so. Even though it doesn't have any conscious desire, and is incompetent (without bonuses), it is impelled to compete by the code driving it.

There is no variation in meaning. If you can beat AW Deity on Pangea etc. (i bet you can't) then i will be able to do it as well if i'll waste as much time as you playing singleplayer and learning how to exploit AI weaknesses.

I gave AW on Deity on Pangaea as an example of a pretty much unbeatable scenario. I did so to illustrate the difference between that and the almost unloseable scenario you devised. (Though I wasn't specific enough. Glad you didn't catch it, but AW Deity on Pangaea vs 1 AI is actually not that tough in many cases. I was of course refering to games with several AI but failed to specify the number of AI.)

I would like to point out that I did not even hint that I could beat the scenario, and logically, given my reasoning behind offering it, any insinuation that I did is ignorant.

But what's the point if it comes to time spent finding and perfecting exploiting weaknesses of some static artifical virtual thing? For me, a win is meaningless in either case. I just guessed an easiest way to expoit same weaknesses.

It is a much different weakness. That should be obvious given the ease of winning. All weaknesses are not the same.

You can judge the "meaning" however you want. So can I. It was my use of the term we are discussing though, remember.

Note: Perfecting your strategy/tactics/micro or finding new ways is one thing, it's possible to do it in Single as well and it's what i respect.

I'm glad you agree with me.

But you can't win without a cheesy exploits on that settings (basically, everything that will not work against you if you'll play on a place of an AI will be in that category). And perfecting cheesy exploits is a waste of time, it's pointless and not competitive.

I can win without cheesey exploits or settings on Deity. (ie. Without perpetual anarchy, unequal starts, "static" maps, disallowed victory conditions, non-Ancient era starts, ect.) Not a sure thing, but a bit above 50:50. Hell, in my Deity wins I didn't even use pre-patch chopping. I did chop some Forests of course, but not early, only a few at that (limited expansion possibility will do that to you), and not for Settlers/Workers.

What was the common practice in MP games regarding pre-patch chopping again? (To be fair, MP games are generally on Noble, where the Health and Maintenance limits are a joke, and so thus too are the tradeoffs to chopping to fuel early expansion. On Deity, the Health from Forests become much more of a concern, and expansion has to be slowed intentionally in many cases.)

Thanks for the compliment though. It's always nice when a person considers what I have done several times to be the impossible, especially when they are trying to be derogatory of my abilities. I do think that has some "meaning" to it. (As in, it's funny.)

The problem is that it also includes the abovementioned cheesy exploits

Not necessarily. Players can make their own decision about what tactics to employ. Myself, I don't consider it a victory if I've done something I consider cheesey. (It can still be a good learning exersize, and is definitely helpful in determining game balance.)

We may disagree about what constitues "cheesey", but even if that is so, you don't know what settings I have used to analyze them in the first place. You can guess all you want about the settings and tactives I've used, but it only shows your inability to understand that an argument should be based on actual understanding of the subject matter.

Well, enjoy your so called "competition" "who will beat a ****** better and faster"

The AI could qualify as a "******". In some cases, a "******" with advantages so big that it can't be beaten. (Without cheats/exploits to offset those advantages of course.)

Beating the AI is not the competition in any case. You put competition in quotes because you don't understand the term. You think it only applies to direct competition. (Whereas, only "direct competition" applies only to direct competition.) That is ignorance of the definition of the term on your part, not reality.

Think of it as the difference between a tug of war (direct competition) and the high jump (indirect competition). One, the results are relative; whether A or B overcomes the other. The other, absolute results are compared relatively; how high A jumps vs how high B jumps. Neither is inherently more or less a competition, they both are competition and that's all there is to it. Pretending otherwise is just showing ignorance of what the term actually means.

[Aeson]

I forgot to include something I wanted to say in response to this statement:

If you can beat AW Deity on Pangea etc. (i bet you can't) then i will be able to do it as well if i'll waste as much time as you playing singleplayer and learning how to exploit AI weaknesses.

This is analogous to the following statement: (phrasing clarified for readability)

"If you can win in X% in MP, then I can too if I waste as much time as you playing MP and learning how to exploit human tendancies (or otherwise what it takes to win in MP)."

I of course do not make that statement because there are unsupported assumptions in both. The main unsupported assumption is that everyone is equal. That given the same amount of time invested, everyone will achieve the exact same results. This is clearly not the case. As we don't have any evidence as to the relative abilities of the two of us in SP (or MP) to judge by, offering analysis of the relative potential between us based on time invested is baseless conjecture.

Also the "waste as much time" portion is completely ignorant. My time, my preferences, and my actions are my own. I am the judge of whether my time is wasted or not. Your time, your preferences, and your actions are your own. You are the judge of whether your time is wasted or not. For you to "waste as much time" in SP as I have, would mean you have not wasted any time in SP at all. For me to "waste as much time" in MP as you have, would be dependant on how much time you feel you have wasted in MP. (I can't speak on that point, as it's an unknown.)

And to clarify, the analogy between AI tendancies and human tendancies is not perfect. The AI can act randomly, but in general is more predictable than most humans. That is why the parethesis about "what it takes to win in MP" was included. By doing so, it makes the tendancy issue irrellevent to the overall point of the analogy.

[necrom666]

I must admit that a player definitely waste more time being involed with MP over SP due to the fact that with single player there is no waiting for the AI to enter the staging room, take a piss or whatever before we finally get the game launched. Then all cross there fingers it works after launch or we back to the staging area for more waiting till all the player ready up.

AI is always checked in and ready to play without sleep. AI never augues over moves or gives ups when the battle goes against him. AI never tries to find a reason to scrap when they don't like the tide of the game.

So for time not being wasted SP is far superior compared to MP. Considering all the game bugs connection issues and player personalities MP can be a real drag. I would guess that for every hour spent playing I've spent a half hour in the staging room or lobby wating for a game. Single players positively have us on that issue so ixna on the astingwa imeta.

Which is better or takes more skill SP or MP? Who knows. It's like judging apples against oranges. Now I would say we can put this issue to rest and have me not commment on it any futher. But before that is done let me take a page form Vel's book and make one additional comment. I would say that a lot of SP players don't play MP simply because they can't compete and don't like getting pushed around by human opponents. The average SP player just can't compare to the average myleague.com/civ4players ladder player they may meet in the online battlefield.

I wish we could take the top 50 MP and pit them against the top 50 SP player and see what happens. Have them play MP games against each other and have them also play SP against the AI with identical start locations and setting and see the outcome.

[Aeson]

Nice post up till the baseless ego speculation necrom. Seriously, your first 3 paragraphs, and the first sentence of the 4th as well; very solid reasoning.

The rest is just baseless speculation, and in fact directly conflicts with the actual data you have to base it off of.

It's also rather stupid because there is nothing that says a top MP player can't also have the skills to be a top SP player, and vice versa. What happens when you match Fried MP up with Fried SP? (I think he's one of the better SP players I've seen, though he probably wouldn't even want to compete in a SP tournaments.)

But there are what... 1500 players on the ladder? There are over a million copies sold. Statistically speaking you should find a lot more high quality SP players than MP ladder players, simply due to the numbers involved. (I'm not discounting non-ladder MP here either, just going off what you've specified... ladder players only.)

The best ladder players at SP are probably as good as the best SP players at SP. Give or take based on their experience. Since they can do both just about equally well, it's just their preference for what they enjoy most that decides what they play. The best SP players at ladder play are probably as good as the best ladder players at ladder play. Give or take based on their experience. Since they can do both just about equally well, it's just their preference for what they enjoy most that decides what they play.

As you say though, it's apples and oranges. As I say it's pure speculation. Trying to stroke your ego with it is just lame.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Aeson
You can't even perform the same sequence of actions on a Future start as an Ancient one. It's simply impossible, given the extreme difference in available actions. Not to mention map type and other settings. You think OCC might also be something that impacts your sequence of actions? (Like, you won't be building any Settlers... right?)

Saying the same sequence of actions leads to the same result regardless of settings is saying that the game will play out the same way regardless of settings. I did not put words in your mouth. I explained the full implications of your statement to you.

If you read this post once again (the one you're answering to), you'll probably see what i said.

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4407311#post4407311

I said that AI will die on Deity/Future _exactly_ the same way.
But the thing is that AI will die the same way in any other settings if you know what you should do so to win {in this particular setting}. (note that there is no _exaclty_, {text} is added to explain it better)
a little later in same post
AI is a sitting duck.
"break brick is good, but bricks don't hit back"

So, i said that AI will play the same, not the player. Also, _exactly_ for same settings vs no _exactly_ for a different settings means that there is a difference here For same settings, AI will do the same and die. For different settings, AI will do the same (but probably different from other settings) and it will die as well.

No, i don't. Because there is some sequence of actions in existence that gives you a win vs AI in most other settings.
Actually, one (or more ) sequence of actions per setting. I thought it should be obvious from previous post and another sentence in the same post.
If you know a sequence of actions that lead you to a win on some settings, AI will die all the time because it can't adapt and it doesn't play to win
If you only replied to both paragraphs instead of one...

Originally posted by Aeson
No. The AI routines (the code making the decisions) are the same on all settings. Their actions (thus the way they play) are not the same on all settings, as their decision making takes into account game variables that are impacted by the circumstances (even the player's choices), as well as the RNG. Even in the same exact map (played again with another RNG seed), same actions by the player, their actions are not the same, because of the influence of the RNG on their decision making.

Actually, AI can't do anything that it is not programmed to. Random is random (be it AI actions or something else) so you may be lucky or unlucky on some things. And random behaviour of AI is within very tight constraints so i don't see how it makes it significantly different. Well, maybe for you it's different, after all you're primarily a SP player. For MP player it's the same because humans are more unpredictable and creative.

Originally posted by Aeson
(To say the AI plays exactly the same way in all settings is no different than to say I do, or you do. At some very abstract level, it can be true. I almost always play to be as efficient as I can for instance. Another person might always play to have fun. Someone else may always play to win. But that does not mean their choices, the actual way they play, will always be the same!)

Yes, something like that. I'm talking about that abstract level but a more detailed than your one in that example. Any strategy/tactics is an abstract thing and it may be executed in different ways so finer details are unimportant. Let's say that AI uses the same metastrategy (a pattern of strategies), however a particular implementation may be different in each game. That may be easily exloited, and that's how you win on Deity.

Originally posted by Aeson
No. There are random influences on the map, AI decisions, and battle outcomes. If you think the map generator, AI decisions, and battle outcomes play no part in deciding the course of the game, feel free to say so...

Random, random, random... I call it luck You may be lucky or unlucky, i don't see how exactly it changes how AI plays. It's just luck.

Originally posted by Aeson
First of all, "compete" means to try to win. It does not mean to learn or adapt. So we can discard that part of your attempt at being pendantic. That leaves us with trying to win. The AI does try to win in the manner it was programmed to do so. Even though it doesn't have any conscious desire, and is incompetent (without bonuses), it is impelled to compete by the code driving it.

The point is that without learining and adapting it can't effectively compete with someone who can Besides, it doesn't try to win. If it wanted to win, it should have acted in the same Psychotic (c) Velociryx manner as a player and with a maximum efficiency possible. So, AI doesn't try to win. It just plays somehow.

Originally posted by Aeson
It is a much different weakness. That should be obvious given the ease of winning. All weaknesses are not the same.

Actually, they are. Because they're static. So if you know how to exploit the weakness you gain an advantage. It's that simple and it's true for every AI weakness.

Originally posted by Aeson
I can win without cheesey exploits or settings on Deity. (ie. Without perpetual anarchy, unequal starts, "static" maps, disallowed victory conditions, non-Ancient era starts, ect.)

No, i mean bull**** Diplomacy where AI is nothing. A bull**** Combat with insane win/loss ratio. And any other bull**** that will not be the same vs a competent opponent.
I said it pretty clearly IMHO - "(basically, everything that will not work against you if you'll play on a place of an AI will be in that category)"
I guess you didn't wanted to say that you're playing as bad as an AI in these situations

Originally posted by Aeson
Thanks for the compliment though. It's always nice when a person considers what I have done several times to be the impossible, especially when they are trying to be derogatory of my abilities. I do think that has some "meaning" to it. (As in, it's funny.)

So, bear in mind a responce above, you was too fast with that. You can beat a ******, but so what? I never said it's impossible. Of course, it's possible. After all, it's stupid to assume that it's impossible if only because during a game development difficulty levels are tweaked so to make it possible and it was possible in all previous games.
I implied that it's possible exactly and only because it's a ****** instead of a normal person.
Besides, i'm sure that you thought it's impossible to win vs a Deity AI in a first Civ 4 game

Originally posted by Aeson
What was the common practice in MP games regarding pre-patch chopping again? (To be fair, MP games are generally on Noble, where the Health and Maintenance limits are a joke, and so thus too are the tradeoffs to chopping to fuel early expansion. On Deity, the Health from Forests become much more of a concern, and expansion has to be slowed intentionally in many cases.)

All at least semi-experienced players did it (with a better or worse effect) so your point is? Yes, it's a bad balance but at least it's the same for all players (unlike singleplayer where in most cases only a player uses things like that). That's the difference between Single and Multi - players do whatever is efficient. Artifical Idiot does something stupid

Originally posted by Aeson
Beating the AI is not the competition in any case. You put competition in quotes because you don't understand the term. You think it only applies to direct competition. (Whereas, only "direct competition" applies only to direct competition.) That is ignorance of the definition of the term on your part, not reality.

No, i understand that there may be such a competition and i participated in some as well. Say, fastest win in Master of Magic - i competed against my friend. But multiplayer competition IMHO is a "real one", so to speak. It's so much better (for some people) than the one you mention that there is no way back And that's what i want to explain to others here