This game is starting to frustrate me!

[Willem]

Since time immemorial, I've played Civ on Noble setting. It's supposed to be the level where me and the AI are dead even, and provides me with a reasonable challenge while giving me a chance to win. But I'm finding these days that this is no longer the case. With these new improvements in the AI, it seems I don't stand a chance against the AI anymore. Almost everytime I play on Noble, I'm being left behind in the dust.

I was just playing a game with Louis from France. I had a good location, I built my cities as close together as possible to avoid the distance maintenance penalty, I built as many Cottages as I possibly could, and had a very small army. Yet after just looking at Mehmed, he was way beyond where I was in techs. He was almost a dozen ahead of me for God's sake, yet he still managed to have a larger empire and I suspect more troops. I really don't see how this is possible if all things are supposed to be equal.

IMO, Firaxis really needs to take a look at the advantages the AI is getting in the game, and do a little reorganizing. It's not much fun for me to play game after game when I'm pretty much guarenteed to lose. If I wanted that kind of challenge, I'd play on Deity. Noble shouldn't be like that. It's getting to the point that this game is once again becoming a one track strategy; build nothing but Cottages in order to keep up.

[Nacht]

Well, try the Warlord level then.

You know what an even match in a game with seven opponents would mean? Yes that you lose 6 out of seven games. Most people don't like that so they play at a level where they win mostly, not an even level.

I can still play a pretty good game at prince, and at noble I can still build most ancient wonders while having one city without paying much attention to details, using Blake's most recent AI. I don't want to brag, but noble is still very beatable.

I do get a bit sad that when one comes around with the most needed, most precious mod; ie one that improves the AI, people start complaining about losing the game and not winning at their previous level.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Nacht
I do get a bit sad that when one comes around with the most needed, most precious mod; ie one that improves the AI, people start complaining about losing the game and not winning at their previous level.

I don't mind getting beaten, but it's another thing to be beaten so badly, especially on a level that is supposed to be even for all. There was no way I could have caught up to Mehmed, he was light years ahead of me, and this is not the first time it's happened. And I frankly don't see how it is possible after being so careful in the way I developed my empire. I was spamming Cottages, building Libraries where ever I could, running Scientists whenever I could. I really don't see how I could have squeezed out any more beakers than I did. Yet he still managed to blow me out of the water. A tech or two ahead of me I can see, but not close to a dozen, all the while with more cities than I had. If the maintenance costs were slowing me down, they should have been down right hurting him, yet they didn't seem to at all.

And I'm glad that the AI is finally up to giving me a challenge. What I'm complaining about is that the AI is still getting advantages when it clearly no longer needs them. Like bonuses against the Barbs, reduced unit upgrades and inflation, etc. etc. If Noble is supposed to be an even playing field, then it's time to make it so, not offer these advantages over the human player. That's my complaint, not that the AI is finally playing smart.

[Jaybe]

I normally play Noble. With 208 I lost a couple games badly and dropped down to Warlord level. Warlord was too easy, so I decided to adjust HandicapInfo.xml.

I could have either adjusted Noble or Warlord, but I adjusted both so I could pick & choose.

The following variables at Warlord level I made harder, to those of Noble level:
iFreeUnits, iResearchPercent, iDistanceMaintenancePercent, iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent.

I changed iMaxNumCitiesMaintenance to 6,
iUnitCostPercent to 100 (so it's the same that the AI pays at Noble & below) at Warlord & Noble.

iAIDeclareWarProb to 100.
The Warlord AI costs that are higher (at 110) I changed to 100.
The AI costs that are low I shifted two difficulties to the higher (Settler level to Warlord level, Chieftan values to Noble):
iAIUnitsupplyPercent, iAIUnitUpgradePercent, iAIInflationPercent & iAIWarWearinessPercent.

The barbarian appearance values I shifted two difficulties the other way so there's more of them (Prince values to Warlord, Monarch to Noble). I coupled this with zero combat advantages vs. barbs for both player & AI.

At Warlord level you can get better goodie huts (including a Settler), and I let these stay.

I'm on my first (huge/marathon/fractal) modified warlord level game, and my changes are a qualified success. Qualified because the Inca had a continent all to themselves, I on a continent with just one other civ, the other 8 civs on 2 other continents.

Of course, if you make such changes, work on a copy of the file in your Warlords CustomAssets folder.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Willem


I don't mind getting beaten, but it's another thing to be beaten so badly, especially on a level that is supposed to be even for all.

'Even' refers to the (relatively) even footing between the player and AI on noble. It does not mean that all players will find it the most appropriate level - some will find it easy, and some will find it hard, and that's hardly Firaxis' fault. If you find it hard play a different level. That's what they are there for.

[Willem]

Well I had better luck after trying again. I had to change a number of my tactics in order to do it, but I was able to keep up in techs in the way I used to do. I had to spam Cottages everywhere for awhile, including some terrain types that I used to irrigate, and I didn't let my research drop below 60%. I was a close second to Julius Caesar all the way, which was what I used to do before.

I still had my a** handed to me, though that was my own fault for attacking Julius when he took a barb city near me. When he started, he refused to stop and he had his vassal Hannibal to help him out. Man that guy really holds a grudge! I'm not sure if that's part of the new AI routine or not, but he just wasn't going to accept any peace offering from me. I finally gave up when I saw a fairly large stack of War Elephants bearing down on the city I originally took from him.

I have to admit it is kind of fun having an AI that's actually a challenge.

PS: Incidentally, I've removed all of the bonuses that the AI gets on Noble in my game. IMO, it doesn't need them anymore. It has the same chance against the barbs, it's costing them the same for unit upgrade and so on.

There's one line I'm not sure about, maybe someone can help me out. What exactly does AIUnitSupplyPercent do? It has a value that changes from level to level, but I don't see any corresponding figure for the human player in Handicap.xml.

[Solver]

If the AI is good, that's only a great thing, isn't it? Just install Blake's improved AI and play another difficulty level lower .

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
If the AI is good, that's only a great thing, isn't it? Just install Blake's improved AI and play another difficulty level lower .

I don't want to do that. Like I said, I've always played Noble, since the first Civ. I'm just going to have to play better. It's kind of like playing the game for the first time again, I just have to try new approaches.

[Solver]

I don't see what the problem is, though, with playing a lower level. By the way, there was no Noble in the first Civ . Plus the AIs were dumber back then, and didn't stand a chance without strong bonuses.

I don't think the frustration over losing every time is worth it. There are several lower difficulty levels, and I'm sure a game at Warlord would be more enjoyable to you because it would actually be a fair fight. In the long run, your skills would improve and you'd play on higher levels.

But anyhow, believe me, Noble is very beatable, and without "one right strategy". Spamming Cottages is just one effective way to do it. You can also kick ass on Noble with some good early warfare. Particularly with civs that have a strong early UU. A start suitable for early warfare would let you indeed kick large amounts of ass.

If you're so very intent on playing Noble despite frustration, go post your saved games in the strategy forum. Should get you some input on how to improve your game.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
I don't think the frustration over losing every time is worth it. There are several lower difficulty levels, and I'm sure a game at Warlord would be more enjoyable to you because it would actually be a fair fight. In the long run, your skills would improve and you'd play on higher levels.

But that's kind of the point, my skills should be adequate. Afterall, I've been playing Civ for a very long time. If anything, I should be playing on some of the higher levels, not Noble. But I don't want a game where I feel it's always going to be a struggle to win, I guess I'm a bit lazy that way. Noble has always given me enough of a challenge that it isn't just a simple cakewalk to victory all the time. Sometimes I actually have to work for it.

I guess I was just venting in this thread because for the first time, my nice, safe difficulty level just wasn't anymore. It was actually making me work for every single game I played, instead of just a sometimes challenge. Now that I've gotten used to the idea though, I find I kind of like it.

[Solver]

The fact that you've been playing Civ for a long time means, to be blunt, very little. Civ4 is very, very different. As you obviously know. Heck, I've played every previous Civ game. My first game of Civ4, on Noble, I got my butt kicked - and that was well before the release, consequently, with a significantly weaker AI. Why? Because I hadn't gotten used to the differences (obviously, first game), and previous Civ experience means little.

You just didn't go through the entire Civ learning curve thanks to your experience. That's about it. Strategically speaking, your previous Civ experience and skills are at least 90% irrelevant. This is true of every veteran Civ player.

Obviously everyone wants a different level of challenge. I myself want to, ideally, play on a level where I don't know if I am going to win or lose. I don't want to feel confident of victory from turn 1, and I don't want to know beforehand it's hopeless. You have a very nice choice between Warlord and Noble now. Keep playing Noble, you'll have a good challenge every time. Play on Warlord, you might have a challenge sometimes, but will mostly be "safe".

Or, I think that's the best thing to do, install Blake's AI (a smarter AI is fun), but play on Warlord then to compensate for the increased difficulty.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Willem

I guess I was just venting in this thread because for the first time, my nice, safe difficulty level just wasn't anymore. It was actually making me work for every single game I played

That's sure what it looks like.

Originally posted by Willem
Now that I've gotten used to the idea though, I find I kind of like it.

[Senethro]

To be honest, I think Firaxis knows the demographic that buys their games and doesn't try too hard to make skilful AIs. If you think about the CPU armies in Warcraft III that cut absolutely no slack with new players, I'd prefer that. While the WC3 AI was still formulaic and there was always an easy way to beat them, at least it stopped you playing the game a dramatically wrong way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
The fact that you've been playing Civ for a long time means, to be blunt, very little. Civ4 is very, very different. As you obviously know. Heck, I've played every previous Civ game. My first game of Civ4, on Noble, I got my butt kicked - and that was well before the release, consequently, with a significantly weaker AI. Why? Because I hadn't gotten used to the differences (obviously, first game), and previous Civ experience means little.

You just didn't go through the entire Civ learning curve thanks to your experience. That's about it. Strategically speaking, your previous Civ experience and skills are at least 90% irrelevant. This is true of every veteran Civ player.

Agreed, but I've also been playing Civ 4 since day one and I thought I had a handle as to how it worked. Now along comes Blake and his AI improvements and I'm getting myself embarassed by a machine. At least I was until I tossed out my old way of doing things and tried something new. It probably won't work all the time, but at least I don't feel like it's a hopeless situation. It's been like learning to play the game all over again.

A little off topic, a store near here has a T-Shirt for sale that reads:

My computer beats me at chess
I beat it at kick-boxing

[Solver]

To be honest, I think Firaxis knows the demographic that buys their games and doesn't try too hard to make skilful AIs.

Wrong.

Now along comes Blake and his AI improvements and I'm getting myself embarassed by a machine.

Embarrassed is if you lose on Settler .