Aggressive AI

[DrSpike]

Having read Blake's post above, my main question is if he focused on making the AI not broken rather than polished is he planning to be involved in the early (and usually most crucial) patches?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Crossfire
Is the standard AI on BTS less aggressive than Blake's AI mod for Warlords? .

About the same..(quite passive)

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Solver
As far as I remember your early posts, you were having problems with some of the simpler game aspects and were, generally, a casual player in every sense.

- and not that much has changed in some ways.

I have started a wee pbem with Aggressive AI on a small map - so we shall see what happens.

(see what Apolyton does to people? )

It's frightening!

[Kataphraktoi]

Coming soon....Beyond the Stack of Doom, the latest in civ4 xpacks


I don't think we should have less wars, just the same wars but with less units. Im still waiting for civ to catch up to EU series...

[BigWilly1974]

It's hard to say, but I do feel as though wars are up somewhat in BTS. I just recently finished a game on Monarch, standard AI, where I eventually won a conquest victory, but I was declared war on constantly. Fortunately, I was at the end of the pangaea continent, so never had to fight a two front war. But I was attacked twice by the Carthaginians (nearest neighbour), an effective attack by Tokugawa, and at least four separate times by Alexander who was the furthest away from me of any of the AIs. I'm not even sure this is all of the attacks I rebuffed, but my perception of that particular game is I was forever fighting off one AI or another and until fairly late game I was playing relatively pacifist and trying to keep out of wars that I didn't start.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Solver
Clicking Play Now should provide the experience that most people want. Most buyers, not most people here. I have never played a game through Play Now because I want full control of options. Any hardcore player is well capable of using Custom Game.

And interestingly, most buyers want an AI that can compete, but still allows them to dictate the course of the game. Most buyers want to win all or almost all the time, not have games where they fight tooth and nail to win.

I think that the majority of people who frequent Apolyton or any other Civ site would enjoy Aggressive AI because it's more competitive and tries harder to win. We have the luxury of using that.

I like the way you say that agressive A.I tries harder to win. But why does the A.I need to be agressive in order to be more competitive? That is something I do not understand. Some common sence and a reasonable understanding of the current gamesituation should be enough.

The agressive A.I turned off should not turn the A.I:s into
gullible pacifists laeving all cities open for invasions.
Of course not! Unfortuneataly, my limited experience so far with agressive A.I turned off, supports this is the case.

It is truth in what you say about that many players want to win most, if not all of their games, but theese people most certainly never play at difficulties above Warlord or Noble. Those who do not except to win every game, moves on to higher difficulties.
As it is now, a game on Monarch level appears to be a complete cakewalk with non-agressive A.I.
Not due to the fact that A.I is unable to pursue strategies, witch it seem to do brilliantly(!) but because it fails utterly to defend itself.
Someone somewere would say the A.I is broken in this regard.
With this beeing the case, even moving upward whitin diffitulty levels, one most probably still find the A.I sitting in the sandbox whitout the Agressive A.I turned on.

It´s good we have the Agressive A.I option, thouh.
I have never tried it yet, and intend to do so now very much as it sounds intreresting.

It´s just that I would not in fact like to increase the overall A.I agression just in order to make the A.I understand that 2 longbowmen defending a city is not enough during the indrustrial era.

[wodan11]

It's my understanding that Aggressive AI turned off simply makes the AI ignore previous relationship when determining whether to declare a war.

It does not change how much defense the AI builds, etc.

Wodan

[Solver]

No, the Aggressive AI setting in BtS behaves differently.

[Footie Mad]

I will have to give it a try, I'm one of those people who keep coming back to the same settings when being unable to win in game after game. Maybe I have a bit of a weird preference but ever since Vanilla Civ 4 I've played nothing but Pangea and usually I play a large map with 10 instead of 9 civs.

I feel this gives a more competitive grabbing of land in the early stages, enough civs to form power blocs around religion and general liking of eachother.

And also by being a pangea map there is a constant dynamic between civs because there is always the possibility of that bad guy on the other side of the world getting miffed and sending a horde through your supposed allys land. I've lost so many games where I didn't calculate on a civ assaulting me, another thing is the early contact with many civs which has made an alphabet beeline basically a given with all the trading.

My current level is emperor and always with a random civ because I like to try and play to the strengths of the traits, yet to win a game on Emperor in BTS but have won on Monarch. I don't find the warmongering that lacking though, I always pick a few warlike opponents and let the rest be random. That means the chances of the game going stale are slimmer, the unpredictability rises and forces you into a more middle of the road approach than a continents setting.

[vilemerchant]

I agree with Saurus that the Normal AI setting is completely broken when it comes to self defense - so much so that any new civ player that starts with BtS might wonder what the hell all the fuss is about go play another game where AIs actually fight back.

'Casual players' are still going to build armies and naturally want to fight wars - how fun is it when you goto war against churchill (who is top in power) and despite having axes and swords sitting around in outlying cities he DOES NOT MOVE A SINGLE UNIT or participate in the battle in any way. This is seriously what happened in my last (and LAST) Emperor game on Normal-AI. He just didn't move or do anything, it was like he was pretending the war didn't exist while I slowly moved my small band of 6 axeman from city to city. I was 3 squares from taking his capital (defended by one axe and one sword) when I turned the game off, ruined by the AIs complete inaction. This isn't a fun game, and there is no way on earth it should be the default setting or it's risking turning n00bs away from the game before they even discover that little Agg-AI box tucked away in the options.

Warlords 2.00 Normal-AI and I would have had to fight the bulk of churchill's military within a few turns of my invasion and he would then be sending regular reinforcements to the front.

[ben04]

A normal user player will only keep 1 to 2 units in a city. Often these are even obsolete. The non aggressive AI just does the same so that it even has a chance to keep up when it comes to economy. Building up military only pays if there are wars otherwise it's a money pit.


I've found that the AI only attacks if you do not protect your borders correctly. A correct protection is a defensive force of at least 5 non obsolete units. In my last game I did this and even though every AI hated me none attacked me. That is in the latter game I was attacked by an AI in my colonies. I only expected an attack on my mainland borders. I never though the an AI would simply forget about my mainland and go for my nearly unprotected colonies. I lost all of them as the AI came with 4 or 5 galleons full of units and I had only little more than 1 obsolete unit per city and it was too far away for reinforcements from the mainland. A really great move that I had never expected from an AI. (The colony was not independent.)

What still is broken are Vassals but that's not the AI's fault it's a game design error. An AI never completely conquers another one. I think in my next games I'll turn vassals of.

[Wiglaf]

A normal user player will only keep 1 to 2 units in a city. Often these are even obsolete. The non aggressive AI just does the same so that it even has a chance to keep up when it comes to economy. Building up military only pays if there are wars otherwise it's a money pit

So we design AIs around players not playing the game properly? Huh? That's what difficulty levels are for. Give the player bonuses, don't fundamentally break the AI's logic.

[Blake]

As a FYI, the whining has motivated me sufficiently that I'm going to make some changes for the patch.

Noble and lower will play the same, but higher difficulty levels will be always get more units early in the game and be more likely to "Dagger" (both tendencies increasing with difficulty, up until Immortal (Deity will spam the same as Immortal)).

Late game unit spam wont be increased by these changes.

[Wiglaf]

It's not really whining, it's legitimate complaining about your broken standard AI, which is a step down from Warlords. The aggressive is infinitely superior.

[Solver]

So first you make a wimpier AI because they whine, and now you're making the non-aggressive AI more likely to rush because they whine some more?

BTW, don't forget about including my AI changes into your branch.