Aggressive AI

[Kataphraktoi]

Personally i would like the AI to play like Aggressive mode normally but only declare more wars when i select Aggressive. Give them a unit supply bonus....i am usually anti-ai-cheats but that is imo a necessary evil


Of course blake is in an impossible situation because there are so many special interest groups and only 2 modes of AI....

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by 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?

This sort of post really makes you come off as an arrogant elistist... I'm sure that's not really what you are aiming for.

There are some legitimate concerns about the normal AI with regards to early rushes, and these don't really translate into the later game. And some people prefer to play the game without unit spamming being necessary - this doesn't make them "wimpier" or "whiners". If you like playing with Aggressive AI, that's cool. But acting as if that's how "real" players should play, or acting like people using the normal AI are somehow inferior is a pretty poor attitude to have, IMO.

Bh

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Bhruic


This sort of post really makes you come off as an arrogant elistist... I'm sure that's not really what you are aiming for.

There are some legitimate concerns about the normal AI with regards to early rushes, and these don't really translate into the later game. And some people prefer to play the game without unit spamming being necessary - this doesn't make them "wimpier" or "whiners". If you like playing with Aggressive AI, that's cool. But acting as if that's how "real" players should play, or acting like people using the normal AI are somehow inferior is a pretty poor attitude to have, IMO.

Bh

[ZEE]

Originally posted by 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.

i dont know if you are being serious or not, Blake, but this is a horrible idea. As it stands i think the AI is fine and a few pages of a thread with a few posters "whining" about this and that should not warrant any sort of change to the core design of the AI.

If people want a fight that is what aggressive AI is for. If they whip the normal AI and do not want to play the aggressive AI then they have no right to "whine" to begin with. also you should not take offense to their criticism of your precious AI. I think you did a fantastic job balancing out the bonuses vs the strategy and this is a welcome change to the utter ridiculousness of all other previous Civ4 AI's bonuses and player handicaps.

changing anything at this point would be a very bad idea. Also the examples in this thread are way too vague and no saves have been posted to verify anybody's claims.

I am going to be honest. I hated Warlords. I hated Civ4. it was damn-near unplayable. now i actually enjoy sitting down and playing Civ again. Dont ruin everything because of a few "complainers." If you are going to be a serious AI developer in the future of this franchise you will have people that will not like anything you do or create no matter what it is. Dont change everything less than a month after release. yes there are a few bugs. no big deal. it is still a fun game...

you gave us aggressive AI. if you want to go crazy then change that so it will kick everybodys ass in less than 30 turns. but please just leave the "normal" game alone.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by AAHZ
i dont know if you are being serious or not, Blake, but this is a horrible idea. As it stands i think the AI is fine and a few pages of a thread with a few posters "whining" about this and that should not warrant any sort of change to the core design of the AI.

Are you sure you understand what he's saying enough to make that claim? Until you've had a chance to try the changes he's suggesting, wouldn't it be best to give them the benefit of the doubt?

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the AIs tend to be woefully under-powered early in the game. I'm not suggesting they should be attacking early, but I'd submit that they really need to have a better early defense. And I think that's what Blake is proposing - that the AI shouldn't be such a pushover early on. If nothing else, that might decrease the effectiveness of the early Axe rush.

Anyway, while we can debate this endlessly, until we've had a chance to play what he's suggesting, claiming that it's a "horrible idea" seems premature.

Bh

[vilemerchant]

Originally posted by AAHZ


i dont know if you are being serious or not, Blake, but this is a horrible idea. As it stands i think the AI is fine and a few pages of a thread with a few posters "whining" about this and that should not warrant any sort of change to the core design of the AI.

If people want a fight that is what aggressive AI is for. If they whip the normal AI and do not want to play the aggressive AI then they have no right to "whine" to begin with. also you should not take offense to their criticism of your precious AI. I think you did a fantastic job balancing out the bonuses vs the strategy and this is a welcome change to the utter ridiculousness of all other previous Civ4 AI's bonuses and player handicaps.

changing anything at this point would be a very bad idea. Also the examples in this thread are way too vague and no saves have been posted to verify anybody's claims.

I am going to be honest. I hated Warlords. I hated Civ4. it was damn-near unplayable. now i actually enjoy sitting down and playing Civ again. Dont ruin everything because of a few "complainers." If you are going to be a serious AI developer in the future of this franchise you will have people that will not like anything you do or create no matter what it is. Dont change everything less than a month after release. yes there are a few bugs. no big deal. it is still a fun game...

you gave us aggressive AI. if you want to go crazy then change that so it will kick everybodys ass in less than 30 turns. but please just leave the "normal" game alone.

Now THIS is whining! Don't worry mate, I'm sure Settler difficulty will still be available

[ZEE]

no, what i posted was honesty, my friend. 90% of the posts in this thread is whining to the point that even Blake himself got aggravated by it. I posted an honest criticism of what i thought was a bad idea for Blake to change anything. thanks for taking my post completely out of context, though.

but what can i expect from an utter n00b like you, anyways

[vilemerchant]

LOL I'd rather be a n00b than some lamer who only likes to play AIs that DO NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES OR PARTICIPATE IN BATTLE IN ANY WAY.

It's lame, and Blake has already said that people who play using this 'sand box' mode are basically lame. I'm sure he has however come to the conclusion that there are real problems with the Normal AI and hopefully they'll be fixed. Don't worry, if the game becomes 'unplayable' you can always move down in difficulty, or maybe he could introduce a LamerAI checkbox just for you?

[ZEE]

cute. you assume about 5 things about me from me saying that i actually enjoy the new "normal" AI. BTW under-estimating my Civ abilities is unwise, as i have routed the Civ3 AI on Emperor level with Accelerated Production on. If you do not think that was difficult i will call you a blatent liar to your face.

Civ4 Ai is about 100 times worse than the Civ 3 AI, IMHO, and the only reason it was hard to begin with were the stupid bonuses that it recieved. You assume that I cannot beat it, but the truth is i am TIRED of beating it that way. I WANT the AI to learn and get better WITHOUT all the stupid bonuses.

THAT is why i do not want Blake to revert to the old "give the AI a bunch of crap" method, as that will be a huge step backwards.

BTW you are incredibly easy to troll as you have reverted to name-calling by my 3rd post...

[vilemerchant]

Uhm, he never said he was going to give the AI handouts, he just said they'd actually BUILD UNITS (hopefully it'll also now move them and fight with them too), something it doesn't currently do. I personally couldn't care less how good you are at the game, what the hell is the point of playing against an AI that doesn't defend itself and sometimes doesn't even seem to realise it's at war? If you really think this Borked AI is an improvement I can't imagine you've played the game all that much.

Name calling? You started that one when you branded me an 'utter n00b' lol

[ZEE]

Originally posted by vilemerchant
Uhm, he never said he was going to give the AI handouts, he just said they'd actually BUILD UNITS (hopefully it'll also now move them and fight with them too), something it doesn't currently do.

perhaps, but if it is truly the case that the AI recieves no handouts on ANY of the harder levels i would truly like to know what the hell makes it so difficult to begin with...

I personally couldn't care less how good you are at the game, what the hell is the point of playing against an AI that doesn't defend itself and sometimes doesn't even seem to realise it's at war? If you really think this Borked AI is an improvement I can't imagine you've played the game all that much.

another assumption, i see. i have played the game enough to know that there are DEFINATE improvements over the old AI, such as unit spam and the "panic mode" as Solver described above. i would truly like to hear your argument of how the old "give the Ai a bunch of crap" method is better than Blake's tried and tested AI. Everybody knew it wasnt perfect, but it was a HELL of a lot better than the Vanilla one, which had been flames, burned, and cooked on these boards since Civ4's release. Yes i would like to see some changes, but not enough that Gandhi will axeman-rush me by 1500 BC in every game above Noble. I will just play Warcraft or AoE if i want to do that.

Name calling? You started that one when you branded me an 'utter n00b' lol

well you might get the "DL dance" next if you are lucky...

[Kuciwalker]

Guys, just a heads up: AAHZ is bat**** insane and borderline mentally retarded. You don't have to take him seriously, or even read his posts at all (I don't).

[Blake]

Originally posted by 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.

Well I didn't say it was unjustified whining.

Originally posted by vilemerchant
LOL I'd rather be a n00b than some lamer who only likes to play AIs that DO NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES OR PARTICIPATE IN BATTLE IN ANY WAY.

It's lame, and Blake has already said that people who play using this 'sand box' mode are basically lame.

Technically, I did not make any value judgment. I described it as a sandbox, but I did not say that playing in a sandbox is in any way wrong.
It's just not particularly competitive, unless it's a sand castle building competition. Whether those are more interesting when you have to fend off unruly little savages trying to kick over your sandcastles, is another of those preference things.

Originally posted by AAHZ
i dont know if you are being serious or not, Blake, but this is a horrible idea. As it stands i think the AI is fine and a few pages of a thread with a few posters "whining" about this and that should not warrant any sort of change to the core design of the AI.

If people want a fight that is what aggressive AI is for. If they whip the normal AI and do not want to play the aggressive AI then they have no right to "whine" to begin with. also you should not take offense to their criticism of your precious AI. I think you did a fantastic job balancing out the bonuses vs the strategy and this is a welcome change to the utter ridiculousness of all other previous Civ4 AI's bonuses and player handicaps.

changing anything at this point would be a very bad idea. Also the examples in this thread are way too vague and no saves have been posted to verify anybody's claims.

This has consistently been an issue at CFC and Realms Beyond. There's about a bazillion posts on this issue at CFC, and I tend to take the RBCiv crowd very seriously, if only because the signal to noise ratio is extremely good there and the players tend to be very frank.

I am going to be honest. I hated Warlords. I hated Civ4. it was damn-near unplayable. now i actually enjoy sitting down and playing Civ again. Dont ruin everything because of a few "complainers." If you are going to be a serious AI developer in the future of this franchise you will have people that will not like anything you do or create no matter what it is. Dont change everything less than a month after release. yes there are a few bugs. no big deal. it is still a fun game...

you gave us aggressive AI. if you want to go crazy then change that so it will kick everybodys ass in less than 30 turns. but please just leave the "normal" game alone.

You'd better hurry up and say precisely why you like it as it is now .

no, what i posted was honesty, my friend. 90% of the posts in this thread is whining to the point that even Blake himself got aggravated by it.

I didn't get aggravated . I'm ever rational. I just call people whiners to rile them up (a rational player will not be bothered by a playful insult - it's a filter, ignore the insult: fine, call me out on it: fine, explode: filtered ).

I *DON'T* do something just because people are complaining for a change. I take a while to take everybody's position into account, and see if I can find a solution which is on average more satisfactory. It's an approach of methodological analysis and cautiousness, it takes time.

What I decided, is that the consensuses is that the higher difficulties are too vulnerable to rush tactics and not good enough at "keeping the player honest".
While solving this might make the higher difficulties a lot harder, I also seem to pick up some consensus among competitive players, that the higher difficulties are too easy. I see a win-win here.

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Of course blake is in an impossible situation because there are so many special interest groups and only 2 modes of AI....

Not impossible, just an exercise in reconciling conflict. I can't make everyone happy, but I can increase the average happiness, ideally without (legitimately) pissing off any players even more. For instance, I'm leaving Noble and lower below. If players at those skill levels are happy with the current state (and I perceive that they mostly are), then these changes are not going to have any negative impact for those players seeking a genuinely forgiving game experience (because ie, they are not experienced players...). If I can make changes that many people will like, and many will be indifferent to, then that's positive. I do try to avoid making any change which even a tiny minority will genuinely hate. (no tyranny by the majority, mkay?)

[Wiglaf]

Rabble rabble

[=DrJambo=]

The AI in BtS is much better than Warlords and before, there's no denying that.

Some of the things I've noticed playing on Prince and Monarch levels:

1. AI moving stacks to attack then, possibly realising it can't actually take the city, the stack remains stationary and does nothing until its dead. Even when wounded it doesn't retreat. Neither does it decide to pillage

2. AI's that are 'cautious' to 'furious' should naturally build more units.

3. Lack of regard for naval invasions. Not through naval AI per sé, as that's pretty decent, but rather through its coastal city defences. The best way to I've found to defeat the AI in the late game is to load up a transport or two with marines and sail round the back.

4. Not enough units in the early game. Think this is fairly obvious and already acknowledged. This is possibly a reflection of the, I believe, slightly overpowered axeman unit, which the experienced human will always beeline for.

5. Barbarians - what happened to them? They use to be one of the more effective measures of curtailing human expansion. I've been playing on Monarch mostly, and there's almost no barbarian activity. I don't play with raging barbarians, but I think I've only seen one warrior and one archer to date!

6. AI not using the spy missions to great effect (other than poisoning water, and destroying improvements or buildings). They plough enough into espionage, one would think they might once in a while change our civics or religion or steal a tech. That might force the human into using the espionage slider a little more.

7. One of the biggest ones is the order in which the AI's units attack. At the very basic level it should be aircraft -> navy -> siege -> standard units. I've had naval invasions whereby the order was random and ultimately baffling - cav, cannon, rifleman, cav, cannon, then the boats reduce defences! lol. The order's wrong.