Aggressive AI

[ben04]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
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.

Yes, those who can play it may proof it by finding that Aggressive AI switch. If you can't then you can't play the game.

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.

That's how many people new to the series really do play.

You expect the AI to prepare for every sort of possible user attack, meaning military and tech runaway and still be able to complete but it is not allow to force you into a way of playing the game. How should the AI then be able to complete? It is not allowed to concentrate its economy on 1 particular goal but the user is. Move up a couple of levels if you find it too easy. That's what bonuses are for.

[Solver]

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

Yeah, that sounded much worse than I intended. I apologize.

[Solver]

And by the way, this would be a good moment for everyone to chill. While some of you have remarkable trolling and namecalling skills, that is not quite appreciated.

[ayronis]

The world of Civ was far, far bigger than I had ever imagined. ~Soren Johnson.

Until a slider for every facet of the game exists, and every single game mechanic is customizable on a startup menu, there will always be people who complain that the game is inherently flawed or even broken. I am thankful that it is not my job to please such a diverse and vociferous crowd, but I am very glad that some of you have the ability and desire to try regardless.

[BigWilly1974]

Well said, Ayronis.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
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.

Then lower the axeman strength to 4.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
And by the way, this would be a good moment for everyone to chill. While some of you have remarkable trolling and namecalling skills, that is not quite appreciated.

Thank you

[vilemerchant]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
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.

This is too true. There are many times where I've given up on a city only to see the AI attack with horse archers first instead of its catapults or similiar and fail to take a pathetically defended city. Sometimes it doesn't do anything at all with its siege units and other times the entire stack will of course just set up camp and never move again for 1000 years.

[Saurus]

Just playing my second game with the agressive A.I turned on. l simply love it!
A.I is ruthless and will attack .. but still only with a good reason. Under certain circumstances there will even be lenghty periods of world peace - until some factor changes the power structure.

And the game is not a slugfest from the very beginning either.
Since A.I no longer have an extra free worker at the start of the game, it pretty much starts out like a human player and can thus no more come with huge stacks during the first 50 turns. Thus, with not having to fear the artificial early A.I stacks, one can truly logically ponder the situation from the very beginning and based on that make decissions.

I warmly recomend any seasoned civ-player to actually use the agressive A.I option.

[Swiss Pauli]

On Aggressive AI, I had an enjoyable time watching Ragnar, based to my south, wage war on Joao, to my north. After taking one city, he struggled over the next 1000 years to take Lisbon and break the Portuguese. Starting without metals, I could see him tech his way through the military side: Engineering, then Guilds, and finally Steel (which is when Portugal collapsed, understandably). Very interesting to watch.

[sveint]

Let me join the discussion by saying that I am really enjoying the new AI, especially the Aggressive one.

On the normal(default) AI: I think having it produce slightly more defense and counter-attack units would suffice. No real need to change anything else.

On the AI in general (and especially the Aggressive setting), here are things that I think could be improved with too much difficulty (I hope):

1. Attack order, as mentioned.

2. Airpower should be used to attack high-defense units, not already weakened or low-defense units.

3. Invasions of small islands should be de-prioritized. Invasions of one-square islands should be extremely de-prioritized. Slightly more random naval invasion target, not always the closest or same city.

4. Defensive AI. This works fairly well, but let me suggest something I find very useful: keeping just a few fast-moving units (likely mounted units) in a central reserve. These units are flagged for defensive use only, and rapidly reinforces/counter-attacks a threatened city.

5. Naval AI. Suggest creation of task forces that have as an objective to hunt down the enemy fleet(s). Current AI seems only to escort, bombard, pillage and blocade.

6. Do not always accept Vassalizations. I have seen a vassalized AI outgrow its "big brother". In my opinion an aggressive conqueror should not accept a vassal until the minor partner has no chance of ever catching up.

7. Civs that fall behind in tech or approach 0% science should stop or at least slow down military production.

I have yet to beat the Aggressive AI on Hemispheres/Emperor/Marathon, going to keep trying!

[MasterDave]

I have played several single player BTS games at Monarch level against the regular AI and I have had war declared on my about 3 or 4 times per game (I usually run in first place in score but not in power). I have noticed that while there are occasional AI vs. AI wars, there seem to be less than before but they still happen. I am rather surprised that the majority do not think the AI is "aggressive" enough on normal mode, but I guess fansites like this encourage those who are discontented to post and drown out a silent majority who don't feel the need to post.

I will try it on aggressive next game to see the differences, the AI on aggressive in older versions was actually easier, because it teched so badly and they tended to expend their strength fighting eachother, making them easier for me to destroy later. Also, playing against humans most of the time makes me play rather paranoid, and I am rarely surprised when the AI attacks.

One thing about the non-aggressive AI, at least on Monarch is that while it may not go to war as often as some would like, it is very canny about winning the actual game. I had one game that I was leading by 2000 points get stolen six turns before my spaceship launched by a surprise culture victory. After that, I made an effort to stamp out with my high tech military those civs that were turning off their science to go for culture victories (one or two civs seem to try this in every game now).

However, in my latest game, the Mayan AI has pulled a fast one on me. While they were running fourth place (out of 8) in score they came and offered me vassalage. I was a little surprised by this and accepted. A few turns later I took a look at f8 and sure enough, those Mayans have three cities over 30,000 in culture!!! (in 1890). Now the game is a despearate race for me to crush my other neighbors and win by domination or spaceship before the Mayans go over the top in culture and win as a Vassal! I cannot cancel the Vassalage, nor declare war on the Mayans, and all I can do is send in spies to their #3 city and try to slow them down by trashing culture buildings (and getting caught more often then not because I keep going after the same city).

In another game the AI Netherlands, also a Vassal of a strong aI empire, with three cities nearly got a spaceship launched before my army crossed the continent under open borders and took two of their three cities. Of course, then Pericles snaked the victory anyway with culture that game.

The bottom line is that, while the default AI may not be as aggressive as it could be, I think that it does defend fairly well at Monarch level, and it finds other ways to win the overall game. This is a huge achievement to have the AI capable of winning in peaceful ways, the old AI never even got close to figuring out how to win culturally.

[ben04]

Originally posted by MasterDave
I will try it on aggressive next game to see the differences, the AI on aggressive in older versions was actually easier, because it teched so badly and they tended to expend their strength fighting eachother, making them easier for me to destroy later.

This is IMHO still true. However it is pretty good at getting you also into the war so you can't run away techwise.

It is still possible to let the AIs fight against each other but you will need to help a little bit more. Like making sure that nobody shares a religion or use the AP to make them declare war on some civ on another continent. You'll have a tech lead before that expedition comes home.

[Uncle_Joe]

For instance, I'm leaving Noble and lower below

Here's a quick question then:

In Multiplayer games, the AIs are always set to 'Noble' regardless of what the players' settings are.

Does this mean that in MP games that the AIs wont be changed because they are still Noble?

For that matter, how DOES Difficulty in MP games work? If I set to Monarch and another players is set to Prince and the AIs are at their default Noble, what happens? Am I functioning with different Handicaps than the other player? What about the AIs? Do they use an 'average' of the player difficulties or the best or the worst?

Could I suggest making the AI changes to Noble and higher and leave Warlord and lower alone just to allow the MP AIs to function at the higher level? (assuming that that is the way it works)...

Thanks!

[Solver]

Look what the Dutch Aggressive AI is doing in my current game.



Founded three religions, eliminated the Koreans completely fairly early on, taking an additional two holy cities. And I was wondering how come they're far ahead of everyone in that game.