Finished my first game

[One_more_turn]

Settings: Augustus Caesar, Standard Continent, Noble Level, Epic Speed.

Conclusion: too easy. Using Cuirassiers on Archers was no fun; ready to move to Prince level.

BTS or not, Romans are still butt-kicking on large land masses. Getting 4 Praetorians by 1500BC should be allow you to clean out 2-3 AI Civs by 0AD. Then the game is over. Nothing can stop them in ancient era. I'm wondering how AI handles the Romans because an early Praetorian rush seems unstoppable.

[Pandemoniak]

Hello,
I am not so sure the Praet are so invicible, actually. Of course they are a strong force, but against an AI-Roma, you can still try to buy peace instead of running a military challenge.

However, if you feel you cant get buddy with Roma (too expensive tech give away, borders sparks, different religion and cannot convert, etc.) you can still build up something quite strong.

The Axeman stands at 5 with +50% melee, and is significantly cheaper and of earlier access (35 instead of 45 ). Based in a city, it can significantly resist a Praet invasion. Add a few walls and some archers, mayeb a mounted unit with a Melee promotion to finish them off at crucial places and moment, and you can get pretty well equipped when the tactical battles are ahead.

Espionage in BtS comes as a very nice feature since it will allow you to use new means to be aware of how the armies are massing up against you, instead of having to rush for a religion and spread it, you can simply invest gold.

Also, kicking Iron ressources sounds pretty good. Whenever I tried to do so I had very little results anyways, the few times where I actively tried to keep the Turks out of ressources (Spy destroying pastures for Horses, as I built all my armies for melee combat and didnt want to have Knights coming and poke me around...), they didnt seem to be embarassed - rebuilding and getting ressource by trade, but it still slow them down.

Just my two denarii, tho, I never played as Roma

[One_more_turn]

City Raider II Praetorians walk over Axeman with 20% city defenses.

They do have trouble defeating Protective Archers fortified on hills.

[wodan11]

One problem with the AI is that it doesn't recognize that, when faced with CR promoted units, you should attack them in the field.

Another thing the AI doesn't understand is throwing away a cheaper unit with a seemingly-suicidal attack, in order to weaken it so that a second cheap unit can kill it.

Anyway, we can hope Blake will fix this.

In MP, of course, all bets are off with the Praets.

Wodan

[Blaupanzer]

The AI will throw away catapults to weaken stacks of heavy infantry, then smash them with mounted units in the field or in front of a city. That's what I do to Roman stacks.

[One_more_turn]

Darius of Persia is another monster: Financial + Organized + Powerful early UU.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The AI will throw away catapults to weaken stacks of heavy infantry, then smash them with mounted units in the field or in front of a city. That's what I do to Roman stacks.

I agree. The new BtS AI will do this (though the Warlords patch broke this... the AI would use cats as city garrisons a lot of the time).

What I was thinking of, however, was pre-cat. The AI generally is not smart enough to send an Axe against a Praetorian, knowing it will probably die, so that a second Axe call kill it.

Wodan

[One_more_turn]

In plain vanilla and warlord, AI always garrisons its newly found cities with 2 archers. But in BTS, it's imitating expert human players by sacrificing security for speedy expansion: cities are often garrisoned with only 1 archer or only 1 warrior. This condition remained so until very late (500BC). Although the AI will now be developing its economy faster, it opens great exploits for an early human rush.

In my latest game with Darius on a standard pangea at Prince level, I effortlessly overran 2 AI civs by 500BC and built up an insurmountable tech lead. By 1500AD, I enslaved 2 more civs and could have gotten the domination easily by 1600AD, had I not tried to experience the game more. I also razed the city with Apostolic Palace, not wanting some infidels to derail my well-deserved victory.

My other observation is that AI is now quite efficient in organizing city assaults and defenses, which means invasions against AI civs must be carried out with overwhelming forces and utter ruthlessness (razing initially captured cities). Furthermore, to build up an overwhelming force requires human players to have a much bigger empire and rush early.

Conclusion: BTS's AI leapfrogged the earlier versions, but AI remains artificial as its static behaviors open up new exploits for humans.

[One_more_turn]

My Praetorian rushes often begin at around 1500BC, way earlier than anyone could have researched Construction. By the time large cats army can be fielded (>0AD), I usually knock out 2-3 AI civs by then and have built an insurmountable lead.

[One_more_turn]

At least at Prince level, AI does have serious short-comings. I just finished a conquest game in 1200AD on a Standard Pangea with Augustus. I was able to destroy 3 AI Civs and cripple a fourth one by 0AD.

As I have observed before, the AI places too much emphasis on economic development and too little on defense during early stages. Most of its early cities are staffed by 1 archer, and it was easy picking for praetorians. However, the AI adjusts very quickly by rushing Axemen and concentrating them in the most threatened city.

[Jaybe]

Patience, grasshopper. Instead of rushing a conquest victory, just take one or two civs out, rest and build up infrastructure. How can you enjoy a full game if you win the whole game with just Praets? Unless you play through at least the industrial age, you won't appreciate many of the changes of BtS.

I play Rome also. But I play ... (see my sig).

[One_more_turn]

A large continent game should delay the finish until modern age.

[Kloreep]

One_more_turn, do you have Aggressive AI turned off? Blake himself has said that a good rusher player will easily be a "wolf among sheep" if the default, development-focused AI is used. Aggressive AI are programmed to focus their development more on military, even if they don't actually declare war themselves.

That's not to say the default AI shouldn't be better defended. Nevertheless, if you're looking for better challenges to your military might, you should probably hit the Aggressive switch.

[Nugog]

Yes - give the Aggressive AI a go - and select a couple of naturally aggressive leaders to play against....

But yes - CR II Praets are a damaging force....

[One_more_turn]

Started a new Prince game on a large 4 continents map, now the AI's focus on development pays off. I'm in year 1856, although a domination victory is still in reach, it will be a difficult grind. I don't think I will be able to achieve domination victories on this kind of maps at Monarch level, at least not with my current skill.

I think to fully 'enjoy' the BTS AI improvements, one has to play on maps in which early rushes are not possible.