Well, I gave Civ4 another try this weekend...

[Julian Delphiki]

AI bonuses were cut down as well.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by rah
Just a note. If you play BTS be sure to use the aggressive AI option. Otherwise BTS is easier than vanilla civ IV.

I humbly disagree, at least a little because I thing it depends on the settings. It appears to me that it depends on the style of playing. With aggressive AI what I have seen from my own games and AAR is that the AI is slower for tech research. So, basically, if you are playing an Archipielago map (and even maybe in hemispheres-continents), I think that the non-aggresive AI is stronger.

But that is just my two cents

[Slade Wilson]

BTS is a little easier than normal civ4-mostly because you can adopt your play while now the AI uses one of two bad methods-without aggressive AI, allowing you to go rambo for an easy win, and aggressive AI which allows you to perform better economical and later on crush them and you can outmaneuver the militant AI. On the same difficulty levels from warlords to BTS, i do better in BTS.

This two-AI's thing is why i dont play civ4 anymore-why cant we have one well rounded AI that fights when it needs to and builds when it needs to?

[joncnunn]

Re: Well, I gave Civ4 another try this weekend...

Ironically, the more civs playing the easyer it is to get a diplomatic victory. With more civs, more of the realise win its time to vote they don't have a chance of winning anyway and actually vote for someone other than themselves.

On you having Modern Armor in 1862 @ Noble: I hearby promote you to Prince.

The "No tech trading" actually slows the leaders down more than trailers post Alphabet. (Also Post-discovery of sufficent civs on Archepello) That is because with tech trading it's the leaders trading with eachother more than the trailers.

A prereq for winning at all on Deity is competely domating the AI at Emperor.

If you have BTS, the Aztecs will fare better since the AI was trained on how to pop rush. But still the Aztecs are designed for agressive attacks early on. If they can't do so, they tend to get in trouble.

My 2004 notebook can't run large maps. But you'll probably want to turn Domination off. Because you'd probably have a massive barb problem if you tried to win via Conquest on a large map and kept raizing large numbers of cities to the ground to prevent yourself from accidently triguring Domination.

Originally posted by Spec

Anyhow, I have a few Qs. How the hell can you win a diplomatic victory with 18 civs playing?!

Also, I completly owned the game at noble, I mean, I had modern armors vs Grenadiers in 1862 AD...Is that normal?

I also chose "no tech trading" once and even the smallest nations had most of the techs the leaders had. How so?

How can you win at deity? I tried and failed miserably, Is there a good preset or something I should know? I felt like montezuma...

On that matter, why does Montezuma ALWAYS suck? I mean, every game he is last.

Has anyone here ever won a game at conquest on a huge map? Is it possible?

Spec.

[joncnunn]

Bascially the AI wastes too much time hamemrs buliding and using spies and using the spy slider.
Athough Buhric's unoffical patch goes a long ways towards solving that.

Originally posted by Fistleaf
What was changed to make BTS easier than vanilla?

[Bkeela]

Originally posted by Spec
WTF is vanilla?

Spec.

Stupid expression. Vanilla is a flavour in its own right - I think better than chocolate or anything else. People are morons.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, given your posting history, I suspect you're the idiot for caring.

[Bkeela]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
BTS is a little easier than normal civ4-mostly because you can adopt your play while now the AI uses one of two bad methods-without aggressive AI, allowing you to go rambo for an easy win, and aggressive AI which allows you to perform better economical and later on crush them and you can outmaneuver the militant AI. On the same difficulty levels from warlords to BTS, i do better in BTS.

This two-AI's thing is why i dont play civ4 anymore-why cant we have one well rounded AI that fights when it needs to and builds when it needs to?

Hmmm, I might upgrade to BtS then. I'm sick of getting hammered by Warlords 2.13 at Prince level when I used to sleep through Prince. Maybe I might even be able to upgrade my video drivers without the Failed to Intialize Renderer error.

[Bkeela]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, given your posting history, I suspect you're the idiot for caring.

Oh piss off ****.

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't he cute?

[Yosho]

I think the BTS AI is a lot more effective then the AI in the standard game. For one thing, it's a lot more effective at taking over other AI's and either conquering them or making them into vassles, so by late game you tend to face a couple of big powers or uber alliances; the AI almost never managed to do that in the standard game. For another, it's much better at getting to alternate win conditions later on, especally cultural. And I think it's better at fighting wars as well, even with agressive turned off; it's just better at the "hit hard, hit big, hit fast" type stuff, especally if you're not expecting it.

[Robert]

BKeela, Kuciwalker: chill