What is more difficult?

[Ming]

This thread isn't meant to discuss the differences in the difficulty levels... It's meant for a different discussion. And is really meant for SP play.

In a recent thread, and many past threads, the issue of which game option settings make it easier or harder on the human player has come up. And I don't think there is much agreement

Some are of the opinion that the aggressive ai option makes it easier to win, while others think that the game sucks and is too easy if you don't use it.

Some think that turning off tech trading makes the games easier and others say harder.

While the opinions on tech brokering seem pretty much the same across the board...

What about vassals... do they make it easier or harder?

And then there is the Diplo Victory condition... many play with it off.

Again... I started this thread with the intent to answer the question of how it relates to SP. However, if you think the answer is different for SP than MP, please feel free to post your opinions

[rah]

On the diplo victory, I really don't care if it makes it easier or not, it just annoys me so I turn it off.

The aggressive AI and tech trading interests me the most.

I believe aggressive ai makes it harder. When hannibal shows up with that 80 unit stack, even if he's technology challanged, it's going to be fun. With aggressive off, the stacks just don't seem to get that big till much later in the game.

[slnz]

Things that make the game easier:

Aggressive AI - ON
(The AIs tech much much worse with this on, and hardly build any wonders at all. Warfare is biased towards the human because he has brains and can cook the tactical situation in his favor drastically.)

No Tech Trading - OFF
(Again, the human can abuse the tech trading system much more than AIs can, with their petty diplo attitudes towards each other. Human can also gift techs to get a sometimes much-needed +4 and gift-peace unfavorable AI vs AI wars, which the AI can't do.)

No Tech Brokering - DEPENDS
(Generally the same as tech trading; the human can abuse tech brokering much more than the AI can, but if you fall off the tech sled, you might never catch up again with tech brokering enabled. This adds variance to the game - a game can be massively easier or harder with tech brokering on.)

No Vassals - ON
(The AIs are more prone to vassal to each other, and peaceful vassalage can turn into flip-flop situations where an AI vassals to another, swaps all the techs he can, then vassals to a third Civ and swaps all techs again. This is only true in 3.19 and the new "Vassal is always considered Friendly towards the master for tech trading purposes")

Diplomatic Victory - DEPENDS
(If you want to go for the cheesy AP win, you can easily beat a game on 2 levels above your comfort zone. If not, having diplo victory on makes the game harder, as it's a more dynamic aspect of the game not easily controllable by the human.)

Raging Barbs - ON
(The human can either beeline GW for massive cheesyness, or just prepare better for the onslaught.)

No Tribal Huts - ON
(On most difficulty levels the AI has more units early to pop these. Also the different event probabilities are in favor of the AI.)

No Random Events - ON
(The human can get instagibbed by Vedic Aryans on Monarch+, and can have more tactics of the "knife's edge" type, where an unexpected small thing can cause a lot of harm (slave revolt in capital in a WE/SSE -> strike, hurricane wrecking a University when beelining Oxford).)

[rah]

I'd tend to agree with these except for aggressive ai. I think that could go either way.
If I'm playing a peaceful build game early, with no aggressive ai, I will never see the HUGE SOD. And while I agree that you can out think the ai in matters of war, there is no counter to a stack 5 times the size of your entire army. Granted sometimes I'll be ready and yes it's easy to defeat, but with aggressive ai off I never have to worry about it.
It's easier to get caught leaning the wrong way with aggressive AI on.

[Theben]

I would argue that the combination of Agg AI + tech trading leads to tougher AI civs all around. The tech civs still tech hard, and then the Agg civs threaten them to cough up the tech or die.

Agg AI off makes it too easy to pound the AI into dirt early game.

[Ming]

I agree that leaving aggressive AI off makes the game too easy. While sinz does point out that it does indeed effect the AI's science rate, it also effects your science rate. In my experience (at everything but the highest diff levels) I had no problem with the AI without agressive AI. I was able to build a purely and limited defensive army, and concentrate on techs and buildings that promoted science. Religion strategies were easier because you could spam missoniaries... the whole game was easier. Pacifism was great because I didn't need a big army early on. Later, after you were far ahead of the AI's in military techs, you could then build an army, which you could now afford, and go out and blow the AI away, if you wanted to... but really, no need to do so, because you had pretty much already won the game.

With aggresive AI turned on... the tech civs will still keep you honest, and the military civs WILL build that huge SOD. And if you are the weakest on the power graph, you will have to face some attacks. You can't ignore building your army in the late/early game or mid game, or you will be destroyed.

With tech trading... I could go either way. Done properly, the Human player can rip the AI's off, and make the game easier... but with the AI's trading amoung themselves and not you, it can make the game harder.

I will never play with Tech brokering

[Blaupanzer]

Main thing Agg AI does is stop ad hoc early rushes. Without it on, I have caught AIs with a warrior or single archer in their capitol within reach of one of my 3-unit cities. Bye-bye. Also, one or more civs usually fall to the raging barbarians every game with aggressive AI off. Both these events happen much less with it on. I have noticed a pronounced decrease in wonder building by non-Ind civs with Agg AI on.

I really resent the rules hole permitting a freak AP win, but find the UN a mixed blessing. I turn off diplo win, but not just to control the game. Recently I am finding vassals to be a manageable aspect so been leaving them on. Does seem to cause end-game world wars.


I like random events, which by definition make the game less predictable. I also like the goody huts even though the AI gets the greater advantage.

I have only played with full tech trading on a few times. I found every AI would end up at my level + a few techs rapidly, and all were trading the techs I just traded to them to every other civ before I got the chance. I am not sure what permitting only tech brokering (TB) really represents in human history, but I think of it as better security for the trade secrets of the ages. With TB on, the human can benefit from following nonregular paths of research, and the really anti-scientific civs can keep close. I do notice slnz' mentioned "runaway" games once in a while.

[Blaupanzer]

With tech trading... I could go either way. Done properly, the Human player can rip the AI's off, and make the game easier... but with the AI's trading amoung themselves and not you, it can make the game harder.

I will never play with Tech brokering

Care to explain why the tech brokering option is unacceptable, especially in light of your previous paragraph?

[Ming]

It's simple... IMHO, tech brokering makes a bad game design even worse.

[Blaupanzer]

I probably would agree with that, if I understood it. Could you elaborate on what underlying bad game design makes tech trading marginally valuable and makes brokering evil?

[rah]

If I could trade even for even with the AI, it wouldn't bother me as much. Especially when you believe that is how the AI trades with another AI. Yeah, yeah i know you can still take advantage but it still annoys me. Brokering makes it even more annoying. So I shut it off to avoid the annoyance.
It's like when the AI demands gunpowder. (go ahead and try to take it from me, which is difficult because I have gunpowder and they don't) Or the romans demanding Iron. (yeah, like that's going to happen)

[slnz]

If having Agg AI off makes early rushes too easy, then it's time to either rise up a difficulty level or play at a faster speed.

Huge AI SoDs are easy to destroy. In the majority of cases a pile of flanker mounted units does the job - the AI always underproduces units like Spears and Pikes and at the very least this destroyes all their siege by flanking. In later eras massive siege + any kind of unit does the job.

Any kind of setting that is biased towards warfare (Marathon speed, Agg AI) makes the game easier IMO, as the AI royally sucks at battle tactics. It's not like the AI can't rush without Agg AI, I've had enough games where Toku, Genghis or some other nutcase knocks on my door with 4 Axes + 1 Spear well before 2000BC.

I'd also say that anything you turn off because of "annoyance" is an area in one's gameplay to be improved

Spoiler:

Sorry if I come across as arrogant-sounding, working on not doing that

[rah]

You need more practice.

I've never seen the HUGE stacks with aggressive AI turned off real early.

And like I said, it only sometimes they catch you leaning the wrong way.

[Ming]

If having Agg AI off makes early rushes too easy, then it's time to either rise up a difficulty level or play at a faster speed.

I'm not just talking about the early rushes... my claim is that without aggressive AI turned on, the bad AI military strategy is even worse. You never really have to face a serious threat, and therefore the game becomes unbalanced and all you have to do is become a builder.

Huge AI SoDs are easy to destroy. In the majority of cases a pile of flanker mounted units does the job - the AI always underproduces units like Spears and Pikes and at the very least this destroyes all their siege by flanking. In later eras massive siege + any kind of unit does the job.

In no aggressive ai games, I don't remember seeing SOD's approaching 100 units. To take them out, even if you have superior military, you still need a number of units. Heck, in aggressive games, even when I'm maintaining an expensive real army, SOD's from two different neighboors at the same time aren't all that easy to destroy.

Any kind of setting that is biased towards warfare (Marathon speed, Agg AI) makes the game easier IMO, as the AI royally sucks at battle tactics. It's not like the AI can't rush without Agg AI, I've had enough games where Toku, Genghis or some other nutcase knocks on my door with 4 Axes + 1 Spear well before 2000BC.

The difference is, in the aggresive AI games, those stacks are followed by more stacks
If you are too busy being a builder, you will have serious problems, even with the AI being stuipid.
IMHO, any kind of setting that biased toward simply building makes the game easier. As a human, you can generally make far better choices than the AI, whether it's city locations, order of building, specialized and target strategies... I've found that playing those games just become boring and very predictable as the same strategy works over and over again, even at the higher levels. You wonder whore and just stay light years ahead of the AI in science. With no need to even build much of an army, or ever worry about it, you can just cruise.

I'd also say that anything you turn off because of "annoyance" is an area in one's gameplay to be improved

I might argue that it's more a matter of poor game design. I agree with Rah on his points (no surprise) and would go even further that the whole "relationship" area of the game is totally screwed up, and when you factor in the trading element, it is just not a good design. Turning some of the features off makes the game more playable... and not simply a matter of improving one's gameplay. I could leave some of those features on, and simply rip the AI blind, but I don't think that's fun, and it takes away from the strategy. It's like going for an early diplo victory with the AP... it can be done easily, but what fun is that. It's simply a cheat.

[slnz]

I guess having Agg AI might make a SP game more like a MP one. But otherwise it feels like cooking the settings - you know what to prepare for, and the preparing isn't that complicated: settle border cities on hills and wait for the onslaught. It's like picking Archipelago when playing Willem.

Normal settings aren't "biased towards building", they're the settings the game was balanced for. The AIs are complete idiots at war, while occasionally being halfway competent at building an empire. I don't find much sense of accomplishment in abusing AIs that approach through open ground open to siege, or throw away entire stacks against defenses they have absolutely no hope of overtaking.

I don't get the "easiness" or "cheating" part - if it's too easy, move up a difficulty level. IMO it brings more of a challenge than watching an endless stream of AI units approach like lemmings running off a cliff. If you beat Deity regularly, well, then I guess no amount of setting-cooking can bring much more challenge in the game.

I haven't found that wonder whoring is a guarantee at "staying light years ahead of the AI in science", or that you regularly don't need to build an army. Also I find there's usually significant AI military threats in each game. Then again, you might be much better a player than me. I find diplo and trade decisions to be one of the finest points in the game and often the toughest decisions in a game.