What is more difficult?

[Theben]

I would think that with AGG AI off I could have caste scientists with workers "building" science in just about every city, only stopping to build more science buildings when available. Throw in 1 city with a courthouse that aims for a G Spy for any missed techs from the AI and another sitting back building defensive military. Without having to worry about AI hordes I think this could be done... I'll have to try it out.

OTOH my newest emperor game as Tokugawa had Shaka 10 tiles away from my capital at start so I built 1st a barracks and then 4 warriors with cover promos. Adding the original warrior in the assault found 2 archers on flat terrain and then end of the Zulu empire on turn 42 epic, with agg AI. So either way, I figure.

[Blaupanzer]

5 warriors, 4 with star plus cover, took out two archers in a city (w/??? promotions)? I ask only because it would not have occured to me to even try quite that early w/ dog soldiers on the way.

[Theben]

I lost 3.

And he had no promos. Plus he had another archer but it had fortified away form the capital, I assume where it planned to settle the 2nd city. Had they had promos, been protective, on a hill, or had that 3rd archer available ( or slavery, for that matter) I doubt it would've worked.

[Theben]

However had I had copper available AGG axemen with cover promos can easily take early capitals. I wiped out a 3 city civ early with the Japs on emperor before, b/c the copper was right outside my capital.

[wodan11]

But what you are missing here is that the AI can be throwing that balls out attack at YOU. You need to be balanced and actually have a real military or you will be toast.

I think you misunderstood me. There's a huge difference between having a military capable of mounting a solid defense and killing all invaders, and one capable of invading/conquering enemies. In addition, there's a HUGE difference in the costs involved, both in terms of hammer expenditure as well as gold to pay maintenance.

even Blake points out that they don't need to be isolated. I've seen so many aggressive AI games where a peace loving civ is next to an aggressive civ, and they are best buddies.

Such as when they share religion, as stated. I most definitely did not state that isolation was the only causal factor; I clearly stated otherwise, in fact.

As far as religion goes, note that what religion each AI adopts is able to be influenced by the player. In fact, I do this quite often. Have you ever tried it as a core strategy?

While the aggressive civ is busy attacking everybody else and trying to win that way, the peaceful civ is just out teching everybody else. You are trying to minimize the key reason why aggressive AI is tougher by implying it's a rare event.

It *is* a rare event. At least in my games. But then, I tend to actively pursue diplomatic strategies, which for one thing quite easily prevents the "share religion" causal factor.

He implies that it's probably a good idea to stay on the good side of the aggressive civs... but guess what, it's easier for the AI's to stay friendly with each other than it is you.

I don't find this to be the case at all.

With Aggressive AI, you still have to prepare for the 100 unit SOD.

It's pretty rare that I get SODs that big hitting me. But you can tell when there's a possibility of them coming, so you know when you have to prepare.

What I have said is that some AI's, the peaceful ones, will keep teching while the aggressive civs will be keeping you honest with their military.

Doesn't that assume that I've failed in my job to ensure the peaceful ones aren't left alone, and the militaristic ones are looking elsewhere?

Bottom line: straight from Blake's lips, the Aggressive AI techs significantly slower than the default AI. That's true of peaceful civs as well as militaristic ones (the peaceful civs, as he said, "keep larger armies on hand as to not be easy victims").

So, that's a given.

The next question is whether the human can take advantage and spend less on defense than the corresponding cost to the AI tech progression. This does NOT say the human can play the same as on default AI. It simply asks whether the human can spend less. I put forth the answer is yes, quite a bit less. Use diplomacy, religion, and solid defense, avoid expensive foreign wars (the AI has many more units you have to kill to be successful).

[rah]

The thing I don't understand is how diplomacy is so certain for you.
If a peaceful and aggressive civ on the other side of the world share a religion from the beginning, how are you going to break that up? And I don't know about you, but good diplo doesn't always keep me from being the victim. Actually it's one of my biggest gripes about the game.

[slnz]

The thing I don't understand is how diplomacy is so certain for you.
If a peaceful and aggressive civ on the other side of the world share a religion from the beginning, how are you going to break that up? And I don't know about you, but good diplo doesn't always keep me from being the victim. Actually it's one of my biggest gripes about the game.

In well over 90% of the cases you can weasel the diplo system to get in the good graces of the military juggernauts. Just learn the diplo system. Which leaders can declare at Pleased, which don't. What gives what kind of bonuses and what gives penalties. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Agg AI does NOT change the AI declaration attitude limits in the XML, just make them more prone to declare if they could otherwise as well and possibly mess with the attitude limits. And no "In this game I got declared by a Friendly civ" comments please, there are a number of situations where this can happen and they can be seen from miles away and countered if you know what they are.

Examples of small good-to-know diplo tidbits:
Refusing a demand from Sury always gives -2 diplo, while refusing Gandhi's demands never gives a diplo penalty.
Catherine is the only AI that can be bribed to declare on you even if you are Friendly with her. Many others can be bribed to declare on you at Pleased even if they couldn't declare at Pleased on their own.

There are dozens of tiny pieces of knowledge like this which can in the final analysis decide the game.

If you can get Friendly with the military top dog(s) you're up for smooth sailing. Friendly usually means OB, years of peace, +4 from fair trade which is trivial to get with Agg AI, and religion or favourite civic. In extreme cases you may need to instigate wars and join them for the common military struggle bonus, or even gift a conveniently placed city for the city liberation bonus.

Either way, when you achieve this, you can pretty much just go with Ming's Proposed-Non-Agg-AI-style "tech, tech, tech and build, build, build like any noob can do and stay miles ahead of the AI". If anyone looks at you funny, put your attack dog(s) to work. If they're friends with each other, chances are that you can get to Friendly with that guy as well.

No tech trading makes this a bit harder but it penalizes the crappy AI teching even more and you can still get the fair trade bonus by gifting gold.

In a nutshell: in my opinion and in the light of the points I bring forward in this post if you know how diplo works, Agg AI makes things a lot easier tech-wise, and by extension, militarily.

However, like I said in an earlier post, I don't consider having Agg AI on or off to affect the game difficulty THAT much. At least nowhere near the difference between incremental difficulty levels. So comments like "if you want easymode why don't you play on a lower level" don't hold water, regardless of whether you consider Agg AI to make the game easier or harder.

Damn, I can't believe I'm still posting in this thread... Need to work on my self-discipline.

[Ming]

I think you misunderstood me. There's a huge difference between having a military capable of mounting a solid defense and killing all invaders, and one capable of invading/conquering enemies. In addition, there's a HUGE difference in the costs involved, both in terms of hammer expenditure as well as gold to pay maintenance.

Sure... there is a big difference. But in a non aggressive AI, you never need the type of defenses required in an aggressive AI game. That's a HUGE difference in the costs involved, both in terms of hammer expenditure as well as gold to pay maintenance.

As far as religion goes, note that what religion each AI adopts is able to be influenced by the player. In fact, I do this quite often. Have you ever tried it as a core strategy?

I use the religion strategy a lot in my games. I sometimes pick a non optimal religion just to say on the good side of some people. I will also try to cram certain religions down AI's throats by spamming or diplomacy. And while you can sometimes influence their religion, many times you simply can't.

It *is* a rare event. At least in my games. But then, I tend to actively pursue diplomatic strategies, which for one thing quite easily prevents the "share religion" causal factor.

I like to pursue diplomatic strategies as well since it's even more important in aggressive AI games. If a neighbor doesn't like you in a non aggressive game, it doesn't matter much because they won't be able to successfully attack you. However, unlike your "opinion", I don't see it as a rare event. You get some civs far away from you, and they are STRONG brothers of the faith before you can even have a say in the matter.

I don't find this to be the case at all.

Do you play many aggresive AI games... because I totally disagree with your POV on this. It pisses me off when I see AI's friendly with each other when they share different religions. I've NEVER been friendly with somebody that shares a different religion. Pleased, sure, but not friendly.

With Aggressive AI, you still have to prepare for the 100 unit SOD.

It's pretty rare that I get SODs that big hitting me. But you can tell when there's a possibility of them coming, so you know when you have to prepare.

Again... how much aggressive AI games do you play, because from the sound of things, you don't play them much to have a real opinion I've played many many many games on aggresive AI, and the huge SODS are the norm, not the exception.

Doesn't that assume that I've failed in my job to ensure the peaceful ones aren't left alone, and the militaristic ones are looking elsewhere?

You seem to indicate that diplomacy is ALWAYS an option that works for you. Considering how screwed up the diplomacy model can be... (like your defensive partners attack you, people who are pleased attack you, people from across the globe attack you even though there are people they hate closer, and other such nonsense) your claims seem empty at best.

Bottom line: straight from Blake's lips, the Aggressive AI techs significantly slower than the default AI. That's true of peaceful civs as well as militaristic ones (the peaceful civs, as he said, "keep larger armies on hand as to not be easy victims").

I've never stated otherwise... but you keep ignoring everything else he says

The default AI is a bit of a sandbox, you can employ the strategy you want and the AI may interfere with your plans... but on Aggressive AI, the AI can DICTATE your strategy!

Blake is pretty clear on what he thinks here.

And yes, Blake does point out that IF you can avoid the military problems, it is easier to out tech the AI. But he says IF... Without the aggressive AI, the odds are, you never have a military problem and never have to really develop a real military. It's pretty much a sure thing you will out tech the AI. No ifs about it

He pretty much looks down his nose at the non aggressive AI. If you really took the opportunity to read what he is saying, besides just cherry picking comments, you would see the truth.
So yeah... it's a given that he (the designer of the AI) thinks that the aggressive AI option makes for a more balanced and harder game.

The next question is whether the human can take advantage and spend less on defense than the corresponding cost to the AI tech progression. This does NOT say the human can play the same as on default AI. It simply asks whether the human can spend less. I put forth the answer is yes, quite a bit less. Use diplomacy, religion, and solid defense, avoid expensive foreign wars (the AI has many more units you have to kill to be successful).

Sure... you can spend less... assuming all of your diplomacy works, you have a solid defensive postion, (one question, do you keep resetting until you get a costal/defensable position, because if you play a game in the middle of the world, solid defense is very difficult). But I would have to say it's not going to work all the time. And actually, your argument kind of proves that aggressive AI is harder, because frankly, you don't need to worry about any of that stuff playing the non aggressive AI game.

As Blake says... "IF you want to play wolf amongst the lambs, well play on Normal... "
Yep... playing at normal means you a simply kicking the worthless lambs... I think Blake is very clear when he says this... He stated on many occasions that the game is too easy on non aggresive AI, and the aggressive AI option adds balance and more challenge to the game. Feel free to keep isolating some of his comments while ignoring the whole of what he posted.

[slnz]

Do you play many aggresive AI games... because I totally disagree with your POV on this. It pisses me off when I see AI's friendly with each other when they share different religions. I've NEVER been friendly with somebody that shares a different religion. Pleased, sure, but not friendly.

You seem to indicate that diplomacy is ALWAYS an option that works for you. Considering how screwed up the diplomacy model can be... (like your defensive partners attack you, people who are pleased attack you, people from across the globe attack you even though there are people they hate closer, and other such nonsense) your claims seem empty at best.

These comments seem to indicate that you don't know the inner workings of the diplo system and war declaration mechanics. There's a hidden -1 diplo modifier against the human on Noble and above, but the human can easily get at least +5 bonuses more than any AI, because they don't have the ability to actively seek those bonuses. The attitude thresholds depend on individual leader personalities and how they "match" each other. And any of those war examples you gave can be foreseen and circumvented.

Even at the higher levels, it's pretty easy to out tech the AI with the non aggressive AI.

the default AI can be a speed demon when it comes to research.

Yes... it's clearly wodan that's "cherry picking" comments and ignoring parts of the indicated quotes.

I'd also like to note that if you look closer there are conditionals in almost every phrase he says, because Civ4 is a game where almost everything is situational and black-and-white claims are hard to make.


Sorry, I'll try to refrain from posting in this thread as it starts to more and more look like a common flame war than an actual constructive argument.

[rah]

Knowing all the tidbits doesn't necessarily keep you out of war.
In one game I kept a civ at friendly until one turn it marched a settler right up against my culture and placed a city. I got the negative for culture border and dropped to pleased and obviously they decided to gear up for war at that point because even after I did something else to get it to friendly again, war was in the future. I don't see how you can control everything like you claim.

[Ming]

These comments seem to indicate that you don't know the inner workings of the diplo system and war declaration mechanics. There's a hidden -1 diplo modifier against the human on Noble and above, but the human can easily get at least +5 bonuses more than any AI, because they don't have the ability to actively seek those bonuses. The attitude thresholds depend on individual leader personalities and how they "match" each other. And any of those war examples you gave can be foreseen and circumvented.

Yes... I do understand the inner workings of the diplo system and war declaration mechanics.
But I will still call BS on your comment that everything can be circumvented. Even If you can be as "perfect" as you claim, there are things you have no control over that can ruin all those perfect things you can do. As rah points out, a city placed on your border... nothing you can do about it, but you still take a hit. Also, random events... AI's using spies... Not all things can be circumvented, and to imply as such shows a lack of understanding

I've played so many games where I've done everything by the book... used every diplo trick there is, and it still didn't work. So forgive me when I listen to people claim how diplomacy always works and can be used to solve every problem and not think it's total BS.

And yes... every claim Blake makes is condidtional. He's not a dummy and no, things aren't Black and White. But it was obvious when he was posting what his opinion of the AI that he designed. To him, the aggressive AI option was a better one to play... because it added balance to the game and made it more challenging. Sure, it's not always the case... as he points out the exceptions. But overall, he was very clear about it. That's the option he recommended people play. And that's the strongest argument of all

[slnz]

Not everything of course, but the majority of situations. I think it's a fascinating subgame all by itself. In your situation you were quite unlucky to begin with (depending who the neighbor was) but a tiny thing somewhere that would have upped your relations by 1-2 more could have circumvented that. Things such as game speed affect this as well, on Marathon you have thrice the war-dice-rolls than on Normal in the same time-span.

Nothing is foolproof in a game that uses random numbers for dozens of things.

[rah]

I guess that's why it's my biggest complaint. I do everything I'm supposed to, and I so love having to suck up to some of these, just to have them do everything possible to keep you from doing it an the one time it slips, bang you lose. So you're right, when you get pimped like that eventually you say, why bother, these F***ers are getting squat from me

So maybe i do end up in a few more wars but at least it's not a surprise.

[Ming]

I still call BS on your use of the term "majority". Yes indeed, there are many random elements in the game. There are many things that you simply can't control. You can be totally friendly with somebody... having used every trick possible to make it so... and then have it drop to "pleased" for a single turn for whatever strange reason... and that's enough for the AI to start war plans which he will carry out later even if you are back to friendly. With mechanics like that, anything is possible and can be beyond your control.

[Ming]

Server Hick up... DP...