What is more difficult?

[Blaupanzer]

The first time your neighbor at +15 and his two bribed pals, both "Pleased" in relationship to you attack you by sending in 3 40-unit SODs and then good neghbor follows at another point with a 100-unit SOD (all in the modern era -- tanks, artillery, infantry, marines, etc.), you will be clearer on the very conditional reality of the diplomatic system in Agg AI. I guarentee you that a 4-stacks attack that size will NEVER happen with Agg AI off, even if you are within 20 turns of winning the game. I have been hit with unit numbers on this scale in about half of the last dozen games. (Note that in that dozen games were also 3 where I quit after fallling too far behind and 1 where I won before Industrialism.)

[slnz]

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

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. Some things you can circumvent pre-emptively, for others you just have to prepare for (and you almost always get a pre-warning via WHEOOHRN at least). A diplo buffer of 1-2 can handle many things if you can get it. The events (between same religion civs at least) massively favor diplo bonuses for friends and diplo negatives for Civs with cool relations so that's usually more of a boon than danger. I don't know what spies have to do with this, you can only get diplo penalties if your spies get caught.

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.

Yes, everything is possible, hence the word "majority". You need to be very unlucky for your buddy to go WHEOOHRN in a few turns of Pleased-dip - you need the "right" (= wrong) AI and the random gods need to decide at low odds that your friendship is finished. I think of that as losing a critical fight at 98% odds. You can put yourself in a favorable position (the more skill, the more favorable the position), the rest is up for the RNG gods to decide. Much like tournament poker, actually, with the exception that you can control the odds quite a bit more.

The first time your neighbor at +15 and his two bribed pals, both "Pleased" in relationship to you attack you by sending in 3 40-unit SODs and then good neghbor follows at another point with a 100-unit SOD (all in the modern era -- tanks, artillery, infantry, marines, etc.), you will be clearer on the very conditional reality of the diplomatic system in Agg AI. I guarentee you that a 4-stacks attack that size will NEVER happen with Agg AI off, even if you are within 20 turns of winning the game. I have been hit with unit numbers on this scale in about half of the last dozen games. (Note that in that dozen games were also 3 where I quit after fallling too far behind and 1 where I won before Industrialism.)

It can happen without Agg AI all right, with the right Civ personalities it can even be quite probable. There's a higher chance that AIs DoW on a Civ already at war with someone (dogpiling), and this can cascade to massive dogpiles with the right die roll (no pun intended). Some Civs are more prone to do this than others. These are no doubt harder to fight off with Agg AI, but not necessarily harder to avoid in the big picture.

A rule of thumb: +this or -that doesn't mean a thing, the attitude does, and even the attitude goes out the window if you have vassals.

EDIT: This can be one reason to aim for ending the game (or just taking a hugely advantageous position) before the Modern era, as the diplo situation can get more complicated as more Civs adopt Free Religion, plus the late game civics are much less frequently someone's favourite civics.

[Ming]

Yes, everything is possible, hence the word "majority". You need to be very unlucky for your buddy to go WHEOOHRN in a few turns of Pleased-dip - you need the "right" (= wrong) AI and the random gods need to decide at low odds that your friendship is finished. I think of that as losing a critical fight at 98% odds. You can put yourself in a favorable position (the more skill, the more favorable the position), the rest is up for the RNG gods to decide. Much like tournament poker, actually, with the exception that you can control the odds quite a bit more.

While you do have some control, and can help dictate things, and skill is required... it is NOT a rare exception when you lose. There are just too many factors beyond your control for it to be "98%"
I think that's a real overstatement of the odds.

And sure... I have no doubt that the AI's can dogpile people in a non aggresive game. It's just far rarer and usually with way smaller stacks. The odds are it won't happen much in a non aggressive game, but almost a certainty that it will happen at some point in an aggresive AI game

[rah]

EDIT: This can be one reason to aim for ending the game (or just taking a hugely advantageous position) before the Modern era, as the diplo situation can get more complicated as more Civs adopt Free Religion, plus the late game civics are much less frequently someone's favourite civics.

Well actually early diplo is really all I pay attention to. I just want them to like me enough so I can get open borders so I can work on other modifiers but more importantly station a few missionaries near their border cities so I can see if there's a buildup. I really hate having to check frequently to see if there's a WHEOOHRN condition. (call it lazy) But the turns fly by so that I hate to waste time.

But I did pick up a few tidbits I didn't know here so we'll see if they are useful, but I still don't trust the bastards.

Thanks guys. Actually I really like the spirited discussion. That type of passion is usually only seen in the OT>

[Blaupanzer]

Likewise, good stuff and no BK/Asher war to contend with.

[wodan11]

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?

The easiest way is simply to pick a low-freq / last founded religion and send missionaries to one of those civs. The game is VERY predictable in that an AI will change to its majority religion. So, for the cost of 5-6 missionaries, you can de facto "force" an AI to a religion nobody else has.

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.

Depends on your definition of "good diplo" I suppose. Some tricks work in some situations, others in others. Knowing which to use will give you the greatest chance of success is part of what makes a good player, I suppose.

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.

Never? The normal AI can select the total war paradigm just as the aggressive AI can.

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.

I'd say most of the time you can influence their religion. And, the few times you can't, you still have all your other diplo tools in your bag of tricks.

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.

That's the second time you've said that. I've been hit with as large or larger SOD in a normal game than in an aggressive AI game. The more telling factor is how long it's been since that AI is at war. Since wars happen more often in aggesssive AI games, clearly the AIs will have much higher attrition and smaller SODs to hit you with. To contrast, that AI who has been at peace for 2000 years in a normal AI game can hit you with a pretty huge SOD.

However, unlike your "opinion",

No need to get sarky.

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.

If they're far away, they're a non-factor. At most, all that's necessary is to ensure you have at least one intervening neighbor on your side.

Do you play many aggresive AI games... because I totally disagree with your POV on this.

I'm about 50/50 I suppose. It's not like I keep a log or anything.

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.

Well sure. I agree there. OTOH religion isn't the be all and end all. Yes, it works a lot of the time. But there are other factors too, favorite civic, previous allies, etc.

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

Again, no need to denigrate someone when you're having a civil discussion.

I've played many many many games on aggresive AI, and the huge SODS are the norm, not the exception.

Maybe I foster wars more often. As I said above, part of the task here is to make sure your potential enemies don't have turns and turns without conflict during which to amass huge numbers of troops as a result of the aggessive AI setting. Since getting them to fight each other on aggessive AI is often much easier than on normal AI, it's funny how that works.

You seem to indicate that diplomacy is ALWAYS an option that works for you.

Nope, just responding to your implicit asumption (by omission) that there aren't preventative measures that can be taken.

That said, it does seem to me that I have more success in this area than you do. Or else that my play style is sufficiently different to affect the situation. Or both, maybe.

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.

Seems like I need to clarify/repeat what was said earlier because I did not say I never get attacked when I'm trying these strategies. What I said was to focus upon defense, killing invading units but avoiding expensive foreign wars, and using the savings to build infrastructure and focus upon tech.

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!

I didn't ignore it. I definitely have a different interpretation than you seem to have. Knowing how the AI works, the things it's capable of, the things that are more or less random, you can predict and prepare for it. If you predict/prepare, then that's hardly the AI dictating your strategy to you. At most, it's the AI ensuring that you spend at least some level of effort on defense and/or proactive measures. "Dictating" to me would be the AI forcing me to change from scientist/caste to cottages, or some such.

Now, if Blake here is saying that "dictating" = forcing the human to build at least some military, then yes I agree. But that's a ludicriously obvious statement. More accurate might be to simply say "you have to build more military on aggressive AI settings". But still, that doesn't mean you have to change to a warmonger. If he's talking about truly changing strategies, then that statement is a huge stretch to me.

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

The "military problems" are not a boolean. It's not a question of "avoid" or "not avoid". There's some degree of increase of possibility in military conflict, which you can plan for and compensate for, and some degree of increase in the scale of miltary conflict, which you can plan for and compensate for.

In my experience, I seem to have better success in proactive measures in most of my games on aggressive AI than your experience. So, based upon the "no ifs about it" conclusion we have just agreed to, the foregone outcome is that I have better success teching.

[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.

Again, no need to denigrate someone when you're having a civil discussion. I don't think I've done that to you. Not intentionally for sure, and if I did unintentionally, I apologize. So knock it off please.

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.

To the average player, I definitely agree.

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).

I never reset maps. The only time I reset (and I go back to the start menu) is if I get a civ I'm not in the mood to play (because I almost always choose random leader/civ).

To me a tough position is a challenge and an enjoyable diversion. Different maps are cool and what makes the game fun. If I wanted an easier game I would back off the skill level or something else, not take away the very thing that makes the game have great repeat play value. If I did that, I would have quit playing years ago because I would have gotten bored out of my mind playing what amounts to the same map all the time.

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.

There are different kinds of "harder". Some people would say simply having more units to move around is "harder." Anyway, I think it's probably a much bigger discussion to talk about all the different kinds of harder and to come to some overarching conclusion about the game as a whole.

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.

Sure. My very statements indicate that I've explored intricacies of the game which I otherwise might not have done, as a result of the aggressive AI setting.

On the other hand, the AI teching more slowly makes the game easier. That's indisputable.

Feel free to keep isolating some of his comments while ignoring the whole of what he posted.

The juvenile cracks are really annoying and aren't contributing to the discussion. Please, knock it off.

[Ming]

Likewise, good stuff and no BK/Asher war to contend with.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Soooooooooooooooo true.

At least here, the biggest insults are implications that people don't know what they are talking about, look down the nose atttitudes, and some soft words. Unlike the OTF, where people just tell each other to go **** themselves

[rah]

Yeah, dat true too.

I guess it's
1. It's not just one thing, it's a combination of all the settings.
2. It has to be that because I refuse to believe that slnz is that much better of a player that he can routinely beat the game at a higher difficulty level than me.

[slnz]

Well actually early diplo is really all I pay attention to. I just want them to like me enough so I can get open borders so I can work on other modifiers but more importantly station a few missionaries near their border cities so I can see if there's a buildup. I really hate having to check frequently to see if there's a WHEOOHRN condition. (call it lazy) But the turns fly by so that I hate to waste time.

Oh, I simply couldn't play without BUG mod, which shows WHEOOHRN as a fist and different attitudes as smiley faces beside the Civs in the score area (plus some other handy things such as 10turn forced peaces and power ratios if enough espionage). It feels like playing blind.

Guess you have the luck of starting near Toku often if you actually need to work for getting OB that bastard is so obnoxious with his Pleased OB requirement.

[Blaupanzer]

Even though you've never seen slnz play. Right?

[rah]

AH, I read about the BUG mod but doing as much MP as we do, mods are not an option.
Yes that would make things easier, so I guess being blind influences us.


Heck in most games, I'm not pissed when Tok starts next to me because I'm just grateful that I'm not Tok.

[rah]

Even though you've never seen slnz play. Right?

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN HIM PLAY.

[slnz]

Well as BUG doesn't alter gameplay and offers much less benefits for human vs human games (mainly things like GP and GG meters and various notifications), if you wanted you could just use it in SP and the basic unmodded version for MP - the difference isn't that big.

I was quite reluctant to try it out, but since then I've grown to love it.

[rah]

That was one of the mods I actually wanted to try out.
What's the easiest way of keeping two copies seperate so you don't get the cheat message in mp? I've never known.

[Ming]

The easiest way is simply to pick a low-freq / last founded religion and send missionaries to one of those civs. The game is VERY predictable in that an AI will change to its majority religion. So, for the cost of 5-6 missionaries, you can de facto "force" an AI to a religion nobody else has.

Some times, this does work. Some times it doesn't. I was just playing a game last night where I was trying to convert a civ to a different religion. He was Jewish, like most of the rest of the world, yet only 3 of his 8 cities were Jewish. I converted ALL of his cities to an additional religion, hoping he would change and become the next target. So... he had three cities of one religion, and all of his cities were another. He NEVER converted. And this is just one example I saw personally last night. I've seen it happen many times before... So it doesn't appear as predictable as you state it is.

Depends on your definition of "good diplo" I suppose. Some tricks work in some situations, others in others. Knowing which to use will give you the greatest chance of success is part of what makes a good player, I suppose.

And you pick on me for being insulting
I know the tricks and how they work. And yes, certain tricks will increase the chance of success. But what I am saying is that there are a lot of variables, and add that to a screwed up system, and it's nowhere near as certain and predictable as some people like to make it out as.

Never? The normal AI can select the total war paradigm just as the aggressive AI can.

Ok... let me rephrase that... IT RARELY HAPPENS

I'd say most of the time you can influence their religion. And, the few times you can't, you still have all your other diplo tools in your bag of tricks.

I think this is another over representation of reality. There are far more than a "few times" where you can't influence the religion.

That's the second time you've said that. I've been hit with as large or larger SOD in a normal game than in an aggressive AI game. The more telling factor is how long it's been since that AI is at war. Since wars happen more often in aggesssive AI games, clearly the AIs will have much higher attrition and smaller SODs to hit you with. To contrast, that AI who has been at peace for 2000 years in a normal AI game can hit you with a pretty huge SOD.

Sure... it happens... but again, RARELY! In an aggressive AI game, it's a common event. That's the difference.

No need to get sarky.

If you won't... I won't in the future

If they're far away, they're a non-factor. At most, all that's necessary is to ensure you have at least one intervening neighbor on your side.

You might not consider a 100 unit SOD from across the board a non factor... but I do

Maybe I foster wars more often. As I said above, part of the task here is to make sure your potential enemies don't have turns and turns without conflict during which to amass huge numbers of troops as a result of the aggessive AI setting. Since getting them to fight each other on aggessive AI is often much easier than on normal AI, it's funny how that works.

Not funny at all... it actually makes sense that that would be the case. And while I also try to foster wars, there are many times when the tricks just don't work. Heaven help you if you fall down on the power graph in a aggressive AI game

Nope, just responding to your implicit asumption (by omission) that there aren't preventative measures that can be taken.

Not quite... just about every statement you've made in your last post alone imply that you have almost absolute control, and it's an exception when you don't. You imply that you must be better at then others if they can't do the same as you imply you do I"ve never denied that preventative measures work... I do attack the implication that they almost always work. I think that's a clear over statement of reality and that the game has enough randomness to limit any control at that level.

That said, it does seem to me that I have more success in this area than you do. Or else that my play style is sufficiently different to affect the situation. Or both, maybe.

Kind of snarky... don't you think

Seems like I need to clarify/repeat what was said earlier because I did not say I never get attacked when I'm trying these strategies. What I said was to focus upon defense, killing invading units but avoiding expensive foreign wars, and using the savings to build infrastructure and focus upon tech.

Gee... now youadmit that you do get attacked. What happened to the perfect diplo solutions that always work

Now, if Blake here is saying that "dictating" = forcing the human to build at least some military, then yes I agree. But that's a ludicriously obvious statement. More accurate might be to simply say "you have to build more military on aggressive AI settings". But still, that doesn't mean you have to change to a warmonger. If he's talking about truly changing strategies, then that statement is a huge stretch to me.

Then I guess you don't see it as he did... but what does he know, he only designed the AI
He was very clear on that in all of his postings...

The "military problems" are not a boolean. There's no "avoid" or "not avoid". There's some degree of increase of possibility in military conflict, which you can plan for and compensate for, and some degree of increase in the scale of miltary conflict, which you can plan for and compensate for.

In my experience, I seem to have better success in proactive measures in most of my games on aggressive AI than your experience. So, based upon the "no ifs about it" conclusion we have just agreed to, the foregone outcome is that I have better success teching.

Gee... talk about snarky
I love how you say "some degree". The differences between aggressive vs non aggressive AI are dramitic and huge. You have sheep vs wolves. To compensate, you do need to give up something to balance the equation.

Again, no need to denigrate someone when you're having a civil discussion. I don't think I've done that to you. No intentionally for sure, and if I did unintentionally, I apologize. So knock it off please.

Only if you do... but you miss the point. Blake himself sneered at the non aggressive ai, and he designed it.

To the average player, I definitely agree.

Ahhhh... So the designer of the AI is wrong? I would rather agree with somebody who has the BEST understanding of the differences. It was quite clear in total of all his posts that he felt the aggresive AI was the best option to play no matter what level. You are always welcome to your opinion, even if the person that actually designed it disagrees with you

There are different kinds of "harder". Some people would say simply having more units to move around is "harder." Anyway, I think it's probably a much bigger discussion to talk about all the different kinds of harder and to come to some overarching conclusion about the game as a whole.

Yeah... simply ignore the designer, who added the aggressive AI option to provide the hard cores with a more balanced and more challenging game

On the other hand, the AI teching more slowly makes the game easier. That's indisputable.

What is indisputable is that the AI techs more slowly... a fact. That it makes the game easier is just an opinion, not supported by the designer. It's the balance that makes it harder. Your tech is also slowed under that option. I hope you aren't claiming that you tech at the same rate in either, while being able to maintain the larger army needed in aggressive ai. Or are you saying you can make do with the same size army regardless, and that your tech rate is the same?

The juvenile cracks are really annoying and aren't contributing to the discussion. Knock it off.

Since when is it juvenile to point out that you are indeed just cherry picking his comments? Weren't you around when Blake was posting this stuff? It was obvious what he though about the non aggressive AI. He came up with the aggressive AI option because he was disgusted with the wimpyness of the default setting. Don't you remember any of that? The fact that you are trying to cherry pick his posts to imply that he was claiming differently is just wrong.