What is more difficult?

[Ming]

If the diplo and trade discussions were balanced and realistic, I would agree with you. But they aren't. Whenever I've done a building game with no aggresive AI, it's pretty easy. With aggressive AI turned on, it's much tougher. Otherwise I just sit back and out pace the AI not worring about any of their meager potential attacks.

[slnz]

And you don't raise the difficulty level because...?

[wodan11]

In many cases, Agg AI actually makes the game easier. That's because the AI spends its time making military that may not be useful (maybe it is building ships that can't reach its enemies, or land units likewise), or military that it squanders in stupid attacks. A good defense, proper use of combined types, or good tactical layout can kill huge numbers of AI units. Meanwhile, the human can make fewer military and also devote a good chunk of time to infrastructure. All while the AI is pretty much ignoring infrastructure.

So if you can weather the attacks, you can then clean up big time because you're ahead technologically.

[Ming]

While the military civs do indeed go nuts and build units for infrastructure, the builder civs don't. This provides a a more balanced game in the long run since you get to play against both. In non agressive AI, the military civs are playing with one hand tied behind their back. They still suck at building a civ, and never pose any kind of threat.

[rah]

With aggressive AI I think it's more likely that one AI civ can become dominant and become a true challange.

[wodan11]

With aggressive AI I think it's more likely that one AI civ can become dominant and become a true challange.

Especially with vassals turned on. I've had Bismark (etc) give me a good run for my money. Pretty scary when you're sitting there minding your own business and you see one AI conquer half the world and get a new vassal every 30-40 turns or so.

[slnz]

Especially with vassals turned on. I've had Bismark (etc) give me a good run for my money. Pretty scary when you're sitting there minding your own business and you see one AI conquer half the world and get a new vassal every 30-40 turns or so.

Before the snowball gets rolling too far you're hopefully in a solid tech lead (because the enemy is fighting wars constantly) and can bribe him to peace often. Many times I end up insta-bribing a nutcase to peace a dozen times in a game just to avoid him growing too big. If the power ratio between the big guy and his prey is too big then he'll ask too much for peace.

I still don't understand using Agg AI as a replacement for playing on a harder difficulty level. Agg AI makes one aspect of the game harder (and arguably others easier) while playing on a higher level makes the game harder as a whole. As MP training with no tech trading, I guess it kind of makes sense, though.

[rah]

Actually If one gets on a roll, vassals on may hinder them because with aggresive on they'll usually finish them off giving them even more power. I had one of those games where Hannibal did own over half the world. I was shocked when I looked at the victory conditions and he was closer to a domination win then me.

[Ming]

I still don't understand using Agg AI as a replacement for playing on a harder difficulty level. Agg AI makes one aspect of the game harder (and arguably others easier) while playing on a higher level makes the game harder as a whole. As MP training with no tech trading, I guess it kind of makes sense, though.

It's a matter of "HOW" the game is harder at the highest settings. Agressive AI makes whatever level you are playing more balanced. Granted, if all you want to ever do is build, and build, and then build some more... hide behind defenses and race the AI through the tech tree while building all the wonders you desire... to each their own. I just don't see that as being much fun or much of challenge. By not playing aggressive AI, you are pretty much removing/ignoring half of what was built into the game. Even the Firaxis people state that you should play on aggressive AI if you want the true experience of the game. They claim that default setting is there to make the game easier and provide more appeal to more people and sell more games.

[Blaupanzer]

The universal newbie cry on some other forum is that the game is "too hard" with aggressive AI on. If this had been the default a lot of people would quit and not buy the expansions and next games. For experienced players, turning this on makes sense. The leaders with lower aggressive built-ins will still go for the tech race or build effective infrasructure to survive the middle game, but the player must race with all three types.

[Ming]

The leaders with lower aggressive built-ins will still go for the tech race or build effective infrasructure to survive the middle game, but the player must race with all three types.

Yes... a more balanced game... the game that the developers designed for the players.
And you are right about the noobs whining about how hard it is with aggressive AI turned on.

And actually, the true test of the game is indeed MP. No matter how good they can make the AI, the best they can do to make it competitive is to allow the AI to "Cheat" at higher levels, giving them significant advantages over their human counterparts. At least at MP, you are usually playing against somebody that knows all the same strategies that you do. You don't automatically get your favorite wonders, since others beeline to them as well. You have to be more flexible in your strategies to accomidate that fact.

When I play SP, I usually get the key wonders that compliment my Civ/land/resources. I'm not talking about wonder whoring... I'm talking about almost always getting the ones that matter. In MP games, it's not as likely... and many times it's just a matter of a few turns, which makes it more interesting

[slnz]

Granted, if all you want to ever do is build, and build, and then build some more... hide behind defenses and race the AI through the tech tree while building all the wonders you desire... to each their own.

Well... this is what boggles my mind. That's simply not true - you can't expect to hunker down and spam wonders and still expect to regularly win games, if you play on a difficulty that's challenging for you. It's not like Agg AI gives the AIs a magical edge or extra bonuses, it just makes them build more units and wage more wars (except before BtS, when it was just a flat out global hidden -2 diplo modifier). You make it sound like there's no warfare at all without Agg AI, or that the enemies don't build any units without it.

[Ming]

Hey... if you have no interest in playing the game the way the designers intended... np here. That's the nice thing about SP. You can play the game however you want. Heck, one player mentioned how he like to start new games by gifting himself a gunship SP is all about having fun, and to each their own.

And no, I've NEVER said that the with Aggresive AI off that the AI doesn't build units or ever go to war. I did say that with Aggressive AI turned off, that the AI is fighting with one arm tied behind it's back. And considering how stupid the AI fights, it needs all the help it can get. I've simply stated that it provides a more balanced game, and is what the designers intended.

[Ming]

And again, so you don't think I'm being an ass... I really do believe that people should play SP games in a manner that makes it fun for them. Because that's what SP is all about unless you are in a contest/tournament.

I now play SP in manner that most duplicates the MP experience, because that's what I'm using SP for... practice for MP. I don't expect or even wish other people to play the settings I do. They should play what they want.

But I am big believer of aggressive AI. There was much discussion originally how they made it an option instead of default solely to make the game easier for newbees... and that to truely experience a more balanced game, you needed to turn the option on. That's all I'm saying. I'm surprised anybody would think that it makes the game easier... since even the designers would disagree with that opinion.

[rah]

Actually, I thought tech trading and vassals would dominate this discussion.