[0.991] AI expansion

from Elemental Forums

AI expansion is very bad now. My settings: expert, average map, 3 opponents. In my current game 2 sovereigns have 1 settlement, 1 sovereign has 2 settlements on season 39. I have 6 settlements. I created 2 another games with the same settings. Test 1: on season 51 opponents have 1, 1 and 4 settlements respectively. Test 2: on season 50 opponents have 2, 2 and 2 settlements respectively. Imho AI expansion is very slow now in comparison to old version.

Screenshots:

My game - season 39: Ythril and Gilden have 1 settlement each, Magnar has 2 settlements, I (Tarth) have 6 settlements.

 

Test 1 - Season 51: Kraxis and Altair have 1 settlement, Pariden has 4 settlements (see minimap).

 

Test 2 - Season 50: Gilden, Yithril and Pariden have 2 settlements each (see minimap).

6,647 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

I've seen this too, but more settlements isn't always better so it's not necessarily a bad thing, though I agree the AI is bit too meek now in claiming land. It IS a good thing they don't settle next to dragon lairs anymore though.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

The problem you can expand too fast, because opponents don't hinder you.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top


This has come full circle now...

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

In my 0.992 game, the AI is still expanding a bit aggressively on Challenging, frustrating to the point that I've reduced the number of AI players to 2 on a Large map.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

In my current .992 game I have 2 towns, and the other AI's I've encountered have 4 each.  On this map my starting location looked great, but I had to travel a LONG way to find fertile ground for my second town.

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

On my last game i was about 75 or so seasons in and I had 2 towns founded by me and another civ had a good 7 or so because I slowly started taking them. I kept finding more and more. 

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

It's a problem of difficulty. That extremist expansion AI we had in beta 4 needs to be standard for each race on hard and above. Below that, let the AI only have a few cities. The problem is that there are light users and more competitive users. I prefer a tooth and nail fight for territory with monsters having the final say in who lives or dies. Light users should be able to expand at their leisure if they are having fun just playing the game. For me, it makes it hard to justify war on my allies if my people do not covet their land. Anyhow, no AI should have the mentality to build up a few towns early on. The current balance intends a level 3 city to be about as good as a level 1 city on many levels. Technology more than anything decides city level anyhow. Towns and growth bonuses pale in comparison to the Sov prestige bonus, making every city level to the current food limits. I wish things were different, but until they are more cities is better and on hard or expert, the AI had damn well better know that.

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 9
It's a problem of difficulty. That extremist expansion AI we had in beta 4 needs to be standard for each race on hard and above. Below that, let the AI only have a few cities. The problem is that there are light users and more competitive users. I prefer a tooth and nail fight for territory with monsters having the final say in who lives or dies. Light users should be able to expand at their leisure if they are having fun just playing the game. For me, it makes it hard to justify war on my allies if my people do not covet their land. Anyhow, no AI should have the mentality to build up a few towns early on. The current balance intends a level 3 city to be about as good as a level 1 city on many levels. Technology more than anything decides city level anyhow. Towns and growth bonuses pale in comparison to the Sov prestige bonus, making every city level to the current food limits. I wish things were different, but until they are more cities is better and on hard or expert, the AI had damn well better know that.
End of seanw3's quote

 

If the "extremist AI expansion" is better than a passive expansion then challenging should have that also since its supposed to have the best algorithms.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 9
It's a problem of difficulty. That extremist expansion AI we had in beta 4 needs to be standard for each race on hard and above. Below that, let the AI only have a few cities. The problem is that there are light users and more competitive users. I prefer a tooth and nail fight for territory with monsters having the final say in who lives or dies. Light users should be able to expand at their leisure if they are having fun just playing the game. For me, it makes it hard to justify war on my allies if my people do not covet their land. Anyhow, no AI should have the mentality to build up a few towns early on. The current balance intends a level 3 city to be about as good as a level 1 city on many levels. Technology more than anything decides city level anyhow. Towns and growth bonuses pale in comparison to the Sov prestige bonus, making every city level to the current food limits. I wish things were different, but until they are more cities is better and on hard or expert, the AI had damn well better know that.
End of seanw3's quote

 

Absolutely right. Under 0.992 hard and expert AI expansion is definitely too slow (in comparison to the other parameters of this difficulty settings). The AI is much better in other aspects now, but if you can easily outrun them with your cities and population, they have no chance in the endgame.

This has always been true for nearly all 4X games and will ever be: A slow start means an early death.

If you change to ridiculous and insane settings, the other parameters are so overwhelming that "iron man mode" is no longer fun.

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

I played a game recently that the AI wasn't doing shit.  I didn't fight any battles with them and just noticed that they weren't expanding quickly and just kind of fucking around.  I was starting to get pissed, what the fuck did Brad do to the AI in the last patch!!!  And then I restarted and noted that somehow, even though my world difficulty was on hard, I had accidently set the faction AI's to easy.  I felt kind of stupid...

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Maybe your eyepatch got in the way. Or were you watching my little pony in the background?

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Both...

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top


I don't know what is going on with your game, but in my game each AI has 6 cities apiece... I only have 3 (but that is because I ended up with a really bad start).

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

I have been playing Ridiculous, and frankly, it is a bit harder than it should be for me to enjoy it.  I mean, I have won the last game, but it was a struggle 'till the end, and not in a nice way.  When your level 12 units with 80 dodge are barely the equal to enemy's level 4 crappily designed infantry, it's hard to enjoy yourself.

On the other hand, the level beneath ridiculous is trivial when I play the way I play on ridiculous (custom race, wealthy sovereign) and not that challenging when I playeded with Gilden and Resoln.  I did not finish those three games, but when you meet AIs at 1/3 your power, it's not fun.

So, right now, I am trying to fine tune a setting so that I enjoy it. I just think that the five (very good) free traits on ridiculous kill enjoyment.  When a basic militia need battlefield tactics for a level 6 sovereign, a level 4 hero and a leatherclad, shieldbearing Krax sprearman to handle, there's something wrong.

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

A skilled player must make the transition from vanilla gaming to modded gaming to continue to progress. The lesson you learn from ridiculous is that winning is not always possible. It must be there to push the player into the realm of mods. Perhaps you should begin making some custom difficulties that increase the challenge, but still play by the basic rules you do? Perhaps the exploits you use to win can be modified into intentional strategies? Making counters to your most powerful strategies is how the game evolves and gains depth. As the game evolves so does the player. Then you realize the player is the game and the game is the player.

Soon you will come to see things my way.

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm not seeing expansion issues with insane world and expert faction AI. I'm in a competitive game at the moment. I always play vanilla sovs, unless playing HF's Stormworld. Currently playing as Tarth. Enjoying this one!

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Tuidjy,

Copy \FallenEnchantress\data\English\ElementalDefs.xml to \My Documents\My Games\FallenEnchantress\Mods\Data\

and edit the following lines in the Mod copy:


10:         <PlayerStartingPopulation>2.0</PlayerStartingPopulation>


193:         <MinTurnsBeforeUnitsDesert>2</MinTurnsBeforeUnitsDesert>


302:         <ReviveSovereignManaPercentageCost>0.9</ReviveSovereignManaPercentageCost>


304:         <ReviveChampionImmobilizationMultiplier>1</ReviveChampionImmobilizationMultiplier>


452:         <CreaturesMoveLimit>10</CreaturesMoveLimit>

 

Note that the last line used to be set at 1: your strategic map just got interesting.

 

=]