NEED MORE AI AGGRESSION

from GalCiv2 Forums
My first Post. Love the potential of this game.

But the AI is not nearly aggressive enough.

DEVELOPERS: I have played 4 games now (my first and only 4 games) that I have simply abandoned by 2230 because the AI fleets are no challenge and mopping up the glaxy becomes laborious, tedious and repetitive. All I want is a game that forces me to research far enough along the tech tree so I can see some of the late game ships/weapons. Where's the challenge guys?

I am extremely happy that ver. 1.2 will have the other side firing back regardless during fleet battles. That's a good start. But it's JUST a start.

I play HUGE maps, 8 or 9 opponents, NO Tech trading. AI intelligence = gifted (econ = 125% of normal).

I have never needed to build military starbases.
I have never seen a Dread Lord ship (is that because my games are over before 2230 ends???)
I have never seen a HUGE hulled ship

I have all the save game files you could ask for to verify these representations - just ask.

You don't even have to build a military!!!! The AI won't attack you! WHERE'S THE FEAR AND TENSION OF A CATOSTROPHIC EARLY STRIKE?!?

The early game is only marginally interesting IF you're neighbouring the Drengin. Otherwise, just take your time teching-up. Then come out with 5-6 elite fleets (whenever you are ready) and wipe everything out.

I'm not bagging on the game. I see the potential. The framework is there. Just make the game more perilous! Tone down the diplomacy impacts.

!!!!Make the AI build better defenses on their ships!!!!
!!!! MAKE THE AI UPGRADE THE CRAP OUT OF THEIR STARBASES!!! I am tired of seeing the map littered with starbases that don't have ONE SINGLE module attached.

PLEEEAAAAASSSDSDSwEE!!!!!
29,409 views 50 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What difficulty are you playing at?
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In other threads people say that all the AIs are aggresors in waiting. If you don't build any military in the beginning then everybody is gonna attack you, I don't know why they don't attack you....

I don't know. There are various threads on the subject. Other suggest it is too easy and others too tough.... Try the top level for a challenge, if the level you are playing is not.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

The AI aggression level is randomized each game.

But I would want to know what difficulty the player is at.  I've seen a lot of people talk about the AI needing to be harder while playing it at normal.

Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, he did say he is playing at Gifted.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i cant survive without a mil. they always jump on you for being weak. and so what if you've never seen huge hulled ships? that depends on the tech rate, and on what direction people go on the tree, if you aim for that you can get them fairly quickly. in the new version the ai does upgrade their starbases very well too. and in the metaverse games you wont see any dreadlords, unless im mistaken, there will never been any, unless they have an extremely rare exent that lets them in. in 20 ish games, ive never seen any and i dont think they have an event like that, so you shouldnt expect them in the mv games
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think that he is right about the ai not being aggressive, in my current game on crippling the Terrans declared war on me and I didnt even know it until my frieghtor got to Earth and i got the message basicly saying "You cant trade with civs your at war with, ass" So then I take their 4 highest PQ planets in like 3 turns with the same size military, then let influence flip the rest. This happens too much I think. Alot of AIs declaring war with decent military ratings, but they just sit there or send one or two fleets or an ungaurded transport. It ould be great if the AI would declare war then just pounce. The AI seems not confident at all. declares war then waits for me to make the first move.

btw this game is large size, 7 AIs on crippling, occasional h. planets, no tech trading, stars/planets common

THIS GAME STILL ROCKS THOUGH!!!!
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think a lot of the AI aggression has to do with map size. I play gigantic maps and very very rarely do I see any races eliminated by anyone but myself. I think smaller map sizes make the AI see war as more of an option.

Maybe on larger map sizes engines should be a bit more of a priority, and distance to an enemy race should count less against war?

EDIT: I play on crippling and above aswell.


-Neb
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy:

I'm playing at CRIPPLING difficulty. And I apologize guys, I've been playing the AI at GENIUS, not GIFTED. Although, I started my first game with all the 'normal' settings and have been moving on up every game since.

Another clarification, I confess that I SOMETIMES (rarely) see a starbase with a 7/3/3 or an 8/1/1 attack rating, but nothing anywhere close to what you can do with these puppies.

Just a request for ver. 1.4 or 1.5 or whatever, whenever.

Again Frogboy, just ask for a savegame file and it's yours to verify.

Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Perhaps at higher difficulty levels the AI aggression needs to be biased to being higher.  Hard to say.

I played a game today (medium map) and it was constant war. I think the distances are a big part of it. If they're really far from you, they don't tend to care too much about your territory.

Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


I think a lot of the AI aggression has to do with map size. I play gigantic maps and very very rarely do I see any races eliminated by anyone but myself. I think smaller map sizes make the AI see war as more of an option.


I'm glad you raised this point. When I talk about AI not attacking me even though I have essentially zero military (until late 2227 usually), by no means should that suggest that the AI isn't beating the crap out of each other. In my current game (CRIPPLING, GENIUS), the Drengins and Altarians were at war since mid 2225. By 2229 The Drengins had ships with 78 mass driver attacks and the average Altarian ship had a beam attack of 10.

HOW CAN A WAR LIKE THIS LAST FOR 3-4 YEARS??? The Drengins were technologically superior from the get-go. I finally had to step in and wipe out the Altarians to put this ridiculous situation out of its misery. I took all 10 Altarian planets in 2 turns once I had my forces positioned.

In summary... in my opinion, this AI does NOT know how to close the deal. It's great at running around after freighters and attacking the occasional starbase. But it sucks when it comes to letting troop transports fly around the place unescorted (or escorted by weak ships which provide no real resistance). TEACH THE AI TO SEAL THE DEAL - clear the planets in orbit and then land a transport within 3 turns. That'll smart!

Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm not sure I like the idea that aggression is randomised from game to game. You don't know what kind of game you're going to get then until you're a long way through. Personally I don't like peaceful games, since it makes it too easy for me to just sit there and hit the turn button. Obviously I could start a war myself, but if no-one attacks you themselves it takes the tension away. So I don't like the fact that sometimes I play a really long game and find it ultimately disappointing - presumably because the AI aggression randomly came out low. Maybe it shouldn't be randomised, or maybe it should be an option.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I played a game today (medium map) and it was constant war. I think the distances are a big part of it. If they're really far from you, they don't tend to care too much about your territory.


I guess I can try that, however, my thinking was that IF you play a huge galaxy, that the attrition would last longer and you'd have to rely on end-game techs to finally tip the balance.

I guess I just love the detail of the game and wanted a really cool 2 or 3 week experience. Not an afternoon exscursion. THE REASON I'M PLAYING TURN-BASED is because I want that depth of strategy. Give it to me! The tools are there, just turn 'em on!



Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Perhaps at higher difficulty levels the AI aggression needs to be biased to being higher. Hard to say.

I played a game today (medium map) and it was constant war. I think the distances are a big part of it. If they're really far from you, they don't tend to care too much about your territory.


I see this as a problem. Just because its a gigantic map doesn't mean war should be out the window. The distance factor in deciding whether war is an option or not should be scaled with the map. This of course means nothing on its own, as even in late game the AI builds ships that are far too slow to be effective in offense on larger maps.

The game is very good, on smaller sized maps.. unfortunately the AI is still using small scale tactics on huge and gigantic maps.

-Neb
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Perhaps at higher difficulty levels the AI aggression needs to be biased to being higher. Hard to say.

I played a game today (medium map) and it was constant war. I think the distances are a big part of it. If they're really far from you, they don't tend to care too much about your territory.


I see this as a problem. Just because its a gigantic map doesn't mean war should be out the window. The distance factor in deciding whether war is an option or not should be scaled with the map. This of course means nothing on its own, as even in late game the AI builds ships that are far too slow to be effective in offense on larger maps.

The game is very good, on smaller sized maps.. unfortunately the AI is still using small scale tactics on huge and gigantic maps.

-Neb
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Perhaps an option where the player gets to choose the aggression of the AI, or randomize it just like you can galactic creation. Personally, my experience has been the AI is very aggressive on any level of map I've played on. But that could be because I just don't build military till required to. Tough setting, so no gimped AI either.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Been lurking here for a long time but this topic caught my attention.

I,ve played many games, always leveling up intelligence from the next, usually 9 ai on medium map. The games a lot of fun but i never truly feel like i'm in too much danger with the ai. I also think the ai cauld be more aggressive or more focused on mopping my territory when they wage war on me.

What game settings would you recommend for a more aggressive game play?

Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Medium maps are my favorite.  Tight clusters are NOT your friend.

The setup options are designed to let people have as much control of things as they can.

I suspect a lot of people start it up on tight clusters on a huge map, turtle in and build up and then go across the entire map with armadas. And that's fine. But it woudl require the AI to have a very high aggression level to do anythign about it.

I think in the mid to long term the "solution" to this kind of thing would be:

1) The new 1.11 option "Allow AI to use more CPU"

2) Have aggression be settable by the player

3) Custom maps.

I get a lot of saved games sent to me and we can tell how many times Cltr-N has been used and in *every* case I've seen, Ctrl-N was used at least twice to create the perfect map for the human player.  And again, this is fine but it's disgenuous when those same players talk about how "easy" it is when they simply waited until they got a tight cluster with a bunch of good worlds while the AIs ended up in isolated pockets.

But the biggest solution will be the AI CPU option.  Because coordinating a huge unit strategy like that is very CPU intensive.

The other thing players should do is keep upping the difficulty level.

Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the problem might be that the AI doesnt want to win. It only wants to survive. It wont go out of its way to take territory if they dont have motivation.
The AI should be able to beat you to a win of any kind. It doesnt try to get those diplomatic, influence or tech victory (can they even do that?). Come to think of it, it plays exactly like a human who doesnt have a game plan.

When I start a game, I have a plan which dictates long term and short term goals. But anyway it goes, I try to drive the game offensively. Being offensive doesnt necessirely mean agressive; it means actively going for the win. So if I want diplomatic, I go for the right techs and i trade like crazy, I make alliances as soon as possible, etc.

PS: A problem with AI agressiveness might come from the new 1.1 consideration of being ganged-up upon if perceived as an agressor...
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I get a lot of saved games sent to me and we can tell how many times Cltr-N has been used and in *every* case I've seen, Ctrl-N was used at least twice to create the perfect map for the human player.


Let me assure you frogboy, I am NOT one of those people.

I'm 35 and I want a true challenge. My ego allows me to lose.

I don't EVER reload my games when a game event goes against me. If I do, the game is marred and I have to pitch it out the window. One 'convenient' reload and the whole experience is ruined for me. I gotta know it's pure.

PS. I like Japata's suggestion. AI's can't just sit around being CLOSE/WARM/FRIENDLY with you when you're eliminating civ after civ...regardless of ethical alignment.

Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy (Stardock) Monday, May 08, 2006 9:18 PM : The other thing players should do is keep upping the difficulty level.


The A. "I". doesn't get any smarter then : it eventually "cheats" by getting quantitative bonuses. It's only a quick fix, a superficial substitute for lack of heuristic metaprogramming (no offense intended).

The core of this thread is that the better players want an effectively "intelligent" warmonger A.I.

If you really care, you still have a lot of A.I. design work to do, Mr Wardell.

Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the problem might be that the AI doesnt want to win.


I think you are correct. I used to play a lot of computer chess, nothing like big blue of course but still capable of playing a fair game. The computer basically played a game of attrition and the odds of losing to the computer increased as long as you let that kind of game go on.

Best catch the AI while the game is as complex as possible and screw up it's progarm. I think this is probably the startegy of most of the players winning at high difficulty levels.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
AI is too passive with 1.1. I'll try the medium maps. First game was on Normal, all else were on Intelligent. AI sits there. I even changed every race's loyalty to 200. They still build embassies--many embassies. When losing the AIs Embassy build themselves to death. Does the AI even know that I have all victory conditions off, so it is conquest by default? So they HAVE to attack me/other races AND beat them to win. AI just sits there. I play Scattered Clusters/ Rare Habitable Planets/Uncommon Anomalies/ 4 to 5 AI players and Yor/Drengin/Arcean are always there. Large to Gigantic maps. I'm puzzled by the "The Case for No Multiplayer" thread since I don't see this great AI. AI needs work. I see the game's potential. I care. That's why I'm posting. Here's a link to my post at Paradox: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5358514#post5358514.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm certainly somebody who hits ctrl-n a few times before a game to find what looks to be a balanced game. I always like to give the ai a little more, this does help. I think the map editor will really help just like Alterian Prophecy, had some great games because of this feature. As it stands, i don't panic enough when the ai wages war on me in Gal Civ2. Ai just needs a little more focus on my destruction!

A game i enjoyed in the past SMAC. The ai ganged up to bring you down when you became to strong and concured to much, it was relenteless. I wonder if this could be an option?



Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Best catch the AI while the game is as complex as possible and screw up it's progarm. I think this is probably the startegy [sic] of most of the players winning at high difficulty levels.


I doubt it. I don't see the AI doing anything incredible at Intelligent level. It just sits there. It probably sits there at higher levels too, if the "random aggression factor" (which I just learned about) is low. How can you not beat it when the AI refuses to do anything? What does it matter if the AI has a 200% Economic bonus and can see the map, but just sits there?

Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Odd that people can have such different experiences. My very first game out of the box, I got squished (of course, I was just learning how to play again after GalCiv1). More recently, I haven't lost as much, but in the game I'm currently playing, I did have a planet successfully invaded by the Yor. Of course, now I'm squishing the humans and will probably proceed to squish the rest of the galaxy too. We'll see.

I agree that the "AI needs work." But honestly what is that saying? Yes, of course the AI needs work. THe fact is that the GalCiv2 AI is ten times better than most other "AI's" out there. The only reason other games might be harder on their highest difficulty is that the AI is cheating even more heavily than the AI in GalCiv2 cheats at the higher difficulties.

I think that some suggestions in this thread are quite good -- concrete suggestions (like the aggressiveness discussion) that can be used by Brad and co. to make the AI better. But to just say "the AI needs work" isn't very helpful. I just reread and read about 6 years of a webcomic called Schlock Mercenary. In that universe, AIs are so many times smarter than human beings, that AIs run the ships and the humans just tell them what to do (like "Beat the enemy" and the AI does the rest). We're a LONG way from that, so let's try to give poor Stardock a break. This game is exceedingly complicated for a poor little set of algorithims to be as good as a human player. I have every confidence that the AI will continue to be improved and adapted. Just keep the constructive criticism coming and Brad will hopefully do his best to implement what he feels should be implemented.