Making the game harder on Impossible

[Hassat Hunter]

*cough* Dwarf Fortress *cough* Minecraft *cough* I am sure the millions of players each have are due to state-of-the-art graphics, right?

Anyways, yes, the AI's focus on mana kind of hampers their having of gold. Also they seem rather fond of updating the wrong units with enchantments. On normal I saw the AI enchanting summoned rats (which stood still doing nothing) with a lot of buffs while the exploring rogues got nothing...

 

[unmerged(493757)]

AI income (especially gold and mana) is not normal in impossible, it's few or maybe several times higher than a player with same number of city and identical modifiers, the only cause why AI doesn't rebuild their number very fast after they are decimated is because the AI is not programmed to do that and the amount of time they need to retrain their units is the same as human player, proof of income rate? how come they can cast unity any time after you cancel it, compare it with lower difficulty AI, after several cancels they don't cast it anymore, you can test it yourself, this prove to us that their income is higher than normal rate. Why a human player uber unit can decimate AI numbers easily is because AI never dispell buff, wait till the next update come, i'm sure it will be just unbuffed units vs unbuffed units, in this case those that has higher number will have very good advantage (in this case, it's the AI), well, unless we choose Dauros.

I believe i said in my first post that those 50+ are from 2 AI at once, each use about 30-40 units (50+ is actually lower than their actual number), 80% cutthroats, 15-20% clerics. Then two more AI declare war in the next turn with all their units already in my border (also have same number but with slightly less perk resource), i have only monster cities, with just 1 human town, no undead town so far. Spell wise, the combat buffs i got won't be enough against assault from 4 direction at once as does damage spells or summon spells, yes it's total land map, with my position in the center of those four, with so few perk resources, while they got awesome perk resource and probably more, the thing is each direction has about 20-30+ units, my wolf of helia or troll (even old troll) can't even take on 2 cutthroat due to perk resources difference, i can set them all to defend to made it attrition war, but due to sheer number and perks difference i still lost. As a side note, i use default GM, so no modifying points, no summon spam, no initial koatl village, no powerful lord.

Actually, human player can gather around 1500-2k+ gold at turn 40, of course it depends on the frequency of the quest and starting resource and lootable site, we never know how much initial gold the AI got in impossible. But to create 30 cutthroat, you need only 2400, if you buy 30 scout first, you need another 600, total is 3k, 3k is easy for AI in impossible. For another 10-15 cleric they need about 1k-1,5k, this is also easy for them, actually they have several rangers but they don't use those to assault me.

Perking all those unit to full perk is impossible for AI at turn 40 even with bonus income and higher rate income, and each AI in my case doesn't fully perk their unit with all available perk they have. But which is the best perk if you have huge number of spamable units? weapon perk or anything that add damage, defensive perks is better saved for high quality unit, that's the perks that those AI use, most of their unit has silver weapon and fine armor (half of them got masterwork armor), around 10 has elemental weapon perk, this perk (silver weapon) is very cheap, to perk 40 unit AI just need 2k gold, and it is easy for them, the amount of gold they need is around 6k, it's fairly possible for AI in impossible.

How can a human player win a war of attrition against 4 AI that has around 20-30 units at striking simultaneously, a total of 100+ units, with each unit has silver weapon+fine armor, half of them has masterwork armor, several of them has elemental weapon, 2 of those 4 AI use cleric spam + rogue & cutthroat as fodder in the front, if that player has only elemental weapon and fine armor as its best perk, no protection amulets & silver brewery (defense against element), no ghost armor (to defend against spirit & life damage), even there is no masterwork armor. Weapon wise, the player only got elemental weapon which is 100 gold. AI doesn't need to fully perk up each of its unit if they have number and 3 other AI as its ally, they need only weapon perk, especially silver weapon, its strategy is similar to human player rogue/cutthroat spam with human faction, human player just need rogue/cutthroat and a silver weapon to quickly win the game.

Perhaps there is an unfair randomizing in terms of perk resource in this case, but most of the time player got most of the perk resources while not even one AI can have all of perk resources. As i've said above, the number of exotic perk resource should be increased to counter this.

AI often doesn't perk up their units, most player said this is because of its inability to do that, but this is actually because of the unfair randomizing of the perk resource. The spread of the perk resource is the best at map that is 100% land.

AI has bonus initial gold, they also has higher income rate, their weaknesses are they don't reinforce as fast as player and like to war with other AI without prioritizing at the most dangerous threat. My case is the example that if the AI concentrate their effort on single cause at the same time, they are formidable, of course this is because their initial bonus and higher rate income, but AI need to be given those bonus, however like UncleJJ said above if AI has learned to prioritize, perhaps their bonus should be toned down slightly to avoid gang up or Dogpilling against player (in single player game).

The Point is, my case indicate that there is a state in WMotA AI algorithm that program them to prioritize, albeit it is a gang up type, developer should look at this state and modify its value so that this happens more frequently. Then increase the AI capability to reinforce their numbers. AI capability to dispell will be added in the next update. However AI diplomacy capability require massive change i think. If AI can reach all these states, it will give us epic war. The total number of exotic resource in main world should be increased too, this will make most AI have the same perks as player.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't think they get an income boost.
They just start with a lot of mana, build only mana cities, and cast long cheap spells (like summon ghost wolves and such). Generating lots of mana per turn, so they easily have, like 25K by turn 160.

I don't agree with making "exotic" perks more common. It's a reason they're "exotic"... making them as common as iron would kind of ruin the speciality of it... I would be more in line with some suggestions of making such 'alternate plane only', not making them common...

 

[unmerged(495697)]

How can a human player win a war of attrition against 4 AI that has around 20-30 units at striking simultaneously, a total of 100+ units, with each unit has silver weapon+fine armor, half of them has masterwork armor, several of them has elemental weapon, 2 of those 4 AI use cleric spam + rogue & cutthroat as fodder in the front, if that player has only elemental weapon and fine armor as its best perk, no protection amulets & silver brewery (defense against element), no ghost armor (to defend against spirit & life damage), even there is no masterwork armor. Weapon wise, the player only got elemental weapon which is 100 gold. AI doesn't need to fully perk up each of its unit if they have number and 3 other AI as its ally, they need only weapon perk, especially silver weapon, its strategy is similar to human player rogue/cutthroat spam with human faction, human player just need rogue/cutthroat and a silver weapon to quickly win the game.

Firstly i'd like to point out that I do agree with you on the part that the sort of behaviour you described should be seen more often.

To this part though I have to point out that your building a completely fictious game which someone completely failed at apparently and then claiming it can't be fought. Firstly if the AI has had the chance to get any perks at all on it's units, then the player should be able to get at least as much, so let's not kid ourselves with giving the comp all the basic buffs spread around on a hundred units (when did 50 units morph into a hundred by the way?) and zero buffs for player. This never happens. Also hey let's coincidentally have 4 computer players have the same idea at the same time, which usually only happens once in ten games to one AI, if even that often. And then claim that war of attrition is not effective. Well no shit. You shouldn't be able to fight that.

Now all that being said, if you're outnumbered by only about 4 to 1 (please tell me this incompetent you have as a player at least managed to match the troops of one AI) then yes, you can win a war of attrition even assuming equal perks for both sides. The AI is completely incapable of making a decent concave with it's units, so at worst you're fighting a portion of their army at a time, which is a damn good time to fight while retreating, use bottle-necks and terrain and always pull back injured units where possible, using healing spells and regen to your advantage. Also, this here is the optimal chance to use those shiny aoe spells that units like court werewolves use.

It can be done. It would be hard though, but hella fun. Which I suppose is what we're all asking.

 

[GamingFather]

How about giving neutrals more hitpoints/damage on higher difficulties? That is a simple thing that would make the game tougher. We need lots of other stuff too of course, but its a small start.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

I don't mind they have more hit point and damage, it's the easiest way indeed, but i bet most other player here will mind.

Firstly i'd like to point out that I do agree with you on the part that the sort of behaviour you described should be seen more often.

To this part though I have to point out that your building a completely fictious game which someone completely failed at apparently and then claiming it can't be fought. Firstly if the AI has had the chance to get any perks at all on it's units, then the player should be able to get at least as much, so let's not kid ourselves with giving the comp all the basic buffs spread around on a hundred units (when did 50 units morph into a hundred by the way?) and zero buffs for player. This never happens. Also hey let's coincidentally have 4 computer players have the same idea at the same time, which usually only happens once in ten games to one AI, if even that often. And then claim that war of attrition is not effective. Well no shit. You shouldn't be able to fight that.

Now all that being said, if you're outnumbered by only about 4 to 1 (please tell me this incompetent you have as a player at least managed to match the troops of one AI) then yes, you can win a war of attrition even assuming equal perks for both sides. The AI is completely incapable of making a decent concave with it's units, so at worst you're fighting a portion of their army at a time, which is a damn good time to fight while retreating, use bottle-necks and terrain and always pull back injured units where possible, using healing spells and regen to your advantage. Also, this here is the optimal chance to use those shiny aoe spells that units like court werewolves use.

It can be done. It would be hard though, but hella fun. Which I suppose is what we're all asking.

Yes, with equal perks, without equal perks, there is no way you can win 4v1, read, at turn 40, no good spell yet, not even regeneration, no early game aoe which is firestorm or ice ring can damage units that have silver brewery + protection amulet, actually it can but only 2-3 damage against units that have 25-30 hp (rangers/hunters, cutthroats,clerics). Sure terrain is useful, but what if you are bordered by 4 AI from 4 direction, when you discover one AI, the next turn your widescreen (unzoomed) is flooded with units in all its hexes, one AI declare war, then 3 other follows in the next 2-4 turn, if you can count, or even have insight to count, it is approximately at 30-50 units already crowd at the perimeter of your border, that's just from 1 AI, short word, at one turn AI can attack 1 unit with 5-6 units because it already surround that unit, next turn it is gone (it is already in defend state), of course those defending units can retreat but that means they will leave cities undefended, retreat means losing the game faster, no war of attrition, perhaps i was wrong that i said it as war of attrition, actually it is genocide, it is 100+ units already stationed at the perimeter of your border, what is worse is there are no empty hexes, all hexes is occupied with units as wide and tall as your widescreen without any zooming (out and in) with 1360x768 res. which all of them are non summoned units.

Once again, i never said that the AI should replicate it with 100% similarity, i said that such a state can be made to happen more frequently with several modified variables which in short words means giving that fun we all want.

I don't think they get an income boost.
They just start with a lot of mana, build only mana cities, and cast long cheap spells (like summon ghost wolves and such). Generating lots of mana per turn, so they easily have, like 25K by turn 160.

I don't agree with making "exotic" perks more common. It's a reason they're "exotic"... making them as common as iron would kind of ruin the speciality of it... I would be more in line with some suggestions of making such 'alternate plane only', not making them common...

I admit, income boost is just a speculation in my part, i've tried to do the math every time i play, i even played other difficulty to compare it with each other, their unity casting behavior are different. There are other factor that cause it, that's why i'm still experimenting about this.

add:
Indeed, that is why they are exotic, but if you look at the AI, i don't know about most of your games though, but mine usually prove that AI rarely get exotic resource in their territory, not because they don't build the required building, but they don't have the resource node. The war is too one sided even if you declare war to all 8 AI at once, you can just send few uber unit (with no buffs, just all perks) that will decimate them, it's not fun anymore (ok it is tolerable at lower difficulty, but this happens on impossible difficulty which is supposed to be the hardest difficulty), this week i even go back to civ 5 trying its new expansion because of this.

This doesn't only concern about AI though. If you look at this game, there are 2 things that is randomized. Resource placement, and spells, actually 3 if you add neutral and monster placement, but this is not as important as those 2. What i fear is a situation which a player get the unlucky draw on both Resource placement and spells. Bad Resource placement can be countered with good results in spell research randomize or vice versa, short words, they exist to balance each other. But there is a possibility of a worst case scenario, like what i mentioned early. This can have impact on that poor player, especially in multiplayer game, if you look at other game of the same genre, like civilization, they don't have many variables that is randomized like WMotA (civ only has resource placement).

Which is why i suggest to increase the number of exotic resource, but there is other alternative which is the complete opposite, such as modifying the randomizing code, when the result is too unfair, the map is regenerated, the downside is it will put a strain on the PC, such as the possibility to cause long initial loading.

This too is just a speculation, we need multiplayer patch to confirm it, whether the worst case will greatly impact the game or not.

 

[unmerged(495697)]

Yes, with equal perks, without equal perks, there is no way you can win 4v1, read, at turn 40, no good spell yet, not even regeneration, no early game aoe which is firestorm or ice ring can damage units that have silver brewery + protection amulet, actually it can but only 2-3 damage against units that have 25-30 hp (rangers/hunters, cutthroats,clerics). Sure terrain is useful, but what if you are bordered by 4 AI from 4 direction, when you discover one AI, the next turn your widescreen (unzoomed) is flooded with units in all its hexes, one AI declare war, then 3 other follows in the next 2-4 turn, if you can count, or even have insight to count, it is approximately at 30-50 units already crowd at the perimeter of your border, that's just from 1 AI, short word, at one turn AI can attack 1 unit with 5-6 units because it already surround that unit, next turn it is gone (it is already in defend state), of course those defending units can retreat but that means they will leave cities undefended, retreat means losing the game faster, no war of attrition, perhaps i was wrong that i said it as war of attrition, actually it is genocide, it is 100+ units already stationed at the perimeter of your border, what is worse is there are no empty hexes, all hexes is occupied with units as wide and tall as your widescreen without any zooming (out and in) with 1360x768 res. which all of them are non summoned units.

Once again, i never said that the AI should replicate it with 100% similarity, i said that such a state can be made to happen more frequently with several modified variables which in short words means giving that fun we all want.

So wait you're telling me that 4 AI had armies, that you usually see only on late game AI even one them, with perks that you usually never see on AI more than one at a time, they all perfectly concaved those armies on your borders at the same time, which you didn't notice, and they all pretty much attacked you at the same time which you did nothing about (like say paying off one of them when they demand something) and all this by turn 40? And you had what against that? Also did they have several perks or not on all of them? Cuz you mention protection amulets from gems (a rare resource most of the time, so they really can't all 4 have it) and silver brewery against spells (which of course you cant aim at the units without the perks, cuz that wouldn't be sporting, right?) and they also all seem to have silver weapons and maybe two armor upgrades too? At turn 40? With 25+ units a piece? On four different AI? Do excuse me if I think you're slightly full of horse puckey.

Also for the record, I did say unit aoe. Like you know what the court werewolves use. You know the ones you most likely used to get those wolves of helia you mentioned having earlier. Which also have cleave by the way. Those are really spiffy for killing of weak but numerous units. like say healers and cutthroats. If they're all that clumped up, then a pair of court wolfies will kill off 9 enemy units per cooldown, even assuming you don't use terrain bonuses. If you do catch them on lava or swamp, you can one shot those 9 in one casting. And yes, waging a war of attrition means you lose cities. Specifically you're going to let them go to low hp and then raze them yourself to deny them from enemies. Preferably with a throwaway unit like a spearman inside to give the city extra power, assuming you have a couple to spare. That's kinda the whole point. You make them lose 3 or 4 units for every one you lose. And honestly, the cities you lose will be pretty easy to replace in this game. Your capitol will be awesome for defense. That's what the aoe is there for. Smack a unit with regen like a werewolf or a troll inside, and it'll take them like 10 turn to kill the city off even with full surround. Which by the way you shouldn't be allowing in the first place. At which point, they should all be dead anyway.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

I think you just think that this very rare case is the same like your usual games which is also my usual games, because you clearly state many things that happens in my usual games.

If you are so inclined to know every detail of my case, ok, i'll explain detail by detail.

So wait you're telling me that 4 AI had armies, that you usually see only on late game AI even one them, with perks that you usually never see on AI more than one at a time, they all perfectly concaved those armies on your borders at the same time, which you didn't notice, and they all pretty much attacked you at the same time which you did nothing about (like say paying off one of them when they demand something) and all this by turn 40? And you had what against that? Also did they have several perks or not on all of them? Cuz you mention protection amulets from gems (a rare resource most of the time, so they really can't all 4 have it) and silver brewery against spells (which of course you cant aim at the units without the perks, cuz that wouldn't be sporting, right?) and they also all seem to have silver weapons and maybe two armor upgrades too? At turn 40? With 25+ units a piece? On four different AI? Do excuse me if I think you're slightly full of horse puckey.

Also for the record, I did say unit aoe. Like you know what the court werewolves use. You know the ones you most likely used to get those wolves of helia you mentioned having earlier. Which also have cleave by the way. Those are really spiffy for killing of weak but numerous units. like say healers and cutthroats. If they're all that clumped up, then a pair of court wolfies will kill off 9 enemy units per cooldown, even assuming you don't use terrain bonuses. If you do catch them on lava or swamp, you can one shot those 9 in one casting. And yes, waging a war of attrition means you lose cities. Specifically you're going to let them go to low hp and then raze them yourself to deny them from enemies. Preferably with a throwaway unit like a spearman inside to give the city extra power, assuming you have a couple to spare. That's kinda the whole point. You make them lose 3 or 4 units for every one you lose. And honestly, the cities you lose will be pretty easy to replace in this game. Your capitol will be awesome for defense. That's what the aoe is there for. Smack a unit with regen like a werewolf or a troll inside, and it'll take them like 10 turn to kill the city off even with full surround. Which by the way you shouldn't be allowing in the first place. At which point, they should all be dead anyway.

First things first, each player have their own rules, in my case, no diplomacy, no demand, no asking anything to end war, that is one of my rules. So i won't pay anything to end the war, what i'm after is epic war. Basically i could've stopped all 4 war easily if i bribe them or agree on their demand, but that against my rules, and, in all my impossible games, i never saw AI muster such amount of troops in turn 40, in most of them it's just 1/3 or 1/4 of it, with much less perks.

And no, they don't concave it at the same turn, first it's just one AI, and at turn 40, like i said, i just spotted a unit, bam, you discover another great mage message pop, then i end that turn, that GM ask for a war, in my rules, i must accept it, even if the price they demand is very irrelevant. In all my other games, i win easily, with any kind of strategy. Then next turn i got swarmed by the number i mentioned, still i can take on all of them. The 2nd GM is discovered right at the same turn the 1st declare war, the next turn he follows, the next 2 turn 3rd and 4th AI is discovered and at the same time the 2nd AI declare war, again i bribe it because it's against my rules and i still can beat both of them, then next turn the 2nd AI swarmed from above, i can still win but the next turn 3rd and 4th AI begin amassing in other side of my empire, i knew they will declare war on me, at first i thought only 2 AI that has such number, but i was wrong, they too had the same number. Turns out i was in the center, i suspect that those AI originally intended to use those troop to war with other AI, but they seem to discover me simultaneously, and the broken diplomatic thinking of the AI made the 1st declare war, by my code i must not reject, then the next follows its footstep, by turn 50, they already swarming.

I had what against what? i had only iron and magic node for resource node, ok well, i have 1 pig, and 1 gold too, and 1 oly site. 2 AI has silver, magic node, nevril, adamantium, gem, the other 2 had similar resource plus labyrinth, minus adamantium and nevril. Gem is rare yes, but do you read that it happens 1 out of 50 game in impossible difficulty, it is possible to happen that all of them have gem, actually the number of gem in huge map is varied, i've seen a max of 6 node in original world (ardania) in one of my game. In this one, i didn't know what is the maximum number gem node in ardania, but 4 of them that assault me had it. Yes, they (all 4) do have masterwork and fine armor, and both silver weapons and silver brewery, which never happens in all my game except this one, AI lack the ability to take advantage of combining race specific perk (silver weapon+brewery), even in all my game except this one they never have both silver perks at the same time at single unit.

As i've mentioned it, if my WoH or old troll attack, in the next turn they will be gone, i even tried it because i don't trust my calculation, then i'm forced to reload the save which against my rules (but i ignore it this time because i want to see how it turns out in the end), 1 unit of an AI can hit approximately at 8-10 (clerics and cutthroat can reach 11-14) damage without crits, with such a swarm, i'm forced to use defend, also they even manage to kill my old troll from full hp at defense state in 1 turn (20 hp regen is useless if it is killed in 1 turn), because they also have ranged unit, if they only have melee unit, only 6 melee units can attack a unit, but the case is different with ranged unit. Now, how often AI can kill an old troll in 1 turn, it never happens in all my games, just this one which is just 1 out of 50 ish, so it's fair enough imo. But is it impossible for just 1 AI to kill an old troll at defense mode in 1 turn if they have variety of units (melee+range) that occupy all hexes at 1360x768 without any zooming in and out? No, it is very possible, though i only experienced it 1 out of all my 50 ish games on impossible, this proved to me the other side of the AI.

Actually that is indeed a war of attrition, but will you sacrifice a city against 100 ish units that is already at the perimeter of you empire at turn 40-50 and all of them march to destroy it, that is why i said that it is not a war of attrition anymore, it is genocide, but do note, that this is also a rare case, because it never happens in all my games that those AIs strike in such unison.

Actually, i was as shocked as you (if you read my first post), all those things never happens in my other games with identical setting, even until now i'm still trying to reproduce such situation to no avail. My reason of sharing it with all of you is simple, to point out that such a state exist, in AI programming, the many myriad path of choices of AI strategy is like a family tree with many branches, each node/leaf have value, worst case, normal case, or best case, the cases are influenced by many factors in the game, my point of sharing this is that the best case met our expectation, it's just extremely rare to happen.

 

[Mardagg]

yes,in some cases the AI can be a tough match already at this stage of patching.
Ive played 3 impossible games with maximum AI`s before and had no problem winning while using a lot of house rules myself because the AI always weakended himself vs other AI`s or wasnt able to expand good enough because of a cramped position between other AI`s.
Currently though,i am having a blast playing vs 2 AI`s only.Its a huge and flat world,huge landmass, and i am actively trying to stay at peace with all AI`s as long as possible paying them everyhing they want thus strengthening them until i cant afford anymore.I aim to get the AI as strong as possible until I wage war vs him.
Now,i was bit lucky at capital creation.1 AI started to the northwest ,the other far to east and myself in the southern middle of the map.Like 40 turns no contact with AI`s but then i discovered both and they did not discover each other yet,i.e. they are at full strength.At the moment i am turn 72 and 1 AI just invaded me with remarkable strong units because i couldnt pay him anymore. Both AI`s got vaaast empires,really lots of cities and units.And while i am already mounting several temple units due to the fact i could expand quite freely i think its going to be a tough war against both.So i can only recommend to anyone that the AI will be at its best when only playing vs 1 or 2 on huge maps.Ideally then it should start far away from you(i wish the world creation would more often result in far away starting positions).The neutrals are strong enough to keep u busy until you meet the AI which can grow to full strength undisruptred by other AI`s.

 

[unmerged(495697)]

Well all I can say is, if they actually manage to make the AI do that, then awesome. I still think it's highly unlikely that actually happened, but that is largely irrelevant, because the AI doesn't do it in any other games. A freak accident might give a slight glimmer of hope, but untill the AI can do it more than once in a blue moon, it really doesn't matter and will remain as a freak accident.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

That is why it almost never happen, before it is just a coincidence in current state of the game, and why i want to create such a bullshit story? i gain nothing from such a story, mine is a true fact albeit i don't have any saves of that game, sorry if no screenshot for proof, i don't really care about your disbelief if this threat is not about improving the AI, however i need to share it to provide another new insight on this game, albeit almost never happen, but the point is it can happen, is it not better that it can happen than they can't happen at all? It is the job of the developer to make it happen more frequently, i already mention about this few times already in this thread.

However after reading Mardagg case, i think i can finally solve the puzzle, it is not pure coincidence imo.

Here is my analysis about my unusual game, which is similar with Mardagg case, the difference however, he create such situation himself, while i did nothing to create mine. The similarity is we both have house rules.

Margagg have such tough fight because he give many gifts to his AIs to strengthen them.

In my case, i have 6 AI, and AI can demand from other AI, i suspect they demand many things from those 2, what if those 4 i fought demands many thing from the rest 2, in impossible we all agree that they have initial bonus, i think if that bonus from 2 AI is divided to other 4 AI, even if not equally, it can produce Mardagg case, i mean the resources from those 2 AI can give a huge boost to their economy like Mardagg gift, which indeed happens in my unusual story.

And from Mardagg case, now i know that my speculation was right, he mentioned that if the first opponent the AI discover is the player (in my case me) they will instantly prey on the player and indeed i was the first opponent they met, that's why they all attacking me like i already receive their undivided attention, the rest of the AI didn't even bother them at all, even the other 2 AI, but why bother about those 2 if they already extort them, they are just like an ant compared to the other 4, or perhaps they never met the other 2 but the case is still similar, without meeting the other 2, my 4 AI probably didn't have empire as strong as 2 AI from Mardagg game, but i face 4, and Mardagg 2 and i'm still at turn 40, i belief the case are quite similar, there is a possibility that my 4 AI is weaker than Mardagg 2 AI or vice versa, however my case happens in turn 40-50 while Mardagg case in turn 70 ish, that is why i belief the case are quite similar, though mine is earlier, as a side note the difference in resource perks between me and that 4 AI put me at severe disadvantage. Now it all makes sense.

 

[unmerged(495697)]

Though it does beg the question: the AI already starts starts with a resource lead, that should in theory be enough to do pretty much anything, why is the little extra squeezed from the player or other AI tipping the balance? I mean, in your example the AI had enough money to not only build that army but throw a huge amount of not so cheap perks at its' units, which while didn't hurt, was somewhat unnecessary at that point. So it had extra cash after the units and bare-bones perks like silver weapons. So if they have that much extra, why don't they attack with just the bare-bones upgrades when they don't have the extra source of money?

 

[Mardagg]

I dont think the key to a challenging AI at current level is giving it gifts from time to time...e.g. in my case i met both Ai`s around turn 40 and they did demand something from me maybe every 8-10 turns on average,which means i gave each of them like a total of 1k gold and 500 mana until they did demand so much i couldnt afford it any longer.Now playing on a huge map with not many AI`s i have so many cities already that this isnt that much in relation to my empire or the AI Empires,its probably just a minor boost.Obiviously one could further expand my house rule and give both AI`s a fixed amount gold/mana every turn or every other turn before they demand things.Would be interesting to see if they would ever declare war on you because the relation will be very good pointwise with the AI due to the regular free gifts.
I think the key to a challenging AI is that it can expand freely over a long time timespan without AI or Player interruption.I notice all the time that as soon as the AI meets me e.g. many of its troops just stay inactively at the borders without doing anything for dozens of turns until war is declared.From the moment of contact the AI starts only using small parts of its army to clear the remaining neutrals.Thats why most AI`s are no match for human players on maps with lots of AI´s...the AI`s get many borders with other AI`s/player simpy too fast.
Other key might indeed be ,looking at atlatea case as well,that the AI will always concentrate on the player when it meets the player first(and not other AI`s).Something ive also discovered in hindsight when i look at my other games.

In other words,i think the AI would already be a decent match if the developers would work on the diplomacy system so that AI`s,preferable of the same race,would make NAP`s and alliances as well and would then concentrate on expanding again.AI`s should be reluctant to wage war vs 2 Empires and try to never wage war vs more.Wolrd creation should be optimized as well with more evenly spread start positions.Give the AI some small income boost per turn as well.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Indeed, that is why they are exotic, but if you look at the AI, i don't know about most of your games though, but mine usually prove that AI rarely get exotic resource in their territory, not because they don't build the required building, but they don't have the resource node. The war is too one sided even if you declare war to all 8 AI at once, you can just send few uber unit (with no buffs, just all perks) that will decimate them, it's not fun anymore (ok it is tolerable at lower difficulty, but this happens on impossible difficulty which is supposed to be the hardest difficulty), this week i even go back to civ 5 trying its new expansion because of this.

This doesn't only concern about AI though. If you look at this game, there are 2 things that is randomized. Resource placement, and spells, actually 3 if you add neutral and monster placement, but this is not as important as those 2. What i fear is a situation which a player get the unlucky draw on both Resource placement and spells. Bad Resource placement can be countered with good results in spell research randomize or vice versa, short words, they exist to balance each other. But there is a possibility of a worst case scenario, like what i mentioned early. This can have impact on that poor player, especially in multiplayer game, if you look at other game of the same genre, like civilization, they don't have many variables that is randomized like WMotA (civ only has resource placement).

Which is why i suggest to increase the number of exotic resource, but there is other alternative which is the complete opposite, such as modifying the randomizing code, when the result is too unfair, the map is regenerated, the downside is it will put a strain on the PC, such as the possibility to cause long initial loading.

This too is just a speculation, we need multiplayer patch to confirm it, whether the worst case will greatly impact the game or not.

Yes. And that makes "rare" nodes worth fighting for. City spam is there, it would make capturing one city more important than all the clones, just because it has, say Adamantine. If every player started with a source close up that would ruin it's importance. No frustration for losing it, since you got more, no achievement for gaining it, since you got it 100 turns already anyway.
Having them far away from any civilisation makes them a "goal" on their own, a good thing in a strategy game. Making multiple strategies vital. Wanna march the capital? Go ahead. Rather want to nerf them by taking a vital resource node far away from the capital? Deal! That's cheapened if everyone got important nodes nearby.

So, no, I don't think making them less special adds to the game, it would rather detract. Not just in SP, but MP where such nodes would become more valuable to achieve rather than just another one to collect them all. And yes, you can get bad luck with spells and node-placement, but that's the fun. If you want 100% guaranteed strategy, play chess. Here you need to adapt. Which makes games fun to play and replay, never the same. It also seperates good players from those who just use a preset strategy. You pretty much can't, you have to adapt to what's given to you. There is no way you can say "rush for adementium" if the node's placed randomly and is very rare. The very next game you might get lucky nodes and spells.
But yeah, writing AI that can adapt like a human on those situations is pretty much impossible. You can give them a set of instructions, but you can hardly cover every situation like a human brain can. But to cheapen the game just so the AI can get buffs, that's a no-no in my book...

 

[player1 fanatic]

I'm almost positive that AIs are swarming in gold/mana on impossible, and not only due to some starting bonus, but due inherent bonus to their earning.

Why I say this?

Because I won two games, on impossible, exploiting AI diplomacy to get insane amount of cash and gold, something that would not be possible if AI does not cheat in that way. Especially since I was actually having more territory and probably much better specialized cities.

I'm talking about getting several thousands of gold and mana each time I sign treaties with AI (which empties their gold/mana reserve), and later repeating same thing next time they break the treaty, and still getting similar amount of funds.


P.S.
After I won those two games, I don't use this exploit (too easy). Still, it was fun, since it made it possible for me too focus on conquering other world with expensive perked units, and get holy ground victory twice around 100-110 turn.

 

[unmerged(170187)]

P.S.
After I won those two games, I don't use this exploit (too easy). Still, it was fun, since it made it possible for me too focus on conquering other world with expensive perked units, and get holy ground victory twice around 100-110 turn.

The AI is already too easy without using any exploits, even on impossible.

 

[player1 fanatic]

With exploit, AI is not "easy", it's not an issue. Never been in war with any of them, and won the game.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

@Hassat Hunter
After some thought about it, i think you are right.

@Lyfa
I don't know, but like Mardagg, i suspect it's because they haven't met me when their units is still using bare-bone perks. I think Mardagg is right, we only need to change their diplomatic behavior to lessen their likeness to wage war with other AI, actually UncleJJ already mentioned about this in his first/second post.

@player1 fanatic
After reading your post, i think i was right that the AI have bonus in their income rate, not just initial resource, though this is just my speculation.