Beating the Toughest AI

[checkMate]

I find that if I just set my resources pretty close to the edge of the city radius, the Nukes do very little damage. They always land it right on top of the city.

[tetley]

The catch is if you do that, something else gets it. I only make a point of placing Wonders out there, for that reason. Learned that lesson after my Colossus got fried.

[Adagio]

checkMate >>

I think we can find your message...

[rah]

And if I see that message again, I forsee a free trip to the rock for a week.

RAH

[Aginor]

Originally posted by solo

I wonder what the difference has been in our last few games, as I have had a relatively easy time of it by adding many archers for defense until siege are available. Now I make sure each city has an archer and each tower has two before adding another city, and go for attrition sooner than I used to in games when I was hurt early.

Good God man! Where do you find the Wealth? I crank out a 4-Bowmen roving defense force in Ancient, and occasionally add to that. It's a miracle if I can afford to slam up a Tower in every city but the capital (assuming protected capital by boundaries). Too busy filling 3 Universities...if I lag into Gunpowder by more than 2 minutes, that means that they have Bombards, and I don't, and that's just NOT good.

Your strategy on farm timing for the Brits was quite helpful, actually, ran it yesterday morning and it GREATLY improved early efficiency...I had no fishing and still was able to hold my own early. Got trounced by the WORST nightmare of the Brit archer force in Medieval - a swarm of Elite Javs and Knights, stopped & went to work...goofed two ways that game, built the first Tower in the wrong place AND made a big error on Mine placement by putting my first Mine AHEAD of my left flank city when I had two protected locations available...not smart.

My test on starts showed a big disparity in results after only 5 minutes, which makes me think that the gathering rates of the human player may be secretly adjusted based on things like tech acquisition, number of cities, etc. We all know that in Toughest, that the AI gathering rates have been increased by 50%, and if the game tinkers with human rates, too, this would not be noticeable without comparative tests.

Possible, though I deem it somewhat unlikely. More likely it has to do with number and quality of the Ruins bonuses you get (timing is everything on those). Fishing also has a huge impact, I find...the games you get where you have 400 Wealth at 6:00 when you upgrade to Classical run a lot faster to Gunpowder than the ones when you're poor, for instance.

[Aginor]

Two firsts:
1) Two in a row with the Brits! WOOOOOOO!

2) Won one without building either the Statue or Versailles (grumble #^&@ Egyptians grumble)

Oddly, comp didn't EVER send a single unit into my turf until Info Age in the first game...and got slaughtered for failure to disrupt the boom. Think I more than doubled up the second-highest score (final was like 55k), won a Wonder victory (up like 29 points) outside the last enemy capital with 65% of the territory, outearned all 3 comps in every resource except wood...ugly stuff.

Building additional Towers seemed to help in the second game...repulses pre-Bombard attacks pretty handily. Played around with helicopters some...they're nice since they never need to land, but VERY fragile. My feeling was if you have pop limit issues (and I always do with the Brits, Colossus or no) and more resources than you know what to do with (again, not an issue with Brits) then Helicopters on infinite queue flagged to the general rock Bombers for sheer firepower any day of the week.

[Out4Blood]

Oddly, comp didn't EVER send a single unit into my turf until Info Age in the first game...

This is why I am not a big fan of FFA games when testing validity of strategies. Half the time, the AI gets into fighting itself and the other half all 3 decide to attack you at once. The optimal strategies then become ones that avoid getting attacked based on the set of rules the AI uses. This results in bad play habits that will get you killed in multiplayer (e.g., not having to defend prior to info age!)

If you are really testing your own prowess versus the AI, to improve your multi-playing skill, I'd recommend playing ONE AI, normal speed, no pausing, with other "standard" settings.

Of course, everyone is free to make their own choices, and if you don't ever plan on playing multi, then it doesn't really matter.

[solo]

Aginor,

Some additional wealth comes from establishing trade routes earlier and by not putting so much into scholars early on. I compensate for this by getting a lot of wood and aiming for those Scientific upgrades as soon as possible. When basic defenses are in place, wealth is shifted to scholars using the infinite que.

Nice going on those wins as the Brits!

Out4Blood,

You have a very good point and it may turn out that just playing against one AI opponent is a better test of skill on Toughest, since they often end up attacking and weakening each other in many 4-player games, leaving the human player a lot more time to boom.

I have learned a bit about predicting AI behavior, making the last few games go much easier, but a key reason for this success was my policy of building up a good defense early. In games when I didn't do this I was attacked early, often and almost continously. So ignoring one's military can be equally disasterous in SP and MP games.

I'll have to try a few games against just one AI on Toughest to compare the difficulty, as I see that vs. only 1 opponent there will be more time to build a competitive military early in the game and less chance of being attacked on two fronts simultaneously. Closer proximity in 4-player games meant contact and conflict much earlier than in games vs. 1 AI.

No doubt the best test of overall skill is by playing against human opponents in MP games, and I can't help but agree that practicing vs. 1 AI on Toughest without pausing would be better way to practice for MP games. However, Toughest games vs. more than 1 opponent DO teach you to become more efficient and help you in deciphering the reasons behind AI decision making.

[Aginor]

Originally posted by Out4Blood
This results in bad play habits that will get you killed in multiplayer (e.g., not having to defend prior to info age!)

First time I've seen that in many, many games, actually - which is what makes it remarkable. Usually at least one AI sends the kitchen sink at me no later than Gunpowder. 4-man FFA is always a bit of a crapshoot...if all three players gang up on you, and they're competent, you're screwed no matter what. I fail to see how the dynamic is much different from MP with the same number of players other than the fact that you can't effectively raid the other guy circa Gunpowder (due to the fact that the AI will immediately throw the kitchen sink at you and bury you in units, which is NOT a rational and normal human response given two other rivals).

If you are really testing your own prowess versus the AI, to improve your multi-playing skill, I'd recommend playing ONE AI, normal speed, no pausing, with other "standard" settings.

Only problem is that the AI is horribly predictable in single player. Build cities in an inverted T, rush the center, fortify the front city like mad, and you're set until Industrial...adding the third and fourth player removes your ability to utilize this exploit. I've found that trying to win 4-man after mastering 1v1 excises a lot of the bad habits you can get away with in 1v1 vs. the AI. The necessity of having to capably defend more than one front levels the playing field somewhat, and there is a lot less margin for error if you expect to win consistently.

In other words, while 1v1 is a more consistent test of skill, there are a lot of lessons to learn from 4-man FFA as well.

I don't doubt that you're a better player, Out4Blood, but I also suspect that you have an RTS background...we graying TBSers understand strategy but are still getting used to the interface, control groups, and the fine art of hotkeying REALLY fast...it's not an easy transition if you're used to spending time over your decision making.

[tetley]

Hey,

I'm beating Toughest resoundingly as Mayans on Sea Map. I can't really explain why, other than I build coastal defenses and the dumb AI keeps throwing away his ships at it. Very little land military except for Spies and Archers, and the Archers get ZERO upgrades (don't need 'em--they're garrisoned). Usually a Wonder victory, but a D-Day victory works almost as well.

[Out4Blood]

Originally posted by Aginor
I fail to see how the dynamic is much different from MP with the same number of players...

First of all, most multiplayer games are n vs. n, where n >=1. FFA is less common, primarily for its unpredictability and perceived unfairness. (e.g., a good player will generally immediately be ganged up on.)

Originally posted by Aginor Only problem is that the AI is horribly predictable in single player.

It's no less predictable than in FFA. You've already determined the "attack lowest score" algorithm. And beating the AI in toughest mode 1on1 is not always that easy, since there is nothing to distract him from his goal of destorying you.

Originally posted by Aginor In
other words, while 1v1 is a more consistent test of skill, there are a lot of lessons to learn from 4-man FFA as well.

As in all games, FFA and equal teams are virtually two distinct games. What sometimes works in FFA would NEVER work in multiplayer (e.g., keeping a small strong territory to avoid attacks, NOT building in the center of the map and grabbing terrain, etc.) Unless of course you were playing multiplayer FFA, which is rare.

Originally posted by Aginor I don't doubt that you're a better player, Out4Blood, but I also suspect that you have an RTS background...

I play ALL games. I grew up on TBS games but have shifted to RTS games because they provide a better challenge. The "think forever" mindset of the TBS community is annoying to me. In fact, when playing TBS games, I always prefer using a chess clock. It vastly speeds up play and inspires a sense of urgency in the players. Real generals never have unlimited time either, and it's the requirement to make decisions quickly and with limited information that makes the game interesting to me.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Well, in between 1v1 and 4-"man" FFA, would 2v2 with a computer ally be a useful compromise? Rushing the center might not be such a good idea, as you might get pincered by the two AI enemies. Just a thought...

As for me, I don't feel up to "toughest" just yet (though I *should* be ready for it after THIS thread!) But 1v1 at "tough" isn't really a challenge anymore. There are challenges, yes, but the outcome is not seriously in doubt.

Last night I was attacking the strength-7 Incan capital in CtW in Enlightenment, and initially I thought I was in trouble, backed up against the wall with an initial AI city about where I would normally build my 2nd city, and an army already on its way to my capital. But I was fine, throwing up two stockades flanking the city and tossing damaged musketeers into garrison as needed. Then the AI continued to attack me there while I expanded laterally and put down 4 more cities. Boom for my Bantu, bust for his Incans. Wide and thin would be suicide against a human opponent, but the AI single-mindedly wasted its forces (as usual).

O4B: I've never tried MP because I'm too darned slow ("glacial" is my usual term). I'm a dyed-in-the-wool TBSer and I "think forever" in spades. It's starting to frustrate *me* because I'm hardly getting any sleep thanks to RoN.

Huh? Wha'? "I just want to take this one more city, then I'll go to bed!"

[Out4Blood]

Try using more hotkeys, waypoints, queues, and rally points. You'll start to get bored on normal speed against the AI.

[tetley]

I've confirmed, an Incan spy strategy works pretty well on Toughest/land maps, unless there's a shortage of hills. Spies cost metal and gold--something the Incans ought to have plenty of. And you get refunds when your bribed units die. It's critical to get to Classical and get mines early, because you NEED at least 5 spies by the time the AI's second wave attack comes along. Definitely get Angkor Wat.

So far I've beaten the AI Toughest multiple times with Incans, Mayans, Russians, and Bantus. Of those I have to say Mayans/sea maps are by far the easiest.

[Out4Blood]

I enjoy the British the most. Everytime I go to pick another civ, I end up picking British again.

[Grond]

I just decimated the French as Bantu. It was so lopsided that now I'm worried that Bantu are too powerful. I did have a rather nice set up, 3 large woods at my start town so I only needed 1 lumber mill, a big lake next to my second town and large mountains next to first and third town.

[Out4Blood]

In my limited experience, I have found that a good wood start is the most decisive thing, and a poor wood start means an early exit or a long, tough, come from behind win. Forking over 70 food that early in the game is just killer - it's like having 3 fewer villagers - which snowballs into an even bigger advantage later on.

Regarding Bantu, I've played them and won with them, and I suppsoe they fit my style somewhat, but I get hampered by the commerce cap. For eco-whores like me, British are a better play in the long run. I can always build the pyramids and get an extra +1 city.

However, I have noticed recently that as I go for bigger armies I begin running into the pop cap of 200. Which is very aggravating. One game I had to build Collossus just to make enough troops to push them back.

[rul3]

yeahhh. i agree with O4B. Plenty of wood early in the game is a definite...after the 2nd city go for a small mine...just to keep it raising steadily. Then as soon as the oil as available...gather this two a whole lot as possible....then rock the world with your attacking army yeehhaa

[Grond]

I definitely agree about the woods, those 3 and 4 wood starts are reminsicent of the "where the hell are my berries?" starts before they patched it. It would like to see a little less variation on the starting woods, one guy getting 3 and another guy getting 8 makes too much of a difference.

[Out4Blood]

Atlantic sea power is a nice map because you are almost guarranteed to get a nice 6-8 woodie start. My second town almost always has at least 2 8+ woodies and a 7+ mine, making that my econ city. That city alone usually pumps out +210 food, +480 wood and +240 metal.

BTW, I'm convinced that the AI cannot play sea maps. You're safe to boom and get fish going and protect with a few ships. Find his docks and lay siege to them (keep him from making ships) since the AI doesn't garrison. Game is pretty much over, despite the huge resource bonus they get on toughest. The AI just cannot keep up with your production when you own the seas early.

Even the AI will probably kill off all your fishing, ypu can quickly transition to fully upgraded farms and taxation to keep food and wealth maxed.

[Skanky Burns]

I have trouble on sea maps. I usually build 1 heavy ship immediately to explore, then the only ships that come out of the dock after that are fishing vessels. This is against a tough AI.

What sort of numbers of ships and types of ships would I need to keep the AI crippled?

[iamlod]

Haven't tried this, so it will prob need some adjusting to work well:

Build woodcutter camps from the start to stockpile wood and get a dock up ASAP. Build a few heavy ships and go to where you think your opponent will be (You can see generally where he is on the mini-map based on your starting position. (he starts ~opposite you)). And patrol around his shorelines looking for any costal cities. When you find any try to hang out and kill and citizens that attempt to build a dock (or tower for that matter).

I know this would take serious micro management, but, if you keep your ships moving, you should be able to keep him from getting naval power for a little while (hopefully long enough for you to get enough of a head start to control the seas).

You could try telling your ships to patrol around the continent your opponent is on and keep them on 'raid' stance to make your life easier.

However, for this to work, you're prob going to have to swich views to see what your ships are doing/finding every 10 sec or so. (Very annoying and would require much pause keying).

Has anyone tried anything like this?
I know it's very accident prone and would require much luck to pull off.
Comments? Changes? Ideas?

[tetley]

I'm convinced Coastal Fortresses win sea maps. Build a fort on the coast right next to your first dock (the AI has a thing for your first dock). You can build your dock far away, to try and make his ships travel your coastline which means you can tower up and make a gauntlet for him later.

Just do a guerrilla war with his ships. Go after him, when you get to half health run home. Eventually you accumulate enough ships that you can Bomb Ketch his docks; then he's dead. Civs with building attack bonuses, this isn't too difficult even on Toughest.

[solo]

Siege weapons are a cost effective way to ensure the demise of any AI ships approaching your own docks and fishing boats. On Toughest you want the AI to keep building replacement ships while you jump ahead in tech and commerce.

[tetley]

Agreed, but my luck hasn't been too good with Siege weapons vs. ships until Enlightenment Age, unless maybe I'm French. The setup time kills me.

[Out4Blood]

IMO, the key to sea maps is to get a dock up as early as possible and to max out your wood production. I usually only have 2 cities for a long time while I assert my dominance on the seas. On sea maps, the commerce techs are the most important as you need a high cap to allow for lots of wood, and then food/wealth as you make tons of fishing. Once I've got about 15 or so fishing boats I switch to military ships, making heavy, light and fire ships in a 2:2:1 ratio. I also use at least 2 docks, sometimes 3. The AI just cannot keep up. Then I do a number of things:

1. Build a city on his territory, if possible, so I can launch land attacks
2. Fill out my land with new cities so he cannot build on my land
3. Keep lots of ships on patrol around his shoreline to prevent new docks from going up
4. Patrol the waters between us to quickly sink any invasion force
5. Maximize my economy

Once you control the sea, there is not much the AI can do. Other than try for some sort of wonder win. But the AI is not smart enough to do that, nor does it optimize to counter your strategy (e.g., coastal forts, multiple docks, heavy wood production, etc.) 2-3 bomb ships are enough to reduce any buildings he puts up near the shore. In later ages, a few aircraft carriers are awesome weapons.

[Out4Blood]

Played a sea map game yesterday where I actually came close to losing. Had a bad wood start (4-slotter) and the toughest AI (Turks) got on the water before me. My first fishing boats were shot up by 2 triremes. When I finally got military ships, the AI had 3x more than me. Uh oh. I stayed off the water and boomed, while slowing making ships that were garrisoned. Around enlightenment age, I was able to finally defeat his navy and start making a few fishing boats, but by then I had an overwhelming econ advantage and he died swiftly. I'm gonna stop playing sea maps.

[Daemonlaud]

(on bad habits formed by turtling till Indust) Such as ... ? I haven't noticed anything I can't overcome, but maybe you have some insight I am too dense to pick up on. Please share.

To summarise, the bad habits are essentially every component of the strategy and playstyle - you will NEVER win a MP game against anything but a first time player if you are practised in such insular strategies.

Not being harsh or exaggerating, I mean you will never win

That's all. The comp doesn't get any smarter, and if it does something new you can react fairly quickly; a human opponent is a universe apart from this.


Any good duel game is puncuated by CONSTANT harassment, CONSTANT squabbling, pushing, rushing, expanding, raiding, feinting...and you have to juggle all this whilst trying to boom or tech or whatever it is you do in the safe confines of your deep territory.

Failure to hold up either end of the bargain will see you dead in spectacular ways you will not even begin to imagine till they happen to you

You just flat out can't learn this unless you force yourself to to against a comp, esp one that will stomp you in any even open combat (as toughest will do to anyone not an expert in micromanagement, since it will always out number you and prolly out micro you too), hence playing on tougher may in fact encourage strategies that are more viable against a thinking opponent.

[Tutankamun]

Hey, I downloaded those recs at the top of the thread, and they no longer work (assume it's because of a later patch?). All I saw was two games of someone getting stomped by the computer. In the middle of the game, it looks like the player just gave up - units stand around, dying of attrition.

Is it just me?

[Eyecare]

It's notaable that you can effectively minimize the AI's resource collection advantage at the two highest levels by constant and effective raiding. Since the AI typically garrison's it's entire population it gives you time to catch up. Additionally, you can almost negate it's advantage if you do an early Ancient rush.
Although it's much more of a challenge to win with less aggressive tactics I do agree with others who imply that playing MP is a whole different ballgame. Winning agains the AI on Tougher and Toughest is a good prep for but not a substitute for the challenges a human opponent can present.