RoN's Single Player Experience: Promising! - Page 2

yin26 · May 22, 2003, 10:16

I take it you had losing the capital as a condition for losing? Perhaps we should disable that setting and see the change?

I also setup a bait city, garrisoned only with villies, and the AI did indeed fall for it and lose a number of troops *for a time* ... it then retreated and refocussed on a city of far more importance. Freaky.

UnOrthOdOx · May 22, 2003, 10:19

I had all the defaults, don't know how much I can change in the Demo, but Ill try it out.

albiedamned · May 22, 2003, 10:35

I played a game last night on Tough, 1 vs 1 with me as the Inca and the AI as the Bantu (that was random actually - I didn't pick Bantu). Map style was Mediterranean - a ring of land surrounding an inland sea with an island in the middle - since I wanted to explore the naval aspect of the game. Trust me when I say I'm not that good at RoN yet, but the game was a slaughter. I sent a villager fairly early to build a city on the island, and I built a Dock and got a few light ships (barks) out early on auto explore to map out the sea and find his territory. When I realized he only had one dock, I build a couple heavy ships and positioned them outside the dock to be able to immediately attack any ships he built. Meantime I had the barks on patrol to look for any new docks, but he never built any more.

In the meantime on the mainland (the outside ring), he attempted one rush on me in classical age with some light infantry and heavy cavalry. I had no land military but I had a fort and attrition and the combination slaughtered his invaders.

Once I got to Gunpowder, he still had no navy so I built some bomb ketch ships (the bombardment ships). First target was the docks, but after that I just bombarded everything within range. And on this map style, with the relatively thin ring of land around the edge, just about everything was in range! The game turned into a slaughter because he had absolutely no way to stop my naval bombardment.

While the bombardment went on, I built up an army.
I had destroyed most of his buildings and reduced his cities before I even moved my army in. However I figured he must have built up an army somewhere, and I knew my land army would run into it eventually while heading for his capital. And he did have a sizable army - about 20 mixed infantry units, around 10 mixed cavalry, and a few bombards. Unfortunately for him he was two ages behind and I had light tanks, riflemen, and anti-tank rifles. So it was no contest. The game ended before I even got to Information Age, and total game time was only 39 minutes despite using Nomad mode and thus having a slow start.

Anyway, I watched the replay because I wanted to see what he was doing with his resources (since he never built a navy). I saw him build his initial rush army, the one my fort crushed. Then he started building another army, but he was stashing them on the far side of his capital. They just stood there for almost the entire game as he continued to add to the force. They only actually deployed when I approached his capital, and by then it was way too late. I'm not sure what strategy the AI was employing there. Hiding his force from me might have been a good idea if his force had a chance to defeat me, since I would have been overconfident and not expecting it. But by not building a navy and thus letting me bombard him, he got so far behind that his force was antiquated by the time it went into battle.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this given what Yin and others have posted about the seemingly intelligent military planning by the AI. Maybe it's not good at naval strategy?

yin26 · May 22, 2003, 10:43

Yes, I think that's right for the most part (though I've been on land maps mostly). But on one of the water maps, I got my navy pounded, though he never used his navy to attack anything on land...

UnOrthOdOx · May 22, 2003, 10:48

Interesting.

I think the map may be a poor one for the Bantu to begin with? They tend to have an advantage at REXing with their free extra city. It is nice to see the AI rush with the Bantu, though, a good strategy for them I have found. Did they pound on your fort, though, when they attacked? I have found it best to bypass static defenses on a rush/raid and focus on the enemies economy. Perhaps this is another little problem in the AI. How much more would it have hurt if they, say, had taken a market, wood cutter, mine, and/or a few farms after running right by that fort? The Bantu can do that pretty quickly with the combo of fast foot soldiers that do extra damage to buildings..

albiedamned · May 22, 2003, 11:05

The AI Bantu did manage to build six cities, so he did take advantage of his expansion ability. With this map style, you can't really build your cities "2 wide" on the outside ring, so your nation just becomes a straight line of cities until you hit a corner of the map, then your line turns. When I realized how thin the outside ring was, I placed my fort in front of the furthest city in my line, and positioned it such that it could cover almost the entire width of the outside ring of land. Thus there was almost no way for his invaders to get past the fort, other than going completely around the map in the other direction (which was much further, but which would have crushed me since the other end of my line was my undefended capital!). His guys did actually attack my fort, but it didn't matter. Even if he had tried to run past it and get to the city behind, I don't think he would have made it. I garrisoned a couple civilians in the fort when I saw him coming, and the firepower of the fort took him out.

Solver · May 22, 2003, 11:07

An important AI observation - if you attack it, it might still send some troops in your land. In otehr RTS games, if you attack the AI, every single unit it has will be positioned at place of that battle.

Sky Dog · May 22, 2003, 11:16

My goodness. I think the AI just gave me a hard-on.

As usual, it attacked a crucial city with an army of seige units and mixed support units. It also sent two supply wagons and stationed them in the rear. I hit the supply wagons first, and the combination of attrition and a tower beat him back. The SOB comes back at me again a few minuts later, only this time, I don't see any supply wagons, and I'm wondering why he isn't taking attrition damage. It turns out the @#$(%* AI had a general with the army, and was using the cloaking feature to keep the supply wagons hidden while the units in front of them fought. I LOVE this game!

Terminus · May 22, 2003, 11:22

I have to agree that this is the most sophisticated AI I have ever encountered. A 'GREAT WORK!' goes out to all the coders who worked on it.

I'm at the "I can sometimes win in Moderate" phase of my RON education and the difference between Easy (what I used to learn the game mechanics) and the upper level difficulties came as a shock to me as well. Can’t wait to try out the Tough setting seeing as that is the ‘true’ AI according to Brian.

dearmad · May 22, 2003, 12:10

Sky Dog: Holy f'ing wooowoo!

In my latest game the damned AI wittled down any army I left unattended with spies and crap. So i'd go back from some other battle and find my line decimated. Also have faced enemy generals cloaking their damned armies and appearing out of thin air where I don't want them! Also it used the decoy armies as well to freak me out and force moves I shouldn't have made until I detected they were decoys.

I gotta say enemy spies are about the most pissy thing in the game- I now shout for joy whenever a commando can take one or two out. In fact I've neglected regular army ops at times just to hunt one down. Hm... I guess that little AI ploy is working well too.

Haven't seem him dig in defensively yet though. So there is hope... I think.

SirOsis · May 22, 2003, 15:44

I really like the decoy feature of the general. I never really tried it out until this last game. I was able to send the decoys to a position in front of my position. While the enemy was engaged with them I brought my real army to bear on their flank. Talk about cleaning up.

This last game is also one I decided to go on the offensive early. Generally I sit back and build up the cities. I went for Berlin just after getting to age 2 with 2 catapults and 6 pikemen, 6 archers. Fortunately he hadn't any towers yet so I wasn't dealing with attrition. The supply wagon only is avail after age 3. Pounded the city and took it over. Was very nice to get all those farms, library, university, etc. I was able to hold it by bringing in reinforcements and sitting in a defensive position. From then on my army just kept getting bigger and I was able to stay ahead in tech so the other players were always outgunned. I also would garrison my troops after a battle to heal up.

Eventually won with a wonder victory. Gotta love Versaille.

Tatran · May 22, 2003, 17:13

Reading the stories above,I noticed a few things.
First there's not a lot diplomacy going on and
second most games are not taking that long.
The games I've played (Demo) took hours.
(Speed : slowest,so I can control most part of
the game)

My two last games were simply great.
Yesterday won,today lost both by sudden death.
(world domination)
Both games were Big Huge map,8 civs,Great Lakes.
Level : Tough

In yesterdays game around the Enlightment age I
started a war with one of my neighbours.(which
became my ally later in the game).The war went on
to the Modern age and I captured 2 or 3 cities of him.
And then the Wonder timer started.The Egyptians had
build enough wonders and they were on the other side of the map.So I had a problem.I choose to stop the war
against Alaric (germans,I was british) and focus on
nukes and bombers.By that time 3 of the 8 civs were
gone,mostly conquered by very large and dangerous
allied force (both Bantu).I nuked one wonder off the map and the bantus captured one of Egypt cities with
a wonder.By that time I saw the Bantus already had
53% of the map.So I choose to ally with the Germans,
because Egypt was lost.(Later split up between the Germans and the Bantu).Both teams didn't have enough wonder points and a long war (hours) was the only solution.(I and one of the Bantu had already
researched the missile shield).While I took some cities
of the Bantu,my ally lost some cities to the other Bantu.
(They survived around 15 nukes).After some hours of
war I saw my ally was losing more and more territory.
So it was all or nothing,I build a large force of bombers
to destroy the big wonders and to the win game by
world domination.And I (we) did.

Todays game I got beaten by a smarther AI.
By the Enlightment age I was already at number 1
position spot (the AI becomes more demanding) and
I stayed at number 1.By the time all wonders were
build there was no majority of wonder points.So
the biggest civ made two attempts to attack a forward
city between two lakes,I lost some buildings,but my
air force drove them out.And then the same civ started
a war with one of his neighbours (yes Egyptians with
a lot of wonders).Before I knew it they captured one of
those Egyptian wonder cities and bye bye victory.
(they had already researched the world domination
victory as the first of the 4 future techs).

The strangest part of those games is that the AI
didn't launch one single nucleair warhead.

Grandpa Troll · May 22, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Tatran
Reading the stories above,I noticed a few things.
First there's not a lot diplomacy going on and
second most games are not taking that long.
The games I've played (Demo) took hours.
(Speed : slowest,so I can control most part of
the game)

My two last games were simply great.
Yesterday won,today lost both by sudden death.
(world domination)
Both games were Big Huge map,8 civs,Great Lakes.
Level : Tough

In yesterdays game around the Enlightment age I
started a war with one of my neighbours.(which
became my ally later in the game).The war went on
to the Modern age and I captured 2 or 3 cities of him.
And then the Wonder timer started.The Egyptians had
build enough wonders and they were on the other side of the map.So I had a problem.I choose to stop the war
against Alaric (germans,I was british) and focus on
nukes and bombers.By that time 3 of the 8 civs were
gone,mostly conquered by very large and dangerous
allied force (both Bantu).I nuked one wonder off the map and the bantus captured one of Egypt cities with
a wonder.By that time I saw the Bantus already had
53% of the map.So I choose to ally with the Germans,
because Egypt was lost.(Later split up between the Germans and the Bantu).Both teams didn't have enough wonder points and a long war (hours) was the only solution.(I and one of the Bantu had already
researched the missile shield).While I took some cities
of the Bantu,my ally lost some cities to the other Bantu.
(They survived around 15 nukes).After some hours of
war I saw my ally was losing more and more territory.
So it was all or nothing,I build a large force of bombers
to destroy the big wonders and to the win game by
world domination.And I (we) did.

Todays game I got beaten by a smarther AI.
By the Enlightment age I was already at number 1
position spot (the AI becomes more demanding) and
I stayed at number 1.By the time all wonders were
build there was no majority of wonder points.So
the biggest civ made two attempts to attack a forward
city between two lakes,I lost some buildings,but my
air force drove them out.And then the same civ started
a war with one of his neighbours (yes Egyptians with
a lot of wonders).Before I knew it they captured one of
those Egyptian wonder cities and bye bye victory.
(they had already researched the world domination
victory as the first of the 4 future techs).

The strangest part of those games is that the AI
didn't launch one single nucleair warhead.

I didnt have a nuclear launch,either, in Demo, but have in Retail version been attacked by nukes..

I found AI a bit tougher in Retail than demo plus I rarely play wonder Victory, rather wiping out Ai, and thats kinda a challenge. I havent yet tried any diplomacy but may soon!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

albiedamned · May 22, 2003, 17:33

My games have been shorter because I've been playing with no more than 3 opponents (4 total). However being a TBS person I would like to try an 8 player diplomacy game as you describe. I think I'll try that tonight. I'll probably pick one of the map types with continents too.

And by the way, I play on very slow, so my 39 minute game-time game took several hours!

Tatran · May 23, 2003, 04:29

I've seen nukes flying around in the demo,especially
on the lower levels than tough.Can't remember the
AI use them at the tough level.

Playing a smaller map with 3 or 4 opponents it's a
tricky one.I did once.The AI allied very quick.So you
are alone or you have to ally with civ number 4.Both
situations means a lot of trouble.So no diplomacy
in this particular games for me (everyone on his own).

Maybe someone can explain the wonder calculation
in teams to me.Situation last night:
I had 17 wonder points and my ally had 12 wonder points and as a team we only had a score of 9
wonder points.All civs and all wonders were still in the
game.My ally lost a 4 point wonder,but captured a
2 point wonder.Both cities were assimilated by the
time I allied with the other AI to secure victory.

I've a complaint to make about people reviewing games.
They always talk about how it looks and sounds and
no one goes deeper into the game.I read a lot of
reviews of RoN,but this demo convinced me that
this game is simply a masterpiece made by the
master himself.Just like 4 years ago with the demo
of Alpha Centauri I got hooked.Thanks to Big Huge
Games for making this demo.

Hopefully the game is in the stores today.

yin26 · May 23, 2003, 08:23

Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

Grandpa Troll · May 23, 2003, 08:31

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

Yin26,

Thanks for all these posts and comments..

I have also seen similiar and I am not the rushing type, but more so enjoy a challenge of building up a massive military combat...which fits into the alley-way of the ai.

You say you slowed them down somewhat attacking supply wagons helped?

I am gonna try to win by tageting them as well as caravans and oil/natural resource supplies...

Just wondering how well ai adapts when its economy is interrupted..maybe same way USA did, wait a little then bomb me to Hades

Peace

Grandpa Troll

yin26 · May 23, 2003, 10:25

Troll:

You're welcome! Yes, the AI is great about bringing in supply wagons so it won't suffer attrition. If you take those out, though, the AI has a very hard time in battle because it comes onto *your* territory and sits there a while...this a good reason not to forward build so far that its arty can hit you while on his own territory! If you then also take out his arty (which is also nicely brought along), he can't really hurt you ... assuming you've got some garrison towers and so forth to help lay cover fire for your own troops.

The AI also seems to limit the size of its 'troop packets' -- and while they are wonderfully varied (never really seen that before) and sometimes even crafty as to where they attack (also never seen that), once you size up that packet of troops, you get a good sense of what to have and in what numbers on-hand to respond. Call this predictability, I suppose, but until we see truly adaptive AI that learns game to game, I can't fault the comp. much here.

My biggest complaint is still that the AI doesn't raid enough! Most human players simply freak out when even a small contingent of cav, let's say, pops up in your undefended resource gathering zones slaughtering villies. I think that since the computer's multitasking abilities are clearly superior to a human being's (this is not to say it's used effectively, of course), that the more things it can keep the player busy with the better.

Its attacks on undefended cities is an excellent move toward that goal. And maybe raids are more effective on a higher AI level?

The AI also needs (as I wrote above) to know how to handle a raid on its on turf as well. Still, I think most of the builder-type TBSers among us are not so interested in rushing and will meet the AI on its own terms, so to speak, after a period of build up. It's at that point after unmolested booming that the computer comes into its own. Fair enough.

MxM · May 23, 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

Try to do the rush couple more times. It is my observation, that AI reacts differently. You probably got lucky with "booming" AI.

yin26 · May 23, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

You probably got lucky with "booming" AI.

Not sure what you mean?

dearmad · May 23, 2003, 14:33

Also, Moderate isn't with everything in the AI turned on I think... It's still not using all it's best ideas at that level, and still ahs a resource handicap.

What he meant by BOOM AI is that you may have encoutnered the AI that goes for econ. build-up, not the AI that goes for rush. There are two types. If you want to see the diff. select them instead of the basic COMPUTER opponent (which randomizes between them I think).

yin26 · May 23, 2003, 14:35

Ah, excellent! Would be nice, though, for the booming AI to 'know' not to send villies to certain death!

UnOrthOdOx · May 23, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
The AI briefly uses one of several "scripts" in the Ancient Age to get itself started on the right foot (which script depends on its boom/rush preference), then by early Classical switches to an unscripted strategic AI that responds to (a) the map situation, (b) the "personality" of the AI and (c) what the player does. Of course on the easy level it "responds" by trying to do the wrong thing :-) (e.g. "look he's got an army of archers, let me get started on some pikemen!")

Perhaps some rushes are hitting the AI before it comes out of it's scripting and is capable of reacting? It was also stated earlier that the AI uses no cheats as far as 'seeing' your units. Perhaps if they are back under a fog of war, it assumes the danger has left since it no longer 'sees' your units, it assumes the area is safe?

Also, I wonder if it could be made that if the AI is hit with a rush it could switch 'personalities' to become more aggressive...?

yin26 · May 23, 2003, 14:52

Again, I'm happy not to rush if it will ruin the game, and I'm sure making an AI capable of handling a rush is a difficult process -- but I think you're right about the early script issue.

On the fog of war, though, I kept my archer right next to his wood pile...was firing arrows at it, in fact. So he knew I was there but had no mechanism, it seems, to redirect villies, put up a tower, get a cav out quickly, etc.

So, indeed, I think the AI needs to have a little more adaptive scripting in this regard...

albiedamned · May 23, 2003, 15:02

Regarding resource handicaps, BR has posted elsewhere that there is no resource handicap at moderate and tough levels. On easy and easiest, the player receives an advantage, while on tougher and toughest the AI receives an advantage. BR also posted that the AI does pull its punches a little bit on moderate, but that tough is the absolute best the AI has to offer without a resource handicap.

aesopguy · May 27, 2003, 13:47

I concurr with all your comments. My experience with AI on Moderate was consistent ... all the way. It has an unsual ability to suprise ... not only hitting on one front, but on multiple fronts - simultaneously. It also launches well coordinated attacks and seems to use generals quite a bit for army control.

It also does not spend time attacking non-critical buildings (remember how you could distract the AI in Age of Empires and EE) but tries to get to your city centers.

Only after about 3 tries did I fair very well only to run out of time when the AI achieved a Wonder victory.

I did survive some pretty radical Nuke attacks which suprisingly did not take out my cities ... just damaged the city center and demolished a few of the secondary buildings.

Another thing I would say about this game is that you should not neccessarily give up and quit as soon as you loose a battle against the AI. I have been successful in retreating when I clearly will be loosing a battle, letting my city in dispute go, regroup and rebuild in another city, and then regain the lost city.

(This was on the trial version where you don't have the option to turn Wonder victories off - my tablet PC does not have a CD drive so I can't run the full version with out the disk --- wih there was a NO CD version out there!)

It is a great game and makes up for weariness one soon encounters in CIV 3 (where you can only really win through diplomacy), and the lack of depth and strategic realism in Age of Empires and Empire Earth.

Ensemble Studios made a major mistake doing Age of Mythology ... this was the natural next step for them. The next version of RoN should address some of the graphical limitations that are becoming the norm these days.

If I have to choose though, I would choose gameplay and depth over graphics. Well done Big Huge!!

kainzero · May 28, 2003, 07:17

man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

first, their micro is a joke. I tend to mass light infantry-archers-light cavalry, and then later, light infantry-heavy infantry-light cavalry, and finally MGs-ATs-Tanks. I can usually get by with my Cavalry rushing the supply wagons, then cleaning up the remaining units. if i am losing the battle, i run my troops back to town to garrison, then run them back out when they're suitably healed.

second, generals make a huge difference. I was having a hard time beating the AI on moderate, and then I started using generals. +2 armor makes a huge difference, same with entrench. If spies harass during battle, bring a commando and they die almost instantly.

you talk about how the cpu attacks on multiple fronts with 2 armies, but I don't see it that way. I see it as a split army attacking in two places. My army can usually mop up one while the other holds, then the army finishes them off.

the thing is, when you counter their army, they have to rebuild their army. since they don't store resources, they don't tech. you can tech. more or less, this is a big advantage that lets you roll over them. in the last game against Tough AI on a sea map, I completely dominated the CPU. Once I eliminated their navy, they couldn't recover. Soon I had Info Age subs pounding on galleons.

the mixed army is nothing special because it's too small. My force is at least 1.5x bigger than theirs. You'll never see anything too overwhelming. Plus, I play Chinese, so it's easy for me to expand and pull together and econ. If an undefended border city is attacked, I usually garrison it with citizens and have enough time to reinforce it.

I must admit, moderate diff caught me off guard the first time, but after a couple games, it was cake, simply because I got used to the flow of the game. And yes, I do agree that RoN is one of the most well-crafted games I have ever played. But the AI isn't godly, and is no substitute for a decent human player.

alva · May 28, 2003, 09:19

Quote:

man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

Go up a level or 2, just to amuse me.

I don't think I have ever been beaten against one AI, RON did it

.
No, I'm not a good RTS player by any means, but this surely surprised me.

On moderate I could take on 2 or 3 of them without any problem, but 'tough' is a different story altogether. (especially coupled with few iron nearby.)

Quote:

and is no substitute for a decent human player.

Nope, but there isn't one yet..anywhere, so this is hardly worth the discussion.

RKJanus · May 28, 2003, 23:52

I just finished my first tough game. 8 Civs, big huge Great Lakes. I had 1 AI ally, with 3 others forming one competing alliance and the remaining 3 forming the other.

I overextended myself quite horribly thinking that the AI would just be cannon bait. I had 9 cities to my opponents 6 or 7 each.

Anyhow I declared war on a zulu opponent, laughing as I quickly overtook two of his border cities within the first minute of my advance. His ally hadn't bothered declaring war on me in response so I had free reign.

However I was quickly chagrined to find my advance bogged down in a stalemate on the frontier, neither of us advancing adequately as we were in general completely equal in both military and technological means.

Until of course I invented nuclear weapons before he did.

Imagine my glee as 2 or 3 nukes at a time decimated his cities.

Imagine my horror as every other AI in the game, excluding my ally, declared war on me and the other 4 civs that bordered me invaded my territory. The 5th civ attacked my ally and kept him busy while I was being crushed.

The end didn't come quickly, as I'd placed castles and towers along the entire length of my borders. All my major cities were well protected by them.

At first I took the challenge with a bring it on sort of attitude. But that soon changed as I was attacked on 4 fronts.

Depsite my defenses, I knew I was in trouble when a successful enemy attack by 2 AI allies working together divided my empire in two. (told you I was overextended)

My capital was way back in my rear, but one AI when he found it's location launched everything he had at it. With bombers from his allies joining the attack, and the fact that I hadn't even bothered to build rear defences, meant that my vunerable rear cities were crushed quickly. Like the French I had built my Maginot Line of castles, and thinking they were invincible, ignored my rear.

And when my capital finally fell, I couldn't help but feel that I had NEVER been beaten before by an AI on such even terms as this before in an RTS game. (we all know the AI in many games cheats or a SP scenario is set up so that its incredible difficult to win.)

MxM · May 29, 2003, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by kainzero
man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

I found the same IF I PAUSE as much as I want. But without pausing, the moderate level is quite tough for me. I would say I can win only 50% of the time without pausing for 1vs1 type of games.