*SPECIFIC* Suggestions for Improved AI Aggressiveness

from GalCiv2 Forums
Okay, I was spazzing out a little earlier (https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=346&AID=116644). Let's try to be a bit more constructive this time around.

It ticks me off when I invest a ton of time in building an empire, only to find that the AI is a virtual cakewalk to conquer when I finally decide to set-out and release my elite fleets. 4 games in a rows I have abandoned because of this and, yes, on the higher and highest difficulty settings. I have literally conquered a 23-planet, 130-ship Drengin empire...losing only 3 (1-2-3) of my own ships (not FLEETS...but SHIPS). Obviously, this shouldn't happen.

This may come off as seeming a bit preachy, with a know-it-all tone, but please keep in mind that I do respect what you've done here. I don't know squat about computer programming but I do know a good game when I play one. I just want to see the game to challenge folks (me specifically) more and realize its true potential as an addictive masterpiece. But, respectfully, the AI has considerable room for improvement guys and you need to address it.

Attn: Developers - SOME SUGGESTIONS

1. The AI's primary function at the higher game levels has to be to DEFEAT of the human player at all costs without cheating. It should not focus on battling other AI civs, nor ignore that element completely. But the first 'realization' the AI needs to make is that the human player is the greatest threat. A 200% economy for the AI shouldn't be the primary means of balancing things out in the computer's favor. It doesn't work anyways. Trust me. The AI economies can be run with efficiency that a human player could never achieve over 1000 turns. It knows every civ stat, every resource location and every planet's profile. That should be enough in terms of 'tools' to challenge a human player.

2. For AI at war with the human player, the PRIORITIES need to be dramatically altered as follows..from highest-to-lowest:

A. Attack undefended or weak resource starbases. This can cause civ-wide chaos for the human player...especially those economy resources. It will also force the human player to stretch his or her available defense force a little thinner...to more uncomfortable levels. How many of you have set-up resource mining in the heart of your enemy's area of influence? This is stupid and should not occur so easily. Doing so should cause the AI affected to dramatically increase its aggressiveness towards you, depending on the specific resource involved.

B. Attack the human player's economy starbases, especially during the the early-mid game. Another big-impact type of play. Worthy of some AI kamikazee? I think so.

C. Undefended human planets need to be RUSHED. The AI attack should always involve a troop transport following up within 5 turns of the orbital attack. Otherwise, the starship attack/battle for supremacy of the planet's orbit has no STRATEGIC purpose and the AI's resources should not be wasted accordingly.

D. After 'undefended' planets, planets hosting the human player's Galactic Achievements/Capitals/Trade Goods should be ranked next, provided the defense is exploitable. Use a simple ratio to determine. Take my EYES OF THE UNIVERSE or MANUFACTURING CAPITAL or GRAVITY ACCELERATORS and I will curse the monitor! But I'll also be savoring the thought of some revenge!!!

E. If the human player is relatively well-defended but has concentrated trade with one civ...and THAT civ is weak...THOSE planets should be conquered instead. Chasing a human player's mini-freighters around is stupid because a new one will simply respawn where the route originates. It's idiotic to watch the AI do that and an insult to your hard work and a really cool gaming concept.

F. Beyond those STRATEGIC targets, the AI should seek out TACTICAL victories during war where it can. That means locating, engaging and destroying weaker human fleets. AI fleet logistics should focus on this kind of tactical exploitation.

3. Otherwise AI fleets should flee superior-sized and powered human fleets. AI fleets should retreat and link up with other ships or fleets to man-up! If the AI can't possibly construct a fleet that can challenge a human fleet (due to an inferior logistics point cap for example), then AI fleets should become as big as possible and congregate together. The human fleet might be able to defeat the first AI fleet, but would the human even attack if the AI had 2 other fleets waiting and in range to counter on the very next turn? Maybe. Maybe not.

4. If the human player has Tech Victory enabled, research-advantaged civs should pursue it with a dedicated focus (if any are involved in the game that is). That puts the human player on a virual deadline and raises the in-game tension. The human player knows he's on-the-clock to go wipe those guys out before the final TECH VICTORY tech has been discovered. Again, defeat the human player at all costs (without cheating).

5. Likewise, if INFLUENCE VICTORY has been enabled, I expect to see at least one of the non-war-mongering civs doing their best to build and upgrade I-Starbases. AND aligning themselves with other militarily strong AI Civs via an Alliance.

Man...I can go on an on...

6. AI needs to rush-build GRAVITY ACCELERATORS, TIR-QUAN TRAINING, EYES OF THE UNIVERSE, GALACTIC PRIVATEER, XINATHIUM HULL PLATING...and deny the human player from gaining those if it can. Watching an AI civ build DIPLOMATIC TRANSLATORS or worse, a GALACTIC GUIDE BOOK just makes me roll my eyes in disgust.

7. AI needs to diversify their fleets with ALL 3 weapon classes, instead of going deeper down just one line of research. It's too easy for the human player to counter. AI defense research strategy should react to the weapon class of the human player.

8. AI needs to take more initiative to land those ATTACK bonus. Can't stress that enough really.

I know it sounds like there's little I like about the game as-is but please don't misunderstand. I'm motivated to type all of this out because I actually care about the game and I want to see it kick all @ss. Massive potential. The core model is a winner.

Fix it before a competitor does.

Peace out.
36,532 views 84 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
I have lots of PBEM multiplayer experience in 4x games. I can tell you all you wrote down sounds good "per se", but if Stardock implements your ideas, the game will be no more fun, but frustrating! Let me explain that with a gameplay example.

Your first neighbour is Drengin, and he's constantly atacking you. The second neighbour is Drath, that tries to take your planets with the influence. On the other side of the universe are Humans, that (being not at war) pursue technological victory. OFC NOBODY trades with you, only among themself. And your trade ships are getting destroyed by Drengin shortly after they leave the planet. Even if you manage to get the upper hand over Drengin, they suddenly field ships of the drath's origin, with weapons you don't have appropriate defense for, and with exactly the right defenses for your type of weapon. And when you manage to destroy both of them, you're greeted with the message Humans finaly achieved their tech victory.

Would you like to play in such a game, against EVERY other civ, without even a remotely fair chance to win?
I wouldn't.

Stardock stated GalCiv treates a live player like any other AI player, and IMO that's fair. What you propose is not fair.
You stated correctly AIs should cooperate to some extent against the most dangerous player, but that's not necessary the live player.

Your proposed military tactics are already implemented (I remember losing one gifted SB on the other side of the uni to an AI fleet, that had to travel to it over 3 sectors), the AIs're flagging conquerors too, Torians spam the space with troop transports. But you expect every AI will react the same, with the same abilities. That would be boring.

I agree with you AI needs some improvements. But default ganging on a player would kill the fun. If you really want such a hard challenge, join us on starsautohost.org, and play a game or two of Stars!. You'll never regret, and we'll get some fresh blood.

BR, Iztok

Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
While I share your feelings about the lack of AI aggressiveness/decidedness regarding the human player to some extent, Stardock tells the AI to treat the human player just like everyone else, and for good reasons. I don't think this should be touched (they wouldn't want to anyway), but the AI should focus more on winning the game, yes.

My biggest gripes/suggestions about the AI as of 1.1 are:
- way too easy to buy techs for money from everyone, regardless of relations
- way too many embassies built, thus wasting a lot of space (and the 1.11 log is vague about the changes)
- should focus more on factories for higher manufacturing output
- should exploit weak military rankings more
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Your first neighbour is Drengin, and he's constantly atacking you. The second neighbour is Drath, that tries to take your planets with the influence. On the other side of the universe are Humans, that (being not at war) pursue technological victory. OFC NOBODY trades with you, only among themself. And your trade ships are getting destroyed by Drengin shortly after they leave the planet. Even if you manage to get the upper hand over Drengin, they suddenly field ships of the drath's origin, with weapons you don't have appropriate defense for, and with exactly the right defenses for your type of weapon. And when you manage to destroy both of them, you're greeted with the message Humans finaly achieved their tech victory.


Sounds good to me, with levels of difficulty of course But if you read the OP's first point......

1. The AI's primary function at the higher game levels has to be to DEFEAT of the human player at all costs without cheating. It should not focus on battling other AI civs, nor ignore that element completely.

The Op seems to be suggesting that the emphasis at higher game levels needs to be reprioritised by the AI to provide more of a challenge for the experienced person playing at those levels.

What I have found is that whilst the AI's might gang up on the Drengin, at times, all that does is allow my passage to victory even easier. I have not played much of my new game since the 1.11 patch where it is noted.....

+ AI sensitive to player going for tech victory

....I will be interested to see how that develops but I would also like to see the AI more 'sensitive' to those looking to achieve an influential domination.


Whether Stardock would like to give a greater emphasis or not to the destruction of the human player over that of the other AI's I couldn't say but I do think that if that possibility is explored it could bring a greater challenge to the game for the more experienced player. Please note I did suggest 'emphasis' not an all out ganging up tactic
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Most of this would fall into the "not gonna happen".  Other parts would fall into the "It already does this but there is no such thing as a pComputerAI->WinGame().  Getting an AI to coordinate a complex strategy in 1/100th of a second is non-trivial.

And a few of the remaining parts essentially require scripting which would cause the game to fall apart because many of your suggestions work at specific map sizes and configurations. The GalCiv AI is adaptive.

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
6. Actually, Diplomatic Translators are very useful, and I try to build them every game

And no, the computers shouldn't concentrate on killing the player at all costs, or at least not until the very top difficulty levels (where the computer already cheats). I hate it when games cheat on you like that.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And no, the computers shouldn't concentrate on killing the player at all costs, or at least not until the very top difficulty levels (where the computer already cheats). I hate it when games cheat on you like that.


There we go. 1 good idea out of this entire thread.
Thats a good idea, but maybe not so extreme. Like you get - 1 or -2 relation with every comp, just for playing at that diffilculty.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
bad ideas.... several of them in a row....

the Ai doesn't need to target the human player.. it shouldn't be able to differentiatie between the different opponents... that one is a truely dumb idea.. all the way.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The needs to value sensors and "Eyes of the Universe" more even with the planned re-balancing to ship combat. In my first Metaverse game on level Painfull, against 9 AI opponets, the AIs have crippled their economies by wasting money from buying too much (it cost 10 times to buy vs. building). I buy my first factory on my first couple of planets to get things going but I don't buy colony ships (I build them with the factory I buy), and then save my cash for running empire in the red with spending at 100% until my tax base grows large enough. In this game only the Torians are keeping up because their population (i.e., tax base) is growing faster, even with my moral at 100%. The Torians breed like rabbits! No wonder the Drengin used them as fuel in their furnances!
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Most of this would fall into the "not gonna happen". Other parts would fall into the "It already does this but there is no such thing as a pComputerAI->WinGame(). Getting an AI to coordinate a complex strategy in 1/100th of a second is non-trivial.
And a few of the remaining parts essentially require scripting which would cause the game to fall apart because many of your suggestions work at specific map sizes and configurations. The GalCiv AI is adaptive.


That's too bad. Bought this game because Gamespot.com was raving about the AI qualities. Morons.

So in summary, your great STRATEGIC game only works on mini-map mode. No epics here. Gotcha. I'll spread the word.

And MOIISKA, you're an idiot. Why are these "bad ideas"? Try expressing an intellegent counter-point or else (please) just shut the hell up and let the adults talk.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
@Precursor10 - I thought that your first post was well constructed and contained some great ideas concerning some of the short comings of this game, as I see them. I have some concerns over the choices that the AI is making, regardless of the level of difficulty that you play the game on. However I do believe that Brad and the rest of the team will continue to work very hard to continue to develop and enhance the playability, as already demonstrated with the patches released.

IMO your follow up post needs to be rethought as the 'tone' of what you have written is not in 'harmony' with your well placed initial one.
I wouldn't give up on this game ,and you do have some great ideas, so who knows what will develop in time.? Maybe when 1.2 is out more modding of certain traits and strategies might be possible to enhance the game for you...?

Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
However I do believe that Brad and the rest of the team will continue to work very hard to continue to develop and enhance the playability, as already demonstrated with the patches released.


@vimes2004 - Acknowledged.

Apologoes for the tone of my 2nd post. I spent 2 hours constructing the initial post only to check back this morning and see little in terms of a constructive response.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I DO have a problem with simpleton comments like:

"not gunna happen" or

"bad ideas"

...all I asked for was someone on the development team to READ the post. I don't need detailed responses or moronic ones either. Just wanted to be heard and invite other suggestions aimed at making this game what it can be.

Peace out.

Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am very confident that Mr Wardell and his programmers could design & code a smarter warmonger A.I. for the higher levels of difficulty...but (correct me Stardock, if I am wrong) there is a question of economics to consider :

Is it worthwhile, in terms of time & expense, for the Stardock business to invest in many personnel-hours of design & coding to satisfy a small minority of customers who insist on an extremely competitive gaming experience?

I suppose that Stardock, rather, would want to invest its time & money in the design & programming of an expansion CD to satisfy the big majority of its customers (me included), who will never become extreme warmongers.

If you want a real challenge in warfare, enlist in the US Army or Marines and volunteer for Irak duty (no humour intended).
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If you want a real challenge in warfare, enlist in the US Army or Marines and volunteer for Irak duty (no humour intended).


@Sorceresss

Turn-based strategy is one of my favorite platforms. Unfortunately, few quality products exist. This one could be great.

Note: 80+ percent of this game has to do with combat. Take a look at the tech tree. Look at the Shipyard component of the game which seems to represent Lion's share of the developer's effort.

Number of 'core' ships designs that are NOT modelled for combat? Three: FREIGHTER, CONSTRUCTOR, and COLONY SHIP.

"Extreme warmonger"...please. This IS a war game. Civilizations exist and thrive through a projection of power to some degree or another.

Suggesting someone enlist for duty in Iraq within the context of this discussion is idiotic. That's a very serious topic and I'm sure you're not qualified to understand its implications. Respect that situation and those who are involved.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
by Precursor10 Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:47 PM :

"[...] Suggesting someone enlist for duty in Iraq within the context of this discussion is idiotic. That's a very serious topic and I'm sure you're not qualified to understand its implications. Respect that situation and those who are involved."


Considering what you just wrote, receiving moralistic lessons in "respect" from you is a very trivial pin-prick.


As for my qualifications, you possess no information whatsoever to be "sure" of what they are...but I will concede that I am not an expert warmonger. I play at GalCiv 2 to relax from my recent exam on Quantum Mechanics, not to become "qualified" at invading imaginary planets with imaginary toy-soldiers.



Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I can understand the frustration that you must have felt reading some of the responses to your well thought out suggestion list. However I would like to believe that Brad and the rest of the developers here listen and respond well to what people comment on in their posts. There are points that you have made in your list that others might find contentious and you need to consider that change as radical as you propose isn't going to find the support that you must have thought when you first placed it.
I thought that you have made some really good suggestions but I don't have the knowledge of how easy they would have been to implement or, more importantly, find favour with the direction that Stardock envasages this game is going.

BTW as you are a TBS fan I hope that you are watching out for Space Empires V
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Galacitc Cilvilizations II just a mere war game? I think not, you war monger.

You need to stop making war and start making peace. Those aliens are pretty nice people once you get to know them.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for my qualifications, you possess no information whatsoever to be "sure" of what they are...but I will concede that I am not an expert warmonger. I play at GalCiv 2 to relax from my recent exam on Quantum Mechanics, not to become "qualified" at invading imaginary planets with imaginary toy-soldiers.


Clever. But it still doesn't explain the mental retardation associated with your preliminary comments though.

I made the same assumptions about you as you made about me. I responded in kind kid.

Go back to studying quantum mechanics. I'm sure you passed your exam and the quality of your comments suggest you'll score near the top of your class. Personally, I play GalCiv2 because my 6-figure salary drains my soul and I appreciate the escapism. I'll bet you're nearly as impressed with that comment as I was with your quantum mechanics insight.

And so I can head-off the predictability of your next response, know that I'm 34 and trained to hand you your ass on a plate of fine silver. So skip the assumptions cause no one cares.

By the way, what's your contribution to this discussion again? Oh ya, that's right. Nothing.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Precursor, I wrote the computer AI.  I read what you wrote.  I don't agree with what you wrote. I don't think the computer AI should treat the human differently than the others.

I believe human players should increase the difficulty level and other settings until the game plays to their desired specifications.  No game can be all things to all people.

I'm comfortable that the game's computer players provide a very good challenge for most players at "tough".  I continue to improve the AI because I enjoy it.  But don't for a second believe that I work on it because I think it is somehow lacking in any general sense.  Perfect is the enemy of good after all.

Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Precursor, I wrote the computer AI. I read what you wrote. I don't agree with what you wrote. I don't think the computer AI should treat the human differently than the others.


Not even on higher difficulty settings?

Okay Frogman. I know it's your baby and I've probably hit a nerve with this thread. I also understand that writing AI code can't be easy. It was honestly just constructive criticism.

Just know that in the interim your AI ships and fleets are just sitting around, bumping into each other on the higher difficulty, larger-map settings. It's like Larry, Moe and Curly out there.

If that's your product, so be it. You've chosen.

GCII has wicked potential and a great base concept. I'll be keeping an eye on it's development. I invested 75 bucks in the venture myself. But it's paying like the small-cap resource sector so far.





... a whole lot of excitement when the drilling begins and (often) utter disappointment afterwards.

Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think that they key point here is that its hard to improve the AI while keeping the turn times reasonable, not that its hard to improve the AI.

Yeah, the AI plays like a bad human even at high difficulty levels and makes a ton of mistakes. But, thats really the best you can do. The number of calculations needed to make the AI play like an average human would lead to ridiculously long turn times (I think everybody would rather have reasonable turn times and a bit of cheating than 5 minute turns and no cheating).

Also, remember that saying its a "good" AI is relative. The AI is excellent compared to any similar game (primarily Civ4 and MoO2). Its not excellent compared to an experienced 4X human, but its completely unreasonable to expect that.

Instead of posting a ton of unreasonable suggestions and then crying like a spoiled kid who doesnt get EXACTLY what he wants on Christmas, it might be better to calm down a bit and make more reasonable suggestions for the AI. For example, the AI should be expected to start wars better still, and should make more large rushes with high tech ships rather than dribbling in lower tech ships. It also needs to do better about getting the ground combat techs quickly. These can be done with little cost to turn time. Expecting human level fleet control and proper target identification cannot be done without costing serious turn times.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Precursor10, I strongly disagree with your first point. That is the same as cheating, and it's a cheat I wouldn't like to see in the game.

Point 8, has been neutered since in the next patch they're removing the attack adavantage. They won't need to make the AI better at attacking; they will make it a tougher punching bag.

I think in the end you're just going to have to give up hope of having a competitive AI, at least competitive to anyone who knows how to play strategy games.

I DO have a problem with simpleton comments...

Calm down, and get more fiber in your diet. It's not a good idea to annoy the only guy who can make the changes you want.


Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Instead of posting a ton of unreasonable suggestions and then crying like a spoiled kid who doesnt get EXACTLY what he wants on Christmas, it might be better to calm down a bit and make more reasonable suggestions for the AI.


Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

I am not a programmer. I did not know that these were "unreasonable requests".

All I know is this AI is stupid, correction: beyond stupid on HUGE galaxy settings...regardless of the difficulty setting you apply. I'll try a smaller sized map as was suggested but I really wanted a longer, more strategic feel to my games.

And I'm getting roasted for having such a BASIC expectation. I mean this IS a 'strategy' game right? Do I need to start quoting aspects of the game's packaging? Isn't that what they advertised? Why do I have to play on a medium-sized map to have a challenging AI experience?!?!?

"DREAD LORDS...THE GALAXY IS A DANGEROUS PLACE" Sound familiar? Check out the game cover.

These guys sure have everyone here brain-washed into accepting mediocrity. Look at the forums! This game is plagued with bugs, non-functional features and other bizarre ticks. But the game is also blessed with sound fundamentals, a wicked concept and it's apparent that the guys here are trying really, really hard to satisfy their community. Sh!t man, if I didn't recognize the latter, I'd be outta here...getting my fix elsewhere. I don't need to waste my valuable time arguing with people in a gaming forum.

I'd love to see this game realize it's potential...just trying to do my small part.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
IMO your follow up post needs to be rethought as the 'tone' of what you have written is not in 'harmony' with your well placed initial one.


I know that I would not be able to maintain an even tone after having two pages' worth of my ideas dismissed in a paragraph. On the other hand I wouldn't be able to stay calm about having two years' worth of my programming work dismissed on the front page of my forums.

You know where you can get a great game in an epic-size universe? Galactic Civ I. Masochistic, Gigantic, Common planets, you will be challenged right from the beginning and all the way up past Dreadnoughts. You'll have to watch your Influence (I gave away one of my planets to start a war from an opponent who had to be distracted if I was to survive. It took a crash research and building influence program to keep all the rest from flipping, and I lost four planets.) and the computer has a good chance to make it to Tech Victory before you do (the game continues on anyway, but you know you got schooled). The computer pounces on you when you're weak and declares war at the merest hint of Combat Transports in its territory. It's a whole lot of fun. See some of Sirian's Link walkthroughs for more.

I am not a programmer. I did not know that these were "unreasonable requests".


I believe from a programming standpoint the computer just goes through the list of ships and has each one figure out what it wants to do based on what it sees and who it's at war with. It's kind of amazing it can do a semblance of strategy at all. Could a computer play chess by setting a "capture the center" or "go for mate" strategy variable and then letting the pieces look for favorable opportunities?

Finally on #6, I haven't found a use for diversifying my own weapons classes yet. It's always better to be stronger. 1 mass driver by itself doesn't do anything against the shields, but 1 more missile on the top of 9 missile does 1 more damage than before. So why should the computer diversify?
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
hey precursor10, check this:-

1. i have to disagree with you on the economy bonus side, the more money/production/research per turn - the greater the chance that efficient choices to spend/build/research can be made. However i have noticed that on a lot of the planets the AI seems to go for the high farm high influence route, with too few manufacturing buildings (apparently this has been fixed on 1.12) which means, judgiing by how many ships the ai employ, they're buying them. this is crap and seriously needs sorting as it is a waste of its production capabilities. so its not what you get, but how you use it thats important.

2. a-f are very good points, but i'd like to add a few myself (prioritised - highest to lowest):

a: Military starbases
b: Enemy Fleets
c: Highest production worlds
d: Money worlds
e: The rest

Also the AI shoud always amass an invaion Armada (Preferably out of visual range)- Lots of fleets - nuff transports to knock out fist few key worlds - and also constructors to set up a military base. All subsequent fleets should be quite large, but a continuous flow of fighting ships would be usefull to keep the frontline powered up.

In too many games the ai comes at you with a continuous flow of fleets which i usually tend to chew up, whereas a concerted effort would have broken my defences and laid me open for the kill.

3. Obvious...

4. Whatever - would never go for it as it is a cheap way to win.

5. Agreed.

6. Diplomatic translators? you kidding, you gotta be, they're up there with aphrodisiac. Diptrans and galactic showcase make you godlike - for trading, helping buddy civs, stopping warmongers ruining your day. but galactic guide book does suck d*#$.

7. Not sure if i agree with you, they should trade weaker versions of their own tech to keep up in case a switch is needed though. i think they do this already from what i've seen

8. This has now become irrelevant as there will be no attacker bonus, gosh, i'm gonna miss it. *sniff*

9. hold on there is no 9.....

whew!

heres a few suggestions that you migh wanna try to improve the quality of the games you play

1: Large+ galaxies with 'abundant' everything - scattered or loose cluster stars.
2: Masochistic or above difficulty level
3: 9 civs.

if this doesn't work, try to handicap yourself:

i) don't build wonders or trade goods and never aquire them
ii) allow for tech trading, but don't do it yourself
iii) cover your eyes and play by sound alone....

And yes this is a war game for me too, if others wanna build sandcastles, thats good too..

later init.