questions for programers about AI

[gps]

^^ My compliments for this educated post, some very good points made here.

[dexters]

Originally Posted by gps

No, it wasn't. In I and II SoD was stupid gameplay because if your main defender was taken the whole stack was doomed. It was perfectly possible to have two units take the same place - but it was not very wise to do so in combat situations. SoD was made a feature and good strategy in III and was toned done severely by collateral damage in IV.

SoD function changed from Civ1 to 4, but given there was a span of 15 years between the 4 releases, that is expected. That doesn't really detract from my point that allowing the AI to mass their units into a single stack was essentially unchanged in those 15 years.

We would expect 1UPT to receive changes in the next game as well. It doesn't mean it's completely different. Perhaps there will be an idea of 'manning' seiged units so they cost more production and cost double to maintain to blunt human use of those units. Hey there's an Idea for you Firaxis.

As many people say that mechanic works great for human vs. human encounters - but once again the AI is unable to properly handle / inflict collateral damage. So replacing SoD / collateral damage (which the AI is unable to handle properly) with 1UPT (which the AI is even less able to handle) - is like driving out pestilence with cholera, as we say in my country. I am very confident that finding a solution like in I or II to allow multiple units but to not make it a very effectife strategy to do so - would have made things a lot easier for the AI.

So does SOD. Military encounters will always be more interesting under human control. But I don't think there's anything inherently different with 1UP outside of the fact that it doesn't have the advantage of allowing the AI of massing its troops and forcing the human player to deploy cheats, tricks, exploits to counter that.

For all the unfair criticism of Civ5 being a war game, the de-emaphsis from killing reams and reams of units to smaller armies and smart placement of troops also means that the difficulty is shifted away from stacks to managing diplomacy, and not in the psychopathic way people used to play.

Civ5 actually requires players to pay attention to their friends. AI threat assessment is vastly improved and they can see things people used to get away with being done to them. At the same time the human's reduced ability to bamboozle them endlessly and to distract AI rivals by opening up 2nd and 3rd fronts in wars with cheap bribes enhances play. The fact that it's so difficult to bribe an AI unless there's an alignment in foreign policy interest elevates friendships and power blocs in Civ5 further. Finally, I can't really blame the AI for being a warmonger when the standard strategy in Civ3 and 4 is essentially psychopathic on the human side and people are trying to use it in Civ5.

[gps]

Originally Posted by dexters

SoD function changed from Civ1 to 4, but given there was a span of 15 years between the 4 releases, that is expected. That doesn't really detract from my point that allowing the AI to mass their units into a single stack was essentially unchanged in those 15 years.

Please don't take this personal, but your comments show clearly you have no clue at all, how the AI in Civ I played. There were no SoDs in Civ I. Not from the player because it was bad and hazardous gameplay to use them. And not from the AI, because it was not programmed to use them for the same reason. There was no forced 1UPT, but that does not mean there were SoDs. There weren't.

Originally Posted by dexters

But I don't think there's anything inherently different with 1UP outside of the fact that it doesn't have the advantage of allowing the AI of massing its troops and forcing the human player to deploy cheats, tricks, exploits to counter that.

Well, I don't really see the need to "deploy cheats, tricks, exploits" to beat IV. Simply build a bigger stack, that's all you have to do.

Originally Posted by dexters

... also means that the difficulty is shifted away from stacks to managing diplomacy, and not in the psychopathic way people used to play.

For the first few decades of my life I must have had a totally twisted and wrong understanding of what "psychopathic" means. Thanks for pointing that one out. Must try to remember that one: human way of playing diplomacy in IV = psychopathic. AI way of playing diplomacy in V = sane, logical and rational. Human way of playing diplomacy in IV = psychopathic. AI way of playing diplomacy in V = sane, logical and rational...

[AfterShafter]

Originally Posted by gps

For the first few decades of my life I must have had a totally twisted and wrong understanding of what "psychopathic" means. Thanks for pointing that one out. Must try to remember that one: human way of playing diplomacy in IV = psychopathic. AI way of playing diplomacy in V = sane, logical and rational. Human way of playing diplomacy in IV = psychopathic. AI way of playing diplomacy in V = sane, logical and rational...

Actually, "psychopathic" is not such a bad way to describe previous Civ games and how the player approached AI and vice-versa. We go into the game looking at "allies" as resources to be used, promises of friendship/love/etc as something we care about until the moment we stand to benefit by utterly wiping out our fast friends of 3000 years. Most of us - except those weirdo role playing guys (kidding) - go into Civ games with every intention of lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, and in general, screwing over the AI in ways that would land us in jail or friendless if we came close to acting that way in our in-life relationships.

People have complained in this forum, for multiple civ iterations, that the AI was erratic, untrustworthy, irrational, psychotic... Pick your term, and roll them together. That's because you couldn't trust the AI - it wasn't dependable, "friendship" didn't mean much, centuries of positive relationship were routinely thrown out the window when it suited their purposes... But, look at paragraph 1. The AI was nuts, but humans are *far* worse.

When I look at how I treated diplomatic relations in Civ IV, by far the most tangible penalty of being a backstabbing nutjob was that it would be harder to backstab someone at their most vulnerable in the future. That's about it. Being liked by the world didn't stop DOW's with me, the AI wouldn't give me even close to a fair shake for tech trades as it was, defensive pacts were at *best* a mild deterrent since anyone who was militarily powerful would laugh in your face when you suggested them... So what was the functional purpose of friendly relationships in Civ IV? Either a mild and unreliable war deterrent, or a chance to backstab them eventually.

You could mince words and argue that perhaps some other mental disorder is more apt to describe this than psychotic, but whatever disorder you settle on, it'll be a pretty bad one. Civ V doesn't make us treat AI's any less like objects, but it DOES give us a more compelling reason to act like AI's aren't just keeping the seat warm with their empires until we decide to take their cities...

Civ V... Well, it takes steps in the right direction for this. The AI warmongers a lot, but as pointed out, it's pretty much a given that humans are the ultimate opportunists in Civ, so them firing back in kind isn't such a big thing. Now though, with the inclusion of research pacts being only allowable with friends and the increased dependence on strategic and happiness resources, making friends is, simply put, beneficial in ways other than just as a tool for an eventual backstab. I actually think Dexter is giving us a good insight here - Civ V AI is taking steps to make nurturing long term relationships more valuable. I don't buddy up with Gandhi just because I want him to work land for me for the next 5000 years and then take him out - I do it because I need him for RA's.

Originally Posted by gps

Please don't take this personal, but your comments show clearly you have no clue at all, how the AI in Civ I played. There were no SoDs in Civ I. Not from the player because it was bad and hazardous gameplay to use them. And not from the AI, because it was not programmed to use them for the same reason. There was no forced 1UPT, but that does not mean there were SoDs. There weren't.

You caught him in a bit of a gaffe there, but to use that to undermine an otherwise pretty good point is just a rhetorical trick and poor form in an argument actually pursuing the truth. It's been so long since playing Civ I and II, I can hardly recall myself... Was Civ I the only game that had the whole stack wiped out when you lost the top unit, or did II do it that way as well?

Dexter is right. SOD has been pretty close to what it is now since either Civ III or II (depending on my query directly above). Variants on the form, but the dynamic of how we approached war as the difficulties went up hasn't changed much for, like, 1.5 decades. I'm not going to say a re visitation of the Civ I approach wouldn't have some merit - it very well might. If 1UPT flops big time in Civ V, we may see it. If Dexter is suggesting that some variant of multi units per tile isn't an interesting alternative, I disagree with him - but, I don't think he's doing that.

Originally Posted by gps

Well, I don't really see the need to "deploy cheats, tricks, exploits" to beat IV. Simply build a bigger stack, that's all you have to do.

You're either being a bit disingenuous, or under the false impression you're going to fool any old hand at Civ into believing that you didn't "cheat," trick, and exploit to remain competitive at higher difficulty levels.

We would dump every penny and every spare novel tech we had into a trade to get major world powers to attack each other just so we could jump one from behind - well knowing that two human players wouldn't fall for this, realizing the ploy, since THEY know we're psychotic in our relationships. We saw Monty amassing troops on our borders, traded him a banana for the 10 turns of peace, and then got Justinian to attack him while we were waiting - knowing that humans wouldn't fall for such things, since they see our motives. We started beside a civ weak to an early rush and we axe rushed them because we *know* they won't make the proper moves to defend against an axe rush, because they're AI. We establish treaties of friendship for thousands of years with no intention of being friends, and rather to be more effective enemies... Sometimes I felt like I was Bugs Bunny trying to play Elmer and Taz off of each other through a series of decoys and eventually swoop in and take them both out.

If you're playing at a tough difficulty level and you were successful in Civ IV, if you honestly examined your approach, I *seriously* doubt you could come away without admitting that you'd exploited predictable AI flaws from strategic, tactical, and diplomatic standpoints. I look at my growth as a player in that game, and that of my entire Civ entourage, and that's what I see happening as we get better - we learn to game the system in more and more refined ways.

Now, Civ V does not at all do away with this, but it does change the focus a bit, and I think it does so in some positive ways, as Dexter touches upon them.

Typed enough for now... Floors to scrub. Wahoo.

[Esoteric Arcane]

The stack death if your defending unit was lost was a Civ 2 concept to undermine the stack of doom. I cannot say 1 had it or not, it was the only civilization that I did not play, but I still read the handbooks on the game, and they stated they "added" that concept, so I presume one didnt have it.

[gps]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

The AI was nuts, but humans are *far* worse.

Typed enough for now... Floors to scrub. Wahoo.

Even if you write five more pages it eludes me completely what the way you play IV, or the way you asume I or others play IV - which might or might not be correct at all - tells us about the quality of the AI in V. There is a great consensus that the AI in V is weak in dealing with 1UPT and has a irrational and crazy way of handling diplomacy. There might be people who do like the game in spite of this, there might be people unable or unwilling to see or admit that, there might be people who defend it for ages and pages no matter what. All OK with me, but does not really change that fact that the AI in V stinks for many people. I played the game and I read your post. Guess what's more convincing? The AI has it weaknesses in IV, it's worse in V, the AI can be abused in IV, it can be abused worse in V. Been there, seen it...
So please let's get back to the topic of this thread: the question why people think - from a programmers perspective - why the AI is so weak and wha went wrong in V compared to IV. Posting here that you don't think the AI in V is bad, or that the way you assume I play IV proves that the AI in V is not bad, might be interesting in some other context, but it's not really on topic...

[dexters]

Originally Posted by gps

Even if you write five more pages it eludes me completely what the way you play IV, or the way you asume I or others play IV - which might or might not be correct at all - tells us about the quality of the AI in V. There is a great consensus that the AI in V is weak in dealing with 1UPT and has a irrational and crazy way of handling diplomacy.

1upt tactics is always an issue, just as SOD tactics were always an issue. 1UPT hightens it because the AI can concentrate far fewer units in a spot and the humans gain an advantage.

It took a while to realize this, but the developers, Ed Bech et al, have shifted the complexity of the game from managing large stacks to managing diplomacy.

As it stands with the vanilla game, there are still issues with diplomacy, mainly the lack of 'good' modifiers to engratiate onself with the AI, that apparently will be amended with the new features coming in Gods and Kings, but on the whole, the post overhaul non Vanilla AI is significantly better than anything Civ4 had. It's fairly obvious if you play a patched game.

They interact more realistically, identify threats better (Civ4 dickish strategies that block AI expansion, early rushes that knock out a neighbour, and general passive agressiveness by the human player will earn you an early DOW from the other civs and rightfully so) and the AI truly value friends who hasn't backstabbed. Part of the fun is identifying who your real friends are and who are likely faking it (hint: a friendly warmongerleader is probably faking it or at least is bipolar in that sense that they can turn on you in a dime) but even then, there are genuine tipping points in the game when a true friend denonces you because their national interest no longer align with yours or it is clear they are going for the top spot.

Coalitions are also a great thing. Civ games never handled multi-national alliances outside of Civ3's locked alliances, but Civ5 has an organic enemy of my enemy is my friend feature where mutual denouncements of a common foe earns you brownie points and mutual friendships with a common friend enhances it. You get these very organic 'coalitions' forming due in large part to how the civs are interacting with each other and who has backstabbed whom or who is DOW too many times and got denounced by a bunch of other civs who form a coalition, rather than the very random inorganic alliances of RNG from previous games.

Trading is now also being funneled into neutral and above levels of relationships, so if you're a dick to everyone, you can't trade with a fair price. Something that was possible in previous games. The last loophole being closed is forcing Research Agreements in Civ5 to be a friends only agreement. A belated but correct change that will really highten the dichotomy between friends and everyone else.

It's really a different kind of game, a geopolitical game of tectonic empires clashing, moving together and against each other. City states also introduces the idea of an empire claiming territory and points of 'interest'. No Civ game has done it to a point where the AI can identify a point of the map, a place, and say "don't cross me and take this city or I will be mad". That's a new element, and I'm looking forward to how they have improved it in Gods and Kings

I don't really buy then 'oh AI is so bad because I can't fool them to being my friend forever' (even as I rape them for their resources, take their cities in oscillating wars and prevent them from ever winning) but really that was idiotic and people only liked it because it gave them absolute control over a large part of the diplomatic game, with AI RNG handling the remaining randomness.

Originally Posted by gps

Please don't take this personal, but your comments show clearly you have no clue at all, how the AI in Civ I played. There were no SoDs in Civ I. Not from the player because it was bad and hazardous gameplay to use them. And not from the AI, because it was not programmed to use them for the same reason. There was no forced 1UPT, but that does not mean there were SoDs. There weren't.

If I made that claim in error then I admit the error. I think I've stated my history with Civ, causal play with Civ2, really liked the franchise starting with Civ3 to Civ5. I don't think it materially changes my point Civ4's SOD is refined if not for 15 years, for 10 1995 to 2005. over 3 iterations instead of 4.

As noted, this isn't a political campaign, dismissing an entire point as you're prone to do with my posts and AfterShafter's posts and mocking the amount of detail given by noting we can't possibly change your mind no matter how long we make our comments is extremely poor form.

I'm tempted to suggest you should only posts in the rants thread at this point as there's no discussion to be had outside of it. BTW what are your Civ5 credentials? Just wondering.

[AfterShafter]

Originally Posted by gps

Even if you write five more pages it eludes me completely what the way you play IV, or the way you asume I or others play IV - which might or might not be correct at all - tells us about the quality of the AI in V. There is a great consensus that the AI in V is weak in dealing with 1UPT and has a irrational and crazy way of handling diplomacy. There might be people who do like the game in spite of this, there might be people unable or unwilling to see or admit that, there might be people who defend it for ages and pages no matter what. All OK with me, but does not really change that fact that the AI in V stinks for many people. I played the game and I read your post. Guess what's more convincing? The AI has it weaknesses in IV, it's worse in V, the AI can be abused in IV, it can be abused worse in V. Been there, seen it...
So please let's get back to the topic of this thread: the question why people think - from a programmers perspective - why the AI is so weak and wha went wrong in V compared to IV. Posting here that you don't think the AI in V is bad, or that the way you assume I play IV proves that the AI in V is not bad, might be interesting in some other context, but it's not really on topic...

GPS, after years of reading the Civ IV war academy, participating in Civ IV strategy threads (really, check my post history), and listening to probably over two dozen podcasts, I really don't have to make many assumptions about how people competitively played the game. I'm calling BS on the "my treatment of the AI is pure and chaste, and I still win at competitive difficulty modes!" act if that's what you're trying to convince me of. If not, I am not sure what your point is. And if you were not exploiting AI weakness to win, odds are you were playing on a relatively non-competitive difficulty - and there is nothing wrong with that. Some of the most interesting exercises in playing Civ are for the pursuit of playing the game, not for a brutally fought victory, but this pursuit doesn't really qualify you to make comments on the necessity of exploiting the AI.

The only widespread criticism of Civ V AI I've seen is military based - even in this thread, I don't see harsh criticism of diplomatic AI (described as "meh") and, while it isn't perfect, it could be a lot worse. I won't argue that the military AI doesn't need work - it simply does. Again, something that was true of previous Civs, which is pretty clearly evidenced that *every single Civ game* has difficulty that scales by resource advantages and not intelligence improvements. The implementation of the SoD in Civ IV also helped hide what was glaringly flawed AI that they never really tried to improve.

To return to some made claims... Are players "psychotic" in Civ games? You are darned right they are. Does Civ V make a move to make player VS AI relationships more than a psychotic backstab fest? Yes, it most certainly does. Is this an improvement in general? I consider it as such.

Now, the claim, was the AI psychotic in Civ IV? Let's consider a bit of anecdotal evidence which I think will ring true for a good number of people... You know how my last Civ IV game went? It was a deity game, and I remember it well with a bitter taste in my mouth. I'd spent thousands of game years converting de Gaulle to my religion which was opposed to Justinian's - and I cultivated our relationship *HARD*. I kissed his rear, I got just about every policy and religious bonus I could manage working for me, and our positive relationship was among the highest I'd ever achieved in a deity level game. At the same time, I worked hard to set us at odds from a power bloc lead by Justinian who, if you can recall, was a religious nutjob (HUGE negative penalty associated with other religions) - and Justinian despised us both. So, somewhere around/between riflemen and infantry, I went to war with Justinian and got de Gaulle in on it - Justinian being a massive unit builder, I need the help. I had a slight military tech advantage over Justinian, and de Gaulle had a significant one. The war begins, it rages for a while, my protective stacks managed to weather the storm of the massive unit rush and I started to gain ground. I then started capturing cities and carving out what would have been one of the largest empires in the world. Justinian then declares peace with de Gaulle, becomes his vassal, and I'm at war with de Gaulle and him. All of the sudden Justinian is brought up to tech parity with de Gaulle, Justinian's riflemen and cannons become infantry and artillery over the span of one turn, and a several thousand year blood feud between firmly established religious blocs is thrown out the window and my carefully orchestrated war with Justinian turns to a monumental defeat against Justinian allied with his religious antithesis, de Gaulle.

This is in Civ BTS, after years of patching for Civ IV. This is exactly the type of psychotic, backstabbing treatment that both players and AI did in that game, and players and AI were pretty heavily rewarded for. Civ V's diplomacy system as it is shaping up moves away from this, making maintaining relationships not only more beneficial to do rather than throw out the window, but quite often, I've found that not only does the AI want to honour its long term friendships, but I want to as well.

Some points about Civ V's AI here ring true. It needs help managing units, it spends gold too easily, and I often find it is hugely beneficial to keep pointless, costless wars going because AI peace settlements are ridiculous. It's certainly more simple than Civ IV's AI at this point, but there is less for it to manage. But, it's moving away from the psychotic mannerisms that marked Civ IV diplomacy with the AI, and I'm darned happy about it.

As for the AI being very trigger happy and "randomly" declaring war... A state of hostility always looming at neutral or merely incidental friendly relations is something that I don't even think is an error. Since the human IS psychotic, if you make the AI friendly and trusting prior to the player really earning that trust and friendship, players will on average manipulate, abuse, chew up and then spit out the AI. The AI being trigger happy results in the AI not just sitting there and waiting for the human to do this - and do NOT tell me that the player doesn't try.

[slo]

wow...look what I started!!!
great reads, thanks so much for all the time you guys put in....Amazing how much information is avalable on this site...
thanks again for all the opinions..
slo

[AfterShafter]

Originally Posted by dexters

They interact more realistically, identify threats better (Civ4 dickish strategies that block AI expansion, early rushes that knock out a neighbour, and general passive agressiveness by the human player will earn you an early DOW from the other civs and rightfully so) and the AI truly value friends who hasn't backstabbed. Part of the fun is identifying who your real friends are and who are likely faking it (hint: a friendly warmongerleader is probably faking it or at least is bipolar in that sense that they can turn on you in a dime) but even then, there are genuine tipping points in the game when a true friend denonces you because their national interest no longer align with yours or it is clear they are going for the top spot.

Coalitions are also a great thing. Civ games never handled multi-national alliances outside of Civ3's locked alliances, but Civ5 has an organic enemy of my enemy is my friend feature where mutual denouncements of a common foe earns you brownie points and mutual friendships with a common friend enhances it. You get these very organic 'coalitions' forming due in large part to how the civs are interacting with each other and who has backstabbed whom or who is DOW too many times and got denounced by a bunch of other civs who form a coalition, rather than the very random inorganic alliances of RNG from previous games.

Trading is now also being funneled into neutral and above levels of relationships, so if you're a dick to everyone, you can't trade with a fair price. Something that was possible in previous games. The last loophole being closed is forcing Research Agreements in Civ5 to be a friends only agreement. A belated but correct change that will really highten the dichotomy between friends and everyone else.

I don't agree with everything you've said in your posts, but these three paragraphs outline why I like what you're saying. You've nailed a lot of improvements in the general nature of the AI/human relationships in this game relative to Civ IV. The penalty for player passive-aggression (as a protective player, I lived off these on high difficulties in IV), the denouncement cycle leading to organically grown power blocs (no more playing sides and rectifying thousands of years of hatred with a "sorry, I'm Taoist and on fundamentalist too now - have a banana to seal the deal!"), a much more consistent system of trading resources that greatly favours trading with "real" friends to just any schmo who wants resources. Heck, these days, after cultivating a friendship, I actually just ask them for resources/gpt/a flat gold sum sometimes and they give it to me, no questions asked - whereas I can't get the time of day from someone who hates me, even if I offer them something they want.

Proper cultivation of relationships in this game matter more. It takes real effort, not just flash int he pan religious/policy conversion, and the benefits are not only more tangible but also more necessary. In this regard, I definitely see Civ V as an improvement over IV for the AI.

[dexters]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

I don't agree with everything you've said in your posts, but these three paragraphs outline why I like what you're saying. You've nailed a lot of improvements in the general nature of the AI/human relationships in this game relative to Civ V. The penalty for player passive-aggression (as a protective player, I lived off these on high difficulties in IV), the denouncement cycle leading to organically grown power blocs (no more playing sides and rectifying thousands of years of hatred with a "sorry, I'm Taoist and on fundamentalist too now - have a banana to seal the deal!"), a much more consistent system of trading resources that greatly favours trading with "real" friends to just any schmo who wants resources. Heck, these days, after cultivating a friendship, I actually just ask them for resources/gpt/a flat gold sum sometimes and they give it to me, no questions asked - whereas I can't get the time of day from someone who hates me, even if I offer them something they want.

Proper cultivation of relationships in this game matter more. It takes real effort, not just flash int he pan religious/policy conversion, and the benefits are not only more tangible but also more necessary. In this regard, I definitely see Civ V as an improvement over IV for the AI.

Yeah, I didn't really set out to write what I wrote. These are simply thoughts that were there as I played through my games that coalesced into my current view that they are raising the AI's diplomatic game considerably and old methods of psychopathic play should not be carried further in the franchise. This is a gift the detractors have given as their comments forced me to think about what is it about Civ5 that works and why do people continue to say Civ5 diplomacy doesn't work for them (usually a common thread there is an attachment of Civ4 model of diplomacy and little interest in moving past it -- not to generalize of course but that seems to be true a lot of times).

To be honest, my views on Civ5, though always leaning positive, was muddled and changed over the course of the patching.

But as the game has become stable and Ed Beach has now been put in charge to chart its future, from the messy initial release where the diplomatic system back then bears little resemblance to the current one we have, it's clear what direction they are moving. And I like it.

[Buccaneer]

I like it too. If a picture can be a 1000 words, then here is the single reason (among many) why Civ5 is superior to Civ4. If it was a SoD, then I would've just parked my stack in Osininka and then bulldoze my way to Onondaga. Instead, I have funnel my units around a mountain, find relatively safe ground for the artillery and avoid Montreal as best as possible.

[slo]

again, thanks so much for all the input...and I agree, I mostly like this game,,,actually love it...BUT still I wish the AI was a little better, I just dont fear war on this game like i did in the other games in particular any paradox game...those games are far more complicated then civ is and there ai is very very good at the game...
I too have high hopes with ed in charge,,and again, i like the games changes enough to put up with a so so ai and hope they build upon this game to make it better and better, 1up, limited resorces ect all changes for the better...
slo

[BrokTheFanatic]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

I don't agree with everything you've said in your posts, but these three paragraphs outline why I like what you're saying. You've nailed a lot of improvements in the general nature of the AI/human relationships in this game relative to Civ IV. The penalty for player passive-aggression (as a protective player, I lived off these on high difficulties in IV), the denouncement cycle leading to organically grown power blocs (no more playing sides and rectifying thousands of years of hatred with a "sorry, I'm Taoist and on fundamentalist too now - have a banana to seal the deal!"), a much more consistent system of trading resources that greatly favours trading with "real" friends to just any schmo who wants resources. Heck, these days, after cultivating a friendship, I actually just ask them for resources/gpt/a flat gold sum sometimes and they give it to me, no questions asked - whereas I can't get the time of day from someone who hates me, even if I offer them something they want.

Proper cultivation of relationships in this game matter more. It takes real effort, not just flash int he pan religious/policy conversion, and the benefits are not only more tangible but also more necessary. In this regard, I definitely see Civ V as an improvement over IV for the AI.

At first I was wondering where dexter's arguments were headed but that later post is a good one. I hope they get something like that working.

@AfterShaft Good summary before and comments. My only point is that you don't have to do it all, you can take short cuts and it is also good to see progress. The lack of progress in this area is what has me the most worried. Hopefully the expansion makes some nice AI changes that will show they have been working on AI.

------------------------------

NOW! I have to go back and say that if the AI cannot pose a military threat then what is the point of diplomacy? At least with SoDs I had to worry about making enemies (on higher difficulties 2+ opponent usually ended a match (and I don't cheat, heh)). In Civ 5 I can almost do whatever I want. In fact, I prefer war with opponents who are in the lead since I can readily handle the streams of units the send, sometimes from way way way off. Those are units they could use to conquer AIs near them but instead they get wasted. In fact, during certain eras it is pretty s8 forward to take whatever city I want. Taking cities takes time but the AI cannot stop even a handful of units.

I just need them to be a threat. On the highest levels it is hard only due to the issues with keeping up with science. If you can stay close, by mid-game it is a win. In Civ 4 I always had to be careful (well, except the occasional amazing start (great huts, take a enemy city) but I never finished those games,since I really only enjoy a close match to the end).

And their lack of use of huge stockpiles of gold... that is pretty much unforgiveable.

[gps]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

The only widespread criticism of Civ V AI I've seen is military based - even in this thread, I don't see harsh criticism of diplomatic AI (described as "meh") and, while it isn't perfect, it could be a lot worse.

That's intersting, because you seem to take part in one of the many "AI diplomacy is meh" threads quite vocally right now. And once again, allthough you repeated all your arguments again why you do think the AI in V is great - that's not the topic of this thread. The topic and question of the thread is: supposition AI is bad, what went wrong with it's programming? If you don't agree to the supposition this whole thread is based upon - then why do you post here? You should post in the "The AI in V is so much better than in IV, let's glorify the makers" thread. How hard is that to get???

[AfterShafter]

Originally Posted by gps

That's intersting, because you seem to take part in one of the many "AI diplomacy is meh" threads quite vocally right now. And once again, allthough you repeated all your arguments again why you do think the AI in V is great - that's not the topic of this thread. The topic and question of the thread is: supposition AI is bad, what went wrong with it's programming? If you don't agree to the supposition this whole thread is based upon - then why do you post here? You should post in the "The AI in V is so much better than in IV, let's glorify the makers" thread. How hard is that to get???

GPS, you know what else is interesting? You seem to have forgotten what the original poster asked us

"we all know that the AI is very very weak in Civ V.
1. Was the AI that much better in CIV IV or was I a worse player then?
2. If the AI was better in IV what happend? Did the programers not know how to code the ai this time..is it all because of the 1up?"

First supposition, I respond with an admission it manages units less effectively and it needs help on gold management and peace offerings - and probably other things not springing to mind. First question, I answer "no, the AI wasn't actually that much better in Civ IV." My answer to the second question is "I believe it's better in other areas, worse in some."

What's more, I quit this game for 6 months because of issues. I don't forget that when I assess the game, I just don't see the point in joining the mantra of "THIS GAME IS TRASH! LET IT BURNNNN!" It's a lot better now. I hardly give the game unmitigated praise, but the reality is, I don't see it deserves either that or endless blame. My position is, Civ IV is being overglorified in some ways, and Civ V still does some things well. If you ask me which is a better game, or which was a better game at release, I'll answer Civ IV on both counts - but I do NOT think, and will NOT act, like Civ V doesn't do some things well, and isn't still a good game.

Got it? Now, do you disagree with many/any of the points raised, or is this fluff piece all you had to contribute?

[gps]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

I hardly give the game unmitigated praise, but the reality is, I don't see it deserves either that or endless blame. My position is, Civ IV is being overglorified in some ways, and Civ V still does some things well.

Great, then we almost agree here.

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

Got it? Now, do you disagree with many/any of the points raised, or is this fluff piece all you had to contribute?

Well, in one of my recently played games in V - just as an example - Monty for three or four times in a row was stuck in a back-stabber / a...-licker cycle. Got a bloody nose each time, did not learn anything from it. Maybe he was a bit pi...ed I mostly ignored him, did not provoke him in any way, did not even settle remotely close to him. Maybe he felt I should pay him a little bit more attention.*) That's behaviour I would expect from any angry and overtired toddler, not from an AI in a Civ game. With that in mind I really have difficulties taking anyone seriously who tries to rationalize that kind of behaviour as in any way improved, logical or rational. In IV the AI had good, logical and rational reasons for loving or hating me. And they gave me sane hints for how to treat them to get along properly. That's what I would expect in a game of strategy - and not the kind of simulated crazyness we get in V, where you need a shrink diploma to be able to read and give them their their silly wants and needs. Yes, I could exploit the AI in IV, yes I could treat them like cr..., but I guess I can do that in V as well, plus I paid 50 or so bucks for IV and the AI to entertain me, so I guess abusing them is my prerogative if I am in the mood!!!
There are many things V does right, starting with the pretty landscape graphics, the cool looking leaders, the music and mood in general, the art deco style - but the AI surely is not the part where V shines, and this is the most important part in a game of strategy! Feel free to reply, but don't expect me to change my mind on that one...

*) P.S.: This should also correct your wrong assumption about how I play Civ games. Usually I am rather friendly to the AI as long as they treat me the same way, and I don't really desperately need their land to win. If I were a hardcore player I should have taken him out long ago, but I did not. Becuase I don't try to cheat, trick or exploit them, I'm rather one of those dumb peacemonger / roleplayer types who wants to win the game in a way a responsible statesman would, and not by nuking everyone to the ground. It's a pity the AI in V is unable or unwilling to play the same game...

[gingerbill]

The AI is no worse than CIv 4 , it's nonsense when people pretend CIv4 AI played a great tactical game , it played about the same quality as CIV 5.

The AI outside of combat i think is actually better than CIV 4, certainly no worse.

The combat AI needs improvement but it's a lot more difficult for the AI with one unit per hex than a big stack of doom. A human sometimes has to sit there for 10 minutes working out how to move and army up to a city with a mountain in the way. And i know i sometimes mess it up.

The diplo AI is hard to judge as the sytem itself is 'meh' , i think the AI is doing an ok job there i just think the diplo itself needs changing to be more fun.

[gps]

Originally Posted by gingerbill

The AI is no worse than CIv 4 , it's nonsense when people pretend CIv4 AI played a great tactical game , it played about the same quality as CIV 5.

Agreed, but Civ until V never even pretended to be a tactical game. So you can hardly blame it failing in a discipline it never really tried to compete. For V however there was a deliberate descision to make tactical gameplay based on hex grid and 1UPT a major focus. And if you make it a major focus, you better be good at it...