August Patch (1.0.1.383) is out!

SirSaab said:

I just wish there was hope that one day we could have meaningful relations with other civs. I understand the argument that the cIV diplomacy was easily gamed, yet I don't feel like the inherently hostile CiV diplomacy has made the game better.

Click to expand...

This is not as much a problem with the civ5 AI, but with the general game design of the civilization series. The rational thing to do in civilization games is to be a bastard. There is very little incentive to cooperate with other players, and even less incentive to be loyal about it.

The root of this issue lies with the "winner takes all" victory conditions. If you do not win the game, you lose. Consequently, it is hardly ever rational to be friendly to the players on the leaderboard. Since the human player is typically on top of the leaderboard (or near), there is typically no rational reason for the AI to be friendly to the human player.

Previous, incarnations of the civ series got around this by having the AI base its diplomatic decisions on some arbitrary set of conditions that had nothing to do with its actual interests. Consequently, diplomacy ended up being just a way for the human to get a leg up on the AI.

In civ5 they decided to let the AI make its decisions based on its best estimate of its best interests. I think this is, in principle, is step in the right direction. The problem with it is that it exposes the more fundamental problem with the overall game design. The next step, should be to address that issue. This would require some fundamental changes in what the goals of the game are.



On the whole, people sure don't seem to be having a hard time beating CiV in spite of the "human/mp-style" AI's, but a lot of people miss real alliances and psychologically stable (if easily befriended) partners in diplomacy. Seems just as "gameable" as cIV diplomacy.[/QUOTE]

^ Very well said. I suppose permanent alliances might be an option. I can't really think of a good incentive for them and they're certain to have flaws as well. But that'll at least address the winner take all aspect.

KevinLancaster said:

Is it just me, or does the new patch create a graphical glitch with Oda Nobunaga? I get a line across his face/it looks like he has a black eye.

Click to expand...

I think I had something similar with Isabella. Her cross and crown turned green and then, later, red.

nokmirt said:

Nothing much fixed with AI, including naval ops. Looks like it is Total War for the future! To hell with Civ 5, I'll wait for 6!



Play Total War Civ 5 diplomacy is horrible, lame, and static. Everyone knows that!

Click to expand...

Even though I barely understood what you meant in your Chinese, why do you think you are justified to force YOUR opinions on others and stating them as facts?

The August patch is....ok, especially given the speed of its implementation. But I have a fear that they won't push any more major patches through. The German guy predicted all the DLC that would show up, so I suspect new games or possibly an expansion are on Firaxis' horizons, which would mean, *and this is what I fear* one more major patch, at most, before the expansion comes out.

Sigh. Firaxis, if you're reading this, please release the DLL, fix diplomacy, fix multiplayer, make the game feel more rewarding (maybe reduce production costs further, add some techs so units don't obsolete so quickly, fix the weird graphical glitches with floating debris/units on the sea). It's a long list, but you have a ways to go before your most recent Civ game reaches the zenith of depth that was Civ 4.

There'll be at least one more (major) patch for pitboss. Although I hope there'll be more patches, of course. But we can be assured of at least one big patch.
And also I suppose a hotfix for the little bugs that've popped up (the end turn-issues, the Korea library-exploit, etc).

Morningcalm said:

The German guy predicted all the DLC that would show up

Click to expand...

There were four months between his two predictions, which would mean his next prediction is somewhere in september So not all hope is lost

Just because Paul the Octopus's predictions stopped here doesn't mean they're done making things. Worst case scenario, that's all the recordings they've completed (my guess is they had Morgan Sheppard record everything at once, but didn't work on making the graphics until later). That would suggest they either need to bring him back for another batch of recordings or they'll have to use someone else (unfortunately).

Do we know how he was able to predict what he did? Maybe he just doesn't have access to what's next.

Louis XXIV said:

Just because Paul the Octopus's predictions stopped here doesn't mean they're done making things. Worst case scenario, that's all the recordings they've completed (my guess is they had Morgan Sheppard record everything at once, but didn't work on making the graphics until later). That would suggest they either need to bring him back for another batch of recordings or they'll have to use someone else (unfortunately).

Do we know how he was able to predict what he did? Maybe he just doesn't have access to what's next.

Click to expand...

Waiiit a minute....

Has anyone ever seen Morgan Sheppard and the German guy together in the same room?

Louis, it's true it doesn't *necessarily* mean they stopped making DLC, but the music composers have also confirmed that they are working on other Firaxis projects, and not DLC. DLC is planned well in advance (as we can tell by the German guy's prediction), so I sincerely doubt there'll be another round of DLC. Firaxis might prove me wrong, but I doubt it. =\

Who is this German guy people are referring to?

We're roughly a year since release.. wouldn't surprise me to learn that work on vanilla is winding down, and attention might be shifted to a longer-term project (like an x-pac with new game concepts).

PieceOfMind said:

Who is this German guy people are referring to?

Click to expand...

Somebody from a German Civ fansite who predicted/leaked all of the DLCs months in advance.

Is it just me or is the A.I somewhat more aggressive all of a sudden

Montezuma just declared war on me FOR NO REASON, just all of a sudden EARLY in the game, he barely had Swordsman!

And when he lost battle for my capital, HE REFUSED Peace Treaty and thought he was winning (he demanded all resources as well as a city of mine)

like WTF :/

And just earlier i had similiar thing, but this time I understand the reason, I had France and Arabs just beside me so it was somewhat of no shocker Napoleon declared war (or was it someone else? Can't remembeR)

Montezuma seriously lives up to his reputation as the psycho leader -.-

SirSaab said:

I just wish there was hope that one day we could have meaningful relations with other civs. I understand the argument that the cIV diplomacy was easily gamed, yet I don't feel like the inherently hostile CiV diplomacy has made the game better.

On the whole, people sure don't seem to be having a hard time beating CiV in spite of the "human/mp-style" AI's, but a lot of people miss real alliances and psychologically stable (if easily befriended) partners in diplomacy. Seems just as "gameable" as cIV diplomacy.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

On that subject, maybe I missed something in my last game, but I had a defensive pact with an ally... Every time a war was declared on either of us, the pact was "expended" and had to be renewed (annoying) ?? Also, at some point, it seems I signed defensive pacts with him, and the next turn or two turns later I'd get "A deal where we had a defensive pact with this guy, is done". It seems the AI was cancelling it? Why? Especially when I could just go back to him and resign it right away. So I kept resigning the defensive pact every turn. That was a lot of fun now was it. It seems he often broke it during his turn before the enemy actually declared war on me. Why allow him to sign the defensive pacts every turn if he's just gonna cancel it?

Maybe there is something I don't understand or didn't notice.

PieceOfMind said:

Who is this German guy people are referring to?

Click to expand...

A dude called trineas on civforum.de
Prediction 1 (january)
Prediction 2 (may)

Trias said:

The root of this issue lies with the "winner takes all" victory conditions. If you do not win the game, you lose. Consequently, it is hardly ever rational to be friendly to the players on the leaderboard. Since the human player is typically on top of the leaderboard (or near), there is typically no rational reason for the AI to be friendly to the human player.

Click to expand...

The concept is fine, the problem in Civ V is the AI isn't smart enough to do things that benefit them.

They just need the AI to make smarter decisions. If I have a tiny army and am nearly defenseless, it makes perfect sense for my neighbor to attack me no matter how "friendly" we are. However the problem is when I'm stronger and they still attack anyway for no good reason (it doesn't seem to be beneficial to them).

anandus said:

A dude called trineas on civforum.de
Prediction 1 (january)
Prediction 2 (may)

Click to expand...

So it's probably a guy under NDA or has taken info from someone under NDA?

Coincidences like that just don't happen.

I thought he hacked files or something like that.

GoodSarmatian said:

Can anyone confirm if the excessiv backstabbing has really been toned down ?

Click to expand...

Probably not. I had a look at the XML files, and what I noticed is that several civs have had their 'Deceptiveness' toned down a bit:

Alexander 4 > 4
Askia 4 > 3
Augustus 7 > 6
Bismarck 7 > 7
Catherine 7 > 7
Darius 5 > 5
Elizabeth 6 > 6
Gandhi 3 > 3
G Kahn 3 > 3
H Rashid 7 > 6
Hiawatha 7 > 5
Isabella 6 > 5
Kameham 4 > 4
Montezu 7 > 7
Napoleon 7 > 7
Oda 7 > 6
Pachacuti 7 > 6
Ramesses 6 > 6
Ramkham 7 > 6
Sejong 4
Suleiman 7 > 7
G Wash 7 > 5
Wu 7 > 7

From what I understand, this 'Deceptiveness' would play a role in how likely it is they declare on you while being friendly to you.
You see the numbers have gone down slightly, 2K Greg was talking about a slightly lesser chance of backstab, and I think it's these numbers they've adjusted to establish this effect. Consider this an amateur's guess, though, because I'm no expert on what's under the hood in this game.

And err... Babylon is missing because I haven't got that DLC.

Optional said:

Alexander 4 > 4

Click to expand...

Funny, I would have guessed that number to be about an 11.

SirSaab:

The AI in Civ 5 is just as gameable as it was in Civ 4. If you want to maintain friendly relations with an AI all game long, you can - you just have to abide by its rules for maintaining friendly relations, just as you did in Civ 4.

It just so happens that it's extremely difficult to maintain consistently friendly relations with direct neighbor Civs, and with everyone in general when you're number 1 on the leaderboard. It's not that the AI is more hostile or aggressive, it just tacks additional hostility points on things that Civ veterans are apt to do (expand all over the place, take over rival Civs, be a dick, and so on).