Post-patch random observations

Smokeybear said:
Not at all. I would love to see that. But the simple fact that now every civ appears to try to be a rabid early ICS-spamming aggressive expansionist warmonger... isn't exactly much for variation anymore.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the AI is so successful at this playstyle that the human player cannot possibly compete. Try loading a new Continents game on Emperor and try to keep up with the AI in terms of numbers of cities built. You can't do it - not without sacrificing Wonders and crippling your capital's growth by building settler after settler. The peaceful builder playstyle is dead. You can't compete with the AI unless you go tall.
 
Smokeybear said:
A game where some are expansionists, and some are turtlers, and some expand more calmly without always going ape____ about it from beginning to end... that's my idea of a civ game. What it seems to have turned into now, is a dozen starving pit bulls tossed into an arena with you, every time. There isn't much semblence of any civ-style game left there, it is merely a turn-based Mortal Kombat. I don't much like that style of civ, myself. Variation is really a nice thing.
Click to expand...

That is odd for I have not seen such lack of variety in any Civ5 game that I have played (vanilla, G&K, or post-patch so far). There are always bottom-dwellers (for various reasons) and then there the early leaders and the come-from-behind civs which seems to differ every game. In my last game, I had the Huns as tiny, content and peaceful they can be and they were next to me. In my current game (post-patch), I have a tiny Germany next to me with plenty of room to expand but they didn't (so I took them out so I could expand). I fully agree that variation is one of the most important things (along with challenges) and I have not seen any exceptions.

You can't compete with the AI unless you go tall.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like that's a bad thing. :lol:
 
Being forced into one strategy instead of being able to play the game successfully using the same playstyle I've used since September 2010? Yep, that sounds remarkably like 'a bad thing' to me.
 
blackcatatonic said:
Being forced into one strategy instead of being able to play the game successively using the same playstyle I've used since September 2010? Yep, that sounds remarkably like 'a bad thing' to me.
Click to expand...

Despite you and I purposely limiting the capabilities of the game with our chosen playstyles, I fully believe that all of main playstyles (occ, tall/wall, tall/maul, wide/wall, wide/maul) are very much valid and doable even at the highest difficulty levels.
 
I do feel all the AI is very aggressive, but I don`t think it kills all playstyles. I`m sure some are less aggressive than others. However, I myself would`ve liked it as it was.

Not all of us want or need a game on crack.
 
Smokeybear said:
A game where some are expansionists, and some are turtlers, and some expand more calmly without always going ape____ about it from beginning to end... that's my idea of a civ game. What it seems to have turned into now, is a dozen starving pit bulls tossed into an arena with you, every time. There isn't much semblence of any civ-style game left there, it is merely a turn-based Mortal Kombat. I don't much like that style of civ, myself. Variation is really a nice thing.
Click to expand...

I just don't see this in my games. In the last GotM for example, the Maya stayed at 2 cities, Siam was at 3 or 4, but Alex expanded fast and took out Austria and thus controlled lots of land. Sweden expanded later in the game and became an economic powerhouse thanks to all his rivers.

In my current game, India went tall with 4 cities, Japan picked on CS so I went and liberated one. Germany was nice to me until I shared borders with him thanks to some Japanese puppets on their continent. Byzantium went tall with an emphasis on religion and had 30+ cities under her religious control. Spain also was tall and France was between the 2 and became a late mid-late game powerhouse through conquest of CS. The whole world denounced him for it and we pushed in on him to slow down what looked to be his imminent victory. France teched to Flight first and used his air dominance to great effect. I had to pull out of his continent and wait until I teched to Flight/AA Guns, but in the meantime he reacquired all the cities I had taken/liberated. I ended up catching up and surpassing France in tech in the modern era and used my 4 range battleships and army of cossacks upgraded to tanks to re-invade.

I just don't see EVERY AI expanding like you say they do. Some do and some don't. But what they DO do now is expand right up to your borders if you yourself choose not to go out and grab those good spots further away from your capital. This happens especially in the late renaissance/early industrial expansion period where every piece of land, even barren wastelands in the ice, get settled by the AI.
 
Gamewizard said:
But what they DO do now is expand right up to your borders if you yourself choose not to go out and grab those good spots further away from your capital. This happens especially in the late renaissance/early industrial expansion period where every piece of land, even barren wastelands in the ice, get settled by the AI.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you choose to do, many of them will make haste to plop a garbage city down on any available piece of land even if it's desert with only one stone quarry and nothing else in the entire three workable rings around it, as long as they can slap it within two tiles of your borders as absolutely fast as possible. That's mostly what I'm seeing. Especially if they can go far out of their way to do it. Brainless expansion for pit bulls. Too many of the civs now just seem like army ants on crack, mindlessly plopping down (a large percentage of) bad cities in a relentless octopus-arm train just to get at the next (civ) food source to gobble up. Yay. That's what I've been seeing more often than not. Yes, that was done before to some extent, but now it's become the norm, and they've been programmed to be a lot faster and more efficient at it. AI settlers have few qualms about where, what, or how far away they settle, anymore.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they now make no attempt to make sensible empires, with cities based on the best logical spots with decent resources on them, enough to support normal growth. They may do that in the core zone they start out in, but once they start the ICS spreading, all too many of the spam cities I see them make now are on complete crap sites- anything to rapidly advance the ant colony to the next victim. Of course they can get away with this, due to all the cheating they get to do and complete lack of happiness worries. It makes me sick to see it, though. The extent to which they have been programmed to utilize and get away with this kind of ugly crap now, is highly unrealistic and a big negative in my view- even for a game which has taken a lot of liberties with any semblance of realism for a long spell now. In my opinion, it adds nothing at all good to the game.
 
I've noticed that the AI has gotten much more expansionist, becoming more aggressive as a result. I've even seen them with 3 cities already before turn 75. Also, since the patch, I've seen at least 2 AIs taken out early (standard, continents, 8 civs) just about every game. Plus, most of the AIs have become much more deceptive (which sadly leads to quite a few backstabs)

Smokeybear said:
Of course they can get away with this, due to all the cheating they get to do and complete lack of happiness worries. It makes me sick to see it, though.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me most about AI expansion. Especially with conqueror civs who should experience a lot of unhappiness from occupied cities. Alexander had at least 12 cities, many recently conquered, yet the "people who like to smile the most" came up a few turns later and reported a +92 happiness from him.
Lack of expansion room and lower happiness usually keep me from being able to expand beyond 4-5 cities, so seeing the AI getting away with this so easily is very aggravating.
 
Smokeybear said:
Regardless of what you choose to do, many of them will make haste to plop a garbage city down on any available piece of land even if it's desert with only one stone quarry and nothing else in the entire three workable rings around it, as long as they can slap it within two tiles of your borders as absolutely fast as possible. That's mostly what I'm seeing. Especially if they can go far out of their way to do it. Brainless expansion for pit bulls. Too many of the civs now just seem like army ants on crack, mindlessly plopping down (a large percentage of) bad cities in a relentless octopus-arm train just to get at the next (civ) food source to gobble up. Yay. That's what I've been seeing more often than not. Yes, that was done before to some extent, but now it's become the norm, and they've been programmed to be a lot faster and more efficient at it. AI settlers have few qualms about where, what, or how far away they settle, anymore.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they now make no attempt to make sensible empires, with cities based on the best logical spots with decent resources on them, enough to support normal growth. They may do that in the core zone they start out in, but once they start the ICS spreading, all too many of the spam cities I see them make now are on complete crap sites- anything to rapidly advance the ant colony to the next victim. Of course they can get away with this, due to all the cheating they get to do and complete lack of happiness worries. It makes me sick to see it, though. The extent to which they have been programmed to utilize and get away with this kind of ugly crap now, is highly unrealistic and a big negative in my view- even for a game which has taken a lot of liberties with any semblance of realism for a long spell now. In my opinion, it adds nothing at all good to the game.
Click to expand...

We all know that the AI needs bonuses on the higher levels to be competitive at winning the game. We all wish the AI was better at tactical play, but that would require far more resources on Firaxis' end, resources that would hurt them financially. I don't think 2k believed a turn based strategy game could be so popular and thus didn't want to commit to it as hard as they should have. Hopefully the success of Civ V will help Civ 6 receive a larger budget in order to go out and get a better AI programming team.

Any-who, I don't think the problem is as bad as you think it is. The ICSing that some civs do does help them religiously due to the way religious spread works as well as trade route income. All the bonuses it receives are NECESSARY for a competitive game.

You may want a game that is more role-playing through history than a competitive board game, but unfortunately for you it is the latter. Anything to help the AI be more competitive is welcomed by me.
 
I posted this in another thread, but it`s relevant here.
I`ve had three recent games that have suddenly become quite hard, like the Patch kicked in late or something. After about 4-5 turns Germany declared war on me out of the blue, caught me totally by surprise. In my next game, Rome declared war really early out of the blue which again surprised me and he overwhelmed my cities.

Also, in a third Campaign, Germany again declared war on me even before I`d settled a second city (about 5-10 turns from start). I ended up in a long drawn battle. I was not happy because I knew while Germany and I were fighting, other CIVS were running away peacefully, but I thought at least Germany isn`t.
I finally stabilised the situation and started building a second settler and sent troops out to scout Germany`s territory. He had SIX cities! So while he had me in this war with him, he was still chugging out settlers?

Either the AI had a money boost (which it shouldn`t at my level `Normal`) or he very cleverly tricked me into spamming units while he only produced a few military units while making settlers.

Whatever, I knew I was screwed. I would prefer a roleplay through history with SOME competition VARIATION as it should be.

New game time. the moment they see any weakness, even really early on some will declare war to end you quick.
Click to expand...

Basically, I concur with most views.
 
Gamewizard said:
You may want a game that is more role-playing through history than a competitive board game, but unfortunately for you it is the latter. Anything to help the AI be more competitive is welcomed by me.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm adjusting, doing things in a more hectic, stressful, an less-fun way than before, but you can't fight city hall. One person's fun is another person's needless extra stress. It was fine before, in my personal opinion.
 
It's funny, on my current game (immortal-pangaea) at turn 68, I have seen less expansion than I saw pre-patch (sample size of 1). Good growth by the AI opponents though, but no one has more than 2-3 cities while I have my 4 already. Guess it's all situational, depending on the terrain, location and civs.
 
Smokeybear said:
Regardless of what you choose to do, many of them will make haste to plop a garbage city down on any available piece of land even if it's desert with only one stone quarry and nothing else in the entire three workable rings around it, as long as they can slap it within two tiles of your borders as absolutely fast as possible. That's mostly what I'm seeing. Especially if they can go far out of their way to do it. Brainless expansion for pit bulls. Too many of the civs now just seem like army ants on crack, mindlessly plopping down (a large percentage of) bad cities in a relentless octopus-arm train just to get at the next (civ) food source to gobble up. Yay. That's what I've been seeing more often than not. Yes, that was done before to some extent, but now it's become the norm, and they've been programmed to be a lot faster and more efficient at it. AI settlers have few qualms about where, what, or how far away they settle, anymore.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they now make no attempt to make sensible empires, with cities based on the best logical spots with decent resources on them, enough to support normal growth. They may do that in the core zone they start out in, but once they start the ICS spreading, all too many of the spam cities I see them make now are on complete crap sites- anything to rapidly advance the ant colony to the next victim. Of course they can get away with this, due to all the cheating they get to do and complete lack of happiness worries. It makes me sick to see it, though. The extent to which they have been programmed to utilize and get away with this kind of ugly crap now, is highly unrealistic and a big negative in my view- even for a game which has taken a lot of liberties with any semblance of realism for a long spell now. In my opinion, it adds nothing at all good to the game.
Click to expand...
Is this really so much of a "problem?" Or is it actually a good strategy?

I haven't seen this happen too much to me.

This is a strategy I don't really like to use, since I prefer fewer cities and I emphasize high quality cities.

However, in a recent GOTM Domination game, one human player got a remarkably fast finishing time by doing exactly this. He would send Settlers as heralds of the invasion force. He would set up crappy cities right next to the enemy capitals to serve as base camps during the invasion.

It seemed to work quite well. I don't think that AI's should *always* do this (which I don't think they do), but some of the more military minded and aggressive AI's *should* be using this tactic if it seems like it might be effective!
 
I`m learning to fast spam cities like I had to do in previous Civs. I usually get 3 out fast now. I also then heavily garrison the cities (at least two units each). It costs money, but careful financial management can get round that (yea micromanaging that we`re supposed to not do).

In my present game, the AI Civ that would usually attack me has decided to pick on someone else instead for a change - A lowly, weak CS, which has asked me for help.
 
Halcyan2 said:
Is this really so much of a "problem?" Or is it actually a good strategy?

I haven't seen this happen too much to me.

This is a strategy I don't really like to use, since I prefer fewer cities and I emphasize high quality cities.

However, in a recent GOTM Domination game, one human player got a remarkably fast finishing time by doing exactly this. He would send Settlers as heralds of the invasion force. He would set up crappy cities right next to the enemy capitals to serve as base camps during the invasion.

It seemed to work quite well. I don't think that AI's should *always* do this (which I don't think they do), but some of the more military minded and aggressive AI's *should* be using this tactic if it seems like it might be effective!
Click to expand...

This is a great point. This is tommynt's strategy, who always finishes in the top 3 of those games. The AI should try to replicate this strategy even though it will likely fail tactically. Plus it will help your multiplayer skill as you will have experience defending against it.
 
Gamewizard said:
This is a great point. This is tommynt's strategy, who always finishes in the top 3 of those games. The AI should try to replicate this strategy even though it will likely fail tactically. Plus it will help your multiplayer skill as you will have experience defending against it.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess if you consider them as tactical forward war camps instead of intelligently-located cities (which they sure as hell aren't), then they make a bit more sense.
 
Smokeybear said:
A game where some are expansionists, and some are turtlers, and some expand more calmly without always going ape____ about it from beginning to end... that's my idea of a civ game. What it seems to have turned into now, is a dozen starving pit bulls tossed into an arena with you, every time. There isn't much semblence of any civ-style game left there, it is merely a turn-based Mortal Kombat. I don't much like that style of civ, myself. Variation is really a nice thing.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Could play large map before the patch, but the aliens invade again after the patch:



I would love to play huge maps, have quad-core, decent graphix, but playing on XP and only 4 GM, so effecienty I have to turn everything off in the start-manager and just hoping for the best...

So sad, as many newer games with using hardcore, instead of memory is so much more playable than old civ5. This is really the only game I can't play on full settings and it's the game I love the most.

Any solutions for this?
 
gozpel said:
So sad, as many newer games with using hardcore, instead of memory is so much more playable than old civ5. This is really the only game I can't play on full settings and it's the game I love the most.

Any solutions for this?
Click to expand...

Um, maybe start your own thread with that problem as the headline? Asking at the end of somebody else's unrelated post isn't going to get your question much exposure.
 
Smokeybear said:
Regardless of what you choose to do, many of them will make haste to plop a garbage city down on any available piece of land even if it's desert with only one stone quarry and nothing else in the entire three workable rings around it, as long as they can slap it within two tiles of your borders as absolutely fast as possible. That's mostly what I'm seeing. Especially if they can go far out of their way to do it. Brainless expansion for pit bulls. Too many of the civs now just seem like army ants on crack, mindlessly plopping down (a large percentage of) bad cities in a relentless octopus-arm train just to get at the next (civ) food source to gobble up. Yay. That's what I've been seeing more often than not. Yes, that was done before to some extent, but now it's become the norm, and they've been programmed to be a lot faster and more efficient at it. AI settlers have few qualms about where, what, or how far away they settle, anymore.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they now make no attempt to make sensible empires, with cities based on the best logical spots with decent resources on them, enough to support normal growth. They may do that in the core zone they start out in, but once they start the ICS spreading, all too many of the spam cities I see them make now are on complete crap sites- anything to rapidly advance the ant colony to the next victim. Of course they can get away with this, due to all the cheating they get to do and complete lack of happiness worries. It makes me sick to see it, though. The extent to which they have been programmed to utilize and get away with this kind of ugly crap now, is highly unrealistic and a big negative in my view- even for a game which has taken a lot of liberties with any semblance of realism for a long spell now. In my opinion, it adds nothing at all good to the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this.

I do take Gamewizard's point though about the crappiness of the AI being an irresolvable issue until Civ 6. I hope that everyone can at least see that an AI that gets enough free perks to have 8 cities up before turn 100 (most of them in dumb places of course) and yet is too stupid to complete its spaceship parts is a major problem.

I wouldn't mind being outmanoeuvred by the AI, but as it is, I know perfectly well what it's going to do, I just physically don't have the resources to do a thing about it unless I go all-out military from the beginning of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
[BNW] Another late game question:
Replies
1
Views
265
martindo
M
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
852
coolhandluke11
C
D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
322
Draynul
D
M
AI Cheating
Replies
2
Views
472
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Tiramisu
[BNW] Bug? AI receiving thousand gold pert turn
Replies
3
Views
374
Tiramisu
Tiramisu
Top Bottom