Should they bother to represent differences and tensions between the same religion? I.e. Protestant and Catholicism, or Suni and Shiite (am I getting that right?)? Or just have a straight positive modifier for the same religion?
Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.
The goal of the leader should be to ensure the survival and growth of his civilization. Like real nations do. They shouldn't care if another civilization is trying to win unless that civilization is threatening to destroy their civilization. If they feel threatened, then they will actively try to undermine the threat.
I am a firm believer in an AI that does not play to win but to give the player an enjoyable playing experience.
Sure, the AI can have goals to achieve, but those goals should not be "build a spaceship" or "buy all city-states". Rather, the AIs should try to build up their score, secure more land, acquire allies and isolate enemies. Yes, that makes victories obsolete, but I think it will make singleplayer much more enjoyable to play. I for one think that the entire world declaring war on you because you have the highest score in the Modern Era is both mind numbingly frustrating but extremely unrealistic and non-immersive.
While I can respect such a position, I feel that it is diametrically opposite of the purpose of playing games and engaging in competition. To me, the joy and satisfaction of playing comes from earning a well-fought (metaphorically speaking) victory through effective decision-making, wits and intelligence (along with a little bit of RNG luck for variety). A well-fought game in which you lose can also be purposeful if you can learn from your mistakes and what to do better next time. Both applies to games and to real-life.
I've been playing Civ for 16 years now and feel that Civ5 is the best one yet. But it is very frustrating to 1) get a cheesy domination victory via capital sniping (something I and others warned about prior to release); 2) opponents sitting on a pile of money and do not spend it on anything, particularly late-game city-states for diplomacy; 3) having a much more powerful military and watching you build spaceship parts and doing nothing about it; 4) acting like an ATM and making think you are actually earning all that gold; and 5) an AI opponent that can only win by cheating or having poor human opponents.
If the AI can do any or all of these things more effectively, then playing on Prince would be the norm and we would have to come up with more effective strategies and better decision-making in order to move up the difficulty levels. Just like in real-life.
Fail is not a noun. Failure is a noun, fail is a verb. So there is no way it can be a fail because a fail is not even a thing.
Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.
A definite yes from me. AI/Diplomacy is one of our biggest gripes in this community. If it still sucks after the x-pansion, there's going to be a huge uproar and revolt about it. Naval AI is the third thing on that list. If these issues are fixed, then the X-pack is worth the 30 bucks in my book, if not, I'm a Civ refugee to Europa Universalis III for good.
-Mark
The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.
The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.
We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage.
You see, the Civ AI isn't merely inconsistent, but predictably inconsistent. You know precisely what it will do eventually; that it will try and stab you with the steak knife.