| General | Hosted Sites | Civ5 | CivRev | Civ4Col | Civ4 | Civ3 | Civ2 | Civ1 | Misc | Marketplace |
![]() |
|
|
Welcome to Civilization Fanatics' Center. You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to our site features. By joining our free community, you will be able to participate in the discussions, search the forum, send private messages, vote in polls, upload your own screenshots to the gallery, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so sign up today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support. |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#41 | |
|
Prince
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 434
|
Quote:
Vanilla was poorly implemented IMO. 100hp also helped to mask fundamental AI weaknesses. As for thread title, consensus ? Those who don't like it think it sucks. Those who are willing to live with it are living with it. Last edited by whyidie; Apr 17, 2013 at 11:55 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Warlord
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 130
|
I think the AI is fine in regard to diplomacy, building, settling, etc., but the combat AI is atrocious.
Example: I was playing against Mongolia and they built two cities on my continent. I didn't think much of it, until they declared war on me and about 30 units came into my territory. The AI had planned ahead for an attack and executed it brilliantly. Then the war started, and he spent three turns shuffling units back and forth in my territory without attacking once. I used the opportunity to whittle down his forces with arty and gatlings. If he had just attacked with what he had I probably would have lost, but he just endlessly repositioned his units. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|