There's a few points I think is truly important for the sake of clarity.
1) The Game should never be built so that it is the AI versus the Player. The Game should be built so that it is the AI versus the Player AND all other AI.
In general, all the conversation that I've been seeing here has assumed that the AI will work together to see the demise of the player, and that is the only way it can be. If such is the case, then I make the argument that the AI has been built poorly, and is a failure. The AI needs to constantly be aware of it's own self interests, and aware that pouring resources into destroying one Civilization will hamper it's own ability to pursue it's goals.
2) The AI should pursue it's own goals, and pursue them well.
The wide concern that people have been throwing around is that all AI will simply "nuke" you when you attempt to win any kind of non-military victory. (I assume "Nuke" means "Attack aggressively.")This carries with it a few assumptions.
A)
It assumes that all AI will have access to the Units/Technology available to be able to successfully wage a war.
To put it bluntly, if they don't have it, they don't have it.
B)
It assumes the AI is willing to drop whatever it was doing in order to wage a war, rather then pursuing it's own victory.
For example; If an AI is pursuing a Cultural Victory, and you are pursuing the Space Victory. You begin building components, it has been "researching" social policies. Does it make sense that the AI move away from pursing that victory to ensure that you won't get yours? Or does it make more sense that they would continue pursuing their goal, confident in their success. Why make a major shift, if it doesn't have to?
C)
It assumes that the AI is stupid.
If I see all my neighbors around me start waging war against a guy who's started to build space ship parts, my inclination isn't to join right in. My inclination is to wait for my neighbors to commit to full scale war, and then attack them when they are at their weakest. If the AI is a warmongering AI that's pursing a Military Victory, this is the course of action that makes more sense.
D)
It assumes the AI is cheating.
I will admit that there is definitely precedent for this claim, even within this franchise. However, it is poor to simply assume that the second you start building any space components the AI will always 100% of the time be able to, with pin point accuracy, and flawless execution, nuke the exact specific tile where your component is at currently. If such were the case, then the AI would be a failure.
3) A distinction needs to be made between difficulty levels.
This is where the major breakdowns are starting to happen, I feel. There is a group of people who would like an extreme challenge, with an AI that feels and plays like a person, and there is a segment of people who want to simply experience the game world as it is, breathing in the reality of their game. I
strongly believe that this is
specifically what the difficulty levels are for.
If you wish to play a relaxing game where the AI plays more lax, then put the difficulty on Settler. If you wish to encounter a difficult challenge where a group of cutthroat AI work to secure their own success, then play Immortal. Or any range in between. Find which setting is within your comfort zone, and play at that setting.
Neither side of this conversation is in the wrong, and both are looking for the same thing, ultimately. Both wish to enjoy themselves while playing Civilization 5. I strongly feel that this is where the difficulty level will facilitate both groups.
It is very important to note, that I do not hold up the idea that the AI should be trying to win at the cost of people's enjoyment. If you do not wish to play against an AI that is trying to defeat you, then don't. Enjoy the game how you wish to, but please allow me to enjoy the game how I wish to. And my desire is that the AI tries to win. If I need to slide that bar over to Immortal to make that happen, then rad.
4) If the computer is not trying to win, then why have victory conditions at all?
The entire point of calling something a "game" is that there is the possibility of defeat. When we sit down to play a game of Catan, or Risk, or Monopoly, or any other board game, there is no certainty of victory. If Civilization wasn't a game, then it would simply continue going, as history does. The goal of the developers wouldn't be to create a specific end point, but rather to facilitate an ongoing experience that could last forever. That is the distinction between Civilization being a Simulator and a Game.
And Finally,
Well ... weren't you actually the one who drew that strong distinction, by labeling in-character (but strategically suboptimal) AI decisions as "stupid" and to be done away with?
Calling something that is stupid, stupid, does not mean that I believe that a game cannot be both strategically strong, and also provide a well rounded role playing experience. It only means that I am capable of looking at something for what it is, rather then what I wish it to be.