So you're saying that an AI that plays more like a human player than before is somehow deficient?I don't understand how people are equating "random AI attitudes" as being complex, or diplomacy at all for that matter?
Ghandi begs me to help him against a third civ breathing down his neck, I do, I liberate his cities for him, and as we're still fighting the third civ he turns around and tells me he's decided to wipe me off the map? WTH?
I would expect that in multiplayer, but it's not what I call good gameplay.
We were told that the AIs in Civ V were meant to be trying to win. If that doesn't mean they'll take the same tactics as a human, who by definition will try anything, even "OOC" if order to win, then they've missed a beat.
Basically, if you expect a human to do similarly in the same situation, then assuming that the AI will conform to certain expectations is a weakness on your behalf, and a strength on theirs.
The only bad AI is in making decisions that are disadvantageous to the AI civ, not decisions that you feel are "unfair". If you can demonstrate that Gandhi clearly lessened his chances of winning by said strategy, then you have a point (and it wouldn't be the first AI weakness to surface). Otherwise, all's fair in love and Civ.