Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

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.
So you're saying that an AI that plays more like a human player than before is somehow deficient?

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. :)
 
So you're saying that an AI that plays more like a human player than before is somehow deficient?

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. :)

If you took a look at game theory and the battle of the doves vs the hawks, its advantageous to pursue aggressive strategies when everyone else is peace loving. But if everyone is pursuing nasty strategies, everyone ends up for the worse. The problem with Gandhi not having any gratefulness for his cities being liberated, is that with that knowledge, the player in every future game will never bother liberating the cities to begin with.

I've tried being nice to the AI and little good seems to come of it. The AI civs by being complete selfish douchebags have forced my hand such that it mostly disadvantages me to be friendly. That the AI will go and build a city right next to mine, and then whinge that our borders are too close and attack me is ridiculous when it happens so often. It ultimately makes for a less robust game because in almost every interaction with the AI, it is better to choose the sword rather than the ploughshare.

In Civ IV, my good and strong allies I looked after. They treated me well, and I did the same in return. Friendly strategies are not necessarily equivalent with lack of self interest, as both parties can benefit from such interactions.
 
You like that? Well you're forum name is monorail, so it stands to reason you'd like a game that plays on a monorail.:p

Exactly why Civ 5 is a terrible game has already been gone into in great depth, and there hasn't been an intelligent rebuttal of these reasons yet.

Quoted for truth.
 
Top Bottom