Consensus on AI in Civ5

[Zombie69]

Hello guys. I thought I'd post this in the strategy forum because I know there are more hardcore guys here and this is the kind of input I'm looking for.

I haven't tried Civ5 yet because I heard the AI was terrible, especially when it comes to tactics in combat. What's the consensus on its current state with the latest patch? Also, are there mods to make it better?

[Glassmage]

AI's are okay but don't expect them to play like humans.

[Slvynn]

It's pretty ok i'd say. there is place for improvement, but alas, you could play Hi level if you find it too easy to compete.
I think GnK Ai improved much. Especially naval/ranged one

[DaveMcW]

The non-combat AI is vastly improved.

With G&K, the combat AI is approximately equal to Civ4. Which is impressive, considering how much more challenging Civ5's combat system is.

There are no AI mods, and won't be for at least another year.

[Zombie69]

I feel that some background is required for those who don't remember me from a few years back. When I played Civ 4, the first time I felt any kind of resistance from the AI was at Emperor. I played most of my games at Immortal or Deity, using game options (e.g. no tech trading, small maps) to give the AI a better fighting chance. I wrote an article here about micromanagement in Civ 4, which received good reviews.

Telling me that I can play at a higher difficulty level won't work if I'm already playing at the highest difficulty level.

So with that in mind, how does the latest patched vanilla Civ5 compare to G&K and to Civ4, as far as the AI goes?

[Tabarnak]

Originally Posted by Zombie69

So with that in mind, how does the latest patched vanilla Civ5 compare to G&K and to Civ4, as far as the AI goes?

We need to compare apples with apples. Iterations and codifications are so different from these 2 games that it's impossible to ''truly'' make ourself a vision of what this game should really like.

The AI needs improvement there is no doubt about it. But i think it's going in the right direction. It's a complete new step and lot of actions can be taken and lot of work can be done to put this game to a new level.

It's only the first expansion of civ5. People should at least compare with Warlords and not BtS right now if they really want to make comparisons. Personnaly, it's already better than Warlord

[DaveMcW]

Vanilla civ5 (along with vanilla civ4) is already obsolete, it's not worth comparing to anything.

[Zombie69]

Well, if you need a comparison point, I can change the question to this:
Is this game, at default settings, easier or harder to beat at the highest difficulty level, compared to Civ 4? Assume that all exploits are taken advantage of.

Personally, when I hear stuff like "it's going in the right direction" 2 years after the game came out, it certainly raised a red flag.

[Mark Havel]

I don't know if there is an actual consensus about how the AI is performing in Civ V. From the few games I've played so far, it doesn't seem to be actually able to move its units with all the optimizations and overall wittiness of a normally constituted human. But that's assuming the said human knows about zone of control, her unit's abilities and is able to use terrain modifier to her advantage. Considering the one unit per tile rule, this often translates into rather disastrous moves from the AI. I don't know if it can be compared to Civ IV as the games are so different in many aspects, one of them being that the AIs now emulate an actual player and badly want to win the game.

Now, Civ V is on sale on Steam, why don't you buy it while it's cheap to find out by yourself?

[Zombie69]

I know it's on sale and that's what prompted me to start this thread. Sadly, from what I'm hearing so far, it doesn't sound like something I'd want to put any amount of money into at this point. Thanks for the feedback!

[godotnut]

Although there are few players I respect more than DaveMcW, I have to disagree with his assessment that "With G&K, the combat AI is approximately equal to Civ4," at least if he meant Civ4 in its current state fully patched with both expansions. The combat is improved in G&K, for sure, making the game playable now, but the AI still does completely idiotic things (like sending out an unprotected great general of marching ranged in front of melee) at a higher rate than in Civ4. The naval AI is even more improved, but that's not saying much, because previously, the AI was so bad at naval combat that few serious players would play water maps unless trying to game the settings for Deity or whatnot.

I remember you well, Zombie69. Perhaps you recall me from early Civ4 days or my cultural victory guide. For what it's worth, my opinion is that the combat AI will still disappoint coming from Civ4, but it is good enough now that the game's other assets make it worth your time. As an example of such an asset, I find the new religious system in G&K to be far more complex and interesting than religion was in Civ4, so there are things here that I think you will find rewarding.

IMHO, Civ5 still needs work on its combat system, but G&K did make some improvements for the AI, and other aspects of the game (hexes, border expansion, religion, happiness management) are improvements on Civ4. With G&K, I have finally moved on fully to Civ5. In my opinion, Civ5 is now (as it wasn't before) worthy of the Civ title.