CivRev ai's are terriable
- Thread starter Jidge
- Start date
lol I have no idea, I only got it for the 360...the AI does seem to get into wars it can't win sometimes...although Napoleon was pretty smart about taking over a newly established city of mine then suing for peace immediately...I was in democracy and when I said no, the senate overruled me and it took me another 20 turns to take it back(had to revolt out of democracy too)
enchanter100
Warlord
Since the underlying code for the systems are the same, it does seem like the ai is addicted to war.. something that has already been talked about a bit..
dojoboy
Tsalagi
They will bully you if you do not maintain an impressive "number" of units. It's in the code.
AI is afaik the same on DS/360.
That said in my just completed game, 2 of 4 AI civs pretty much left me alone the entire game. No demands made at all. The other 2 did the usual demand thing and we went to war etc.
Also, the AI does not blindly go to war. They like/dislike you just like they like disklike each other. For example, I asked Liz what he thought of Monty and she was all praises. I asked monty what he thought of Liz and he offered to go to war for 5 turns in exchange for 100 gold.
They're opportunistic.
I think the reason why there are a lot of reports of the AI going to war is because the AI will declare on whoever is pulling ahead. Keyword being 'pulling ahead'. The human player may not feel all that powerful but the AI probably has access to information that helps it decide objectively who is closer to winning. In fact, if you're close to economic victory where you need to hit all the milestones then build the world bank wonder, the AI will tell you that they are starting a war to stop you from winning.
It's decent AI. I think people just don't grasph the prisoner's dilema in this all. The AI doesn't benefit from being sheepish and letting the leader build in peace.
That said in my just completed game, 2 of 4 AI civs pretty much left me alone the entire game. No demands made at all. The other 2 did the usual demand thing and we went to war etc.
Also, the AI does not blindly go to war. They like/dislike you just like they like disklike each other. For example, I asked Liz what he thought of Monty and she was all praises. I asked monty what he thought of Liz and he offered to go to war for 5 turns in exchange for 100 gold.
They're opportunistic.
I think the reason why there are a lot of reports of the AI going to war is because the AI will declare on whoever is pulling ahead. Keyword being 'pulling ahead'. The human player may not feel all that powerful but the AI probably has access to information that helps it decide objectively who is closer to winning. In fact, if you're close to economic victory where you need to hit all the milestones then build the world bank wonder, the AI will tell you that they are starting a war to stop you from winning.
It's decent AI. I think people just don't grasph the prisoner's dilema in this all. The AI doesn't benefit from being sheepish and letting the leader build in peace.
Widowmaker313
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2008
- Messages
- 112
Good point, I do actually like the AI, because they realize I'm building up so they try to take me out.(If they can before I out-tech and dominate them)
interesting...I just got wiped out in my latest game...king difficulty, playing as Alexander against Napoleon, Cathy, Mao, and Elizabeth. Only Cathy refused to backstab me repeatedly. Each of the others demanded something of me every few turns, and if I said no, declared war on me. I eventually lost in 2100AD with France building the UN and Elizabeth building the World Bank(and I had only one city left, on an island far away)
It didn't help I started smack in the middle of all 4 of them, but I hated how even when my military was bigger then theirs, and I had more culture being produced across my empire, I was close to losing cities to culture, and I was repeatedly thrust into a 3-way war.
Oh...and I did see the AI declare war on each other repeatedly, but France and England never declared war on each other, and none of them ever actually did any damage to anyone but me.
It didn't help I started smack in the middle of all 4 of them, but I hated how even when my military was bigger then theirs, and I had more culture being produced across my empire, I was close to losing cities to culture, and I was repeatedly thrust into a 3-way war.
Oh...and I did see the AI declare war on each other repeatedly, but France and England never declared war on each other, and none of them ever actually did any damage to anyone but me.
My only problem with the AI and demands is they make the same ones, over and over. Same goes for ending a war. They always want one of my great people. It would be nice if you could offer a gold or tech, or some other option.
I had a game where literally every civ went to war with me over 1 single settled great person. They wouldn't accept anything but that great person to end the war. It was pretty lame, I had all kinds of gold and tech over them but couldn't offer that to end wars instead.
I had a game where literally every civ went to war with me over 1 single settled great person. They wouldn't accept anything but that great person to end the war. It was pretty lame, I had all kinds of gold and tech over them but couldn't offer that to end wars instead.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
One demand I rather enjoyed, thought was perfect code, was when I sent off a settler alone. An Indian warrior met the settler along the way, and Gandhi bribed me for 50 gold or he might capture the settler. Pretty cool.
Maquiladora
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 9, 2002
- Messages
- 94
The AI doesn't really know how to attack it seems.
My last game (DS, on Deity) I flipped a Zulu city with a great person and it was jammed right between the Chinese (at war) and the rest of the Zulu (not at war) cities, I could only access the city by sea and it was also on a choke point, so the Chinese couldn't get to the Zulu anymore.
I saw the Chinese moving in on the city with a few armies so I rushed a Pikemen army and watched the Chinese. Over the course of 500 years they managed to lose 23 times to my Pikemen army, giving him 5 upgrades in the process.
The most annoying thing was the way they attacked. At one point they had something like 15 offensive armies outside the city, including Catapults, Knights and eventually Cannons.
If they had attacked all at once they would've easily taken the city, but they chose to suicide one or at most two armies there a turn, and allow me to heal.
I now know the easiest way to defend against the AI is to simply defend the closest city to them, and leave most of your others empty. The AI may land one army a turn somewhere with a stray cruiser, but by then you have fighters (the AI likes to give me Flight for Religion...) and deal with it easily.
My last game (DS, on Deity) I flipped a Zulu city with a great person and it was jammed right between the Chinese (at war) and the rest of the Zulu (not at war) cities, I could only access the city by sea and it was also on a choke point, so the Chinese couldn't get to the Zulu anymore.
I saw the Chinese moving in on the city with a few armies so I rushed a Pikemen army and watched the Chinese. Over the course of 500 years they managed to lose 23 times to my Pikemen army, giving him 5 upgrades in the process.
The most annoying thing was the way they attacked. At one point they had something like 15 offensive armies outside the city, including Catapults, Knights and eventually Cannons.
If they had attacked all at once they would've easily taken the city, but they chose to suicide one or at most two armies there a turn, and allow me to heal.
I now know the easiest way to defend against the AI is to simply defend the closest city to them, and leave most of your others empty. The AI may land one army a turn somewhere with a stray cruiser, but by then you have fighters (the AI likes to give me Flight for Religion...) and deal with it easily.
That has nothing to do with the AI not knowing how to attack. On the Brady Strategy Guide, Sid explained he left things like that in the game for a reason.
They kept loopholes for each civ so that the unlocky spear losing to tanks scenarios are balanced. They also made it easier for builders to defend. Though archer armies will be no match for Tanks, you don't need to have a top notch military to defend against a top notch attacking unit.
They kept loopholes for each civ so that the unlocky spear losing to tanks scenarios are balanced. They also made it easier for builders to defend. Though archer armies will be no match for Tanks, you don't need to have a top notch military to defend against a top notch attacking unit.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
That is exactly what I did in my last game. I left three inland cities empty of units, except a spy in a couple of them to prevent my Great People from getting tiefed.
Maquiladora
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 9, 2002
- Messages
- 94
If you're replying to me, that has nothing to do with my point.
The AI had 15 offensive (and another 10 defensive) armies of roughly equal technology outside my city but would only attack at most twice a turn. If they had used 4 or 5 of those armies on the same turn the city would've fallen easily, randomness or not. Perhaps they saw that as a bad investment? But again, they lost 23 times in all, so that wasn't exactly a good idea either.
This wasn't my last city either, so it's not like the AI was giving me a chance.
Moderator Action: I changed the title of the thread to reflect reality: the AI in all versions of the game is the same - the DS is no different from the PS3 or 360. 
Moderator Action: I changed the title of the thread to reflect reality: the AI in all versions of the game is the same - the DS is no different from the PS3 or 360.
Much appreciated.
As the owner of both versions and a big fan of the portable Civ experience, I'm getting the feeling some posters here assume implicitly the DS version is somehow broken or missing huge chunks of gameplay so they start their threads with that in mind. It can get really annoying after a while.
Similar threads
