Does the AI ever build real navies or air forces?

[Nog]

I've played through about 20 games, different size maps, # of civs, all the way to the second hardest difficulty.

Won all of then through domination as that is my preferred style of play. And some games have gone into the late 1900's.

I've yet to see a real navy or air force. In face not sure I've seen a single plane ever.

In my last 3 games I've had a couple level 11 destroyers because they never build a real navy, never really move their units away from the coast despite not having a navy, so I just have fun picking off units and cities from the coast since they never do anything to counter.

And of course once they get extended range and movement, they patrol the shores both protecting my cities and just destroying theirs.

It's the single easiest way to win a game on any difficulty...

I'm guessing when they rushed the game out, this wasn't coded in?

As a result, I'm now trying Highlands with no water in hopes of a challenging game. :/

 

[apotheoser]

No. It spams tons of antiaircraft guns though.

 

[Nog]

No. It spams tons of antiaircraft guns though.

Yeah that is all I've seen too.

Wow, why include the whole aspect of sea and air when the computer never uses it - and makes it incredibly easy to win.

 

[Nog]

I shouldn't say they never use it (though I honestly don't think I've encountered a single plane), but they build a few navy units but not in any coordinated sense of defending and attack with them, let alone air.

 

[Drawmeus]

I shouldn't say they never use it (though I honestly don't think I've encountered a single plane), but they build a few navy units but not in any coordinated sense of defending and attack with them, let alone air.

To be fair, they don't use their land units in any coordinated sense either, it's just less evident because the constraints of land movement and chokepoints tend to force all their units together even though they didn't set out to do that, and they have so many more of them.

It's the single biggest weakness of the AI.

 

[Nog]

Yeah, I know about the land unit AI issues but once in a while they can be a challenge.

Sad part is, with every single game, you get to a point where you know you can't lose really because as you say, they won't counter with any coordinate sense of tactics.

And because you never have to worry about navy or air, I finish some games just for a score standpoint but it's not 'exciting' to finish, just due-dilligence.

 

[Drawmeus]

The factors that make that happen are mostly economic rather than military tactics; the weak tactics of the AI just make it so the relative power your economy must have to hit the "I can't lose" point is a bit lower (you need to be able to manufacture a military which is in the ballpark of an opponent's power level rather than clearly stronger in order to guarantee a win).

 

[shenryyr]

ai is awful. end of story.

 

[mattcrwi]

I have seen Elizabeth build a sizable navy. She didn't use it in the war we were in but she built one.

 

[MeowTau]

Gandhi built half a dozen ships and attacked me with them. Not the brightest strategy charging my artillery. This was on diety though and he had 1/3 of the map.

Finally ended up in a late tech game. The AI just falls apart late game, as the units become more specialized but the AI is not even capable of using the basic units.

 

[Becephalus]

I have seen a fair number of AI ships, no planes except copters, and they use the ships atrociously. I had 1 frigate escort 4 embarked units against a coast with two enemy destroyers and only lost 1 embarked ship. Those destroyers should be scouting each turn and engaging. Not sitting still. Especially if they see a frigate scout them.

I wish they had just left out air combat until they could get it working. It *should* be easier for the ai.

I have seen the AI on immortal and diety field more units than its empire has tiles, so it certainly isn't lacking in production/money. In one game on a small map with 6 players the english had about 10 cities and IDK 200 units? No one could move through that part of the map and the units were filling up the neutral lands around england for several tiles.

Everyone had around 1,500 "pointy sticks" and they had 15,000.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I have seen Elizabeth build a sizable navy. She didn't use it in the war we were in but she built one.

I've been getting that wrong, been playing as Elizabeth. It would be nice to have someone to fight the odd battle with...

It's the single easiest way to win a game on any difficulty...

As a result, I'm now trying Highlands with no water in hopes of a challenging game. :/

Yeah, I feel like this is an exploit, up to King now and counting (and that was my best level on Civ4, couldn't guarantee a win all the time there tho)...

But you might like to try Lakes, Nog, if you want to get rid of the unfair advantage. I tend to play it with high sea levels, because it gives you some really weird maps with interesting choke points and I like to have some maritime luxuries around.

 

[tom2050]

Let's remember what the AI hype was:

The artificial intelligence (AI) in Civilization V is designed to operate on four levels: the tactical AI controls individual units; the operational AI oversees the entire war front; the strategic AI manages the entire empire; and the grand strategic AI sets long-term goals and determines how to win the game. The four levels of AI complement each other to allow for complex and flexible AI behaviors.

Well, we know the tactical and operational AI are definitely not doing their job. If this is the case, the strategic and grand strategic AI probably blow as well. A bunch of sucky AI's complementing each other to allow 'complex and flexible' screw-ups.

 

[Nog]

Sigh. I don't mind bad AI but NO AI is really awful.

Unfinished.

Why even include naval and air portions of the game?

I'd love to hear their response.

*crickets*

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Let's remember what the AI hype was:



Well, we know the tactical and operational AI are definitely not doing their job. If this is the case, the strategic and grand strategic AI probably blow as well. A bunch of sucky AI's complementing each other to allow 'complex and flexible' screw-ups.

That's just the standard military hierarchy they're citing. Sounds like they just composed a pile of waffle around it, hard to see any such highly structured behaviour in the games I've been playing. And they left out the most important category, logistics - 'Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics'.

Logistics isn't just about supply, it's also about having your units in the right place at the right time. So total epic fail on the logistic front - thanks, I think, to the 1upt system, the AI cannot assemble units in a structured and timely fashion to save its life. (In fact, I wouldn't call this a trivial programming problem, so I'm not at all surprised. But it does mean that in abandoning stacks, Firaxis has bitten off more than it can chew. I really don't feel that the rubbish AI is going to be fixed by patches or even expansion packs, frankly.)

 

[Nog]

That's just the standard military hierarchy they're citing. Sounds like they just composed a pile of waffle around it, hard to see any such highly structured behaviour in the games I've been playing. And they left out the most important category, logistics - 'Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics'.

Logistics isn't just about supply, it's also about having your units in the right place at the right time. So total epic fail on the logistic front - thanks, I think, to the 1upt system, the AI cannot assemble units in a structured and timely fashion to save its life. (In fact, I wouldn't call this a trivial programming problem, so I'm not at all surprised. But it does mean that in abandoning stacks, Firaxis has bitten off more than it can chew. I really don't feel that the rubbish AI is going to be fixed by patches or even expansion packs, frankly.)

It is true.

From a programming/logic/rule-based model, it gets exponentially more difficult.

For multiplayer, it makes great strategy - but Civ5 (or any Civ in my mind) just isn't very fun for multiplayer unless you know all the players, can restart with everyone later, etc. etc. It's a fun simulator.

But trying to get the AI to coordinate it's units isn't easy. I _LOVE_ the 1UPT system but I agree, I don't think the strategy/logistic side of the AI can really be fixed except by the devs.

And since this isn't an MMO where they get monthly fees to keep a good team around, the skeleton crew on this is just working on bugs.

They might fix it some for the first expansion as they need to make $$$ again but it is what it is for a while...

 

[dexters]

They can probably fix some of it and relax 1UPT rules to help AI.

I'm willing to let them try and fix it, rather than call it a failure like so many have. It's a risk they've taken, and I can see the wisdom of that risk.

ie: rather than give AI pure production bonuses, scale back some of it and allow them to move units in stacks of 2 to their location, assuming there are tiles to park them. That way ranged always get some kind of escort.

 

[happyant]

This would be the most disappointing game I have ever waited for! There is so little to like about it and AI is only a part of it.
Wonder rewards are from laughable to overpowered with no decent middle ground and warfare is mechanical and oh so boring, having cities bombarding enemies is almost all the force you need to repell invaders. City state rewards are not worth the effort either and if you attack someone you don't see much retaliation until they offer to pay you a fortune (even if they have a stronger army) which kills off their already creaking economy. And what is with the high zoom level - one of the only things going for this game is the graphics and you can't get close enough to examine your handiwork.

I don't even know where you'd start to fix it, and find it amazing that a company which could produce such a slick title as CIV 4 could turn out such a buggy piece of halfass.
Im self employed and set aside a week (!) to play this game to death, but was so bored after 6 hours I stopped. So I havn't even seen the late game which (judging by remarks online) is even worse.

You have to ask - what game were all the testers from gaming websites playing?! They have been waxing lyrical for a year (conning us into purchasing) about how brilliant it is and who of us didn't decide after an hour of playing that this game was hardly worthy of the title "civ"?

 

[Thrax73]

I had a pretty big naval battle against Elizabeth while playing Washington. Frigates vs Ships of the Line. But I seldom see other Civs invest much in a navy.

 

[Nog]

This would be the most disappointing game I have ever waited for! There is so little to like about it and AI is only a part of it.
Wonder rewards are from laughable to overpowered with no decent middle ground and warfare is mechanical and oh so boring, having cities bombarding enemies is almost all the force you need to repell invaders. City state rewards are not worth the effort either and if you attack someone you don't see much retaliation until they offer to pay you a fortune (even if they have a stronger army) which kills off their already creaking economy. And what is with the high zoom level - one of the only things going for this game is the graphics and you can't get close enough to examine your handiwork.

I don't even know where you'd start to fix it, and find it amazing that a company which could produce such a slick title as CIV 4 could turn out such a buggy piece of halfass.
Im self employed and set aside a week (!) to play this game to death, but was so bored after 6 hours I stopped. So I havn't even seen the late game which (judging by remarks online) is even worse.

You have to ask - what game were all the testers from gaming websites playing?! They have been waxing lyrical for a year (conning us into purchasing) about how brilliant it is and who of us didn't decide after an hour of playing that this game was hardly worthy of the title "civ"?

Clearly you must not know how to leverage city states and policy much.

And I thought I was learning the game

When my game goes well, I get more food from them to ALL my cities than my buildings provide (save on buildings while focus on military), more culture, and usually half my science is from city states (at least until end-game).

Not to mention I use them to fight multiple fronts... I play all my games to win by domination.

I keep debating if city states/policy or 1UPT/hex is the more innovative, incredible addition to the series.

The AI needs help but the mechanics are awesome!