Will the ai be improved in warlords?

[DaviddesJ]

I think it's absolutely true that AI is more important to the "grognards" and "experts" than to the average buyer, and this gives it somewhat greater marketing importance (because one way that sales are generated is through the recommendations of hardcore players to more casual players). It's a good thing: if not for that, the AIs would be even worse. The average player mostly wants the AI to be weak: they want to always win while having the illusion of struggle.

 

[NT_Jedi]

... they have proven with Civ3, PTW, C3C and Civ4. And I am pretty sure, they will prove it once more with WL.

I agree... we're not going to see any AI improvements with WL-expansion. I'm sure 98.5% of the civilization gamers would have been happy to trade back to the CIV_3 graphics in exchange for very smart AI opponents and larger maps. The developers and publishers don't know and/or care we want smart AI opponents because they never ask us customers. The developers are only interested in impressing the publishers and it's easier to impress them with pretty graphics compared with smart AI progamming.
The AI for Gal_Civ2 and CIV_4 is much better than most games, but even our best games are below average in the AI department.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I'm sure 98.5% of the civilization gamers would have been happy to trade back to the CIV_3 graphics in exchange for very smart AI opponents and larger maps.

I think this is really naive. The great majority of Civ4 players never visit sites like Civ Fanatics, read the manual only casually, have little understanding of the strategies of the game, play at noble or maybe prince difficulty at most. They treat the game as a relaxing exercise rather than a mental challenge. Better AI just doesn't matter much to them.

 

[NT_Jedi]

The great majority of Civ4 players never visit sites like Civ Fanatics, read the manual only casually, have little understanding of the strategies of the game, play at noble or maybe prince difficulty at most. They treat the game as a relaxing exercise rather than a mental challenge. Better AI just doesn't matter much to them.

Thanks for your opinion, but we obviously disagree and perhaps you are the one naive. Everyone I've met which play TBS games quickly toss the games with stupid AIs. Maybe the network of people you know just don't mind stupid AIs, but my friends and family grow bored with stupid AIs. And my friends and family are all levels when playing games some play games every day and others only once a week.

 

[Strobe]

I think it's absolutely true that AI is more important to the "grognards" and "experts" than to the average buyer, and this gives it somewhat greater marketing importance (because one way that sales are generated is through the recommendations of hardcore players to more casual players). It's a good thing: if not for that, the AIs would be even worse. The average player mostly wants the AI to be weak: they want to always win while having the illusion of struggle.

I agree the game has to be aimed at the average player who wants to win with not too much challenge. Firaxis is a commercial company, and a lot of civ4 such as graphics has been aimed to provide a wider market of the average gamer.

Equally it would still be more fun for the average player if the AI was very good but the player has double the current bonus of that level to compensate.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Equally it would still be more fun for the average player if the AI was very good but the player has double the current bonus of that level to compensate.

I don't think so, but I understand your opinion.

 

[NT_Jedi]

Equally it would still be more fun for the average player if the AI was very good but the player has double the current bonus of that level to compensate.

I agree players would have equally just as much fun with smart AI opponents if given difficulty choices allowing bonuses we currently see given to the AIs. The other benefit is a smart AI would actually educate the player on being more clever reacting to different strategies compared with now where AI strategies are weak.

 

[binhthuy71]

I agree... we're not going to see any AI improvements with WL-expansion. I'm sure 98.5% of the civilization gamers would have been happy to trade back to the CIV_3 graphics in exchange for very smart AI opponents and larger maps...

You raise an interesting point. In the earlier iterations of Civ you could play as large a map as you wished to with a moderately capable computer. I used to make fun of FPS players and their neverending chase for more graphics capability. Now we see players being advised to turn off the effects in order to keep the game from being turned into a slide show. How many people equipped with an average computer could comfortably play a Huge map with all effects on? And how many will be turned off to Civ when their machine locks up or CTD's when playing with the defaults?

I turn off the chrome as a matter of course - it's the gameplay I'm interested in.

 

[bfordyce]

Unfortunately, it's a whole new game, incompatible with any of your saves and you'll have to shell out another fifty bucks. Would you buy it?

.

Heck yeah, I'd buy an improved AI game for $50. I'd be a lot more interested in that than adding a few more units or leaders. It would be great if they just fixed the game so that the simple formula of building a huge stack of troops and wiping out your nearest neighbor to catch up to the AI wouldn't work every time.

There have been some improvements in Civ 4 in the AI though. I like how Monty will surprise attack you. There's some annoying parts of this game though.. like Russia asks me to convert to her religion. I do, then she discovers a second religion and flips to it.

I also like how they've done away with the insane Alliance system that happened in Civ 3, where any attack triggered a world war with every freaking country on the globe, once the technology for Mutual Protection Pact was discovered. Maybe this still happens on Civ 4. I haven't been in any late game wars.

 

[bfordyce]

They are in business to make some profits. If they could deliver a more powerful (smarter ?) AI at a decent price point I bet they would do it in a heart beat.

Not necessarily. There was a lot of whining in Civ 3 that it was "too hard" and "impossible to beat on Diety". Fixaris caved in and did stuff like lower corruption, etc.

As other posters have said, a lot of gamers just want the illusion of a struggle. Plus, their ego requires that they win on Diety. Personally, I don't mind playing a harder level and then realizing after 3 hours that I goofed and am unlikely to win. It just makes it all the sweeter when I finally do beat that level.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm sure 98.5% of the civilization gamers would have been happy to trade back to the CIV_3 graphics in exchange for very smart AI opponents and larger maps.

I'm one of the 1.5%. While I like an improved AI, I don't want to go back to civ3 graphics. It would be nice to find a very smart wife who like to playing civ4 though.

 

[marioflag]

I'm one of the 1.5%. While I like an improved AI, I don't want to go back to civ3 graphics. It would be nice to find a very smart wife who like to playing civ4 though.

I agree Eyes wants their part

 

[The Q-Meister]

Yes they could increase the ability of the AI if they wanted, but they don't want to because if they did they would not get many new comers. For example lets put aside the fact that we are all Civ Fanatics & think of this as if we had never heard of Civ. Now amagine your walking in your local Wal Mart and you see a game called Sid Meier's Civilization V, & on the box it says "The Best AI to Hit Civilization". Do you think that you would buy it. I know I wouldn't. Come on I didn't know what the AI was until about a month ago.

That's silly.

You don't need to advertise things people don't want to hear. For example, I'm sure many of us hardcore fans LOVE the fact that we have a more flexible technology tree than in Civ 3. However, Fiarxis didn't go around advertising on the front cover of Civ IV: "Hey everyone! Check out our new tech tree! It's really cool!"

Improvements that make gameplay more interesting but does not necessarily make catchy soundbytes happen all the time. You could still have your Warlords update, still have Augustus with blue eyes, and still have the mighty Warlord unit while improving the AI. It's not an "either or" situation and not every single improvement in the game needs to be marketable; the people at Firaxis are savvy enough to know what sells and what doesn't.

Heck, I am savvy enough to know what sells and what doesn't and I imagine the average adolescent is as well: "Cool graphics, things that go boom, fightin' stuff, kick-butt leaders, and of course a big Nuke right in the middle of the front cover."

 

[The Q-Meister]

I think it's absolutely true that AI is more important to the "grognards" and "experts" than to the average buyer, and this gives it somewhat greater marketing importance (because one way that sales are generated is through the recommendations of hardcore players to more casual players). It's a good thing: if not for that, the AIs would be even worse. The average player mostly wants the AI to be weak: they want to always win while having the illusion of struggle.

Yes, but it's not a matter of "winning or losing", or a "tougher" AI. I think what most of us are talking about is a more sensible, realistic AI, not necessaribly one that is harder to defeat. As for me, I never only play with winning or losing in mind; what I love to do is re-enact how the leader I am playing would act like and try to emulate that. Sometimes it results in me winning , sometimes it doesn't, but I always try to play with a different strategy in mind with different goals and this always keeps the game fresh and innovative for me.

For example: With Ghandi I play the peaceful, submissive culture-population builder.
With Alexander, a conquerer with a "heart"
With Louis XIV, one of my favorites, a snob who looks down on other civs while building both culture and a powerful army.
With Lenin (from Rulers of Russia mod) I create a Communist state as best as I can in Civ IV, rename the Russian cities when I get State Property (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Marxgrad, Trotskygrad, etc. yea some I make up) and try to "covert" others to Communism.
With Saladin, a theocrat who pushes religion relentlessly.

This is how I would like the AI to play their civs, each leader having his/her own focus and own separate goals in mind rather than getting the "beehive mentality" where I feel they are all playing the same way. Having completely different experiences depending on which leaders you have in the game can only add to the fun and excitement of playing it.

 

[warpstorm]

T Maybe the network of people you know just don't mind stupid AIs, but my friends and family grow bored with stupid AIs.

That may be true, but David's opinion matches pretty close with the market studies (and a lot of the polls over the years here). Most players who bought the game never play at the hard difficulty levels at all. This site is very skewed. The few thousand players here absolutley do not represent the average of the million or so who purchased Civ4. We are the fanatics.

 

[DaviddesJ]

This is how I would like the AI to play their civs, each leader having his/her own focus and own separate goals in mind rather than getting the "beehive mentality" where I feel they are all playing the same way. Having completely different experiences depending on which leaders you have in the game can only add to the fun and excitement of playing it.

I think they are pretty different now. They definitely have personalities that affect their behavior, and you can learn how certain opponents are likely to act by observing them in past games.

 

[NT_Jedi]

That may be true, but David's opinion matches pretty close with the market studies (and a lot of the polls over the years here). Most players who bought the game never play at the hard difficulty levels at all. This site is very skewed. The few thousand players here absolutley do not represent the average of the million or so who purchased Civ4. We are the fanatics.

Embracing the idea of keeping computer opponents stupid is backwards thinking. It would be the same as wanting an obese, low_IQ and depressed girlfriend for the purpose of feeling more healthy and happier about yourself. Game settings can always be setup to provide the human player with the production/battle bonuses if the AI opponents ever even come close to matching our strategy skills.
On another angle... studying or working with other very smart people naturally greatly improves you in these specific areas as well. Having smarter computer opponents provides longer replay value and makes the gamer more clever as well.

I say place me with the most clever and intelligent friends, co-workers and computer opponents because within this environment I will learn much more compared with a FLIP_SIDE.

 

[NT_Jedi]

I think they are pretty different now. They definitely have personalities that affect their behavior, and you can learn how certain opponents are likely to act by observing them in past games.

I haven't seen much differences in their personalities... from the programming code I've only seen different formulas used for declaring war. What other factors affect one AIs behavior differently than another ?

 

[Strauss]

I haven't seen much differences in their personalities... from the programming code I've only seen different formulas used for declaring war. What other factors affect one AIs behavior differently than another ?

Gandhi and Mansa Musa will sit back and gain a huge tech lead if left alone, Tokugawa will rarely open his borders for you, let alone sign Pacts with you, Genghis Khan and Montezuma will take any chance to fight a war, Isabella is very hostile towards other religions (more than other leaders, she will very often fight holy wars), Alexander is a backstabber, etc.

There are exceptions of course, Gandhi will sometimes declare war (but much less often than other civs, which already are very peaceful).

 

[Smidlee]

Embracing the idea of keeping computer opponents stupid is backwards thinking.

It's probably more like keeping the AI simple and fast. A good hardcore AI would no doubt demand a lot of CPU time.