DaviddesJ said:
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.