You can't do anything right in this game

[Fistalis]

Nah, I'm mainly a builder. But I knew that if I was "in" with my neighbor I wouldn't have much to worry about from that side. And if I did decide to conquest, I could just turn to other concerns and stab that neighbor in the back whenver it was convenient. He had a green #9 next to his name and therefore didn't have the same option.

Depended on your neighbor.. shaka and monty were notorious for not caring about how many green+ you had

As to the civics effecting relations that was a dynamic i liked. Police states more likely to be freindly with other police states etc.

 

[QuixotesGhost]

The way I see it, the AI is (at least in theory) programmed to be pissed off by the same things that would piss a player off. You know what pisses off me off as a player?

Getting beat to wonders and cities sites.

GAH! RAMSES! You bastard, I was two turns away from the Great Library! That's it - war.

The thing is though, playing emotionally like this, it's an irrational way to play, and often leads you to making mistakes. It's sub-optimal play.

 

[pi-r8]

I feel like it's actually safer to be at war with your neighbor instead of peace. While you're at war they'll send over their units as soon as they're built attacking one at a time and feeding you experience. At peace, they're building up a big army, and you never know when they might declare war and invade with everything.

 

[Nortrom]

I've done everything right many times with the AI in this game. If you are honest and friendly towards them, they will be friendly towards you until you stand in the way for the victory they are pursuing. At least this is my experience.

The AI isn't particulary good in Civ5, but it's okay. Hopefully it will improve with time.

 

[wizzlestick]

AI's are barb camps with names (e.g. boss monsters).

hahaha true story

 

[zzbusch]

Ugh... yeah... honestly, I treat every AI as 100% hostile to me at all times, because essentially they are. Some people see this as the AI being "realistic" in that it tries to win the game, I personally see it as making the game not fun (shouldn't there be more to the Civ experience than racing towards a win-condition?)

Alright, after about 10 games I have to agree. Everyone I've met has eventually become an enemy. I have to stop all production and build an army every game. No one wants a peace treaty, even after I've beaten them to a pulp. They might look at a proposal, but they want the world and all it's resourses for a peace. Heck, I just played with Gandhi on an archipeligo, and he wouldn't accept a peace treaty for everything I had. I had beaten him in every battle.

 

[Jharii]

I particularly liked it when after 250 turns of peace with everyone, Ghandi called me a warmonger. 10 turns later, he declared war on me.

Anyhow, I want my AI to behave like a human opponent with the tendencies of the Civilization it is controlling.

 

[Kruelgor]

"Your continued greed in collecting wonders of the world has become an issue. Consider our pact of co-operation closed."

Next turn pact of secrecy closed. Two turns later she declares war bringing a war ally in too. Ressource trades, research treaty, and open borders cancelled. Doesn't it just make you love the game?

I call it smart AI. If you're becoming too strong, wouldn't a group of human opponents do the same thing to you?

 

[troab]

"Your continued greed in collecting wonders of the world has become an issue. Consider our pact of co-operation closed."

Next turn pact of secrecy closed. Two turns later she declares war bringing a war ally in too. Ressource trades, research treaty, and open borders cancelled. Doesn't it just make you love the game?

One of my least favorite screens.. how.. gamey.

More realistic (and might add: fun and varied) responses might be:

Hostile: You grow far too prideful! You think you are better than us? Prepare yourself to learn otherwise.

Friendly: We are in awe of your wondrous structures! Only a truly prosperous and cultured people would be capable of producing such glory! We are humbled by your magnificence!

Neutral: How foolish your silly buildings are.. you make quite the show if fettering away your nation's wealth.. are your people happy to see how their efforts are spent?

It also seems to me that a "gamey" AI must be easier than an "immersive" AI.. i mean a gamey AI is triggering hostility all over the place because everybody wants to "win" even Ghandi.

That being said I'd prefer to see a fleshed out immersive AI with different leaders behaving differently.. and maybe a ga,me option to toggle on gamey AI.. aka Virtual Multi-player - it would just ramp up the hostility and make victory conditions much higher priority.

 

[Calouste]

I'd argue it is challenging albeit in a very wrong sense. It's what tvtropes.org call fake difficulty:

Denial of information critical to progress. A reasonable game may require the player to use information, clues, or logic to proceed. Witholding relevant information such that the player cannot possibly win without a guide, walkthrough or trial and error is fake difficulty. Also includes hidden Unstable Equilibrium (e.g. a later level is much harder if you do badly at an early level, and you're not informed of this ahead of time).

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Civ4 diplo was challenging because it required actual thinking what you are doing. Civ5 diplo is challenging because it requires guessing. Luckily while failing diplo in Civ4 = end of the game, failing diplo in Civ5 = more cities for you

Like in Civ4 who will declare war at Friendly, Pleased etc or which technologies you could bulb at a certain point in the tech tree?

 

[Roxlimn]

Generally, declarations of war are predictable in Civ V. Would it make the game better if we stuck a red pin to every Civ that was going to declare war on you? That's not diplomacy. That's just adding numbers.

 

[Mikkow]

Ugh... yeah... honestly, I treat every AI as 100% hostile to me at all times, because essentially they are. Some people see this as the AI being "realistic" in that it tries to win the game, I personally see it as making the game not fun (shouldn't there be more to the Civ experience than racing towards a win-condition?)

Options are always nice. Seems to be a group that would enjoy a mode without the typical victory conditions that the AI competes with the human player for on equal ground.

The AI playing like a human is something I always wanted for myself and friend who would play Civ4. It was frustrating when AI would foolishly watch one of us go for a win while blocking the rest from doing anything about it. Like two people actually participating in the game and 6 ignorant fools not having a care.

"Your continued greed in collecting wonders of the world has become an issue. Consider our pact of co-operation closed."

Next turn pact of secrecy closed. Two turns later she declares war bringing a war ally in too. Ressource trades, research treaty, and open borders cancelled. Doesn't it just make you love the game?

Like a proper participant of the game, they are threatened by your successful strategy of getting the wonders and will try to eliminate this threat. And I actually didn't know about this and I was excited to hear about it! I assume you are sarcastic however

As soon as you get into 10% range to their "score", they turn hostile.
And with score, it's either gold, overall score, number of wonders, army size... You pick it. They always find a reason to hate your guts.

That's why I don't like Civ5 - it always ends up in a war.
Hopefully this will get fixed in the patch, because otherwise I like the game.

Violence is the ultimate method of control and power. If you are becoming a threat to them and they think the best, or maybe only way to have a chance at preventing you from winning is military force, then they will. Humans act exactly like this. Real world doesn't have a 'win' condition but is rather a game for getting higher score at all time, and even there nations act similar to this (if they have the capacity to).

 

[lschnarch]

Not that I like the new diplomacy AI much ("I don't WANT to kick your tail, Ghandi, but you're leaving me no choice"), but people seem to have a huge blind spot for IV's shortcomings. It DID have issues, even five years after release.

Sure did Civ4 having flaws all over the place.
Yet, it had enough to offer to make you forgive these flaws.

That is exactly, what I am missing in Civ0.V. You stumble from one game element to the next and :facepalm:

4-lvl-AI? Inexistent
lowest-(combat)-lvl-AI? Inexistent
Interesting diplomacy? Inexistent

And the list could go on and on and on...

The way I see it, the AI is (at least in theory) programmed to be pissed off by the same things that would piss a player off. You know what pisses off me off as a player?

Getting beat to wonders and cities sites.

I call it smart AI. If you're becoming too strong, wouldn't a group of human opponents do the same thing to you?

Both above quotes together hit the nail on its head.
The AI shall reflect human behaviour.

That's good and fine, but it just reflects the behaviour of human *players*, not the behaviour of human heads of state.
In a game, a human may act like crazy because after all it is just a game. DoW? So what, it's a game. Ending a preferable treaty? So what, it's just a game....

In the real world, most of the leaders would have behaved completely different from how the AI behaves.
Therefore, for a game in which you shall have the feeling of creating an empire, the AI should behave like leading an empire, too. Everything else is just a killer for the immersion.

Generally, declarations of war are predictable in Civ V. Would it make the game better if we stuck a red pin to every Civ that was going to declare war on you? That's not diplomacy. That's just adding numbers.

Where is the problem with having numbers if everything is so predictable?
Your statement just doesn't make any sense at all.

Either we face predictability, then let's have the numbers.
Or we are confronted with really surprising elements, then hide them. But there aren't surprising elements, if not *how* stupid the AI reacts.
The surprise is in the degree of stupidity, not that it is stupid.

 

[bryanw1995]

Sure did Civ4 having flaws all over the place.
Yet, it had enough to offer to make you forgive these flaws.

That is exactly, what I am missing in Civ0.V. You stumble from one game element to the next and :facepalm:

4-lvl-AI? Inexistent
lowest-(combat)-lvl-AI? Inexistent
Interesting diplomacy? Inexistent

And the list could go on and on and on...





Both above quotes together hit the nail on its head.
The AI shall reflect human behaviour.

That's good and fine, but it just reflects the behaviour of human *players*, not the behaviour of human heads of state.
In a game, a human may act like crazy because after all it is just a game. DoW? So what, it's a game. Ending a preferable treaty? So what, it's just a game....

In the real world, most of the leaders would have behaved completely different from how the AI behaves.
Therefore, for a game in which you shall have the feeling of creating an empire, the AI should behave like leading an empire, too. Everything else is just a killer for the immersion.



Where is the problem with having numbers if everything is so predictable?
Your statement just doesn't make any sense at all.

Either we face predictability, then let's have the numbers.
Or we are confronted with really surprising elements, then hide them. But there aren't surprising elements, if not *how* stupid the AI reacts.
The surprise is in the degree of stupidity, not that it is stupid.

if they behaved like "real world" leaders and didn't maintain much of a military then you would just hate the game because you could steamroller everybody all the time.

 

[Nog]

"Your continued greed in collecting wonders of the world has become an issue. Consider our pact of co-operation closed."

Next turn pact of secrecy closed. Two turns later she declares war bringing a war ally in too. Ressource trades, research treaty, and open borders cancelled. Doesn't it just make you love the game?

That and the AI was so poorly coded that half the time it will claim things not even correct. The last game I played on deity pangea before shelving this game was have Persia tell me it's getting worried about the troops massing on it's borders AND the next turn warn me about purchasing land too close to it's borders.

Understandable really...

...if I wasn't on the other continent.

 

[Mikkow]

In the real world, most of the leaders would have behaved completely different from how the AI behaves.

Apart from the obvious foolishness of the AI, like starting wars it has no chance of winning. I know there's ethnicity/religion/personal bloodline relations between countries. The rich looking after some of their interests. But for a truly one man autocratic leader, what are the differences?

Therefore, for a game in which you shall have the feeling of creating an empire, the AI should behave like leading an empire, too. Everything else is just a killer for the immersion.

I think perhaps you are not quite aware of how nation-states act in reality. Hearts of Iron 3 and even the Civilization series teaches a lot about how cynical the world is. They act in ruthless self-interest to most extent. The less autocratic the more humane they tend to be. The cold war between USSR and USA was all about undermining the other to the fullest extent possible, because they were rivals. USA doesn't care about undermining Sweden because Sweden is no threat to their position of world superpower.

The AI shall reflect human behaviour. That's good and fine, but it just reflects the behaviour of human *players*, not the behaviour of human heads of state.
In a game, a human may act like crazy because after all it is just a game. DoW? So what, it's a game. Ending a preferable treaty? So what, it's just a game....

Humans have different personalities - both virtual dictators and real ones. A death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. Dictators often see people as means (rather than individuals equal to themselves) to further their own desires.

That and the AI was so poorly coded that half the time it will claim things not even correct. The last game I played on deity pangea before shelving this game was have Persia tell me it's getting worried about the troops massing on it's borders AND the next turn warn me about purchasing land too close to it's borders.

Understandable really...

...if I wasn't on the other continent.

lol, that is the best example of insane AI I have read so far.

 

[lschnarch]

if they behaved like "real world" leaders and didn't maintain much of a military then you would just hate the game because you could steamroller everybody all the time.

Where is the difference to now?

 

[jjkrause84]

I've never understood people who demean the Civ4 diplomatic system for ACTUALLY GIVING YOU INFORMATION. I was enthralled when it first came out and I FINALLY knew why the AI did or didn't like me. I still like it a lot, to be honest....although, I'm not a manipulator. I don't play off of the game's rules and try to abuse them to my advantage.....I just try to lead a Civ through time.

 

[Mikkow]

I've never understood people who demean the Civ4 diplomatic system for ACTUALLY GIVING YOU INFORMATION. I was enthralled when it first came out and I FINALLY knew why the AI did or didn't like me.

If the AI was human-like enough there would be no need for any information because we, as humans, can understand why another human would like or dislike what were are doing in the game.

But the AI is not there yet and is both blind to some things and extremely foolish with others. To have an understanding on what on earth causes the departure from human rational behavior helps. But I don't want to see formulas, how much it affects, or to see it be foolishly manipulated into certain loss just because you knew how to play the numbers in some irrelevant way.

I would prefer they get rid of AI bugs and work on the quality of it, to make it more and more human-like. When we can start to think of it as a non-stupid human person playing the game, we can figure out for ourselves why it would dislike or like us.

 

[HiroHito]

Is this a widespread wish? I always assumed that most players want other civs to behave more like "real" civs, not civs playing a Civilization game. For example, in Civ IV when someone would like you because you built a wonder that the civ admires.

At least that's what I want. It's crucial for the immersion.

I don't like having civs playing to win, and if you ask me, its just the excuse ppl came up with. I suspect the diplo AI is broken, thats it.