AI - is it better after new patch ?

[Orion66]

AI - is it better after new patch ?

 

[Ashwind]

Barbs are better. They actually attack you if you are in range. Haven't noticed anything significant with the other AI Civs yet.

 

[Ighten]

Seems to be some improvement with the decision of the AI to attack or not.. However its Diplomacy thats still the problem..

 

[Osetjka]

Seems to be some improvement with the decision of the AI to attack or not.. However its Diplomacy thats still the problem..

I think that problem is here to stay, unfortunately. Many people pointed the return to opaque diplomacy as a major step back months ago, yet those plea fell on deaf ears and here we are. It seems that where we see an aggro-Monty AI, the developers see an AI "playing to win", not that it's any competent in doing just that of course.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

To be fair, a hyper-aggressive Montezuma does make sense. Aztec religious worship centers around the belief that without sacrifice, the sun will not rise each morning, and the stars will not move across the sky.

 

[Putmalk]

To be fair, a hyper-aggressive Montezuma does make sense. Aztec religious worship centers around the belief that without sacrifice, the sun will not rise each morning, and the stars will not move across the sky.

He meant any AI plays like Monty.

 

[Osetjka]

To be fair, a hyper-aggressive Montezuma does make sense. Aztec religious worship centers around the belief that without sacrifice, the sun will not rise each morning, and the stars will not move across the sky.

Well, I was refering to the other AI personalities as well actually..

I read a thread where someone said that ciV Monty makes cIV Monty look like Mansa Musa. In my opinion this applies to the other AIs too, not just the new Monty.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Oh, nevermind, haha.

I wanted to mention, and someone else mentioned this, try refusing to open borders. I've been playing and being very friendly and agreeing to everything the AI wants, EXCEPT I've been refusing to open borders. Someone said this would help diplomacy, and it's hard to say for sure, but I've had very good experiences with it. Only once has it failed me (where an AI attacked me unprovoked), but that was only near the end of the game where he and I were the only civilizations with a score over 300.

 

[Jharii]

You know what's funny... when you are playing the game, you can see *hints* of the leader's actual personality coming through in their behaviors, but ultimately most of the time, they become warmongers with very little strategy. With the exception of Napoleon, if he grows in power, he tends to kick butt.

 

[eric_]

Does the AI still completely empty their homeland or troops when they march off to war?

 

[mattcrwi]

Oh, nevermind, haha.

I wanted to mention, and someone else mentioned this, try refusing to open borders. I've been playing and being very friendly and agreeing to everything the AI wants, EXCEPT I've been refusing to open borders. Someone said this would help diplomacy, and it's hard to say for sure, but I've had very good experiences with it. Only once has it failed me (where an AI attacked me unprovoked), but that was only near the end of the game where he and I were the only civilizations with a score over 300.

If they can't see your army they will never know that you are easy pickings If you are building for cultural/diplo victory not giving open borders if very prudent.

 

[dexters]

Isn't there a diplomacy patch coming up?

And I'd disagree that all the AI play the same. It's a gross overgeneralization.

AI tend to want to war you if you share common borders, it seems like their interests suddenly collide with yours, but even that is not guaranteed, if there's other distractions around.


Edit: open borders and warfare. Yes it does affect it. AI's have a number of heuristics it checks.

if you're at war already, it's more apt to declare war because it knows your troops will be on the front. The AI civs on your flank especially likes to do this.

Failing that, they want open borders to check your troops and fortifications. if they can't see it, they became hesitent.

I successfully bluffed Sulieman this way, while I decimated Japan on the other side of the continent.

But there are limits. AI will still DOW when other variables override its concern for not seeing where your troop placements are.

 

[DaveGold]

I've attacked some Romans and they definitely dug in a little better. They generally kept their crossbowmen back, moved their great general to a sensible place, seemed to have more units, and actually killed a few of my units on the counter-attack. I had to use more ZOCs to pin them down.

 

[eric_]

Sounds good, DaveGold. Keeping my fingers crossed! I mean, I love winning wars, but I'd like to face a challenger other than city bombardment from time to time .

 

[Clement]

Isn't there a diplomacy patch coming up?

Yes i believe i read somewhere there will be a diplomacy patch, as to what they plan to do i have no idea, hopefully make the leaders act more logically.

And I'd disagree that all the AI play the same. It's a gross overgeneralization.

I can only speak for my own experience with the game of course, but i have found the AI leaders to be very generic indeed, even the ones i would have most likely expected to be friendly are instead passive aggressive and obstinate, and will attack at the drop of a hat, i have found very little opportunity for any meaningful alliance with any of them.

 

[fliddermang]

It may just have been in my head but the brief bit of warring I've partaken in since the patch seemed more competitive and didn't produce as many facepalm moments.

 

[dexters]

I can only speak for my own experience with the game of course, but i i have found the AI leaders to be very generic indeed, even the ones i would have most likely expected to be friendly are instead passive aggressive and obstinate, and will attack at the drop of a hat, i have found very little opportunity for any meaningful alliance with any of them.

Alexander and Bismarck loves to sign secret treaties with the player, and I assume with other AIs.

Ghandi is usually quick to offer pact of co-operation. France of course almost alway sis dominant if left to run its own continent /part of the world.

I see very general AI tendencies that is in-line with what has been implemented before.

But there's nothing to indicate we're only getting 1 type of AI, there's definately differences.

What seems to be broken are the rules that keep the AI consistent and possibly make them too agressive when common borders are shared.

 

[Clement]

But there's nothing to indicate we're only getting 1 type of AI, there's definately differences.

I must respectfully disagree in part, all the AI leaders i have met are aggressive first and foremost, i would say that they do exhibit small differences in their playstyle but certainly not enough to my liking, whether it is true or not i as a player have been left feeling the Ai is indeed very samey, just my opinion of course.

What seems to be broken are the rules that keep the AI consistent and possibly make them too agressive when common borders are shared.

i'd definetely agree with that.

 

[YoHo]

The comment about open boarders is interesting. I hadn't heard that before. That's good to know.

 

[The Great Apple]

I'm about 100 turns into a Diety game, and only one city state has been wiped out. This is really quite rare! I wonder if this is due to the defensive tactical AI update.