AI tactics suck even on Diety.

[Psyringe]

Supposedly, the tactical AI took a hit between the tester's version and release, so we'll see how it turns out after some time.

Ouch.

The last time I heard this argument was when MoO3 was released (with an AI that was totally incapable of winning the game). Before, some beta testers had posted game reports in the forums, which didn't mention AI problems at all. So people questioned whether the reports had been truthful. Then a rumor started that the game's AI had actually been much better, but "somehow" got lobotomized (one theory even assumed that this happened deliberately, to not frustrate new players with the excellent AI that the devs had presumably coded). Then, people started waiting for this presumable already written, much better AI to reappear. And waited. And waited. And if they hadn't given up at some point, they'd be waiting still.

 

[HeavyTwenty]

The AI can't really win though domination in this game as well... I was busy fighting Washington, so Napoleon decided to take advantage and attack my cities with one unit garrisons in my empire's rear. At first I thought, "oh sh!t I'm screwed" because his army was huge. But then for the next 20+ turns they kept shuffling around like idiots and never made one attack on the actual city. I killed 5-6 of his units and he asked for a peace. This was on Prince difficulty.

I'm unsure why Napoleon had such a rough time attacking my cities though... Washington was capable of taking out 3 other civilizations but it was behind Fog of War so I couldn't see what he was doing.

 

[Sc_0pe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't CIV IV AI kinda sucked when the game got released and has been fixed with a bunch of patches until today.

 

[Sonereal]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't CIV IV AI kinda sucked when the game got released and has been fixed with a bunch of patches until today.

Actually, the AI kept sucking anyway. Just sucked less with the patches but it wasn't until a butch of unpaid modders made BetterAI did it get challenging.

 

[Arrogant]

Actually, the AI kept sucking anyway. Just sucked less with the patches but it wasn't until a butch of unpaid modders made BetterAI did it get challenging.

And probably this is why Firaxis have embraced modders now. They hope someone else will do the work that the company should have done

 

[Sonereal]

And probably this is why Firaxis have embraced modders now. They hope someone else will do the work that the company should have done

Too bad that at least CivIV AI can do somewhat decent land invasions. Losing a city to the AI in CivV is a level of embarrassment I can't comprehend.

 

[fantsu]

Did won on Emperor today.
Something must be wrong.
Greetz by former civ4 Monarch player (took me more than one year to get there).

 

[Mustakrakish]

Couldn't agree more with you Onionsoilder...

 

[digitalcraft]

I've also noticed they'll often just mill about cities and get their asses shot.

I'm wondering if maybe the AI is overthinking it and thinking the capital is so valuable it should ignore other cities and go for it, but with all the workers and such running around my area, the long movement paths keep getting changed each turn so it just sort of mills about instead of attacking what's right in front of it.

 

[WuphonsReach]

MOO3 had a lot more flaws then Civ5 (thankfully, I don't think we're looking at another MOO3).

In MOO3, you'd play the game, deal with the horrid UI, and say to yourself "there's an awesome game under the covers here" - but the UI was so bad that it was dead in the water and not playable. In Civ5, the UI, while kludgy is at least functional enough to get the job done and mostly just needs tweaks so that it gets out of the player's way better. The concepts are also a bit better balanced and just need minor tweaks so that it's playable across all map sizes and game speeds.

(sigh) I really really wanted to like MOO3. I tried really hard for at least a few weeks...

 

[digitalcraft]

I played on Deity today. I did not win. I didn't lose either, I got bored and quit.

I started on this peninsula and Washington was my neighbor, I also met Germany and Rome. Doesn't *that* start like a friendly welcoming committee ^.^;;

Well washington was very friendly, open boreders, trade, declare war out of nowhere! X.X He had already boxed me in, I had enough room for 3 cities. He had a big advantage though, by the time I made my first warrior he had a second city and 3 spearmen or so and a few workers.

He declares war and tries to rush me with spearmen, who get laid on their backs by my closest city and two bowmen units (was playing as Babylon since I never tried them before).

On one side of the city was a mountain and then the coast beyond, on the other was forest and hills which I stationed archers in. He absolutely could *not* get through.

However, I was falling more and more behind. He was being a derp, but I kept getting messages about other civilizations reaching renaissance and such, so I knew even if I did beat him, I'd not have much chance.

Also, a weird thing, he was willing to negotiate for peace, but literally would not take any deal, I tried offering him gold, resources, etc. Even though he'd listen he'd turn down every single deal. o.O He'd just say the deal is not possible when I asked him what he wanted. Why even negotiate then????

So yeah, stalemate and I quit. Didn't lose any cities though, just a spearman that I snuck through the ocean and on to his coast which was immediately obliterated by a sea of archers that he had milling about his capital and not attacking me with o.O

 

[Psyringe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't CIV IV AI kinda sucked when the game got released and has been fixed with a bunch of patches until today.

Actually Civ4 was probably the Civ game with the most competent AI on release. You can see that when you check the forum threads at the time - there were way more people complaining that the Ai must have cheated somehow because they lost, than there were people complaining that the AI was a pushover. That's a definite difference between the initial reception of the two games.

That said, the Civ4 AI could build upon the existing Civ3 codebase far more than the Civ5 AI could (1upt is a rather radical change that necessitates a whole new layer of tactical movement that was barely present before). Also, the Civ4 AI did in fact make reasonable use of the new game features (promotions for example) that the players still had to learn. The simple fact that the AI knew to defend its cities with accordingly promoted archers gave many players quite a challenge until they understood the system. There were even many complaints that AI cities were unconquerable. (This was in the very early days, before the importance of siege units was fully understood.)

Of course, over time, the shortcomings of the Civ4 AI did start to show, and modders thankfully improved it further. But I think there can't be any doubt that the perceived competence of the AI on release was significantly higher for Civ4 than it is for Civ5 now. The Civ4 AI knew well enough to use the new features to puzzle players for a good while. The Civ5 AI seems inferior in using the new features (1upt most prominently) even compared to the average player in his first few games. That's quite a surprise to me, actually. I expected the AI to have problems, but I didnÄt expect it to be that bad.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

They need to make more units, at least one King and lower (the difficulties I've tried so far).

3 units to defend and empire of 4-5 cities is laughable.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Ouch.

The last time I heard this argument was when MoO3 was released (with an AI that was totally incapable of winning the game). Before, some beta testers had posted game reports in the forums, which didn't mention AI problems at all. So people questioned whether the reports had been truthful. Then a rumor started that the game's AI had actually been much better, but "somehow" got lobotomized (one theory even assumed that this happened deliberately, to not frustrate new players with the excellent AI that the devs had presumably coded). Then, people started waiting for this presumable already written, much better AI to reappear. And waited. And waited. And if they hadn't given up at some point, they'd be waiting still.

Ahaha

 

[Malkaviel]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=382834

 

[MisterBarca]

I've played a lot of Panzer General and Fantasy General, and those games hardly have the best AIs. For 15 year old games, the AI in those is still three times as good as the Civ V one. I wasn't expecting any miracles, but I certainly was expecting something better than was delivered.

Agreed. And if you are looking at contemporary games, the AI in both Wesnoth and Fantasy Wars series are superior, too.

 

[sqdtnz]

Firaxis needs to solve this, because with the current AI its re-playability will be very limited. In Civ IV when I started a new game, I always feared losing. In Civ V I always have to agree with the AI foes telling me I shouldn't pick on the weak, because that's what I do by just playing this game.

I'm pretty sure they read these forums, and there's been many threads about this now, so they know this. I wonder how this issue didn't come to the surface before. They should have postponed release, to hire a truckload of mathematicians, military tacticians, chess AI programmers and other AI specialists to crack this. At this moment there is simply NO AI strategic concept at all, it's like Pac Man, see the enemy and go towards him, that's it. PacMan tactics...

 

[Buccaneer]

Firaxis needs to solve this, because with the current AI its re-playability will be very limited. In Civ IV when I started a new game, I always feared losing.

Me too. Playing on Prince/Monarch meant that I had to work for a victory, esp. since I usually stacked a map with lots of civs. I loved that feeling, knowing that it did a good job of scaling the difficulty levels ... even at vanilla Civ4.

Perhaps it was the difference between being led by an AI programmer (Soren) vs. a Civ3 modder (Jon)?

 

[DrakenKin]

to hire a truckload of mathematicians, military tacticians, chess AI programmers and other AI specialists to crack this.

Imo having a horde of programmers doing the AI is the worst thing you can do. AI does not need a giga ton of man hours, it just need cleverness and often a single person will be better at seeing the whole AI puzzle and how the different elements fit together.

There's quite a bit of AI programming geniuses out there, they just need to hire the right SP person, just 1.

 

[Arlborn]

Then, people started waiting for this presumable already written, much better AI to reappear. And waited. And waited. And if they hadn't given up at some point, they'd be waiting still.

If what you guys say is true(dang, i really need to buy it on Stream I guess), that is what I am truly afraid of.