Anyone else think that AI has been toned down for the release?

[demeryt]

I seriously hope this is some sort of a misunderstanding, I can't believe they would release a game with crippled AI to keep dim-witted 10-year-olds playing.

I was actually kind of scared by the IGN (and now Gamespot too) reviews saying, that the AI overly aggressive. But if AI can't even produce a second city - then it must be a bad joke.

OR... some other weird issue, as, many people here write about a weak AI while the two reviews I mentioned point it out as aggressive - can such an inconsistency of opinions be possible at all?

Something's fishy... I do hope Firaxis will explain / patch. I'd love to meet the good AI Azazell lost to. So far in my games AI is really weak.

 

[demeryt]

I seriously hope this is some sort of a misunderstanding, I can't believe they would release a game with crippled AI to keep dim-witted 10-year-olds playing.

I was actually kind of scared by the IGN (and now Gamespot too) reviews saying, that the AI overly aggressive. But if AI can't even produce a second city - then it must be a bad joke.

OR... some other weird issue, as, many people here write about a weak AI while the two reviews I mentioned point it out as aggressive - can such an inconsistency of opinions be possible at all?

Something's fishy... I do hope Firaxis will explain / patch. I'd love to meet the good AI Azazell lost to. So far in my games AI is really weak.

EDIT:

Guardian_PL - what you quote from Azazell's experience makes me feel we're playing two different games - my AI isn't even remotely threatening

Sorry, double post

 

[MonorailCat]

My hope is:

They adjusted the difficulty levels last minute, because they thought it was too difficult. But now it turns out, they didn't test it enough and they overdid it accidentally.

So easily fixed either by mod or patch.

Let's be optimictic

 

[Guardian_PL]

I seriously hope this is some sort of a misunderstanding, I can't believe they would release a game with crippled AI to keep dim-witted 10-year-olds playing.

I was actually kind of scared by the IGN (and now Gamespot too) reviews saying, that the AI overly aggressive. But if AI can't even produce a second city - then it must be a bad joke.

OR... some other weird issue, as, many people here write about a weak AI while the two reviews I mentioned point it out as aggressive - can such an inconsistency of opinions be possible at all?

Something's fishy... I do hope Firaxis will explain / patch. I'd love to meet the good AI Azazell lost to. So far in my games AI is really weak.

So do I, that's why I posted a thread on a forum visited by 800+ people on a regular basis to check what their impressions are like.

It seems that I need to pray some more - my previous prayer "patches, patches patches" was heard nearly instantly and that annoying max 5/turn AI trade or giving away all cities while signing peace got fixed.

Please do sth about the AI and barbarians too - I want to defend from pirate Frigates in 1600 and deal with terrorist Paratroopers in 1950

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, we can also assume that the people that said that the AI was chalenging were not so good players I don't know if people remember but there was a review from a forum member ( TheMystic ) where he cilindrated 3 AI during a late war without breaking a sweat in Prince, a thing that is far more like the experience we are having now...

 

[Guardian_PL]

We can always do that, but on the last page aryah quoted Azazell's statement that in his preview build the AI was much more challenging.

Yeah, I know you want to say that he improved after several games, but one - I've played my first ever game on King and had a breeze (and I'm not uber and whatever the lingo is... l33t?), two - Azazell clearly stated that before he had no chance to conquer entire civ with several units.

So I don't think it's as simple as you say. Like I wrote on civ org pl forum - at least we have Immortal and Deity to have fun with, maybe in due time the AI will get fixed/modded. Prayer continues...

What about you r_rolo - have you played the game? What is your experience with the AI?

 

[r_rolo1]

What it can had happened is that they toned down some of the prod bonuses in King ... dunno, have to ask the beta testers

I agree, the game is way too easy as it is now. I'm a Imm/deity player in civ IV , so I might be somewhat of l33t , but getting to Ren. Age in 900 BC is way too much ... that and the AI sporting archers in 1800 AD vs whatever futuristic unit I was using at the time

 

[1000.sassa]

Greetings!

I think the AI is way to peaceful. In my first Game I had no war declaration at all, and i didn't have any military power at all so I was really vulnerable. I just don't understand, there is no challenge after all. I first thought that this wasn't bad over all, because I am no warmonger at all... In Civ 4 the AI attacked after a while, but now the AI is acting like apathy... I really like the new features, the look is and hexfields are great, but the ai is too peaceful... Hope they will fix it!

 

[ohioastronomy]

The problems with the AI are directly related to the change in the combat system. Period.

This is why you have to be careful with drastic system changes, and this is where having an inexperienced lead designer can get you. The entire CIV military AI which was built up over the years relied on stacking and was balanced with stacking. They might have been able to pull it off if they hadn't also churned up a bunch of other stuff. But they did, and the result is, by far, the easiest and least balanced Civ on release that I can remember.

 

[JtW]

I would love the modders-betatesters like Dale or Kael to comment on that. The AI is really a letdown.

 

[r_rolo1]

I would love the modders-betatesters like Dale or Kael to comment on that. The AI is really a letdown.

They probably can't say much ... you know, those spiffy agreements they make with clauses of no disclose

 

[ChristofferC]

I finished that game I mentioned earlier in this thread now (Science victory, turn 322) and my biggest enemy which had connquered the whole other continent still had pikemen and crossbowmen when I had giant death robots.

And I'm by no means a good Civ4 player. I struggle on emperor.

 

[aryah]

The problems with the AI are directly related to the change in the combat system. Period.

skimming about documentation of wesnoth, apparently this tactical ai can deal with 1upt, zone of control, multiple movements, terrain bonuses, something like bombardment, retreat and healing (ie combat is not by necessity to the death) though apparently not true ranged combat, only something similar to 1-tile range bombardment (where the opponent can fight back only if also ranged).

also includes various types of damage and resistances to various kinds of damage.

Panzer General however did include this and ranged damage, as well as a bunch of additional complications.

So I don't think more complex combat is a good excuse if the AI is poor.

 

[dannythefool]

skimming about documentation of wesnoth, apparently this tactical ai can deal with 1upt, zone of control, multiple movements, terrain bonuses, something like bombardment, retreat and healing (ie combat is not by necessity to the death) though apparently not true ranged combat, only something similar to 1-tile range bombardment (where the opponent can fight back only if also ranged).

It definitely can do that. I recommend Wesnoth to everyone who likes the genre, especially since it's free. It's a great game and there are tons of scenarios.

But with that said, there are noticeable differences that make it easier for the Wesnoth AI. You don't develop a tech tree - the AI knows from the start which units it has and what they can do and that never changes. Movement rules are simpler. Maps are human-made and can be made so that the AI can deal with them. And so on.

 

[Abremms]

the tactical AI is actualy quite good when it has the propper economic backing. the problem is that its so terrible at running its economy that it can never afford enough troops to run a decent war.

except for Wu.

let China grow to a continent sized super power in the medern era, and i think you will be suprised. She is the only truly worthy opponent so far.

of course, thats only if she is allowed to grow and build lots of paper makers.

either way, the AI just in general seems better at waging Modern Era wars than anything before then. which explains why people are complaining after rushing a domination victory before 1500AD. it doesn't excuse poor AI, but if you let them grow you will have much more satisfying wars.

 

[Hailas]

In this preview real-time play http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9553920
Napoleon is fighting pretty good.

But this is a special build.

I don't think it should be difficult to program AI for this kind of fight.
Anyone remember game Battle Isle, which used hexagons and was a pretty good and popular strategy game in the nineties.

I remember a game Realms, played it on Atari ST, precursor of Realms series for PC, which was a Civilization clone, but combat was on a special tactical screen with sprites simulating 3D.

Before the battle was initiated, you could distribute your units, depending on their abilities. Light cavalry, medium and heavy cavalry, javelins, archers, all kinds of infantry, and terrain was variable, with hills, plains, rivers. It was a very effective game play, you could move your units during battle, order them to attack a specific point, or to retreat. You could pick formation for each unit - line, square, hedge... Little soldiers would fight and die.

It shouldn't be a problem at all. Perhaps the programmers should see some old solutions, which are good and simple, instead of implementing unnecessary cosmetics above all.

I remember how bad land fight was in Pirates! resurrected. Total failure.

 

[aryah]

You don't develop a tech tree - the AI knows from the start which units it has and what they can do and that never changes. Movement rules are simpler. Maps are human-made and can be made so that the AI can deal with them. And so on.

That's a valid point. I assumed these are not new challenges to a civ AI, but yeah, I have no idea what the interaction of both does to the complexity of the problem.

the tactical AI is actualy quite good when it has the propper economic backing. the problem is that its so terrible at running its economy that it can never afford enough troops to run a decent war.

except for Wu.

heh I was just reading a thread at 2kgames where the claim is exactly the opposite - that it 'excels' at economy, and just doesn't know combat tactics.

Have a feeling I saw many posts of this kind - giving exactly opposite impressions on why it is bad. Maybe its simply schizophrenic then, performing wildly inconsistently to this or that extreme, hence regularly suboptimal?

 

[gingerbill]

I think the game is great but a little too easy . The AI is excellent at doing alot of things but poor in others. I would assume a patch could easily make it harder.

 

[Dark_MadMax]

OR... some other weird issue, as, many people here write about a weak AI while the two reviews I mentioned point it out as aggressive - can such an inconsistency of opinions be possible at all?

AI is aggressive. But its also terribad! I mean yeah sure it builds lots of units and declares war on me, he even manages to get a few other civs to attack me at same time . But then he loses all the stacks he has.

The thing though Elizabeth once destroyed me with oodles of longbowmen. Not because she played in any way smart , but because they were so OP they simply wiped all my units before I could get close

 

[Abremms]

That's a valid point. I assumed these are not new challenges to a civ AI, but yeah, I have no idea what the interaction of both does to the complexity of the problem.


heh I was just reading a thread at 2kgames where the claim is exactly the opposite - that it 'excels' at economy, and just doesn't know combat tactics.

Have a feeling I saw many posts of this kind - giving exactly opposite impressions on why it is bad. Maybe its simply schizophrenic then, performing wildly inconsistently to this or that extreme, hence regularly suboptimal?

i dunno, whenever i go to the diplo screen, they AI is almost always at 0 gold with negative income. seems poor to me.

I have had two games so far where Wu became a huge world power in the modern era and used her power quite effectively. not as well as a human would, but enough to give me some challenging battles.

but then, i play on prince so the AI doesn't get tons of bonuses, so at higher difficulties im sure the AI is better at economy.

and i don't deny that the AI is bad at early war, and that seems to be all people are fighting. people who go for domination victory try to do it before gunpowder. my point is that for whatever reason, AI seems decent at modern war.