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

[Matte979]

Checking the XML files the bonuses for king seems a little low for the ai and the ai still picks from two options when deciding what to do. That with a bad tile working ai most likely is enough to criple them production wise if they don't have many cities. Also babarians seem to have been nerfed specially on larger map sizes they only attack 6 tiles away. While they work on this I think the ai need larger bonuses to production to compensate. I have also noted serious issues with some ai expansion in the early game which really cripples their unit production. The ai does not seem to be that bad if they have units. The low production from stupid tile use and expansion issues criples the AI. I am going to tweak the XML files for my own game.

 

[demeryt]

Anyone remember game Battle Isle, which used hexagons and was a pretty good and popular strategy game in the nineties.

I remember Battle Isle pretty well (Battle Isle 2 is one of my all-time favorite games and I'd still love to play it even now) - it was quite a challenging game, if not a very difficult one (at least for me). I usually got the feeling that I am seriously outgunned in the beginning, and the first x-teen turns felt terrible - being attacked from every angle, etc. and then in the middle of all that front line turmoil there came a moment when I could realize "Aha, now the balance of power seems to be tipping in my favor" and from then on it was more less a downhill battle.

Still, in BI2 there was a fixed number of pre-made maps with pre-distributed units, so AI could be programmed precisely for each map. In CiV it has to handle a much larger picture.

 

[Quetz]

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.

Wesnoth is more like Age of Wonders than Civ, though it is a great game. Also I think alot of the AI probs stem from too many "friendly territory" bonuses for the defending civ (you), as well as the OP'ness of Archers that can shoot further than modern infantry. Archer bombardment should really be limited to 1 hex away.

 

[Farrapo]

The quality of military AI has been the primary flaw in all versions of Civ. I have long said they should stop investing in so many cutesy things and focus on shoring up the AI. I stopped playing Civ IV more than a year ago because I was fed up with the lousy AI, which severely plagued some of the best scenarios. I always thought that increasing the difficulty level did not materially improve the AI. Creating good AI is not simple, but it is certainly doable. I have ordered Civ V and will give it a try, but am not optimistic as it has never seemed to be a priority.

 

[dannythefool]

Wesnoth is more like Age of Wonders than Civ, though it is a great game.

Yeah, I'm not comparing it to Civ directly. It's just a very nice, free game with a non-horrible AI despite 1upt.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Ive played two games where an AI's Capitol would be on the other side of a the continent, like far away, and they would build their third city right next to mine. Everytime it happened I would have just declined something in diplomacy, and the AI would get mad at me, not hostile, but not friendly either. It pissed me off to no end, and the spot they chose sucked, but was right on me. Pretend this is the mini map below, their capital is the big C mine with be the little c. There is no reason, beyond jsut being a jerk, to build that far away from their capital.

C














c

 

[BobTheTerrible]

Some of these reports about the bad AI are baffling me. I started a game on the balanced difficulty level as Rome and figured the game was won as soon as I had 5 cities and my competitors had 2 or 3. Well, Napolean conquered most of Egypt, and then him and Aztec sprung an attack on me. They got to the point where one of my cities was nearly surrounded, and Napolean was simultaneously raiding a city at the other end of my empire. If Napolean had a few more melee units instead of ranged units, and I didn't have a ballista sniping one unit per turn, he would have been able to take that city with no problem (they did, however, destroy my source of 6 iron). 30 turns into the war and I still don't know whether I'll be able to win.

I haven't seen civs with ridiculously backwards units or anything; in fact, tech levels seem mostly equal (I played one or two levels above balanced in Civ IV, so I'm not amazing but I'm not a noob). When reading these reports about ridiculously bad AI, it makes me think something about the higher difficulty levels may be bugged?

 

[ohioastronomy]

Some of these reports about the bad AI are baffling me. I started a game on the balanced difficulty level as Rome and figured the game was won as soon as I had 5 cities and my competitors had 2 or 3. Well, Napolean conquered most of Egypt, and then him and Aztec sprung an attack on me. They got to the point where one of my cities was nearly surrounded, and Napolean was simultaneously raiding a city at the other end of my empire. If Napolean had a few more melee units instead of ranged units, and I didn't have a ballista sniping one unit per turn, he would have been able to take that city with no problem (they did, however, destroy my source of 6 iron). 30 turns into the war and I still don't know whether I'll be able to win.

I haven't seen civs with ridiculously backwards units or anything; in fact, tech levels seem mostly equal (I played one or two levels above balanced in Civ IV, so I'm not amazing but I'm not a noob). When reading these reports about ridiculously bad AI, it makes me think something about the higher difficulty levels may be bugged?

Since the AI will attack you eventually, you might as well attack it when you're ready. Did you wait a long time before fighting? I suspect that's the difference; I basically time fights for my convenience, not that of the AI.

 

[coe]

Ive played two games where an AI's Capitol would be on the other side of a the continent, like far away, and they would build their third city right next to mine.

There is no distance penalty, putting cities far, far away is good tactic to secure a resource. My guess is AI is cheating and sees a iron or something in those tiles. There is no actual real purpose in CIV V to build an empire that looks like an empire, as connecting borders dont give any real benefit if you aim to win the game.

 

[tokala]

Ive played two games where an AI's Capitol would be on the other side of a the continent, like far away, and they would build their third city right next to mine.

This might be a feature of the "give even mediocre players a sense of achievement at every opportunity" gamedesign that the OP suggested. Usually those outposts are almost undefended, and I have the suspicion that those citys are only founded next to the player, not other AIs.

 

[Quetz]

Ive played two games where an AI's Capitol would be on the other side of a the continent, like far away, and they would build their third city right next to mine.
c

I dunno, as a player, I always do that. Build my 2nd or 3rd city as close to a neighboring empire as possible to "land grab" and then fill in the rest later, as well as giving them something nearby to attack if they decide to go to war with me, instead of having my main empire invaded. With no distance penalties, it seems like a smart move to me. Annoying tactic =/= bad AI in this case, I think

Actually the AI has been using cities as forts in my most recent game. I'm using a modded production mod, so Alexander declared on me, and I can't kill his units faster than he can poop them onto me (which is pretty much stopping my expansion.) In the last few turns I played he founded a city RIGHT on the borders of my empire (during war) and is using it to conduct raids from. Dont forget there are a lot of "Friendly Territory" combat mods in this game; having some nearby is a good idea imo. I was fairly impressed at this manuever despite how bad most of the combat AI is.

 

[Dearmad]

Some of these reports about the bad AI are baffling me. I started a game on the balanced difficulty level as Rome and figured the game was won as soon as I had 5 cities and my competitors had 2 or 3. Well, Napolean conquered most of Egypt, and then him and Aztec sprung an attack on me. They got to the point where one of my cities was nearly surrounded, and Napolean was simultaneously raiding a city at the other end of my empire. If Napolean had a few more melee units instead of ranged units, and I didn't have a ballista sniping one unit per turn, he would have been able to take that city with no problem (they did, however, destroy my source of 6 iron). 30 turns into the war and I still don't know whether I'll be able to win.

I haven't seen civs with ridiculously backwards units or anything; in fact, tech levels seem mostly equal (I played one or two levels above balanced in Civ IV, so I'm not amazing but I'm not a noob). When reading these reports about ridiculously bad AI, it makes me think something about the higher difficulty levels may be bugged?

Cheats afforded the AI in balanced mode:
2x as good at attacking Barbarians as you.
Unit supply cost at 20% (!!!) of you
Unit upgrade cost at 50%
AI inflation rate at 80%

So now look at your economy and you do the math. The cheats become huge later on- maybe the AI can't handle all the wealth?

 

[jjkrause84]

I'm playing my first ever game now (on Prince).

It's the Renaissance and I'm invading the 3rd biggest/most advanced/etc. Civ in the game, the US (Not "America"....the United States....can I change it permanently in the game?). I have epoch-appropriate units.....musketeers and cannon with a few knights (it's early Ren.)....they have mostly spearmen and a couple swordsmen.

Yep! I'd say the game was made just a LITTLE easy if on my first play through on the balanced setting I can so utterly demolish the computer.

 

[Matte979]

Cheats afforded the AI in balanced mode:
2x as good at attacking Barbarians as you.
Unit supply cost at 20% (!!!) of you
Unit upgrade cost at 50%
AI inflation rate at 80%

So now look at your economy and you do the math. The cheats become huge later on- maybe the AI can't handle all the wealth?

Supply cost is irrelevant, that the max number of units, the AI will get broke first from units upkeep cost. I think the problem is the early game the old ways of setting difficulties does not seem to apply directly to CIV5, I think they tried to adjust them but not enough the early game is just stacked against the AI as their bonus is not enough to make a diffrence. In CIV4 they made a diffrence beacuse the quantity of units was higher in CIV5 every unit count. So 20 units in civ4 with bonus of 10% gave 22 units. So one more. In CIV5 with 15% you still get 1 unit more in the early game, it will make a diffrence later when you do have 8-9 units. I think the bonuses might need to be as high as 50% for training and same with upkeep to compensate for the fewer units in CIV5. Thats on KING, deity should be maybe 100%.

Lets look at King CIV5 compared with CIV4 Monarch bonuses.

CIV5
-1 bonus defender.
-Player 33% bonus against barbarians vs 60% for AI.
-20% bonus to worker speed
-90% of unhappiness (10%) Bonus
-90 Growth needed (10%)
-85% Unit training cost (15%) Bonus
-85% Building build cost (15%) Bonus
-85% Wonder build cost (15%) Bonus
-85% of Building Mainteance cost (15%) Bonus
-85% of Unit upkeep cost (15%) Bonus
-30% Bonus to Supply (Almost irrelevant as money will run out before this limit)
-50% Less upgrade cost (Really the only bonus that worth a lot, and this is the same on all levels)
-Free tech Pottery
-Same cost of research

CIV 4 Monarch Level
1 Defender + 1 Worker free.
Player 0% bonus against Barbarians AI 40% (Player get 0% bonus in CIV4)
3 Health bonus vs 2 Health for player (50% Bonus early game) Not comparable
5 Happy vs 4 Happy (25% Bonus early game) Not comparable
-90% food required for growth (10% Bonus)
-90% Unit training cost (10%) Bonus
-90% Building build cost (10%) Bonus
-90% Wonder build cost (10%) Bonus
-90% of Unit upkeep cost (10%) Bonus
-25% Supply cost (This was not factor in CIV4)
-50% Less upgrade cost
-Free tech Archery
-15% diffrence in tech cost

Seeing this and starting to apply these bonuses to the lower values in the early game of CIV5 they are almost insignificant in the early game these bonuses are way to small the 85% upkeep cost in CIV5 means like 1 or 2 units more.

The AI needs higher bonuses in the early game to compete with a player, atleast a free workers and lower upkeep cost, I also think they should have a higher happiness bonus. I also think the 50% upgrade cost is to high. This is an area where the player has a huge advantage as the player can pick and chose and have more experienced troops.

I also think the 15% bonus to training and construction is to small for the early game. Giving the AI pottery instead of Archery is another interesting diffrence.

So king in CIV5 is not Monarch in CIV4 its much easier in my opinoin. And lower setting are laughable in civ5 they AI actually pay more than the player.

The difficulties are out of wack and as the first poster say the game is set to be way easier on earlier difficulties. Also the Barbarian bonus should go to make them a threat.

Time to up the level in CIV5 from civ4 and/or modify the files so the AI has a chance in the early game.

 

[devilhunterred]

Difficulty in CIV 5 are at least 2-3 tiers lower than the difficulty in CIV IV.

So Prince in CIV 5 is more like Warlord or even Chieftain in CIV IV, Emperor in CIV 5 is equal to Noble in CIV IV.

 

[Matte979]

Thats my point, even then in some areas the AI might not get enough bonuses, like upgrades and happiness and unit training to compensate for the game model in CIV5.

The action range for barbarians are to short if you play large maps on any difficulty. And you need raging barbarians checked for them if you want them to be barbarians. If not they are just a defended goody huts.

I am heavily changing my KING difficulty and starting over to see the effects.

 

[-=Yin=-]

There is zero chance IMO that they reduced AI difficulty / ability for the release. Expect, therefore, to see the AI doing much better later on.

 

[ashmizen]

Hmmm those numbers are really interesting. I did not know that the AI had a free worker in Civ IV - that's huge!

One thing to note is that with good city management (or building more cities), you can easily make up the 15% bonuses that the AI is given. However, it IS a strong bonus in the early game, I usually find myself falling behind in the beginning vs King, and then passing them somewhere near the end of the classical age.

The biggest change I can see is that the AI is not given +15% to research, and the free worker. That removes one of the biggest factors that you had to overcome in Civ IV to catchup to the AI.

Still - I would prefer they fixed the AI to be smarter in combat and diplomacy than to give larger bonuses. Prince and King are near the middle, and meant to be played on a more-or-less even playing field with the AI. Ideally, it should be like sc2, where Harder AI is a good match for many casual players, and did not need to cheat to do so. In this respect, Civ V is pretty close, I think, with many casuals playing on Prince/King and finding it to be fine.

I think, if anything, the old Civ system was a bit broken - as a new player you will get DESTROYED on normal (Prince) difficulty game, when that is not the case in most other games (God of War, Halo, etc). Even veteran players in previous Civ games cannot player higher than Monarch without utilizing some cheesy strat, which kind of boxes in the kind of strategies you can use. Now, I can play Monarch (or even Emperor) and use whatever strategy I want. I'm not forced to always go for Domination victory like in Civ 2 (you can't win any other way on high difficulty levels, the tech bonus was just too high), or use worker-chop in Civ 4.

Well, my post is all over the place, so I guess I'm trying to say, don't boost the AI's bonuses back up to Civ IV level. I would prefer they fixed the AI to be smarter in combat and diplomacy than to be given larger bonuses.

 

[Matte979]

I just realised one thing when doing changes I dont want the AI to have diety bonus on everything, I just want them to be competitive in units and growth.

So I did the following changes to my King level

Added a worker like civ4, added a defensive unit as I lowered AI and player barbarian bonus see below.

No bonus for player against Barbarian and 40% for AI. CIV4 Values.
Max Range on Land Barbarians 5 to 20 (I play on large maps with raging barbarians, I want to be worried about them attacking me)
Max Range on Navy Barbarians 12 to 48
Unhappiness Modifier (60%) I want the AI to be larger (This is diety level) (Critical for game and hardest to balance for the player and most likely affect AI effectivness significantly)
Training Percent from 85% to 65% (Immortal Level) (Need more units, I would like to test this before going to Diety level)
Building Percent from 85% to 65% (Immortal Level) (Need more units, I would like test this before going to Diety level)
I did not touch wonder bonus as I want to be able to compete on wonders.
Building Upkeep Cost at 50% (Diety Level) (Critical for game and hardest to balance for the player and most likely affect AI effectivness significantly)
Unit Upkeep Cost at 50% (Diety Level) (Critical for game and hardest to balance for the player and most likely affect AI effectivness significantly)
Increased supply from 30% to 50% (Most likely not needed) (Diety Level)
Lower upgrade cost to CIV4s 20% (I want the AI to have the latest troops if they have the tech level, seen a lot of complaints about AI using older units)

Time to start my game.

 

[Buccaneer]

So...Tom Chick was right after all? The guy knows strategy and war games.