Are we looking at CiV's AI the wrong way?

[Pizlenut]

From what ive seen the short comings from the AI stem from its inability to defend itself or attack its enemies properly.
In other words the "decision making" AI is calculating statistical odds that the "tactical AI" is proving unable to achieve.

This throws the "Decision making" AI into a seemingly irrational state as it may be clear (to you) that it may be losing but it is still calculating a statistical success despite the fact that it has failed to cause any significant damage and may of even suffered damage itself.

If the tactical AI was more competent the decisions from the AI would seem more rational and thus the AI would seem more competent overall. I actually haven't seen it make a horribly stupid mistake, aside from its gross over-confidence of its military capability.

In short... im saying the AI only seems like its dumb because every decision it makes is wrong but only because its military is run by General AI Clown Shoe.

 

[testdummy653]

I decided to test my hypothesis, and I'm planning to give details, in either this thread or start a new one..

Edit: Here's the link.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=9893699#post9893699

 

[operatesea]

I totally agree with testdummy653, and in order to get his point all you need to do is to compare Civ4 and Civ5:

In Civ4, the player receives severe punishments for entering wars such as domestic unhappiness, maintenance cost for newly conquered cities (cities maintenance cost grow exponentially with cities numbers, right?), and etc. So it means entering war may decrease the output in some of your cities due to unhappiness, and force you to slow your research speed cause you have to pay more money on the city and unit maintenance cost. I had the experience of being forced to slide my research bars to 10% or 20% after engaging in war for some turns. Also I usually have to make peace with the AI after conquering 3~4 cities in order to "digest" them first. On the contrary, a medium-sized AI which has successfully avoided warfare for the better part of the game usually holds a very advanced position in science. I believe some of you guys had experienced this in Civ4. To conclude, in Civ4, constant warfare may bring you more cities, more resources and more population, but it also slows down your development. So there is a balance to make.

Ok, back to Civ5, the player receives little or no punishment for entering war. If you choose to puppet all your conquered cities, you would get more gold, more beakers and more strategic resources to produce more soldiers. War will not slow down, but speed up your research because it is only related to population now. Since the happiness is calculated nationwide, it is easy to solve by buying luxury resource from the city states(using your money acquired in war). See? War is the best, if not the only choice in Civ5.

 

[charon2112]

War is the best, if not the only choice in Civ5.

I have to disagree with you here. I rarely go to war in my civ V games, I favor science or culture wins, and sometimes I just win by score. But you definitely do not have to go to war. Both games have punish you for taking over tons of cities. You really don't want to puppet everything, because you can't control a puppet city.

 

[testdummy653]

I have to disagree with you here. I rarely go to war in my civ V games, I favor science or culture wins, and sometimes I just win by score. But you definitely do not have to go to war. Both games have punish you for taking over tons of cities. You really don't want to puppet everything, because you can't control a puppet city.

I agree with you war is not always needed. And i prefer to win by other ways.

But i also disagree, in the sense that there need to be a harsher penalty for puppets. I do not know what needs to happen, but having a captured city annexed, needs to be a more valuable option than what it currently is.

Edit: I update my test with some data: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...24#post9891624

Have look and give me some feedback

 

[Target MC]

In past Civ titles I rarely wanted myself to go to war with other rivals. That is just not my playing style.

I have probably played the least amount of time on CiV as others but I just know that the difficulty has been toned down and the gameplay lacks depth. Am I the only one here who feels that stacks weren't necessarily a bad thing? I mean, in past titles I usually had a military unit accompany my settler, in case it runs into a barbarian. Therefore I settle a city on a nice spot, and build it into a metropolis. Here on CiV, it doesn't really matter where you place your cities, and the terrain needs a major revamp because it is certainly lacking.

This game is too easy and heavily favors war in place of diplomatic/cultural victories. I hope there are mods that will fix most of these problems (you can't fix all of them) to where veterans can enjoy the game just as much as newer players. But these days I don't see that happening.

 

[charon2112]

I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.

In past Civ titles I rarely wanted myself to go to war with other rivals. That is just not my playing style.

I have probably played the least amount of time on CiV as others but I just know that the difficulty has been toned down and the gameplay lacks depth. Am I the only one here who feels that stacks weren't necessarily a bad thing? I mean, in past titles I usually had a military unit accompany my settler, in case it runs into a barbarian. Therefore I settle a city on a nice spot, and build it into a metropolis. Here on CiV, it doesn't really matter where you place your cities, and the terrain needs a major revamp because it is certainly lacking.

This game is too easy and heavily favors war in place of diplomatic/cultural victories. I hope there are mods that will fix most of these problems (you can't fix all of them) to where veterans can enjoy the game just as much as newer players. But these days I don't see that happening.

 

[Target MC]

I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.

Stacks, okay. Quite understandable. Now please give me what you disagree with the rest of my poorly designed argument.

 

[charon2112]

Stacks, okay. Quite understandable. Now please give me what you disagree with the rest of my poorly designed argument.

"the difficulty has been toned down and the gameplay lacks depth." - disagree.

"Am I the only one here who feels that stacks weren't necessarily a bad thing?" - I hated stacks, so I disagree.

"I mean, in past titles I usually had a military unit accompany my settler, in case it runs into a barbarian." - warriors can accompany settlers in V too, so I disagree.

"Therefore I settle a city on a nice spot, and build it into a metropolis. Here on CiV, it doesn't really matter where you place your cities" - this isn't true, it matters a great deal where you place your cities, just as in IV. So I disagree.

"and the terrain needs a major revamp because it is certainly lacking." - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean tile yields?

"...heavily favors war in place of diplomatic/cultural victories." - all victory types are perfectly viable, so I disagree with this.

 

[Target MC]

"the difficulty has been toned down and the gameplay lacks depth." - disagree.

"Am I the only one here who feels that stacks weren't necessarily a bad thing?" - I hated stacks, so I disagree.

So did most others. But there is still other ways to replace this and still make an effective combat system. At the moment I can't think of any.

"Therefore I settle a city on a nice spot, and build it into a metropolis. Here on CiV, it doesn't really matter where you place your cities" - this isn't true, it matters a great deal where you place your cities, just as in IV. So I disagree. Building cities in CiV doesn't matter as much as in IV. I found I only needed 2-3 cities before I was successfully able to take on the AI, which seriously needs a major rework.

"and the terrain needs a major revamp because it is certainly lacking." - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean tile yields? Not only in yields, but also the scenery. The Mines and the Hills look bland, and the animation isn't as good as in the past title.

"...heavily favors war in place of diplomatic/cultural victories." - all victory types are perfectly viable, so I disagree with this.

They have all been viable from the very beginning. However it is much more preferable to go to war and win in CiV than it is to develop your cities. As a player who likes to do this, I find myself at a great disadvantage.

 

[charon2112]

They have all been viable from the very beginning. However it is much more preferable to go to war and win in CiV than it is to develop your cities. As a player who likes to do this, I find myself at a great disadvantage.

You said it all right here, it's a preference. If you choose, you can play as a warmonger, but in no way do you have to. I almost never do, and I'm enjoying Civ V very much.

 

[operatesea]

I have to disagree with you here. I rarely go to war in my civ V
games, I favor science or culture wins, and sometimes I just win by score. But you definitely do not
have to go to war. Both games have punish you for taking over tons of cities. You really don't
want to puppet everything, because you can't control a puppet city.

Of course it is understandable that everyone has his own preferred way of achieve victory. But let's assume that you are playing the difficulty that you can barely win(in other words, you must really put some serious thought into the game in order to win), be it warlord, king or deity. Do you still think you can win a cultural or science victory without going to war? Maybe you can achieve this using your skills and I'd be happy to learn something from you. At least in my case, I found it more difficult than in the Civ4 (or you can say in Civ5 winning through war is way easier than other approaches).

Civ4 has a very complicated and sophisticated system of how to convert between gold, beakers, hammers, food and cultural. But in Civ5 this system was simplified to the point that gold is almost omnipotent: you can buy units and buildings from the beginning, you can buy food, cultural, happiness, from city state, you can buy tiles, and I feel upgrading units is pretty cheap. So as I know, many players go like this: found first city--->find some luxury resource ----> sell it to AI -----> connect to iron or horse ------> go straight to the tech that allows you to produce knight or swordsman --------> buy some swordsman or knight using the money---------> beat the AI's brains out ------------>achieve whichever victory as you please.

I even saw some players found a new city and sell it to AI in order to buy more military units to organize an early rush.

Ok I am just an average player, correct me if I said anything wrong.

 

[testdummy653]

Of course it is understandable that everyone has his own preferred way of achieve victory. But let's assume that you are playing the difficulty that you can barely win(in other words, you must really put some serious thought into the game in order to win), be it warlord, king or deity. Do you still think you can win a cultural or science victory without going to war? Maybe you can achieve this using your skills and I'd be happy to learn something from you. At least in my case, I found it more difficult than in the Civ4 (or you can say in Civ5 winning through war is way easier than other approaches).

Civ4 has a very complicated and sophisticated system of how to convert between gold, beakers, hammers, food and cultural. But in Civ5 this system was simplified to the point that gold is almost omnipotent: you can buy units and buildings from the beginning, you can buy food, cultural, happiness, from city state, you can buy tiles, and I feel upgrading units is pretty cheap. So as I know, many players go like this: found first city--->find some luxury resource ----> sell it to AI -----> connect to iron or horse ------> go straight to the tech that allows you to produce knight or swordsman --------> buy some swordsman or knight using the money---------> beat the AI's brains out ------------>achieve whichever victory as you please.

I even saw some players found a new city and sell it to AI in order to buy more military units to organize an early rush.

Ok I am just an average player, correct me if I said anything wrong.

I heard of this strategy, but in reality this is way off topic, from my original post.
But you also bring up a valid point, though on levels more difficult you need to be prepared to go to war. WHY? because the conquest AI will have more units, making it more difficult for the play to win without a war, since CAI(conquest AI) will have more tools to win their victory condition.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I totally agree with testdummy653, and in order to get his point all you need to do is to compare Civ4 and Civ5:

In Civ4, the player receives severe punishments for entering wars such as domestic unhappiness, maintenance cost for newly conquered cities (cities maintenance cost grow exponentially with cities numbers, right?), and etc. So it means entering war may decrease the output in some of your cities due to unhappiness, and force you to slow your research speed cause you have to pay more money on the city and unit maintenance cost. I had the experience of being forced to slide my research bars to 10% or 20% after engaging in war for some turns. Also I usually have to make peace with the AI after conquering 3~4 cities in order to "digest" them first. On the contrary, a medium-sized AI which has successfully avoided warfare for the better part of the game usually holds a very advanced position in science. I believe some of you guys had experienced this in Civ4. To conclude, in Civ4, constant warfare may bring you more cities, more resources and more population, but it also slows down your development. So there is a balance to make.

Ok, back to Civ5, the player receives little or no punishment for entering war. If you choose to puppet all your conquered cities, you would get more gold, more beakers and more strategic resources to produce more soldiers. War will not slow down, but speed up your research because it is only related to population now. Since the happiness is calculated nationwide, it is easy to solve by buying luxury resource from the city states(using your money acquired in war). See? War is the best, if not the only choice in Civ5.

My advice is to quit focusing on a questionable understanding of IV, and just to pay attention to what makes V less balanced...or at least learn the mechanics of both games so you can pull a decent comparison.

You are overrating the war penalties in IV and underrating them in V. Military survival is and has been the #1 priority in all civ games since 1. In some of the others, you could use diplomacy to avoid war declarations, but failing that it was all about military survival.

 

[MkLh]

I have to disagree with you here. I rarely go to war in my civ V games, I favor science or culture wins, and sometimes I just win by score. But you definitely do not have to go to war. Both games have punish you for taking over tons of cities. You really don't want to puppet everything, because you can't control a puppet city.

By the way, puppeting is now really strong as puppets build mainly useful buildings (colosseums and gold mulipliers). This makes a war game even easier. Not that I would want to go back to early days, when puppets built barracks, armories and other silly things. It was a some sort of mechanism to make warring harder, but it was a silly one.

 

[MkLh]

doublepost, delete

 

[TheHarshax]

There is a Diplomacy mod that brings back Civ 2's Diplomat in the form of an Envoy. In order to achieve the Diplomatic Victory, you have to build these units and send them around the globe. I don't every play Civ5 without it.

 

[testdummy653]

There is a Diplomacy mod that brings back Civ 2's Diplomat in the form of an Envoy. In order to achieve the Diplomatic Victory, you have to build these units and send them around the globe. I don't every play Civ5 without it.

Awesome. Off topic?

But yes i agree, diplomatic victoryis the easiest victory for humans to win.
(i'm mean, saving gold, having a decent military, buliding the UN, bribing City-States)

The AI has problem winning diplomatic, and culture. I can explain, but just so tired (maybe tomorrow)

Edit: I update my test with some data (and a Victory): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...24#post9891624

 

[V. Soma]

Just want to throw in a small factor:
For the AI to win other than military, small nations' military should get bonus for fighting defensively.
I know that there are policies to make this, but I don't think it is enough.

- Maybe big cities should be more harder to be captured
- Capital should get even more extra defensive bonus
- Maybe closeness to capital should also give defensive bonus (is it too weird an idea?)
- Tradition policy branch should give MORE stronger defense bonus
- Cultural buildings should give some defense bonus (reason: population is more stimulated to defend the city)

things like that, MIlitary headed AI should be countered in gameplay...

 

[testdummy653]

Just want to throw in a small factor:
For the AI to win other than military, small nations' military should get bonus for fighting defensively.
I know that there are policies to make this, but I don't think it is enough.

- Maybe big cities should be more harder to be captured
- Capital should get even more extra defensive bonus
- Maybe closeness to capital should also give defensive bonus (is it too weird an idea?)
- Tradition policy branch should give MORE stronger defense bonus
- Cultural buildings should give some defense bonus (reason: population is more stimulated to defend the city)

things like that, MIlitary headed AI should be countered in gameplay...

I like all of those things, especially that cultural building should give some defensive bonus. Not a huge amount of points, but it would make the conquest AI have a harder time conquering culture base AI.

I think the capital city, should be like a bonus to anyone in the 2 hex radius from the capital, (bonus, should be defensive bonus(only) of the capital +33%) This will slow down AI and human invaders.