Better AI in BNW?

[The_CatSnack]

Just wondering if there will be any improvements to the AI in this new expansion. Gods and Kings was certainly an improvement over Vanilla Civ 5 in every area, but tactically the AI still can't wayfind their units too well and has a habit of moving their units on the front line constantly without firing allowing the human player to just pick them off.. Also doesn't handle naval invasions well yet.

Does anyone know if the AI will be better yet again?

 

[Goldkoron]

A update to multiplayer AI would be nice.

 

[UnitedSquadron]

There might be a few improvements to it, and some necessary ones due to the new mechanics, but nothing to important.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

We have been told that Warmongering has been reduced (i.e Warmonger Penalty), arbitary attacks still occur, but a lot less, and AI is meant to be a lot more loyal or it's easier to make allies.

 

[arik24]

I would hope they do that for BNW all I see is getting a tweak for the thing in BNW

 

[omnishakira]

I hope they fix this

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=487063

 

[Navelgazer]

I'd settle for the AI having some vague understanding of their own advantages.

 

[ptoss1]

I think diplomacy will be improved drastically as that is what BNW focuses on.
There might be small changes to the combat AI, but I doubt it.
The combat AI is actually good enough for me tbh, if not entirely logical. Sometimes they'll target the wrong unit or prioritize bombing a nearby city when they should have been destroying my units, but all in all, at least they put the ranged units in the back now. Oftentimes, the AI will also overestimate their military capability, so I think there could be some major improvements in that area. That's my one major complaint.

 

[apocalypse105]

I think diplomacy will be improved drastically as that is what BNW focuses on.
There might be small changes to the combat AI, but I doubt it.
The combat AI is actually good enough for me tbh, if not entirely logical. Sometimes they'll target the wrong unit or prioritize bombing a nearby city when they should have been destroying my units, but all in all, at least they put the melee units in the back now. Oftentimes, the AI will also overestimate their military capability, so I think there could be some major improvements in that area. That's my one major complaint.

Is there any info comfirmed about changes to diplomacy? Right know i don't have any confidence that thay changed it

 

[Greizer85]

'Adequate AI'? They mill about and get destroyed for the most part... Succeeding only by accident. That's on land btw. If it floats, forget it. I'd pay 200 € for an expansion with nothing but AI work in it. Right now warmongering is extremely easy in Civ V, except on Deity where the AI can simply spam its units with equal or greater speed than that at which you can destroy them. That's too cheap to qualify for challenge imo, so the highest I'll go is Immortal. When the AI has enough units, some of them do the right things simply because there's no room to commit errors...

As for improvements in BNW, silence is never a good sign. If there were improvements on the make, they'd be sure to toot their horn about them. In fact I predict the AI's use of trade routes will leave a lot to be desired... Making them yet another tool for the human player to overcome the AI with. Mods will change this in time I suppose, provided it's possible.

 

[adwcta]

Diplomacy AI is supposed to be improved. I believe it. Warmonger penalty, which was already reduced in a patch last year, is going to be reduced again. This is probably necessary, since the new culture mechanics will provide less incentive to war in the first place.

As for military... asking the AI to move units to the right spots really is too much. I would appreciate it if the AI just assumes troops controlled by human players are worth more value when deciding war/peace/diplomacy. Something like 10% on King, 25% on Emperor, 40% on Immortal and 60% on Deity. The whole point of the AI having more +60% more units is that the game admits a human player's military tactics will be +60% more effective (irl it's more like +600%) than the AI. But, the diplomacy logic hasn't followed that, so it makes AI diplomacy ignore what the game developers themselves (in the very act of setting up Immortal/Deity AI bonuses) have determined to be a good balance.

Just this one simple change will add a LOT more depth to the AI. I want to be forced to outperform Deity-level strategy when I goad someone into attacking me, not only to just outperform Prince-level strategy. It's one simple constant to variable change in the code. Make it happen devs.

 

[Veras]

I really hope that with the naval trade routes the AI will be more inclined to build a strong navy. Real naval battles is something that I always missed in Civ V. I also expect that they settle in other continents and islands more often.

 

[joncnunn]

I really hope that with the naval trade routes the AI will be more inclined to build a strong navy. Real naval battles is something that I always missed in Civ V. I also expect that they settle in other continents and islands more often.

On water maps, they do both already.
In fact, the AI gets in trouble because it forgets to escort a settler going overseas and ends up with a barb on the landmass they land on capturing it before they settle and bringing it back to the camp.

 

[apocalypse105]

Diplomacy AI is supposed to be improved. I believe it. Warmonger penalty, which was already reduced in a patch last year, is going to be reduced again. This is probably necessary, since the new culture mechanics will provide less incentive to war in the first place.

As for military... asking the AI to move units to the right spots really is too much. I would appreciate it if the AI just assumes troops controlled by human players are worth more value when deciding war/peace/diplomacy. Something like 10% on King, 25% on Emperor, 40% on Immortal and 60% on Deity. The whole point of the AI having more +60% more units is that the game admits a human player's military tactics will be +60% more effective (irl it's more like +600%) than the AI. But, the diplomacy logic hasn't followed that, so it makes AI diplomacy ignore what the game developers themselves (in the very act of setting up Immortal/Deity AI bonuses) have determined to be a good balance.

Just this one simple change will add a LOT more depth to the AI. I want to be forced to outperform Deity-level strategy when I goad someone into attacking me, not only to just outperform Prince-level strategy. It's one simple constant to variable change in the code. Make it happen devs.

If they don't change the warmonger penalty stays the same and they didn't make the AI less agressive and. I don't see the new trade route system work

because the AI just backstabs you and you lose you're trade routes in other worths its better to kill alll AI's to get more land and gold because they don't want to allies. espeically on higher difficulties

We will see if they keep their promises . If they make the normal AI not the warmongers less agressive i could see the new changes work.

But like Greizer85 said there hasn't been any info its to quit which means there will not be a lot of changes to the AI. I remember with gods and king we got a lot of info about the AI .

 

[ptoss1]

As for military... asking the AI to move units to the right spots really is too much. I would appreciate it if the AI just assumes troops controlled by human players are worth more value when deciding war/peace/diplomacy. Something like 10% on King, 25% on Emperor, 40% on Immortal and 60% on Deity. The whole point of the AI having more +60% more units is that the game admits a human player's military tactics will be +60% more effective (irl it's more like +600%) than the AI. But, the diplomacy logic hasn't followed that, so it makes AI diplomacy ignore what the game developers themselves (in the very act of setting up Immortal/Deity AI bonuses) have determined to be a good balance.

Just this one simple change will add a LOT more depth to the AI. I want to be forced to outperform Deity-level strategy when I goad someone into attacking me, not only to just outperform Prince-level strategy. It's one simple constant to variable change in the code. Make it happen devs.

I'd be happy with a simple improvement in targeting prioritization. Sometimes I'll only have one melee unit left during a siege, but the AI doesn't kill it, and instead attempts to bombard one of my handful of ranged units.

 

[Kwami]

I'd be happy if the AI stopped embarking its units where I could easily kill them.

 

[joncnunn]

I'd be happy if the AI stopped embarking its units where I could easily kill them.

In case of G&K; I only see an AI military unit do that when that unit was screwed weather it stayed on land or embarked.

From my current game: AI Knight that had landed on my landmass previous turn, moves attacks a Composite, doing more damage to my Composite but with my Composite surviving and having another one right next to it at that point that Knight was dead meat on my turn even if it hadn't of used the Knights movement after melee to embark. (Whatever tile he ended up on from that point he'd have been within range of at least two of my ranged units; some land & other sea.)
The AI's tactical flaw was attacking with the Knight against a fully healthy Composite with no other unit near enough to help which was earlier that turn (or perhaps the previous turn; but even more likely 20 turns ago when assembling the invasion force it should have brought more than just one Knight.)

 

[omnishakira]

I'd pay 200 € for an expansion with nothing but AI work in it..

You're not alone. I'd pay 200$-300$ in an heartbeat for an AI-focused expansion.

Its so horrible right now, it has to play on chief with a starcraft2-like production to overcome good human players. I find it sad that not everyone mass whine about the AI. It's the only real flaw of this game but o god, what a flaw.

I would appreciate it if the AI just assumes troops controlled by human players are worth more value when deciding war/peace/diplomacy. Something like 10% on King, 25% on Emperor, 40% on Immortal and 60% on Deity. The whole point of the AI having more +60% more units is that the game admits a human player's military tactics will be +60% more effective (irl it's more like +600%) than the AI.

100% agree with that. That would be an easy fix to make

 

[Katharsis]

If AI would also bring a melee unit when it is actually capable of taking the city, I'd be so happy..

Also AI should also be more aware of its uniques. No more Hiawatha chopping forests please, especially when that causes loss of trade route.

I can tolerate all the ******** moves of barbarian units, but civ AI should really be decent enough to make game challenging, instead of recieving bonuses and units.

 

[JtW]

Well, for GnK, they did flaunt the AI changes and they were pretty slim. So if they aren't saying anything now, I would be really surprised if they did any serious work in that area.