Civ V - what do people think?

[tesb]

personally i like to see the ai behave like personalities, some are trustworthy some are opportunistic etc.
when ghandi recently declared war on me seeing a weakness in my defenses it was quite breaking the fun i had, especially since i recovered a lot of workers for gandhi.
of course i crushed him afterwards.

 

[Valkrionn]

You know, that one got me thinking: Do people want an AI that plays to win or do people want an AI that emulates 'realistic' behaviour, e.g. an AI that doesn't play to win if it costs it your 'friendship'.
Or do people simply want an AI that provides the illusion of a challenge?

Both, of course.

I want an AI that plays to win. However, I want to see that AI attempt to win while remaining withing the bounds of a specific personality; Ghandi, for example, shouldn't generally go for a military victory.

personally i like to see the ai behave like personalities, some are trustworthy some are opportunistic etc.
when ghandi recently declared war on me seeing a weakness in my defenses it was quite bracking the fun i had, especially since i recovered a lot of workers for gandhi.
of course i crushed him afterwards.

Exactly. The diplomatic side of things is something I (and many other players, and many other testers) have issues with.

 

[Sephi]

What do you think it'd take to make the game interesting? Generally speaking... but not too generally.

A well designed mod like FFH

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

Both, of course.

I want an AI that plays to win. However, I want to see that AI attempt to win while remaining withing the bounds of a specific personality; Ghandi, for example, shouldn't generally go for a military victory.



Exactly. The diplomatic side of things is something I (and many other players, and many other testers) have issues with.

I think people yearn for a diplomatic system that is not only based merely on strategic behavior, but also personallity preferences and civilization leaning. Diplomacy should be influeced based on the Civi choices you've had.

Alpha Centauri had the right kind of diplomatic system. It was more obscure than Civ4, but each faction leaders were behaving with their own quirks.

 

[Valkrionn]

Precisely.

 

[Folket]

I find the strategic AI biggest flaw is that it does not understand the value of citystates. Often they have several thousand gold but still do not buy up city states. I can get any city state I want to get because the AI allmost never compete for them.

 

[kumquatelvis]

So have patches improved this game enough yet, or am I still better off sticking to FFH2?

 

[swapoer]

Who cares? I have played only 2-3 games in vanilla and bought BTS only because of FFH, didn't played vanilla BTS at all.

The same here.
Who cares?

 

[Randolph]

The same here.
Who cares?

Sounds like a solid majority of FFH players care about the basic game to at least some extent. If you don't like standard Civ then fine, but what the point of the party pooper posts?

 

[Pazyryk]

FFH2 > Civ4BTS > Civ5 > Civ4

Just my opinion, of course. Civ5 has more potential for modding, although there are some fundamental modding issues (which really are being addressed in patches) and a general lack of documentation. Still, Civ5 modding is quite advanced compared to Civ4 at a similar stage. Speaking strictly from a mechanics point of view (not from a content or flavor point of view), Civ5 mods will very quickly make FFH2 look simple and quaint.