Combat AI

[He-Who-Hunts]

The combat AI is the reason I never go for a conquest victory... Its just too damn easy.

 

[aziantuntija]

What I'm trying to say is that designing a competent AI (tactical in this case), even when it's restricted to say a chess board, is incredibly difficult! Just read about Chess AIs to get an idea.

Then perhaps gamemakers should not even consider putting in a system wich they know that they cant (for one reason or another) build competetive AI for. After all, its not a good idea (well maybe for marketing it is) to include this, and this, and this, and this kind of systems in a game and after that realize that “oh no, the AI doesn’t really get any of those systems!” or maybe they just didn’t care about that fact in the first place, wich is about exactly what Jon Safer admitted in here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ans_Look_At_The_Genres_Biggest_Challenges.php excellent link btw, thanks markusbeutel for that. Read the links comments also, there’s one from Jon too. Also im not demanding civ5 combat AI to be truly challenging (altough it would be great espacially with combat AI exclusive difficulty settings), but instead im just asking them to make it better, as you can see there is plenty of room between current state combat AI and truly challenging combat AI.

Could it be better? Yes.

Should it be better? Yes. As you can see there is no reason for it to NOT to be better. Right now the game is just too damn easy because of the bad combat AI, there is nothing more to say, and there shouldn’t have to be nothing more to say, the AI is bad and it should get better.

UFO was a great game - but I wouldn't say the AI was great; it was good enough for the game.

I agree, UFO was and still is a great game.

But IMO, the AI in UFO was also great because it was competitive and (as far as I remember) it didnt do anything stupid. At the top of my head I cant really think of anything that I would like to improve in UFO’s AI, can you? So IMO, the AI in UFO was great.

The AI might get a bit better, and I like 1UPT but thats whats crippled it the most.

True. In civ game I like 1upt more than SoD's but unfortunately it crippeled the combat AI.

 

[Strategist83]

Sure, the Civ 5 AI could be better. But asking for it to be truly challenging is too much.

I don't think anybody's expecting 'truly challenging' - that's what we have the [completely dysfunctional] multiplayer for - sigh. What the player base is asking for on the AI side is the very bare minimum.

What we have, however, is an AI so bad as to not only render the game more or less meaningless (other than whatever sort of 'playing against yourself' system you can conjure up) but which also completely destroys any sense of immersion whatsoever. When the AI spearheads its army by running dual undefended catapults straight into the very tiles where your horseman killed another catapult just one turn before, well...

This John Shafer has the wrong idea if he really believes strong AI is secondary to any other feature of a singleplayer-focused game. The very idea that we have to deal with this pathetic excuse for an AI due to his prioritization blunders pisses me off to no end.

As for the discussion of whether good AI can be accomplished or not, take at look at StarCraft's AI. It may not exactly be overly bright, but it gets the job done - and StarCraft isn't even primarily a singleplayer game.

 

[Fabiano79]

What a mean was that theres no challenge on playing only domination, as you said the AI is weak and you, and everyone, always win domination.

When you enable all other victory conditions, the mechanic of the game changes and is really hard to stop the AIs from winning. That will give you the challenge that you want. Of course, this not sove the bad combat AI, but its what you can do.

IMO, the improvement that everybody wants on the AI only will come with a big expansion, with several months of testing.

 

[aziantuntija]

What a mean was that theres no challenge on playing only domination, as you said the AI is weak and you, and everyone, always win domination.

When you enable all other victory conditions, the mechanic of the game changes and is really hard to stop the AIs from winning. That will give you the challenge that you want. Of course, this not sove the bad combat AI, but its what you can do.

And here's my answer from page 1:

If you mean just my games then my answer to you is that this is how I want to play, I normally play pretty peacefully but usually I start to use more military towards the end of the game. I don’t want the game to ‘end before it ends’, I want to play the game to the finishline, so for instance thats why I disable culture and diplomatic. Also, if I were to enable some (or maybe all) of the victory conditions then nothing stops me from waging war more early in the game. My point is that the bad combat AI ruins the game for me by making it too easy to the point that it feels almost like cheating.

You cant disable war you know.. I mean how stupid would that feel that I would try to win a, lets say, science victory against some other civ while I might just conquer him? There's a huge loophole in civ5 and its called combat AI.

Secondly, if someone complains about the diplomacy in civ5 would it be correct to just tell him not to enable diplomatic victory in options OR that perhaps he shouldnt just use the diplomacy at all?

When you enable all other victory conditions, the mechanic of the game changes and is really hard to stop the AIs from winning. That will give you the challenge that you want.

That will give me the challenge that I want? Well how does this improve the combat AI?

Of course, this not sove the bad combat AI

You are damn right it doesnt.

but its what you can do.

I can also read a book, I mean that doesnt improve the combat AI either but its what I can do.

IMO, the improvement that everybody wants on the AI only will come with a big expansion, with several months of testing.

I really hope they would do something to the AI, not just combat AI. But the combat AI is in a critical spot because you can always just conquer your enemy, easily. This pretty much waters down everything else the game has to offer.


BTW Im sorry if my answer sounds harsh but I really didnt consider your post to be all that thoughtful either. Especially when it judges my playstyle of civ games and also that I have allready answered to your question once.

 

[Fabiano79]

Sry, I didnt read before your post completly, I was in a hurry and just post a quick answer.

Also, if I were to enable some (or maybe all) of the victory conditions then nothing stops me from waging war more early in the game. My point is that the bad combat AI ruins the game for me by making it too easy to the point that it feels almost like cheating.

I dont think its possible for you to wage wars early on high difficulties, not against more than one AI.

But nvm, Im on your side. The AI need to improve. The only diference between us is that I think we will see this only with a proper expasion. No patch will change the game that much.

 

[aziantuntija]

Sry, I didnt read before your post completly, I was in a hurry and just post a quick answer.

Its ok, im cool.

I dont think its possible for you to wage wars early on high difficulties, not against more than one AI.

Well does the game tend to stop early on if I enable all the victory conditions? Well in that case thats not even an option then to enable them. You see I want to actually play the game, not just pass the game.

But nvm, Im on your side. The AI need to improve. The only diference between us is that I think we will see this only with a proper expasion. No patch will change the game that much.

I really dont care in what form does the improvement come in, patch, expansion or even freaking DLC! I just really want them to improve it, I really hope that you are right and that we will (at least someday) get improvement to the AI.

 

[black213]

Combat AI became better with the patch. I'm being sneak attacked very frequently in the Ancient era with lots of Warriors and Archers. Being rushed that early can mess up the game for the one being attacked.

 

[Jurmeli]

Sometimes the combat AI is almost ok. Then again sometimes I can't quite figure out what the AI is trying to accomplish. The biggest weakness I see is that it falls far too easily into obvious traps. For example:

I played as Greece on immortal difficulty. I had problems capturing my neighbour's (China) cities because of their crossbowmen (the cho-whatevers) combined with their great general bonus. Then I had an idea: I could simply take one of my workers and walk it near the enemy city and have my cavalry waiting 1-2 tiles away. The worker lured the crossbowmen out of the cities something like 80% out of the time. The rest was too easy.

Once again this shows that human mind is far superior compared to the AI. Humans can see right away that some move is totally suicidal. Though I have to admit coding a smart AI is very difficult. I think they have done quite good job in CiV compared to some other games I've played. AI is still only AI.

 

[MkLh]

What we have, however, is an AI so bad as to not only render the game more or less meaningless (other than whatever sort of 'playing against yourself' system you can conjure up) but which also completely destroys any sense of immersion whatsoever. When the AI spearheads its army by running dual undefended catapults straight into the very tiles where your horseman killed another catapult just one turn before, well...

It might be better if the AI didn't use ranged units on offence at all as it can't handle them. It should use them purely defensively (almost never let them to leave the own terrain etc.). A ranged unit sitting in a city can cause problems to a human, a ranged unit on spearhead of the offence force doesn't.