1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Currently the WORST Problem with Civ5 is...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Soryn Arkayn, Dec 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gamewizard

    Gamewizard Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    I have not experienced such a level of AI worker incompetence in my games, pre or post patch, King and Emperor level. I do not play with raging barbs, however, as that can really mess with an AI civ during crucial expansion periods. I do think the AI could do better with escorting all types of civilian units.

    I think the biggest fail with the game is the AIs handling of water based maps. It is far too easy to pick off embarked units, thus making invasions of your country almost non existent.
     
  2. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    I can post plenty of screenshots from different playthroughs all illustrating my point that this is a chronic problem in Civ5 ever since the patch.

    When I won that game I took the pic from, I watched the replay and saw that America didn't lose any of its cities until around Turn 230. I don't know how long America was at war with Polynesia and Egypt before I finished them off, but probably had 200 Turns of peace. That should've been plenty of time to improve the tiles around Washington. Boston and Philadelphia were much better developed -- although I don't know if Egypt did that after they captured them.

    Egypt actually had fairly bad start position; it was on a river surrounded by tundra. But Egypt expanded rapidly and became the richest and second most powerful faction. Their cites' tiles all improved when I conquered them. Polynesia was third, and it captured Atlanta and conquered Persia; the Polynesians improved their own cities' tiles, but didn't bother to improve the tiles of the cities that they captured. England was hemmed in by Polynesia and only had 3 cities, but their tiles were all improved.

    The Inca would've been a perfect example because they weren't at war with any other civ until I DoW around Turn 150 and captured their important cities. The tiles surrounding their capital were mostly un-improved; it had mines, a few farms, and luxuries and resources. I captured several of their Workers, so they weren't lacking in manpower.

    I have more screenshots but they're from after I won, so they aren't great examples of what I'm talking about. I don't want to spam this thread with unnecessary pics, so I'll just provide a link to my photobucket page.

    http://s1115.photobucket.com/profile/SorynArkayn

    The cheats and bonuses the AI receives on higher difficulty levels are supposed to compensate for the fact that the AI cannot play any smarter than it does on any difficulty level, which has been a recurring failure of the Civ franchise; the AI has never been able to play the game properly. Players have simply come to accept this -- but I don't.

    BTW, you cannot claim that the different rules are agreed upon beforehand because Civ5 doesn't disclose precisely what bonuses the AI receives on each difficulty level; Firaxis doesn't disclose it either. If you want to know you have to peek at the game files. So no, it's not comparable to a golf handicap. It's more like that fancy putter that Rodney Dangerfield's character uses in Caddyshack -- it's cheating.

    I don't want to get into a long rant about the higher difficulty levels. Suffice to say that IMO the strategies that are required to compete with the AI's cheating are not fun because they're too restrictive and formulaic. The best players can win Science victories as early as Turn 200 solely because the AI can infinitely expand and receives bonuses to Wealth so they can always afford Research Agreements. That enables the Player to exploit the over-powered RAs and complete the spaceship by 1500 AD.

    Whereas I actually enjoy longer games. If I win close to Turn 300, that's great; but it's not a race. I love to construct buildings and Wonders, and expand and conquer gradually with a modest military until the late game, wherein my investments in my cities' infrastructure pay off and I can choose between Domination, Science, or Diplomatic victories. That's not possible on the higher difficulty levels. That's why I don't play them. That's also why I want a genuinely smart AI instead of a cheating AI.

    The last patch was in August. Even if you started playing Civ5 in July, you probably wouldn't have completed enough campaigns during that time to notice the significant differences before and after the patch. It took me a month or two to notice it, and since then it's become more prevalent -- it's impossible to ignore now. Playing on higher difficulty levels merely masks the problem because the AI receives free Workers and other bonuses.

    It's unusual for the AI to neglect to improve its tiles, especially around its capital city. Washington was by far the most heinous example of that I've ever seen, which is why I started this thread and post that pic.

    I never said that different civs are better at producing or managing workers than any others. It's exactly the opposite! From one campaign to the next, the same civ can play radically differently. A couple campaigns prior to this one, Egypt neglected improve its tiles. In my latest one they were second only to me. Several campaigns ago, America was my main rival and they had great infrastructure despite having nearly two dozen cities. But in this one, by far the worst I've ever seen.

    War cannot be the sole reason for this problem. That's too simple of an explanation for a chronic problem. I'm certain that the AI squaders its Workers, which is why its tiles are un-improved. Any Player that has made the mistake of automating their Workers knows how dumb they are -- they'll travel 10-20 turns to a remote city, build one improvement, then travel all the way back to build an improvement near your capital, and repeat; they'll try to construct a road to a CS halfway around the world. The AI's Workers are always automated, so no wonder they're so incompetent. And if the AI's Workers are lost, the AI neglects to produce replacements. The end result is the same: the AI civ's development is crippled, it cannot compete, and it's inevitably conquered by the other civs. Civ5 has plenty of problems, but IMO this is the worst one that has arisen from the last patch; since it didn't exist before, it should be fixable.
     
  3. tommynt

    tommynt Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    simple fix: dont play at chieftain lvl ...

    Obviously low difficulty lvls are for BAD players, who are same clueless as ai is and f.e. auto their workers.
    So once you think you can do better as ai in stuff like imporving land just increase difficulty ..

    Obviously the coding in civ5 isnt great, but thats something you can see in lot of aspcets of the game. Just try auto your own workers and they ll do same dumb stuff like ai ones do ..
     
  4. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    I play on Prince or King, depending on if I've played that civ before. I've only played Chieftain once for the Steam achievement.

    I dislike the higher difficulty levels because how shamelessly the AI cheats. I know that's how it's always worked in the Civ franchise, but that's such a lame excuse. I understand why the original Civilization was designed that way, because AI was non-existent in those days, and PCs in the 1990s couldn't handle it anyway. It's twenty years and four sequels later! How is it that the Civ games have progressed in most other respects, but the AI never seems to? If Firaxis had programmed a remotely competent AI in Civ5, instead of half@$$ing it, the AI would play smarter and wouldn't need to cheat anymore.

    This relates to the issue of the AI's failure to improve its tiles because the AI apparently isn't smart enough manage its workers (i.e. idiotic automated Workers), or replace Workers lost from wars or barbarians. Instead, an AI civ will go the remainder of the game with un-improved tiles, slowly producing obsolete military units to defend itself -- regardless if it's at war or not -- but will never be able to compete with the Player or other AI civs. This all because the AI doesn't understand how to play the game properly.
     
  5. NotSure

    NotSure King

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    712
    I think there are tile improvement flavors in the XML. If you play on a difficulty where the AI has to rely on the flavor to tell it to improve tiles, then it's likely you'll see civs with little terrain improvements.

    Obviously the AI only does what it's coded to do. Another good example is that many are coded to ignore minor civs (which include barbarians). AI civs will let a barb hut sit on the borders of one of it's cities nearly all game. On lower difficulties you can see this situation over and over. You can just send a few units around the world freeing captured civilian units and having a good laugh about it.

    This problem didn't get worse recently, it actually got better. It used to be that if a city state lost a worker early in the game it never built another one and would sit for thousands of years with not one improved tile.

    I believe that what others are saying is true. As soon as you start to notice things like this, and they start to aggravate you, it's time to move up. I do agree that "flavors" sometimes seem unnecessary. Is there really a need for flavors in expansion and tile improvement? Giving low flavors in these areas seems like giving a low flavor for winning and only creates a greater need for absurd bonuses to create a competent AI. The AI bonuses do seem to get a little ridiculous, but you can actually still do all of the things you cited (mass conquests, multiple victory pursuits) on the harder difficulties (except maybe deity) once you get used to them.
     
  6. MisterBoomBoom

    MisterBoomBoom King

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    666
    I would say the biggest problem with Civ 5 is it lack of depth as a game. Its' player experience leaves you wanting. It simply is simple. No matter what level you play on (it is just a delaying feature) you eventually dominate in the game and it offers no real challenge once the few basic strategies are administered. It is routine and unexciting, offering little in the way of random oddities, events, curveballs. When NOT dealing with the AI via diplomacy is the best course of action I would say the Diplomatic aspect of the game is neither working or the least bit FUN. BTS was FUN...CIV 5 is a repeated grind due to its lack of game depth.

    I recall my first view of the new "Tech Tree" and just sighed, "Is that all?"
    I recall my first look at the resources, buildings, and even the wonders and said the same thing. Subtract out Religion and Espionage, random events and quests and despite the beautiful graphics and awesomeness that is one unit per hex, I could not help but feel unfullfilled by the depth of the game.
     
  7. sparkyal

    sparkyal Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    100
    There are so many things that need help :) Let's list them:

    1) worker improvements is truly an issue. I agree with...on the higher levels it still does not optimize very well. this can probably be addressed....
    2) Diplomacy is a huge issue. There has to be some level of...commitment or something with all civ's including the city states.
    3) Victories....what happened to the UN??? Seriously, the only thing it does not is end the game. and all it is about it buying city states. What happened to other civ's voting for others? What happened to resolutions? and for the Space Race....how about travel time? how about random events happening in space that destroy the mission? Domination...actually...i like the new capital system :)
    4) Naval invasions........the AI cannot do them...granted, it does take a lot thought about it, but come on..protect your guys! and build a real navy!
    5) The things they took out of the game...i actually opened a thread about this :)
    4)
     
  8. DizzKneeLand33

    DizzKneeLand33 Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Kansas City
    As far as the UN still being an issue, I have started playing on a large map with only 12 city states and 12 civs (more than the 10 suggested, but there is more territory to be had with 8 less CS's than the suggested 20). Under this setup, 10 votes are required to win by UN vote, so this is a way to keep a diplomatic victory in the game while at the same time making it more difficult.

    As far as the worker issues are concerned, I haven't noticed anything overly out of the ordinary at the King level, but perhaps I am not paying enough attention. Some Civs improve tiles better than others, due to many factors, including barbarians, wars, and so forth. If you want the AI to improve tiles better, then the extra worker at higher levels should make you happy that it is added, not upset.

    Just my two cents....
     
  9. Optional

    Optional Deity

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    I don't think your maths is right. You need a majority of the votes. 12 CS's + 12 civs = 24 votes total, so you would need 13 votes if they were all still in the game. That means all the CS's + your own vote. As soon as two CS's are eradicated from the game an AI needs to be destroyed as well for a UN vote to come to anything.

    Yes, a diplomatic victory in Civ 5 is certainly not a 'real' diplomatic victory. I find it a satisfactory enough way to end the game, but the civilization franchise has never succeeded in coming up with a diplomatic victory that was achieved by truly diplomatic means.
     
  10. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    The reason why Diplomatic Vics are so difficult without bribing CS's is because the other civs will inevitably get PO'd at you for trying to win the game. It doesn't matter what you do, they'll inevitably become Guarded and denounce you, which means they'll never vote for you. If I recall correctly, the only way I've ever received a vote from an AI civ is by liberating its capital after it was destroyed by another civ. But that's not a practical strategy for a Diplomatic Vic.
     
  11. lollibast

    lollibast Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    I was denounced by a Civ i had liberated once, so no guarantee for that either (the absurdity of this is another example of flawed diplomacy, obviously)
     
  12. bcaiko

    bcaiko Emperor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,412
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    The game rules state that a Civ will automatically vote for itself, unless it's been liberated (then it will vote for its liberator). It'd be a more interesting victory if there was a way to cull other Civs from being candidates in the vote and if CityStates weren't so easy to buy off.

    Also, Diplomatic Victory shouldn't be so time-consuming that it takes as much time as Science Victory. Getting to the UN in the tech tree (which requires a lot of science) and building the UN already takes quite a bit of time...
     
  13. Rex_Mundi

    Rex_Mundi Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Denmark
    While I don't think the worker problem is the worst in the game, I do recognise that it is a problem, and that it is very likely easy to fix.

    I suspect what happens is that a civ is started with a very low flavour for improving it's land, then it loose it's worker and doesn't build a new one untill much later, if ever.
    If the building AI considered how many workers it currently had, and considered accordingly then that may solve the problem.
    As long as the AI doesn't end in a loop where it has no soldiers to defend it's worker, and keep spamming workers and loosing them to random barbs.
     
  14. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,285
    I believe the solution there is to destroy the city-states.
     
  15. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,285
    This would be an appropriate juncture to point out the real-world relationship between the United States and France...
     
  16. lollibast

    lollibast Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    I'd rather relate it to the US and Israel as the US was never really liberated by France
     
  17. Archbob

    Archbob Ancient CFC Guardian

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    11,774
    Location:
    Corporate USA
    Archers killing Giant Death Robots by ranged attack = Stupid
     
  18. lollibast

    lollibast Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    1 point min dmg is a pain, there des not have to be a huge difference in unittech for this to be annoying. Its enough to have a 3xpromoted longswordsman on rough terrain bombarded by numerous arches for several turns, while guarding your ranged units. Should I take the 10% to health mosquitobite hits or move him into the open to kill the archers? hmmmm

    Tanks eaten by galleys is equally annoying
     
  19. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    It's equally possible that PhilBowles was referring to the US helping liberate France from Nazi-Germany's occupation in World War II.
     
  20. KevinMiles90000

    KevinMiles90000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    Knowing that I can win deity/pangea/mongolia domination victory 100% of the time, sometimes by turn 200.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page