Dislike the direction CIV5 is taking? Tell us how you'd do it!

[Valkrionn]

Actually I can imagine V as a sort of Panzer General for all eras, because it seems to be a wargame rather than an empire building game. I can imagine a version where they saved a lot of time in art and programming by going the "always war" route and giving up on diplomacy altogether since a "diplomatic win" is really a matter of affordable cash payments to city states by whatever means.

On the whole art thing... Good lord, were it up to me the game would be entirely played within Strategic View. No need for pretty graphics; 2D is enough to convey everything required, so it is enough for the game. Rather than try for top of the line graphics with pretty pretty leaderheads, I would prefer the ability to play larger maps, with more civs, at a faster speed.

This obsession amongst gamers for better graphics with every game is a handicap, IMO. It's important in some genres (FPS, for example), but strategy games? You don't need graphics, you need strategy, depth, thought-provoking mechanics.

 

[Harald]

I don't really feel any of the options in the poll are any good. As said by others in the thread a game doesn't need to be complex.

I would rather focus resources on making the learning curve less steep. Try to make the game playable without necessarily delving to deep into it and still retain the depth that the former fanbase is used to. (I do realise that this is much easier said than done.) This is of course based on the assumption that you are trying to widen the fanbase.

On the whole art thing... Good lord, were it up to me the game would be entirely played within Strategic View.

That is how I played it. If nothing else, information is displayed better that way.

 

[Sonereal]

How dare a gaming corporation try to bring in new money.

 

[Rusty Edge]

On the whole art thing... Good lord, were it up to me the game would be entirely played within Strategic View. No need for pretty graphics; 2D is enough to convey everything required, so it is enough for the game. Rather than try for top of the line graphics with pretty pretty leaderheads, I would prefer the ability to play larger maps, with more civs, at a faster speed.

This obsession amongst gamers for better graphics with every game is a handicap, IMO. It's important in some genres (FPS, for example), but strategy games? You don't need graphics, you need strategy, depth, thought-provoking mechanics.

There you go! I was delighted with Civ I graphics, I thought II was an unnescessary graphical indulgence. I played it a few hours, but I never owned the game because I didn't have a machine that could handle it until III came out. I've heard tell of some cool features in versions of II, but I never got to experience them.

 

[r_rolo1]

Yup, that is a gripe I've carried in my heart since Civ IV introduced 3D graphs without any gameplay reason behind ( say, if you could do a layered world and/or have stuff having diferent abilities because of their altitute in game ... ): if a strategy game comes out with a bad AI and with quirky mechanics, than making beautiful graphs was a waste of time.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

This obsession amongst gamers for better graphics with every game is a handicap, IMO. It's important in some genres (FPS, for example), but strategy games? You don't need graphics, you need strategy, depth, thought-provoking mechanics.

It may surprise you to hear this on my behalf but... Exactly!
The whole premise of a TBS strategy game is solid context within a fairly intuitive device called the proverbial optimal UI while challenging the target market with intellectually sharp features.

BUT... as a bonus, i expect the immersion (sic--fun) to be also there for a number of reasons;

-- I love Chess, it's extremely tactical and brings pure intelligence to the board for 2. Lame, flat, wood pieces B/W. Direct & obvious.
-- Gosh, i also enjoy watching the sunrise over the far away horizon and hearing the usual early spring birds flying in joy for a new day. Emotion.
-- The world is changing, the mathematics of entertainment are computed to bring in the crowds at the BO. People yell at any products to stun them to their seat and never let go.
-- The gears can handle it and more.

Thus, the investment (in code/hours) by GameDev Studios has to account for sale perspectives while using every last trick in the book to beat the competition to the golden pot at the end of the sharply colorized half-transparent glowing rainbow.

Secondly, they *MUST* turn in profits or vanish in a dark fog descending in Hell & Paradise since in this www era of immediate knowledge, the revolutions start at the click of an Iconed button, shadowed in isometric fashion or swooping right out of the virtual realm in astonishing 3D.
The magic is simple. The graphics are just the illusion.
Both combining into a result ready to be judged and evaluated by anyone.

Salvador Dali was right... excentric is an abstraction and a memento to_of reality.

Melting slowly and as static as the compass that guided it.

 

[LostInTime]

Make your next game even more complex, further reducing chances of attracting new players.

This is wrong. Simplifying the game doesn't necessarily attract new players either.

In this case Civilization has a niche and a loyal fan base they can work from with little to none competing games, so if they keep releasing a good game and keep it's fanbase happy they have a steady income. Good reviews will always attract new players, but since Civ isn't exactly mainstream you can't get them all. But if you read these forums you see that new generations keep coming to play the new Civ games, so our fanbase is by no means stagnant.

Experimentation should come in other games (like CiV rev etc.) and I think that is where Firaxis fails. They would really benefit from having another leg to stand on. Relying on just the CiV franchise is probably why it's so vulnerable, and releases seem very rushed every time.

 

[Greybriar]

The less complex a game is the easier it is to learn how to play it. A game doesn't have to be complex to be a lot of fun.

And make Steam optional instead of mandatory.

 

[r_rolo1]

Experimentation should come in other games (like CiV rev etc.) and I think that is where Firaxis fails. They would really benefit from having another leg to stand on. Relying on just the CiV franchise is probably why it's so vulnerable, and releases seem very rushed every time.

Signed under. It simply horrifies me to see that Firaxis missed the oportunity of making a stand-alone Fall from Heaven ( just the more glaring example ) where it could make some more off-the-track stuff and gain some more cash without getting the risk of tarnishing the proper Civilization franchise. They had the code, the coder and the oportunity in hand, but they lost it all for Elemental ( that, let´s be honest, it is pretty close of what a stand-alone FfH would be )

 

[SpearMan153]

Excellent points Valkrionn - agree on the depth issue: civ5 has about the same amount as depth as civ4 which is not that much

5 in terms of depth feels the same to me as every other civ game I've played.

The formula has changed little since v1:

grab land to get good tiles/resources and to block ai expansion. improve tiles with workers (settlers in early versions), build army, build buildings, progress through tech tree. food, hammers, gold

need gold build gold buildings
need science build science buildings
need production build production buildings
need army build units
ai poor
diplomacy shallow or non existent

but all good fun

 

[need my speed]

This poll is obviously flawed, because adding complexity doesn't automatically mean a decrease in the number of copies sold. It may even increase them. And what if they do decrease? Well, those that did buy your complex game and like it will probably be loyal fans if you continue with complex games. After all, everybody in the gaming industry tries to rush half-finished games (by standards of a few years ago) without any complexity, because that's where the main market is. That's logical, but what if the main market has to choose between a thousand games? Then the small market that has only a single choice (your complex game) will be larger than the main market, if you understand what I mean.

 

[Nares]

This poll is obviously flawed, because adding complexity doesn't automatically mean a decrease in the number of copies sold.

No surprises there.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

1) Make your next game even more complex, further reducing chances of attracting new players.
2) Make your game even more complex and add even more complexity through expansions.
3) Create a simpler game that is going to attract new players; make it more complex through expansions.
4) Create a simpler game. You'll add more complexity in your future games.

Fail poll is fail. Bibor you're supposed to make polls as neutral as possible. This one on the other hand was skewed deliberately to return the values you want to see, i.e. your own.

As regards making a new game, I would try for the principle "easy to learn, hard to master" which is clearly what the devs did not do for this game. So many of their trumpeted features either were already known as exploits (diplomacy, gpt for resource trades, ranged bombards) or ended up being exploits through horrible coding (the return of the Civ 3 patented AI trickle of suicide). It was clearly set up for the casual players to get a quick buzz by winning against incompetant roadblocks, without giving them any reason to stay with the game for a length of time, the Film industry "look after the first weekend, anything else will take care of itself" syndrome.

And how does increased complexity scare away customers exactly? Bad design and an unbalanced game (either too easy or too hard) will do that far more sucessfully. What is needed with complexity is the right lead-in, whether through a proper set of tutorials explaining the complex mechanics, or by an easy early learning curve (thinking Settler>Warlord>Chieftain thing here).

As regards 1UPT there are three realistic choices:
1) scrap them and go back to stacking (whether limited or not is a different question)
2) give up the ghost and admit that what you wanted was a tactical game build around discrete scenarios, or
3) seperate the strategic from the tactical in the main game, i.e. allow stacking on the main map, but have a seperate tactical battle map where 1UPT is the king.
Of the 3 I would like to see the last being tried, as it would both incorporate some innovation into the series while also retaining the strategic feel to the game.

As regards things removed, bring back religion (an atheist saying this!), make the religions more unique (through combined boni and penalties, preferably 2:1 ratio), and maybe have a stage where to close an adherence could impede development. Bring in a proper espionage system (not sure what to do myself, but espionage is only a half job in 4, and should have been warning about Shafer too), incorporating a more involving way of using spies than accumulate points>steal>wait for AI to tech up again>steal system we have (being both overpowered and massively boring).

I'd take out the "play to win" madness which affects the AI civs in all games, which is not a system for allowing the AI to properly play to win a game, just a system to allow them to gang up on you solely to stop you winning. I'd bring back proper diplomacy, where you can build up good relations with your rivals with effort (and it takes effort in 4), which wont be destroyed because of random dice-rolls (as is currently).

After fixing the problems then I'd look around to see what kind of innovation I could bring to the game, whether in the form of alternative government systems. I actually like the idea of social policies, would just prefer more flexibility in their use. Maybe a combination of having the SP boni unlock over time (using a score keeping mechanism while in a policy) and by teching, but keeping the situational flexibility of the civics in 4. It would allow a system where you can go for the powerful boni by working vertically up the policy tree, or allow you to be more flexible in response to outside events.

 

[Valkrionn]

Excellent points Valkrionn - agree on the depth issue: civ5 has about the same amount as depth as civ4 which is not that much

5 in terms of depth feels the same to me as every other civ game I've played.

The formula has changed little since v1:

grab land to get good tiles/resources and to block ai expansion. improve tiles with workers (settlers in early versions), build army, build buildings, progress through tech tree. food, hammers, gold

need gold build gold buildings
need science build science buildings
need production build production buildings
need army build units
ai poor
diplomacy shallow or non existent

but all good fun

Honestly, Civ4 only held my interest for around four games. If not for discovering Fall from Heaven, I'd have never purchased BtS; Not enough depth in the game. But that's near heretical on these boards.

Fail poll is fail. Bibor you're supposed to make polls as neutral as possible. This one on the other hand was skewed deliberately to return the values you want to see, i.e. your own.

As regards making a new game, I would try for the principle "easy to learn, hard to master" which is clearly what the devs did not do for this game. So many of their trumpeted features either were already known as exploits (diplomacy, gpt for resource trades, ranged bombards) or ended up being exploits through horrible coding (the return of the Civ 3 patented AI trickle of suicide). It was clearly set up for the casual players to get a quick buzz by winning against incompetant roadblocks, without giving them any reason to stay with the game for a length of time, the Film industry "look after the first weekend, anything else will take care of itself" syndrome.

And how does increased complexity scare away customers exactly? Bad design and an unbalanced game (either too easy or too hard) will do that far more sucessfully. What is needed with complexity is the right lead-in, whether through a proper set of tutorials explaining the complex mechanics, or by an easy early learning curve (thinking Settler>Warlord>Chieftain thing here).

As regards 1UPT there are three realistic choices:
1) scrap them and go back to stacking (whether limited or not is a different question)
2) give up the ghost and admit that what you wanted was a tactical game build around discrete scenarios, or
3) seperate the strategic from the tactical in the main game, i.e. allow stacking on the main map, but have a seperate tactical battle map where 1UPT is the king.
Of the 3 I would like to see the last being tried, as it would both incorporate some innovation into the series while also retaining the strategic feel to the game.

As regards things removed, bring back religion (an atheist saying this!), make the religions more unique (through combined boni and penalties, preferably 2:1 ratio), and maybe have a stage where to close an adherence could impede development. Bring in a proper espionage system (not sure what to do myself, but espionage is only a half job in 4, and should have been warning about Shafer too), incorporating a more involving way of using spies than accumulate points>steal>wait for AI to tech up again>steal system we have (being both overpowered and massively boring).

I'd take out the "play to win" madness which affects the AI civs in all games, which is not a system for allowing the AI to properly play to win a game, just a system to allow them to gang up on you solely to stop you winning. I'd bring back proper diplomacy, where you can build up good relations with your rivals with effort (and it takes effort in 4), which wont be destroyed because of random dice-rolls (as is currently).

After fixing the problems then I'd look around to see what kind of innovation I could bring to the game, whether in the form of alternative government systems. I actually like the idea of social policies, would just prefer more flexibility in their use. Maybe a combination of having the SP boni unlock over time (using a score keeping mechanism while in a policy) and by teching, but keeping the situational flexibility of the civics in 4. It would allow a system where you can go for the powerful boni by working vertically up the policy tree, or allow you to be more flexible in response to outside events.

A few things.

First off, the "play to win" stuff actually is a system for allowing the AI to win. It's not even programmed to gang up on you, it just gives that impression; There's a lot of cases in the game where things seem unfair, simply because they are unclear to the player.

Another example is the diplomacy. I can guarantee you it's not based on random dice rolls; Turn on logging, and check out the diplomacy logs; It's actually far more indepth than that of Civ4, it's just not presented adequately yet. I don't think it needs to go as far as Civ4 (presenting you with actual numerical values, and even lieing to you about it!), but yes, more data needs to be listed.


On 1UPT... There's far more than just what you listed. Here's a much larger list of unit-management styles. Personally I prefer the Armies method. Allows something like the tactical screen you mention, without actually needing that screen.

Let's expand your list a little bit, shall we? 2/3UPT can be rephrased as xUPT, first off, and several other options have been mentioned. So here's my list, keeping in mind that the plus/negative section is inherently an opinion. I will attempt to explain each proposed method, as well.

1. Stacks of Doom
   
   • Unlimited numbers of units per tile.
   • Pros:
     
     • Simple concept
     • Easy maneuverability
     • Simple for the AI
   • Cons:
     
     • Very basic, unfun
     • Moves combat into cities; Negates any real terrain considerations
     • Transforms combat into a slugfest between stacks; Biggest stack wins. Little tactical or strategic value.
   • Solutions:
     
     • None. Issues with the system are inherent to the SoD mechanic.
   • Analysis:
     
     • Moving back to the SoD is simple, but is ultimately the wrong direction in my opinion.
2. 1UPT
   
   • Each tile may only contain one unit of each type; One military unit, one civilian unit, etc.
   • Pros:
     
     • Again, a simple concept.
     • Introduces strategic value to terrain
     • Introduces strategic value to army makeup and structure.
   • Cons:
     
     • Can be difficult to maneuver large numbers of units.
     • Can create a "Blanket of Doom" if a player continues making units as though he was using SoDs, or in certain map areas such as peninsulas.
     • More difficult for the AI.
     • Necessitates higher production costs, as fewer units will be on the map.
   • Solutions:
     
     • Introduce a true cap on number of units. Cap should be based on population and buildings, rather than number of cities, so that Wide and Tall empires are both viable. This helps prevent the Blanket of Doom, and allows for build costs to be decreased; It is also already partially implemented, as there is indeed a max number of units that can be supported in Civ5. It is simply rarely reached.
     • Allow for different types of units to group; This would allow for workers/settlers/GPs to have military escorts, without requiring multiple move orders.
     • Several different ways to enhance worker units (not stopping road construction simply because someone is in the way 5 tiles down the line, for example).
     • (Possible) Ability to create "Groups" across multiple tiles, and move as one unit. Possible, as implementation raises several issues (Different tile move costs, preserving group shape across differing terrain types, different move stats, etc); Simplest method is to force group shape to remain the same (even if adjusting, moving, and readjusting later would be faster) and always moving at the speed of the slowest unit.
   • Analysis:
     
     • Good idea on paper, has issues in execution. Fixable, but needs work. AI issues are easily addressed, however, and are in the process of being corrected.
3. "Hard" xUPT
   
   • Each tile may contain X units. A midpoint between SoD, and 1UPT.
   • Pros:
     
     • Reintroduces stacks, allowing for easy movement of army groups.
     • Maintains the 1UPT strategic and tactical gains, so long as X is low enough.
   • Cons:
     
     • Slightly more complicated to understand; Can be unintuitive, in ways that 1 and infinity are not.
     • May retain the Blanket of Death issue, if X is too low; If X is too high, reintroduces issues with SoD.
   • Solutions:
     
     • None, other than very careful balance. As a hybrid solution, it has the potential for all the benefits of both 1UPT and SoD... But is also subject to all of their flaws.
   • Analysis:
     
     • Not the best alternative, IMO, simply because it requires a very specific balance in order to avoid the pitfalls of the other systems.
4. "Soft" xUPT
   
   • Each tile may contain X units without penalty, after which a combat/maintenance/whatever penalty is applied to all units on the tile.
   • Won't list Pros/Cons/etc here, as they are essentially the same as "Hard" xUPT. The only difference being that mobility is increased; Combat would still occur in the same ways, to prevent the penalties.
   • Simply listed in an attempt to be inclusive.
5. Sub-Tiles
   
   • Tiles are maintained in their present state for terrain type, improvements, cities, and citizen purposes, but are broken into 6 triangular tiles for unit placement purposes. Is otherwise functionally identical to 1UPT.
   • Notes:
     
     • I chose 6 triangles, as it is the best way to perfectly map onto a hexagonal tile. Other methods exist, but they would look odd; Only Triangles, Squares, and Hexagons can be perfectly mapped.
     • From the previous posts, I interpreted this method as 1upt, simply with more tiles. If I was wrong, please correct me.
   • Pros:
     
     • Allows for more tiles without expanding the map; Fewer traffic jams, unit maintenance and cost can be reduced.
     • All pros of 1UPT.
   • Cons:
     
     • Units would be difficult to select/move at higher zooms.
     • Subdivision of the tile could be confusing to players.
     • Maintains the issues of 1UPT, simply delays them by a factor of 6.
   • Solutions:
     
     • Same as 1UPT; Again, they are essentially the same system.
   • Analysis:
     
     • Interesting, but not the best method IMO. Dividing the map is an additional layer of complexity for the AI (It must now consider the true tile for most things, but an entirely separate system for units).
     • My own favored solution is (more or less) a combination of this method, and the next.
6. Tactical Map
   
   • Some form of unit stacking (high numbers, either SoD or a high xUPT), accompanied with a Tactical Map for battles.
   • Pros:
     
     • Can be quite fun, and is successfully implemented in many games.
     • Allows ease of movement, tactical combat, low unit costs.
   • Cons:
     
     • Could be difficult to teach the AI.
     • Necessitates movement of combat from the world map, to a subscreen.
     • Complex
     • Possibly too "War Game-y"
   • Solutions:
     
     • Not really any. All cons I can think of are inherent to the system.
   • Analysis:
     
     • Has lots of potential, but I'm not sure it's a fit for Civ. Over the course of the series, there has been a trend of moving gameplay out of screens, and onto the map. This would reverse that trend.
7. Armies
   
   • Essentially, super-units. An Army is composed of up to 6 units, with the composition (and structure) chosen by the player. Essentially, take the sub-tile idea, but apply it to the unit, instead; You would have the ability to move units within the army, such that all strategic benefits of subtiles are maintained, but issues with dividing the map and movement are reduced, if not eliminated.
   • Only one Army may be located on a tile. A single unit may be considered an Army, or may be moved onto a tile containing a partial Army in order to join the two.
   • Structure of the Army becomes important; Orientation of opposing armies is considered during combat, meaning that an Archer located in the rear hex can fire on the enemy more or less without risk, while the swordsmen in the front take the brunt of the attack. On the other hand, a rear or flank attack would find the army vulnerable.
   • Allows for Joint Arms Attacks; Your archers would bombard the enemy, while your horsemen attempted to flank and destroy THEIR archers, your pikemen protected against their flank, and your swordsmen would advance and attempt to break their line... Automatically.
   • Notes:
     
     • Again, I chose 6 as the display for unit composition would be composed of triangular slices of the hexagon.
   • Pros:
     
     • All pros of the sub-tile method.
     • Additionally, allows for ease of movement (Essentially a form of "Group" solution for 1UPT).
     • Allows for easy adaptation to new terrain or the sudden appearance of enemies (Simply restructure the army, manipulating the positioning of the units it contains).
   • Cons:
     
     • Complex. A method of managing the army would be necessary, as would ways to control how each unit attacks. Possibly even a way to only attack in a specific way; Namely, have only the Archers of an Army attack, etc.
     • Potentially difficult to teach the AI. Not insurmountably more so than the subtile system, however, as the two are fairly close, and simpler in other areas (notably handling of the map).
     • Potentially too "War Game-y".
   • Solutions:
     
     • In this case, without the ability to actually try this I cannot think of cons that are not inherent to the system. Meaning I cannot offer solutions.
   • Analysis:
     
     • This is the method that I prefer, personally, but I'll try to keep that out of the analysis.
     • It would allow for the benefits of the sub-tile system, without necessitating actually dividing the map. It would also maintain the 1UPT benefits, though that is a common factor with these proposals.

So, there's my thoughts on it. For a simple-to-implement change, I would advocate either my solutions to 1UPT, or a low xUPT; In fact, my mod for Civ4 (Rise from Erebus, one of the large Fall from Heaven modmods) will contain a variant of the mechanic soon; As others have mentioned, it was introduced to Civ4 by Afforess for his Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn modmod, in a very interesting fashion (Namely, the x can be set on the fly, by the player. My implementation will have a tweak, in that you can lock the value you set to keep yourself from being tempted, but will otherwise be identical ).

Feel free to disagree with my analysis; It is extremely difficult to separate out your personal opinions while discussing multiple methods like this, so I'm sure I have missed something.

On the other hand, if any of you doubt my ability/credentials to make this analysis, please note: I am head of a large mod development team, for a popular (~15-20k players) mod, and I am active on most civ forums and in Civ5 modding.

 

[Nares]

the Film industry "look after the first weekend, anything else will take care of itself" syndrome.

Something we can agree on.

It gives me an idea for that thread about possible expansion titles.

Civilization V: Sid Goes To Hollywood.

 

[davelisowski]

I want more "end turn" buttons and less micro-management like telling a city what to build or telling my units where to go.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Valkrionn

First off, the "play to win" stuff actually is a system for allowing the AI to win. It's not even programmed to gang up on you, it just gives that impression; There's a lot of cases in the game where things seem unfair, simply because they are unclear to the player.

Another example is the diplomacy. I can guarantee you it's not based on random dice rolls; Turn on logging, and check out the diplomacy logs; It's actually far more indepth than that of Civ4, it's just not presented adequately yet. I don't think it needs to go as far as Civ4 (presenting you with actual numerical values, and even lieing to you about it!), but yes, more data needs to be listed.

You have some correct points, but IMHO you are not seeing the whole picture on this. In fact , IMHO neither did the devs

IMHO the "madness" impression that the Civ V AI sometimes gives does not stem from the AI wanting to win, but because it was given the AI what ammounts to 0 compreension of game theory Better said, the devs equaled playing to win to going manifest destiny on the world, be pissed with everyone that looks a threat to that regardless of your actual abilities of stopping that threat by yourself and have a sweetooth for any civ that looks weak. This is a good way to play a 2 player zero-sum game, but civ V is neither a 2 player game ( most of the times ) or a zero-sum game , hence this aproach fails miserabily in getting the AI in the path of actually winning in a lot of situations.

 

[Bibor]

Fail poll is fail. Bibor you're supposed to make polls as neutral as possible. This one on the other hand was skewed deliberately to return the values you want to see, i.e. your own.

Not my own. I made these polls to counterbalance the amount of rubbish (that now finally got sorted out by moderators) that was being dumped on developers and the game. Stuff that nobody wants to hear (deadlines, budget, company politics) are also a part of the game.

(Just like one cannot discuss the quality of the Catholic Church without taking note on force Christianization or the Inquisition.)

 

[r_rolo1]

Not my own. I made these polls to counterbalance the amount of rubbish (that now finally got sorted out by moderators) that was being dumped on developers and the game. Stuff that nobody wants to hear (deadlines, budget, company politics) are also a part of the game.

I remember the days where polls posters still pretended ( and sometimes really believed ) they didn't had a second agenda

 

[Valkrionn]

@Valkrionn
You have some correct points, but IMHO you are not seeing the whole picture on this. In fact , IMHO neither did the devs

IMHO the "madness" impression that the Civ V AI sometimes gives does not stem from the AI wanting to win, but because it was given the AI what ammounts to 0 compreension of game theory Better said, the devs equaled playing to win to going manifest destiny on the world, be pissed with everyone that looks a threat to that regardless of your actual abilities of stopping that threat by yourself and have a sweetooth for any civ that looks weak. This is a good way to play a 2 player zero-sum game, but civ V is neither a 2 player game ( most of the times ) or a zero-sum game , hence this aproach fails miserabily in getting the AI in the path of actually winning in a lot of situations.

Not really missing it, no. What you described is separate from whether or not teaching the AI to win is a good idea; Rather, you are commenting on the quality of those lessons.

And for the most part I'd agree with you. Diplomacy especially needs a large amount of work. Yet, given just the few changes in the upcoming patch, it's my belief that it will be better than Civ4's diplomacy already.

Important note: Better = More interesting, more depth. May not be as easy to play with yet, but frankly, Civ4's diplomacy could be gamed straight down to the minutiae of the system. I don't want to see that come back.