E.T.A. on deity AI improvements?

[obsolete]

Something is very wrong when I haven't even begun to master the nuts & bolts of this game, and I'm crushing the deities all over the continent. At least, this is as far as the demo goes. I can easily take out an opposing capital + other city(s) and grab a bunch of puppet states from the non-winnable players. Which begs to be asked, how can this happen if the description claims deity was only for the top players in the world. This seems to be managable within just 100 turns, which makes one wonder why they would carry on playing after this since the game has to be won right there anyhow. It makes the 100 turn-limit pointless.

Let me re-iterate, by no means have I even tried to calculate the optimal openings yet, and there's still quite a few tid-bits I'm sure I have to learn. There is definitely a lot of people who are crushing it by now (there has to be). Which puzzles me on how this got dubbed down so poorly. No beta here?

I noticed a lot of reasons which contribute to this. The AI is just terrible. It seems to move his units in war without any proper tactics, almost at random even. Some real doozies to watch, is for example how an archer will heal, despite I"ll leave a general unprotected right in front of it, and the AI just never attacks the General since it wants to heal, LOL. And to make it worse, it heals in spots where it will get eliminated next turn anyway. Argggh!!

AI seems to not understand how to protect its workers anymore (HUGE advantage to me), amoungst many other things. Etc. etc. etc.

My question now is, when can we REALISTICALLY and HONESTLY have these problems fixed? And no, I'm not wanting more cheats, I actually want an AI that is supposed to be half-competent at least.

 

[Gnollen]

I could be wrong about this but I don't think archers can melee attack (I know that's true for archer vs. city). It's possible that great general can't be killed by ranged attack so maybe he needed melee to kill general?

 

[nishant1911]

obsolete , you got civ5!

wonders don't go obsolete in civ5. so it must be terribly easy for you ,eh?
when i am going to see the next industrious deity series? um, the egyptian-deity series?

 

[Madprofe55or]

AI is most definitely the weak spot for the new release. All the talk in the videos and podcasts about AI made me think my first game should be on Prince difficulty, so that's what I did. It felt like I was playing chieftan on Civ4 as far as AI challenge. I will probably just start a new game on Diety or whichever one is right below it to see if it's any better.

And the OP is right afaik about the AI not protecting workers...AT ALL.

 

[cccv]

obsolete , you got civ5!

wonders don't go obsolete in civ5. so it must be terribly easy for you ,eh?
when i am going to see the next industrious deity series? um, the egyptian-deity series?

I don't know what you're trying to say or how it relates to the OP, but wonders do get obsolete in V from what I've seen.

It's kind of funny to me to see people expressing such concerns about the AI not being great. I play IV on noble and win most of the time, if you consider it winning even though I reload the map and save before every battle so I can reload if necessary. I feel bad for you guys who don't suck, but this is one V complaint I have to say isn't going to affect me.

Then again, by the time I get the game I'm sure it'll be patched up to the point that I'll think it's too hard >.>

 

[smileylad]

I too have noticed how the AI doesn't protect the workers. Maybe they'll fix that in a patch.

 

[May Day 10]

I was playing on Prince level and a number of times (probably 3), Barbs had me dead to rights in an adjacent tile and never attacked.

 

[Lone Wolf]

From what the OP and the folks at Realms Beyond are posting, it seems that the AI is a weakest spot in the new release indeed.

 

[RohirrimElf]

1) I watched the live gameplay on tuesday last week and the guy couldnt beat napoleon on immortal difficulty. He said he played above his strenght. I dont think he was a noob cause he must have played the game for hours. How come?

2) Is the demo AI any different from full game?

 

[Biz_]

agreed, the AI is really weak even on high difficulties

this is what happens when your "beta test" is a bunch of journalists who don't know how to play the game or 4x games in general and when your target audience is the casual player

i think they wanted newcomers to feel a sense of accomplishment by managing to beat an AI that wasn't at the bottom of the scale

 

[Iberian]

Having played Civilization at Emperor up through Civ IV BTS at Diety will agree this is the easiest version yet. I don't think the AI will stand a chance against humans in the OUPT format. If it takes Deep Blue to calculate strong chess moves on a 64 square chess board with 16 units each how is my PC going to come close on 100's of hex tiles, many more unit variety and rules, no scripted opening/end game plays, no bank of genius play to mimic due to the random maps.

The AI has no chance other than cheating. Honestly it has always been that way, just with the large unit advantages and being able to stack them made it less noticable.

 

[Shurdus]

eta next tuesday... Sit tight!

It matters little if we can pwn the AI because from what I saw in the demo the game is bland. It took forever to build any building, so the feeling of progression is simply not there. All in all it felt dull and lifeless where BtS always felt like every single game thrilled with tension and possibilities. In civ5 I did not feel it at all.

It will get patched though, I have no doubts about that.

 

[lissenber]

I think part of the "AI is too easy on high difficulties" problem is city bombardment and defense. I`m not very sure that there is even the slightest difference depending on difficulty in that area.

Ofourse that doesn`t explain everything. Bismarck let me snatch his workers as if he had plenty to share.

(Demo player)

 

[tokala]

It not only don't protect workers, it even sends settlers on a hike, all alone

This looks suspiciously like what happended with the Empire:Total War AI. Design was far to ambitious and ended up with a schizophrenic AI that tried to pursue too many conflicting goals at the same time. Didn't help that the AI lead programmer jumped the boat halfway through

 

[Iberian]

1) I watched the live gameplay on tuesday last week and the guy couldnt beat napoleon on immortal difficulty. He said he played above his strenght. I dont think he was a noob cause he must have played the game for hours. How come?

2) Is the demo AI any different from full game?

He may think he is pretty good, but compared to most Civ vets (especially like Obsolete or Snaaty) that was a pretty weak empire he had.

 

[wapamingo]

1) I watched the live gameplay on tuesday last week and the guy couldnt beat napoleon on immortal difficulty. He said he played above his strenght. I dont think he was a noob cause he must have played the game for hours. How come?

2) Is the demo AI any different from full game?

(1) 2kGreg sucks at CIV? I don't know.

I actually think this is what happened: Napoleon was the human player. If you notice the score, it was over 2x or 3x the next guy. This has been my experience score wise against AI. I even remember complaining about that in one of the discussion forums (how can any civ be that much better in score than the next guy, and several generations of techs ahead - unless it was HUMAN and not AI).

2kGreg jumps in as Japan instead of Napoleon to show off the AI??? Which only wailed against a choke point! Smart AI, right! Also, notice how Greg had to review what he has had in terms of cities, locations, positions, etc. If he played it just recently, he would know exactly.

Conspiracy!

(2) Maybe, but I got full version and AI sucks

 

[Iberian]

1UPT is no reason for the AI to suck. It didn't suck in Panzer/Allied General 10 years ago, it shouldn't suck now. Personally I dont think its bad tactical decisions (although there are some of those) as opposed to it just not building enough units and keeping them close to cities. On the demo (Emperor difficulty) I attacked Rameses at turn 80 and his entire military consisted of 1 warrior. Bismark was better (declared war at turn 83) but his military was still mostly warriors and scouts and spread all over the place, just odd warriors trying to kill my phalanxes.

That is a good point, CiV AI actually sucks. As in this is a stupid move that I can't fathom what calculation led to this.

 

[kossin]

My question now is, when can we REALISTICALLY and HONESTLY have these problems fixed? And no, I'm not wanting more cheats, I actually want an AI that is supposed to be half-competent at least.

Try: when they fix OF "bug" in BTS.



Yea... I'm staying away from Civ 5 for a little while rather than get frustrated at bad AI... Sid knows they're already bad in Civ 4 even with all their bonuses.

I mean... can't they even code some various strategies that the AI can choose and execute?!

 

[alpaca]

The AI cheats are on a similar scale as in Civ4, so it either uses those extra resources like a complete moron or a bug is preventing it from actually receiving them.

Edit: Are you sure you're playing the same demo as me? I just had Alexander attack me with something like 10 units in turn 54. Two Companion Cav, two Swordsmen, three archers, one warrior, two hoplites iirc

 

[Schuesseled]

eta next tuesday... Sit tight!

It matters little if we can pwn the AI because from what I saw in the demo the game is bland. It took forever to build any building, so the feeling of progression is simply not there. All in all it felt dull and lifeless where BtS always felt like every single game thrilled with tension and possibilities. In civ5 I did not feel it at all.

It will get patched though, I have no doubts about that.

100 turns isn't long enoughto get a decent feel of progression, the game end just as your leaving the classical age.