Zhahz
PC Gamer
Overall, I'm enjoying Civ 5 quite a bit. Steam says 56hrs played but I swear it's not counting them all!
However, I'm very, very disappointed by the tactical AI.
I don't expect the greatest AI ever, but I do expect the AI to be better than moronic and to at least use the very basic rules of the game and of tactical combat somewhat well. I do not buy the "Civ IV AI sucked in vanilla BS" - that's just all the more reason to get it better in vanilla 5.
First off, many people say the production speeds in Civ 5 are slow - and they can be - unless you specifically set up military production cities, and even then, it can be slow. If you purchase units at a city with barracks+ they get xp as if built, which is slick. But you can't always afford to throw down for costly units. Either way - these are two basic concepts - buy troops where you have military buidlings that give xp and be aware it takes a while to build units, so unless you're fighting for your life defending, you should be planning and using your troops intelligently to avoid LOSING THEM ALL AND LEAVING YOURSELF OPEN TO BEING TAKEN OUT IN A HANDFUL OF TURNS. Or you could be a Civ 5 AI and be oblivious to basic concepts of survival.
What it does well:
- take other AIs out - it's nice to see AIs actually accomplish something vs each other in war (unlike in Civ IV where I sometimes never see the AI even take a city unless they have a massive tech advantage and I almost never see one Civ conquer another in IV). In fact, it's somewhat alarming when you play continents and one AI on another continent is taking out everyone else and growing huge. Or you're on pangea and one AI is systematically taking out everyone very rapidly. Unfortunately, it's hard to truly be impressed here because the AI is so utterly stupid with combat that it can't even fight itself well. Once an AI throws everything it has at you or another AI in futility, it has nothing. It doesn't grasp the concept of "once your army is dead all those units taking 20 turns to create are uselss to you and your empire is toast."
- seems to sometimes use great generals to support masses of troops - shocking due to other failings
What it does not do well:
- it does not keep troops in reserve, which is an utterly basic concept. Ok, with small empires and ungodly maint costs, it's hard to have a reserve - but that's a decision by a deeper thinking human who's taking risks and flying by the seat of his pants.
- tying into my mini rant above, the AI very frequently lets its entire army die, mostly by throwing the units at defenders like a complete moron, which leaves it's entire empire undefended, crushes it's combat rating, and entices another AI who has troops to attack and take them out completely.
- it does not support melee with ranged unless it's an accident
- it marches ranged/siege into melee range of cities or enemies (really, of all the things I've mentioned, this one bothers me the most. How about one EFFING simple IF/THEN conditional, IF moving a ranged/siege results in putting the unit next to an enemy melee unit, THEN DON'T FRIGGIN MOVE! Better yet, fire from range and do some damage instead or get the hell behind one of your melees so you don't get one-shot next round. This truly makes me wanna bludgeon someone.
- it doesn't seem to leverage terrain, flanking, or any other basic bonus concepts. All this time I've been waiting thinking, man, the Civ 5 combat system is gonna rock - all the terrain usage, promotions, ranged over melee, etc - yep, it's neato for me, too bad the AI has absolutely no clue about how cool it is.
- it has no patience - when it's go time (war declared) it just floods everything in towards you, regardless of what the troop is, it might start trying to beat down a city with an AA gun - and I've definitely seen the AI featuring WAY too many anti tank guns as basic troops. It's like a bad AI joke, AI says, "haha, I just got tech for anti-tank guns, I'll make 20 of them now, isn't that hilarious?!" Yep, the 2 armor I brought and fully protect from them is laughing all right. How's that maint cost doing ya?
- it doesn't defend well - if you attack it, it's doesn't form up lines on terrain and make you break thru, instead it throws all its troops at your line and impales itself on your pikes - or, I don't think I've ever seen the AI truly defend a city, usually it has spent all it's troops "counter attacking" (aka lemming suicide) such that I attack undefended cities, usually. The best defense is lemming suicide attack, apparently.
- AI will embark units right next to your ranged or ships - pure genius, and again, how about a simple conditional - let's DUMB IT DOWN and make it even simpler than the range moving into melee conditional:
*IF* THIS MOVE WILL RESULT IN SUICIDE, *THEN* DON'T DO THE MOVE.
Why isn't this kind of thing basic to AI movement? Don't ask me. I'm a programmer. I'm not a sophisticated AI programmer. I'm also not a complete idiot. If my code failed in such a horrible way I'd quit techonology and move to montana to sell farm equipment for cash only.
IMO, this is very lame. Shafer himself is a fan of this combat system and how could he let this get released and be happy with it? Apparently he needs to revisit Wesnoth and take his lead combat AI clown with him to see that, yes, it is possible for a computer to do hex-based combat and use terrain, use troops somewhat intelligently, and punish the player for making mistakes instead of marching units out like lemmings to the slaughter. Wesnoth is just an example.
Again, I'm not expecting expert chess type AI. But I do expect it to get the basics and I have seen games pull it off. Instead of having one lead combat AI clown, they should've had a team of 5, 10, 20, 100 - wtf-ever it takes to get the combat AI reasonably decent in the game. The combat changes are one of the biggest changes and most obvious changes in Civ 5.
The rules of hex based 1UPT tactical aren't rocket science. They're actually pretty damn simple. Use terrain, range support melee, form lines, etc. The big picture strategy and overall thinking is tougher, for sure, but if you isolate a 12 hex by 12 hex battle space with a handful of units vs a handful of units, and a clear idea of what else you have available and how quick you can get them there, the available moves and rules are pretty firm. As a player you're going to put promoted units on the correct terrain type, you're going to put a couple blockers in front of your siege so the enemy can't freely beat on your siege. You're going to soften up targets with that siege and finish them off with your melee ONLY if it doesn't expose your siege or put your melee unit in a comprimising position. Not that complicated, right? Basic decisions. AI and computers are awesome at basic decisions.
Oddly, the Civ 5 AI does better at big picture strategizing, which is far more intellectual, and fails miserably at the low level combat which features crystal clear rules. I'm a programmer - rules are awesome. You can code rules. It's simple If/Then statements. It's evaluating plain data. Arrrrrrrrgggg.... The AI seems good at figuring out when someone is ripe to be slaughtered, it's good at building units to build up a balanced army, and the noncombat AI (city building/spamming into oblivion REX til every possible habitable tile is covered as freaking usual idiocy) and empire management AI seem really good.
So...why doesn't the Civ 5 tactical AI even get the ultra basics right?
It's very distressing. I'm off to drink more.
I suppose it would be asking too much for an AI to occaionally go for a 3 city cultural win, intelligently defending it's terrain with a smallish army, instead of REXing itself into only being able to win via domination? Yeah, probably asking too much.
Diplo is a bit wonky to say the least, but that's another rant. Gotta love how AIs want pacts of secrecy in the first 20 turns of the game against other AIs they've just met but who have wronged them in so many ways...or how they call you a bloodthirsty warmonger and sever relations after slaughtering every living thing on their continent....wtf.
Diplo makes me laugh. The tactical AI makes me cry - or wanna break something.
However, I'm very, very disappointed by the tactical AI.
I don't expect the greatest AI ever, but I do expect the AI to be better than moronic and to at least use the very basic rules of the game and of tactical combat somewhat well. I do not buy the "Civ IV AI sucked in vanilla BS" - that's just all the more reason to get it better in vanilla 5.
First off, many people say the production speeds in Civ 5 are slow - and they can be - unless you specifically set up military production cities, and even then, it can be slow. If you purchase units at a city with barracks+ they get xp as if built, which is slick. But you can't always afford to throw down for costly units. Either way - these are two basic concepts - buy troops where you have military buidlings that give xp and be aware it takes a while to build units, so unless you're fighting for your life defending, you should be planning and using your troops intelligently to avoid LOSING THEM ALL AND LEAVING YOURSELF OPEN TO BEING TAKEN OUT IN A HANDFUL OF TURNS. Or you could be a Civ 5 AI and be oblivious to basic concepts of survival.
What it does well:
- take other AIs out - it's nice to see AIs actually accomplish something vs each other in war (unlike in Civ IV where I sometimes never see the AI even take a city unless they have a massive tech advantage and I almost never see one Civ conquer another in IV). In fact, it's somewhat alarming when you play continents and one AI on another continent is taking out everyone else and growing huge. Or you're on pangea and one AI is systematically taking out everyone very rapidly. Unfortunately, it's hard to truly be impressed here because the AI is so utterly stupid with combat that it can't even fight itself well. Once an AI throws everything it has at you or another AI in futility, it has nothing. It doesn't grasp the concept of "once your army is dead all those units taking 20 turns to create are uselss to you and your empire is toast."
- seems to sometimes use great generals to support masses of troops - shocking due to other failings
What it does not do well:
- it does not keep troops in reserve, which is an utterly basic concept. Ok, with small empires and ungodly maint costs, it's hard to have a reserve - but that's a decision by a deeper thinking human who's taking risks and flying by the seat of his pants.
- tying into my mini rant above, the AI very frequently lets its entire army die, mostly by throwing the units at defenders like a complete moron, which leaves it's entire empire undefended, crushes it's combat rating, and entices another AI who has troops to attack and take them out completely.
- it does not support melee with ranged unless it's an accident
- it marches ranged/siege into melee range of cities or enemies (really, of all the things I've mentioned, this one bothers me the most. How about one EFFING simple IF/THEN conditional, IF moving a ranged/siege results in putting the unit next to an enemy melee unit, THEN DON'T FRIGGIN MOVE! Better yet, fire from range and do some damage instead or get the hell behind one of your melees so you don't get one-shot next round. This truly makes me wanna bludgeon someone.
- it doesn't seem to leverage terrain, flanking, or any other basic bonus concepts. All this time I've been waiting thinking, man, the Civ 5 combat system is gonna rock - all the terrain usage, promotions, ranged over melee, etc - yep, it's neato for me, too bad the AI has absolutely no clue about how cool it is.
- it has no patience - when it's go time (war declared) it just floods everything in towards you, regardless of what the troop is, it might start trying to beat down a city with an AA gun - and I've definitely seen the AI featuring WAY too many anti tank guns as basic troops. It's like a bad AI joke, AI says, "haha, I just got tech for anti-tank guns, I'll make 20 of them now, isn't that hilarious?!" Yep, the 2 armor I brought and fully protect from them is laughing all right. How's that maint cost doing ya?
- it doesn't defend well - if you attack it, it's doesn't form up lines on terrain and make you break thru, instead it throws all its troops at your line and impales itself on your pikes - or, I don't think I've ever seen the AI truly defend a city, usually it has spent all it's troops "counter attacking" (aka lemming suicide) such that I attack undefended cities, usually. The best defense is lemming suicide attack, apparently.
- AI will embark units right next to your ranged or ships - pure genius, and again, how about a simple conditional - let's DUMB IT DOWN and make it even simpler than the range moving into melee conditional:
*IF* THIS MOVE WILL RESULT IN SUICIDE, *THEN* DON'T DO THE MOVE.
Why isn't this kind of thing basic to AI movement? Don't ask me. I'm a programmer. I'm not a sophisticated AI programmer. I'm also not a complete idiot. If my code failed in such a horrible way I'd quit techonology and move to montana to sell farm equipment for cash only.
IMO, this is very lame. Shafer himself is a fan of this combat system and how could he let this get released and be happy with it? Apparently he needs to revisit Wesnoth and take his lead combat AI clown with him to see that, yes, it is possible for a computer to do hex-based combat and use terrain, use troops somewhat intelligently, and punish the player for making mistakes instead of marching units out like lemmings to the slaughter. Wesnoth is just an example.
Again, I'm not expecting expert chess type AI. But I do expect it to get the basics and I have seen games pull it off. Instead of having one lead combat AI clown, they should've had a team of 5, 10, 20, 100 - wtf-ever it takes to get the combat AI reasonably decent in the game. The combat changes are one of the biggest changes and most obvious changes in Civ 5.
The rules of hex based 1UPT tactical aren't rocket science. They're actually pretty damn simple. Use terrain, range support melee, form lines, etc. The big picture strategy and overall thinking is tougher, for sure, but if you isolate a 12 hex by 12 hex battle space with a handful of units vs a handful of units, and a clear idea of what else you have available and how quick you can get them there, the available moves and rules are pretty firm. As a player you're going to put promoted units on the correct terrain type, you're going to put a couple blockers in front of your siege so the enemy can't freely beat on your siege. You're going to soften up targets with that siege and finish them off with your melee ONLY if it doesn't expose your siege or put your melee unit in a comprimising position. Not that complicated, right? Basic decisions. AI and computers are awesome at basic decisions.
Oddly, the Civ 5 AI does better at big picture strategizing, which is far more intellectual, and fails miserably at the low level combat which features crystal clear rules. I'm a programmer - rules are awesome. You can code rules. It's simple If/Then statements. It's evaluating plain data. Arrrrrrrrgggg.... The AI seems good at figuring out when someone is ripe to be slaughtered, it's good at building units to build up a balanced army, and the noncombat AI (city building/spamming into oblivion REX til every possible habitable tile is covered as freaking usual idiocy) and empire management AI seem really good.
So...why doesn't the Civ 5 tactical AI even get the ultra basics right?
It's very distressing. I'm off to drink more.
I suppose it would be asking too much for an AI to occaionally go for a 3 city cultural win, intelligently defending it's terrain with a smallish army, instead of REXing itself into only being able to win via domination? Yeah, probably asking too much.
Diplo is a bit wonky to say the least, but that's another rant. Gotta love how AIs want pacts of secrecy in the first 20 turns of the game against other AIs they've just met but who have wronged them in so many ways...or how they call you a bloodthirsty warmonger and sever relations after slaughtering every living thing on their continent....wtf.
Diplo makes me laugh. The tactical AI makes me cry - or wanna break something.
