Personally I've only barely noticed the AI's combat ability. Usually Ai victory has more to do with swarm tactics then anything else. That said I won't deny the AI is more skilled at positioning, but usually offense just turns into stockpiling units until it can overrun me via numbers.
Did you even play vanilla civ? The tactical AI is miles better than it was. Not as good as a decent human player, but certainly competent enough to beat someone in a bad position, which can't be said of many strategy games.
I'm not doubting its far and away better. Hell the AI knows how to cross the ocean and not die upon landing that's a HUGE improvement. Also the ability to actually keep ranged units beyond standard melee range is something difficult to teach to and AI I have no doubt.
That strategy works pretty well for me
Frankly I think it's got more to do with how Civ was designed more around city management then direct warfare. I feel armed conflict is designed as an afterthought, not sure even modding can keep it interesting.That strategy works pretty well for me
I'd actually prefer a little more consistency over the constant movement and backstabbing they try for. In my opinion, the AI got too many advanced strategies added, without enough refinement. Though I suppose the best way to refine things is to push them out for testing.
Really now? Sounds like you just don't like the design. Everything ties into war. Gold, science, culture, faith, tourism, diplomacy. All of it can be controlled through warfare. VP is constantly improving these aspects, and the AI is still getting better at handling it.
Perhaps. Personally like I said I prefer smaller focused conflicts then the current approach of swarm tactics the game seems shifted too. When war becomes impossible unless you have nukes to cull the herd or are willing to micromanage 50-100+ units I find this aspect of the game to be boring. Maybe I'm a peace-monger at heart, or maybe I just don't want to deal with the headache war brings to the game in later eras.
Oh yeah the micromanagement of units is an endless pain as the game goes on. Just a way to order half of my military to move in the general direction of the next enemy would be absolutely amazing.
Exactly, but when the battle devolves into "just go in this direction and kill stuff" you're not being tactical anymore. I prefer my war-strategy games to be in the vein of X-com and Fire Emblem.
Nope. I still find it tactical and fun. The only times strategy disappears is when you have a huge tech advantage that can come from previous wars. If I reach that point, then the upcoming defense against a big chunk of the world is fun in its own right. City management, growth, and diplomacy often leads to warfare to achieve max efficiency. Not to mention terrain being a big decider on war even being a decent option, which would never be a problem if the current unit design was different.
All this time and I've yet to finish a game. Either I get an obvious win or a new version comes out every time. The obvious wins are usually at the industrial/modern era. At a guess, I'd say an actual finish would be around atomic/information. Up the number of civs if you're winning too early.
I play epic pretty much exclusively. My fastest domination wins on a standard size map are Renaissance, but domination varies wildly based on a ton of factors so... As for peaceful games I never see games last into information era.
So you have never launched the spaceship?
On VP I've never launched the ship, even when trying for a science victory. I ended up having the wonderful waifu china, my vassal, vote me leader of the world. Another two or three times I won culture on accident when trying to win via tech.
