apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Yes AI would be a lot better if he actualy makes warplans and not just dows just because his military is higher.
Gods & Kings fears?
- Thread starter Buccaneer
- Start date
Yes AI would be a lot better if he actualy makes warplans and not just dows just because his military is higher.
yarpirate0920
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 7
Hell it would be great if the AI just used rudimentary logic in diplomacy and battle tactics.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
This is a summary of the Polish article.
1-3 - The first three paragraphs deal with him criticizing the current AI and comparing it how aggresive it was pre-release (of vanilla) with Ai being able to conquer 3-4 civs.
4 - He confirms presence of a new intro (no big surprise), and 'likes' the new music and new modified "style" of main-menu. He also talks about more "options" (he only mentions the presence of Combat Animations in MP) and also mentiones new map scripts. He also says there aren't any major UI changes once in actual game.
5-8 - He talks about the religion, nothing new there.
9 - Espionage, nothing new
10 - He mentions that Research Agreement require Embassies. He mentiones that Open Borders will only exist starting from "early Medieval". He also I believe mentiones that Trading Post require "Guilds" (He said something that transaltes to Trading Points, so I'm assuming he means Posts).
11 - This paragraph talks about the "cons" of the expansion pack, he mentiones that there were some bugs/glitches (but he also remember tom ention that it was, infact a "preview" build/beta.), he does say that the AI still forgets to defend his Settlers, he says the AI didn't change at all, but the AI deals well with Religion and economy.
1-3 - The first three paragraphs deal with him criticizing the current AI and comparing it how aggresive it was pre-release (of vanilla) with Ai being able to conquer 3-4 civs.
4 - He confirms presence of a new intro (no big surprise), and 'likes' the new music and new modified "style" of main-menu. He also talks about more "options" (he only mentions the presence of Combat Animations in MP) and also mentiones new map scripts. He also says there aren't any major UI changes once in actual game.
5-8 - He talks about the religion, nothing new there.
9 - Espionage, nothing new
10 - He mentions that Research Agreement require Embassies. He mentiones that Open Borders will only exist starting from "early Medieval". He also I believe mentiones that Trading Post require "Guilds" (He said something that transaltes to Trading Points, so I'm assuming he means Posts).
11 - This paragraph talks about the "cons" of the expansion pack, he mentiones that there were some bugs/glitches (but he also remember tom ention that it was, infact a "preview" build/beta.), he does say that the AI still forgets to defend his Settlers, he says the AI didn't change at all, but the AI deals well with Religion and economy.
Not really the AI often screws himself by declaring war early on a person with on 3 persons the same time and investing all his production on warrior units
As result this AI gets wiped out... Sorry but those early rushes don't really help i've never seen a AI succeeded in it...
If the AI plans his atacks better and not just dows someone because he has a higher military he can do a lot more damage or if he lose a war he would still be in a good shape...It should pick 1 war target and allways make sure he fights 1 war if possible... Will make a better AI...
THe AI olso fights war with people who aren't that close at all and it usaly takes more then 10 turns when the AI units arive at the enemy... Pretty stupid if you ask me it seems more effective if the AI just search close targets...
I often see a warmonger atacking me with some spearman early on and then get dogpiled by 3 AI's and get wiped out.
Imagine napoleon only dowing you because you are the closest and not other AI's because(he has higher military) it would be a tougher war...
As usual, trying to figure out your writings but if I interpret, are you telling me you have never seen an AI conquer a continent or multiple civs (early, mid and late)? Or you have never seen four dominant AI opponents in a game (out of 8) and one of them wins space (as in my last Immortal game)? Have you never seen any civs being taken early by another civ?? In that last game (OCC pangaea), one civ kept dow-ing me, two were eliminated (Greece and ??), most of the city-states were captured and four were playing peacefully to some extent while keeping each other honest.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
I am happy to hear they (enemy civs) focus more on the domestic side of things.ESP since CIV4 did that pretty well....but I can't get rid of the feeling that only part of the AI is improved.He does not mention the naval battles/naval AI.He doesn't mention anything about if the AI is more defensive or offensive during WARs...ie will they actaully take cities/land by naval means?...
Does religion form blocks?
If so is it harder to work with them and get Open Borders?
bit worried that this will be like BTS,but without all the war elements and AI improvements made towrds combat...
more paid for BETA testing...shoot atleast BETA testers get paid...
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
no... QA people get paid. Beta testers just get to 'play' the game early. It's been that way for game companies for a very very long time and is unlikely to ever get changed since there's always a long list of people willing to beta test for free.
(random note: if you happen to know a company that actually pays beta testers, let us know!)
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
(random note: if you happen to know a company that actually pays beta testers, let us know!)
Well I had a friend back in High School that was paid to play Cell phone games all day...you know look for bugs and to play it for long hours to see how much energy/juice it used on the phone...keep in mind this was when Cell phones were brand new....
He said his worst day at work was playing a game about Pro golf...he said it was like mini golf,but worse...
Raiki
Warlord
My biggest fear? That between work, a social life, and a somewhat-needy girlfriend...I won't have any time to play! 
Azazell
Prince
exactly
. AI is good for development of religion, but again sends settlers without the support etc.. . I hope so will improve AI in the final version ;|
The Pilgrim
Deity
Nothing new really. QA is a rather depressing job.
Collaboration with end users in development keeps proving itself in various software projects. Gladly, Civ's fan base is big, knowledgeable and proactive. Perfect candidate. Firaxis know that and uses that. It's also one of the reasons the end product is so great. And it is great and will be even greater. We all love to rant about this and that but yet overall most of us are hopeless addicts. 
Then you play below you skill level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVUTXA66Wpk
Video games companies are smarter nowadays. They make beta testers pay them instead.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
My biggest fear? That between work, a social life, and a somewhat-needy girlfriend...I won't have any time to play!
Get your girlfriend to play Civ! Sorted
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Ok I will write it better this time these are my points about the AI to agressive and it makes the game easier :
1 the AI usaly atacks other players early on with warriors.I've never seen the AI who atacks early actualy succeed(maybe 1 out of 10 games)
It usaly makes them backwards and as a result he gets declared war by other AI's because he lost all his units..
2 A other problem with the AI is it starts multiple wars instead of planning a war and pick 1 a time. Usaly when a AI has a higher military he declares war even if the other player is way far away and it takes more then 10 turns to get to him.
It costs the AI resources (units ,production) if he fights a war wich isn't really necessairy..
If the AI actualy planned who he is going to atack(1 target at a time) He could actualy do some damage and take cities and become stronger and give the human player a more difficult game..
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
1. The fact that the AI doesn't fully conquer other civs is a good thing, primarily because if you he did, then eventually even you wouldn't be able to win against him because he would become way too powerful, it also balances out, so when you start with 12 playesr, you end the game with 10-12 players.
2. the AI never declares more than one war, he gets attacked several times, however, plenty of time I've seen the AI make peace when attacked by somebody other, changing their focus.
3. There isn't anything wrong with defending you and spending your production during war-time, the fault here however is I've seen plenty of time "Endless Wars", where the AI keeps on fighting for eons without making peace.
2. the AI never declares more than one war, he gets attacked several times, however, plenty of time I've seen the AI make peace when attacked by somebody other, changing their focus.
3. There isn't anything wrong with defending you and spending your production during war-time, the fault here however is I've seen plenty of time "Endless Wars", where the AI keeps on fighting for eons without making peace.
Raiki
Warlord
Get your girlfriend to play Civ! Sorted
What?! Then she'd want to play! On my computer! How would I play then? I'm sorry sir, this is terrible advice.
~R~
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Interestingly, the worst rush I had to defend against was also Polynesia. I didn't end up quitting, but I did go back in time about 10 turns because I didn't take it seriously at first. But they attacked with force and those Maori Warriors really can screw you up. Even after going back in time, I lost a city for about 10 turns and the war really set me back for awhile.
It's weird because I've never had problems with Monty or anyone else doing the same.
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
I was just pointing that I feel it's unfair to blame the testers. Sure, the feedback from the dedicated player base is the best way to gauge what issues need to be adressed, but that isn't because the testers aren't doing their job properly.
And a polite, yet off-topic, answer to apocalypse:
Spoiler :
The Pilgrim
Deity
Monty is one lousy rusher. He is indeed a guy who sabotages himself with unsuccessful attempts over and over again.
I didn't mean to blame the testers. Not at all. I'm in software field for long enough to know that it's rarely the little guy's fault. We can blame the company for releasing a beta level products, but again, what's the point? I'd rather get it earlier, give my own feedback knowing I'll be heard (that's something we cannot take away from Firaxis, unlike many other brands that don't give a damn about fans' opinions, they do listen) and wait for patches, rather than wait longer for the game itself and eventually pay for a product which quality isn't much higher than it could have been, had they released it earlier with less native testing.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,410
What?! Then she'd want to play! On my computer! How would I play then? I'm sorry sir, this is terrible advice.
~R~
Well they don't call it "hotseat" for nothing!
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
What?! Then she'd want to play! On my computer! How would I play then? I'm sorry sir, this is terrible advice.
~R~
Well they don't call it "hotseat" for nothing!
Hahaha. Yes hotseat was what I had in mind
Also, surely she has her own computer? My boyfriend and I often play our own games of CiV sat at the same desk on different computers. I had to get him to play CiV; all that WoW was driving me nuts.
(also: to quote an appalling character from a UK TV show, I'm a lady!)
Similar threads
- Locked
