Is the combat AI as bad as my impression of it?

JtW

Prince
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
586
Location
Poland
Did the AI manage to take a city from any of you guys? Did it even get close? The AI attacked me multiple times but they are so woefully terrible that they couldn't even take a city from me with 10 units against 1. I am very disappointed and the game doesn't feel like a challenge at all. (King difficulty - same as my typical level in Civ 5.)

To add insult to injury, because of how useless the combat AI is, I don't bother building big armies, and half of the civs end up hating me "because I have a weak army." They declare war, and they somehow cannot beat that weak army.

I'm very disappointed so far.
 
But when I talk about how terrible the AI is people tell me everything is fine. Yeah, get used to it. Or wait for a mod another five years.
 
Maybe we get a competitive game AI too in 30 years.

Civ V Community Patch is competetive enough for me as of now.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we get a competitive game AI too in 30 years.

Why woudl you want such a thing?
For competitive there are other players and the internet, why even bother hoping AI is ever gonna be competitive?
 
America managed to take a city from me, yes, because I wasn't prepared for the city to fall so easily. I save scummed and was able to scrape by.

The AI is definitely struggling and needs a tune up similar to what the CBP did. I dont know how they achieved it. I did have Greece show up with a HUGE army and should have wiped me out, but I was able to trap them in a choke point.

Alex also never built any of his unique unit as far as I could see, just tons and tons and tons and tons of Horsemen.
 
Maybe we get a competitive game AI too in 30 years.
And just after that point, the AI will complain about the stupidity of the humans and will only play against itself.
 
In my first too games, I managed to lose my capital to a surprise-attacking civ. (Emperor difficulty)
In my third game, I successfully defended against Rome and captured multiple cities in my counter-attack. Despite still overwhelming forces (including catapults and chariots), the AI wasn't able to take their cities back. In fact, it retreated even before the cities fell.

Mixed bag, so far. The AI had good moments and also bad moments. Better than expected, though.
 
I thought the combat AI did a bad job in my first game. Japan must have had at least six warriors and a couple chariots, but the AI only attacked in dribs of one or two warriors that posed no threat at all.

I would also say that archer-class units are still too good. It kind of makes strategic resources pointless if you can get better results with archer spam. If I had to try to fight the AI without those (or with a majorly nerfed version of those), it'd be much, much harder.
 
Ai is to passive after classical era... It just sits there and doenst declare war.

warmonger penalties are way to high. Declaring war after denouncing them (formal war) is still high penalty and causes everyone to denounce you.
 
[QUOTE="CaiusDrewart, post: 14513673, member: 268010
I would also say that archer-class units are still too good.[/QUOTE]
It is my thought also. The AI is far worse at using archers than the human player, too. Maybe if they reduced their range so that most ranged units had range 1, that would help the AI?

@Darvon: what is your point? Is experience of people who don't play on Deity irrelevant? Is the fact that the AI doesn't know how to take a city despite overwhelming odds irrelevant? Think twice next time before adding a useless comment.
 
The AI is tactically horrible, its moves seem to be totally random, units lack coordination, move back and forth without purpose, unprotected settlers travel into your territory, simply same ol'.
 
Top Bottom