I'm pretty certain it's not possible for an AI to consistently beat a human player at Civ on an even playing field.
It requires a super-computer to consistently beat the world's best chess players because of the possibility space and the number of moves required to think ahead.
Chess has a much, MUCH smaller possibility space than Civ5 BNW. The AI has many more variables to consider.
Now, that being said, I think there are improvements that could be made to military strategy and long-term planning. But it's certainly a very complex problem at best. And every time they tweak a value or patch/change something, it could make the AI "dumb" again.
It is, however, my biggest complaint. I want to play on King against skilled opponents, but multiplayer is such a hassle... so I play on Immortal.
Diety is so *not* like playing against a human that it's just not worth it to me anymore. I learned to beat it, but I felt cheap. I knew I was getting away with things no intelligent player would ever allow. So you just become really good at "gaming" Diety.
Like, assuming you won't get Wonders is stupid. It should be that you look at your start position, gauge your production, and use a best guess as to whether anyone else could produce it faster. Then, you gamble as to whether someone *will* produce it. On Diety, the Great Library might as well not exist. And without a hugely advantaged start position, many of the rest of the Ancient/Classical Wonders might as well not exist either.
But you play one multi-player match against a skilled opponent and you quickly realize your strategies are totally inappropriate for King vs King.
For one thing, happiness is totally different in multiplayer. Scouting is totally different in multiplayer. Etc. Etc. I'm not saying I prefer multiplayer. I'm saying I wish the computer would act more like a smart human, yet keep their AI's tendencies based on Civ/Leader. Ah well.
