So how is the AI after new patch?

[Torodeboro]

Unfortunately, due to learning for an exam xd, I am currently not in the position to set up a proper game of CIV. I am though following these fora and am really curious what the experience of people is with the new AI.

Are they better? Are they smarter?

Gracias

 

[Soil]

I was invaded by Elizabeth today in a game and she did get a good surround on my city but still didn't manage to take it.

I did notice that she had placed her melee/cavalry up front while her ranged were close behind and were trying to form a circle around me with a lot less of the usual shuffling around for ages. This could be the 'unit formation' improvement the notes talked about. It seemed more coherent than what the AI usual does but its hard to gauge whether it was an actual improvement due to the patch or just luck. I think most people will have to play several more games before accurate judgement can be passed.

 

[EgyptRaider]

I just started a new game. France declared war on me and just kept on swirling his units around my city (The city was only guarded by an archer that was garrisoned in the city) and never attacked the city once. While he had at least three warriors and two archers.
I'm pretty dissapointed...

I just don't get why the AI doesn't go full out on a city once they're within its borders. Rather losing your entire army trying to take the city than losing your army by doing nothing and letting the city and archer pick on each unit one by one.

 

[jg4444]

Well I thought the AI was better until it made the same old same old same old mistake of AIs last combat unit can A. turn left down a fork in a road and take my worker or B. turn right down a fork in a road and kill the only military unit left that's about to take his last city. and every single time the AI will take the worker and then lose on the next turn instead of saving it's capital. worker capture priority in AI logic is always set way way to high. you can bait an AI into doing anything if you tease them with a worker capture

 

[Loucypher]

In attack, they're a lot better. In defense, they're still the same old, same old. That's my experience so far.

 

[Xaks]

Definitely more aggressive. Slightly more SMRT in attacking. Not so much in defending.

 

[Loucypher]

I'd argue against the "more aggressive" part. In my current game, I built two cities right on Persepolis' doorstep, and a third one cutting off the route between Persepolis and Pasargadae, and he still didn't attack or anything. However, civs that DO attack do so smarter. But there's not MORE war then there was before.

 

[King_Course]

In attack, they're a lot better. In defense, they're still the same old, same old. That's my experience so far.

I'd like to comment on this. Only played a few games but I think this has a gameplay effect. In these games at a certain point some Civs had got the upper hand science and military wise. And what I noticed was that Civs were suddenly getting wiped of the table left and right.

So a long game with the usual wars, and then it tips somewhere, where the stronger AI is doing okay with it's attacks, while the weaker AI has littler means to play a defensive game.

So at a certain point some aggresive Civs suddenly take their continent in a matter of few turns.

Well I saw this in a few games and don't know if it's an unexpected consequence of the improved AI.

Devs should look at multiplay, like on the defensive people plop down a citadel and fortify a melee unit and try to use ranged around it.

Small things like these could enhance the AIs ability to defend itself.

I also see AI airforce suicide themselves, and planes seem to go down much faster, often on the first turn. Like 9 great war bombers lost attacking a city with a piece of artillery and a soldier around it.

AI still don't do intercept and airsweep, so these things just don't exist. They should improve this too.

Still also air combat is better. Just had a game where Attila overtook 3 French offshore cities with 3 Carriers full of bombers. Unstoppable to Napoleon. He did have the cities at 0 hp without any units to take them, but he got them in 5 turns or so.

So better, but still with a few eyesores.

 

[Jman5]

I have only played one match on immortal, but the AI was much better at keeping pace with me technologically. Normally, I'm the first to hit Renaissance on Immortal, with one or two civs usually right with me. However, by Scientific Theory/Industrial Era, I start to really pull away from everyone.

This game, I had a long running war with Greece from late Renaissance into the early Modern era and they were able to almost keep pace with with my tech. China sold me an open border so I could get to Greece and in an act of sheer deviousness she backstabbed me at the worst possible moment. It shot my entire army out of China's borders and then got completely smashed by her initial attack. I swear, for a second there it felt almost human.

Anyway, things were touch and go for a while. I even built a fort for the first time D) , which let my melee soak an ungodly amount of damage. Eventually I managed to grab Flight and get air superiority. As someone else pointed out, the AI isn't too smart when it comes to air combat. After that, my tech had gotten decently ahead of the AI. I made peace and won a science victory handily. Albeit closer than normal.