So is the AI "not crap" now?

[hardcore_gamer]

The glowing Gamespot review (9.5) said the game has improved AI. How improved is the AI?

Is the AI actually dangerous towards your cities now?

 

[PhilBowles]

It can be, although BNW doesn't seem to offer many improvements over the patch. The AI can plan multiple attacks simultaneously; most will be somewhat weak, but it does mean you'll sometimes be hit in cities you can't reinforce in time, such as a recent game where I lost Denpassar (on a one-tile island being hit by ironclads) because I couldn't get ships over there.

The new tech path the AI follows favours units that are intrinsically better at taking cities, and it now usually brings enough melee troops to be a threat, rather than just shooting the ciiy and never actually moving in.

But bear in mind that BNW is not a war-focused expansion. "Better AI" does not only mean better combat AI. The AI can use the new tourism system fairly well to exert pressure that may lead to unhappiness among your populace, and it seems much better at producing Great People. It seems likely to be better-equipped to secure peaceful victories (something it was already quite capable of on higher difficulty settings. On Immortal I lose more often to AI science victories than to conquest).

Having said that, I won my first BNW game and in my second I was well ahead of my first rival when we met, as points would have it, and still am. I am however playing on Emperor, a level below my usual, to get a feel for the new game.

 

[Cyanfunk]

The AI is much angrier compared to G&K.

Other than that, the AI seems better at teching and knows how to use tourism well.

 

[MantaRevan]

The AI is much angrier compared to G&K.

Other than that, the AI seems better at teching and knows how to use tourism well.

Angrier? Really? This seems counteractive to the nature of the expansion. It seems like an odd programming decision.

 

[PhilBowles]

Angrier? Really? This seems counteractive to the nature of the expansion. It seems like an odd programming decision.

No, I haven't noticed it being angrier at all. In my duel game, Enrico played much as Gustavus did in G&K in similar situations, and would only attack with a military advantage. Very weird start in my second game, with a vast empty area before I encountered any civs, but the first I ran into (William) I now have a DoF with.

 

[oronen]

the only thing i noticed is that in my 2 games i did so far, each al made max of 4 cities.. maybe because i played on standard map and not huge/large which i usually do... also it happens alot more frequently now in bnw is when al is guarded toward u it is easy to make him friendly again..

 

[whyidie]

All comments are based on 1 incomplete King/Standard/Standard game.

Warfare. No noticeable tactical improvements so far. Unit levels seem down from prior King experience.

Expansion. Very slow to expand. I've reached modern age and I don't think an AI Civ has more than 5 cities. Its back to expansion levels prior to last years fall patch.

Use of new mechanics - I'm getting outpaced by one Civ in the tourism department, but thats about it. Granted, I rolled Germany, Carthage, Zulu, Japan, Poland, Brazil, and Inca. Inca and Brazil got beat back relatively quickly so that left the warmongers.

Diplomacy - Very friendly. 2 DOWs and I suspect more are on the way, but Civs are definitely quicker to forget. Not across the board, but can see changes in their attitude over time. Competition for city states has been intense. Haven't seen this much competition for CS favor at King.

3/4 of one game in, my overall experience is the game is easier. I've played a pretty poor game, usually if I played this poorly on King there would be at least one Civ runaway to deal with. That has not been the case so far.

I'll likely make the jump to Emperor after a couple of more rolls if only because I've more recent experience with AI performance at that level.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Are AI players that you have a Dof with still attacking City States under your protection ?

 

[EdgarSonneborg]

No, I haven't noticed it being angrier at all. In my duel game, Enrico played much as Gustavus did in G&K in similar situations, and would only attack with a military advantage. Very weird start in my second game, with a vast empty area before I encountered any civs, but the first I ran into (William) I now have a DoF with.

I haven't noticed the angrier part yet either, though I have heard it several times, but I think it is just the particular game I am in.

You might not have noticed it because Enrico has the lowest value in the game for war aggression I believe.

Even in the opening monologue when you choose Venice as the Civ to play - the last sentence that sort of challenges you ("Will you dominate your foes?", etc.) says for Venice roughly "Will you conquer through diplomacy or through culture". I can't remember exactly - but it gives you two options and both are peaceful. It seems then Venice is intended to be relatively peaceful, at least as an AI. I am interested to see someone try warmongering Venice and get a very large empire. I can't seem to maintain happiness even with 7 fairly good cities, although they are tall cities for the most part. I took two cities by war but I was not the initiator of the war.

 

[ptoss1]

The AI builds religion now. Nearly every single civ will have a religion.
There seems to be a lot more barbarians, but that might just be because of my cramped area.
Haven't noticed any real change in diplomacy AI beyond the new modifiers.
Still at targeting.
Still gives me ridiculous deals after losing one city and such and such.

 

[eldiablonoche]

The barbs are definitely still as stupid... had a Horseman march through my territory, 1 hex per turn over clear ground, not pillaging any resources it was sometimes already standing on, 5 turns in a row until it died.

edit: forgot to mention, as soon as Writer's Guild was built, default production wanted to prioritize the Specialists and starve my capital. Definitely needs some tweaking there.

 

[bpower]

Tactical AI is still very poor in places. I had a small fleet of 2 subs, 4battleships and 3 or 4 meele. I was harassing the ais coast and accidently intercepted an ai fleet that was protecting a bunch of embarked units. The ai fleet was in position to destroy my navy but ignored it and continued with its plan to escort the land army. I was able to pick the whole off in 2 turns. That was the turning point of a major war. It was really disappointing.

 

[salty mud]

The AI is what's putting me off buying this game. I just can't play when it's so awfully poor.

 

[Ulthwithian]

The barbs are definitely still as stupid... had a Horseman march through my territory, 1 hex per turn over clear ground, not pillaging any resources it was sometimes already standing on, 5 turns in a row until it died.

Tactical AI is still very poor in places. I had a small fleet of 2 subs, 4battleships and 3 or 4 meele. I was harassing the ais coast and accidently intercepted an ai fleet that was protecting a bunch of embarked units. The ai fleet was in position to destroy my navy but ignored it and continued with its plan to escort the land army. I was able to pick the whole off in 2 turns. That was the turning point of a major war. It was really disappointing.

This, combined with other comments, leads me to believe that the AI is better at executing plans, but still not good at adapting to changes in the plan.

I've heard of worse, honestly. Any number of RL expansions/wars have failed because of a lack in flexibility and adaptability. I'll also note that the more adaptable you make an AI, the less obvious it plans at all, and generally leads to accusations of a flailing AI that doesn't know how to do anything.

 

[Gehennas]

By the way, does the AI still make lots of anti-cav units? Is cavalry worth using now?

 

[Miravlix]

By the way, does the AI still make lots of anti-cav units? Is cavalry worth using now?

The AI is hit by the changed gold game, so armies seems different in my experience, much smaller for one thing, more focus on really strong units and not the spam units like pikemen.

Edit: The AI seems to favor it's special units, so don't expect to use horse units against germany, it loves it's Landsknecht. In my current game it seems Zulu's entire army is made up of Impi.

 

[IAmOzymandias]

it's a little bit better, but not markedly. In the Scramble for Africa, Italy actually gave me a run for my money by countering my land army with a huge navy, which if by luck or design made for a fun and unique battle between frigates, cannons and cities. (this involved one city that would regularly get captured back and forth until I took his cap city

They're still really rather bad at managing their units though, there were a couple instances where they could have taken one of my cities but opted to hang an ironclad back because it was low HP. (my city was at 10% or less hp, and this gave me enough time to get in some cannons). Beside that i've got 20 turns left and am at war with the better part of the world, and I still rarely see any real resistance besides them flooding into city states that i'm allied with. I stupidly concentrated on getting up some culture (when it's obviously a war scenario) so i'm behind in war as the techs are dead even, yet i'm still managing to take cities with scalpel like precision using good planning and a combination of mounted and cannons.

 

[Biz_]

still terrible

I think the only reason people find marginal improvements is that they took a lot of depth out of the game so playing randomly and not making intelligent decisions is closer to optimal

 

[ImperialChaos]

From what I see they're more diplomatic now. A lot less wars in my game (so far). Barbs, however, are ridiculous. Like, seriously. I ran into SEVEN barb ships in one area surrounding my Caravel.

 

[omnishakira]

worse than it was in G&K