So, it's just the AI, then ?

Xa4

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
29
So, i've read the forum extensively in the past few days, to see what I should expect tomorrow when I finally get the game.

It seems many features are debated, but each change seems to have as many proponents as oponents. It therefore seems to me that none of them are bad in itself, but that it's basically a matter of taste.

The one exception seems to be the AI, which seems dumb dumb dumb. I wonder if it is really worse than previous civ games. i recall the AI has never been very bright.

So, do you think it's safe to conclude that the only real problem in civ v is the AI, and that even that is not really a new one ?
 
Its the worst AI that I have seen from a civ game. The AI has horrible since of building locations. They are awful at waging war. The civ with the larger army always takes over all the other civ because of this ineffectiveness. They are not very good managing their economy all to often I see them lossing gold per turn with a ton of unhappyness, although as some have pointed out unhappyness isn't really a bad thing. Lastly the automated worker AI is as bad as it was in IV.
 
You should probably play the demo for a few games before making the final buying decision as
it plays a tad different to it's predecessors :)
 
You should probably play the demo for a few games before making the decision to buy or not to buy
the game :)

I think I'll like it because :
- reading about the changes, and people's opinions of them, i'm pretty convinced I'll like most of them.
- I'm not a very good civ player, so even a dumb AI will probably challenge me. Of course, really stupid behaviour may somewhat break the immersion, but I can live with that...
 
You should probably play the demo for a few games before making the final buying decision as
it plays a tad different to it's predecessors :)

Yeah that I could not agree with more. I bought it because it was Civ, it has ot be good right? Played to about 1800 AD last night my first game and there are a lot of things I don't like. If I had played a demo would probably not have bought the game.

Not had many bugs, but I have a brand new system.
 
I play without the citystates and use random personalities. For some reason AI seems so much better then.
 
Agreed; it's easy to patch or mod play balancing things, but the AI is the big unfinished business. I think part of the problem is that fighting wars is so different under Civ V, so that needs a complete overhaul in the way AI handles units. Single units are now more valuable, should be upgraded more frequently, etc.

I am tossing around the idea of working some on an AI improvement modification...I find AI the most interesting part of game development (also the most difficult...). I am still getting used to the mod tools, though, and trying to figure out what we have access to in order to actually improve the AI...of course, I should start such a discussion on the Mods thread. That's how the AI for Civ IV actually became decent -- someone created a great Mod where the AI actually tried to win a bunch of ways; only then did the AI improve greatly.

You can start out by answering my poll on what ways the AI has beaten you in the General Discussions forum; I first need to know how big the problem is...what victories do the AI actually reach?
 
"AI now works on four levels, Tactical (unit battles), Operational (The entire War Front), Strategic (Manages the entire empire) and the Grand Strategic (how to win the game). Once the Grand Strategic AI determines how they want to win the game, each of the other AI levels work in tandem to reach that end goal. This also allows for the most flexibility when dealing with the changing game."

This sounded really impressive when I first read it a couple months ago. But now after playing quite a few games I'm wondering if they really implemented this system at all.
 
This sounded really impressive when I first read it a couple months ago. But now after playing quite a few games I'm wondering if they really implemented this system at all.

It is implemented, there are a bunch of XML files, one per level, that contain things to do with associated weights and priorities.

Some things about it are strange, though. For example, capturing a city is a very high priority but damaging a city is a low priority, which would explain why the AI likes parading its units around in front of a city without attacking it, especially if you give it other things to do like capturing your workers (that you can then effortlessly get back).
 
I think there is also a lack of depth in the building blocks of the game, the unit lines, the buildings, the technologies. In CIV4 you had riflemen, cavalry, cannons, and grenadiers. In CIV5 you don't have grenadiers and this means you build lots of riflemen with no downside and no interesting decisions. In CIV4 you had markets and grocers that provided money but also gave a happiness bonus. In CIV5 you have markets that give money and nothing else so there are fewer decisions on building them. The game is full of simplifications such as these which streamline the game very well and would be good if there were other interesting decisions elsewhere. I'm still looking for those other interesting decisions.
 
The game lacks some important things. Some other don't work well. And still it is a blast. I would buy it if you like civ, without needing to check the demo.
 
For me, apart from bugfixes, the only thing really lacking is the AI.

Obviously, more content and expansions are needed to really open up the game, but as it is, AI is the only really problem for me.

That is my opinion. Others my feel the AI is fine.
 
If the AI could be at least passable (like finishing wounded units or building/making use of mounted ones) then I'll be a happy bunny and smash game after game, patiently waiting for fixes.

But the way it act right now makes my really :mad:,because I can't derive any fun from playing with a monkey. I can play chess with children - trying to win with them without half of my pieces can be very interesting and challenging. But you can't play chess with a monkey, and same way you can't have fun from Civ5 :sad:
 
Yeah AI is the only thing that's really messed up. Still, randomising personalities does help a bit, as does a mod currently being developed. Those keep me going until Firaxis fix it :)
 
It's ironic that the AI is bad, AND (as far as many are concerned) the multi-player is nearly completely broken (or at least missing waay too many features related to setting up and restoring games, plus problems with animations). In my one multiplayer game so far, I can't say that it was a problem, though getting connected was an issue..).

Who exactly are we supposed to play against? Who did their testers play against? :p
 
From my experience, the AI is only a problem on the tactical level, and a few instances in diplomacy--like, I haven't yet successfully brokered peace without them offering the deal first. And the AI is terrible at utilizing units properly. But in terms of playing out of the game in the big picture... last night, the entire world declared war on me because, according to the messages I received, I had the biggest army. So although I had the 4th highest score, I had potential to catch up to the big players. I'll call that smart.
 
Yeah, the AI is tactically inept and diplomatically inept. I also personally don't find the game to be nearly as fun as Civilization IV. I can't place my finger on it, but I just don't. That is, of course, a matter of opinion, so that'll be up to you to decide.
 
From my experience, the AI is only a problem on the tactical level, and a few instances in diplomacy--like, I haven't yet successfully brokered peace without them offering the deal first. And the AI is terrible at utilizing units properly. But in terms of playing out of the game in the big picture... last night, the entire world declared war on me because, according to the messages I received, I had the biggest army. So although I had the 4th highest score, I had potential to catch up to the big players. I'll call that smart.

The issue with attempting to broker peace is that there is a minimum time after war that they will refuse to accept peace at all. It doesn't seem to notify you in game when that is...but once you're able to broker peace the AI will do deals when you start the negotiations.

Agreed that the only real issue is the tactical unit AI, that's where most of the problems seem to stem from. Even so, the AI will do smart things at times (I've seen them use an instant heal for a near dead unit that then led to them almost taking a city of mine if I hadn't rush bought another unit the next turn) just not consistently.
 
Top Bottom