The AI is still horrible.
- Thread starter omnishakira
- Start date
Yeah, it is much better. Naval invasions are pretty cool. I am glad the AI, at least makes an effort to get to you. It puts up a fight on land, and uses all it's aircraft and units to attack. I had a crazy back and forth war with it last night. Really happy with the improvement. Still they can make it better. Sometimes it leaves GGs alone and does some other stupid things, but all in all, a big step in the right direction.
Andulias
A Stranger on a Train
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 508
It's not. Civ 5 is a much more complex game than StarCraft , I don't really feel I need to explain why.
I am now finding the game easier in G&K than I did in vanilla and I think this is because some of the AIs choose not to build enough cities. What Thad said about the AI folding if you nab it's build site was enlightening and I definitely noticed this with Washington - he told me I had built where he wanted to and then he just sat on 2 cities until I put him out his misery. He could have chosen other sites instead as there was room to expand elsewhere. I also noticed a barb camp had snatched his worker/settler and he hadnt tried to take it back even tho the camp was next to his city border.
So with regard to useful feedback to devs:
1) AI Civs should try to set up at least 3 cities before they enter medieval times - it's extremely risky to have less than this
2) AI should escort workers and settlers with units during the early game - I always have spare warriors guarding my workers if they are on the edge of my borders during the early game
Another thing I notice is that some AIs will dedicate all their efforts to building wonders during the early stages before they have enough units, cities, buildings, and infrastructure - these things should take a higher priority I think. Personally I only build 1 or 2 wonders in the first 2 eras as I prioritorise getting cities set up and defended.
So to devs:
3) Once an AI has built 1 or 2 wonders they should probably focus on something else - extra units and upgrading existing ones is always important, even if you don't plan on attacking
If the AI plans to attack a city by land it needs at least 4 frontline units (preferably with medic, cover and siege) plus 2 siege units (pref with siege promo) plus at least 2 additional ranged units and ideally a great general too. It also needs to have taken the honor policy that gives extra combat strength for adjacent units. The frontline units act as a screen for the siege and ranged units and they need promos like medic and cover as they will take alot of hits. The ranged units drop the city into the red zone ASAP. If the AI doesnt have a strike force like this then they probably shouldn't attack cities until they do. The AI should move in 2 waves (frontline then ranged) and be aware of how terrain affects movement and LOS - if terrain funnels into a chokepoint of mountains and/or sea then it's often better to ignore the city and just create a kill zone using the chokepoint.
Naval forces should be a mix of melee and ranged but there should be more weight placed on ranged as they can assist land battles more.
Defence forces should include alot of ranged units plus some strong defenders with terrain bonuses - workers should build fortresses to defend key approaches to cities - I never see the AI build fortresses but they can make a big difference along contested borders
Sorry if this post is a bit long however I feel it's more useful to provide constructive feedback and suggestions rather than bashing the AI as 'horrible'
So with regard to useful feedback to devs:
1) AI Civs should try to set up at least 3 cities before they enter medieval times - it's extremely risky to have less than this
2) AI should escort workers and settlers with units during the early game - I always have spare warriors guarding my workers if they are on the edge of my borders during the early game
Another thing I notice is that some AIs will dedicate all their efforts to building wonders during the early stages before they have enough units, cities, buildings, and infrastructure - these things should take a higher priority I think. Personally I only build 1 or 2 wonders in the first 2 eras as I prioritorise getting cities set up and defended.
So to devs:
3) Once an AI has built 1 or 2 wonders they should probably focus on something else - extra units and upgrading existing ones is always important, even if you don't plan on attacking
If the AI plans to attack a city by land it needs at least 4 frontline units (preferably with medic, cover and siege) plus 2 siege units (pref with siege promo) plus at least 2 additional ranged units and ideally a great general too. It also needs to have taken the honor policy that gives extra combat strength for adjacent units. The frontline units act as a screen for the siege and ranged units and they need promos like medic and cover as they will take alot of hits. The ranged units drop the city into the red zone ASAP. If the AI doesnt have a strike force like this then they probably shouldn't attack cities until they do. The AI should move in 2 waves (frontline then ranged) and be aware of how terrain affects movement and LOS - if terrain funnels into a chokepoint of mountains and/or sea then it's often better to ignore the city and just create a kill zone using the chokepoint.
Naval forces should be a mix of melee and ranged but there should be more weight placed on ranged as they can assist land battles more.
Defence forces should include alot of ranged units plus some strong defenders with terrain bonuses - workers should build fortresses to defend key approaches to cities - I never see the AI build fortresses but they can make a big difference along contested borders
Sorry if this post is a bit long however I feel it's more useful to provide constructive feedback and suggestions rather than bashing the AI as 'horrible'
I'm not missing the point.
Yeah, yeah, we all wish the AI could be more scary. MY point is that its very easy to simply continue the existing difficulty level past what is provided by default using the exact same handicap modifiers to achieve at least some semblance of a challenge if you need it.
I never insinuated that this had anything to do with making the AI smarter, but just making the game harder.
Then again, why do this and give up your chance to complain about how easy deity is....
Vladesch
Warlord
I've been playing G&K on emperor/normal speed/huge and I'm finding it a lot easier to beat than in vanilla. In the past I've always felt limited by global happiness, but now I always pick the extra happiness options in religion and now I can grow pretty much without limit.
StukaScream
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2004
- Messages
- 16
Seems the games turns out very differently then. I played time with exactly the same settings as you, on random generated map and its 1885 AD.
There are loads of free room for civ's on all continents, which they never settle on. The AI seems unwilling to settle anywhere and wage war in very odd ways, alwasy losing to me if they fight me. I feel I could destroy every one of them using siege weapons, because of immensly powerful artillery unit, that when used correctly is not being hit but dishes out tons of damage. This game is so ezmode, i need to play in Deity level or city challenge to get my ass kicked. lol ok, im a masochist
Maybe some random thing or something i havent found out might give u different game result? I mean like the city spead u see?
Maybe adding in extra civs on top of the recommended number for a map might help. The AI's seem a little slower to expand since the xpac and it makes it easier to grab lots of prime land before the AI. If there are more AI's it will be harder to do this - as Vladesch mentioned, happiness is easier to come by, which makes rapid expansion more viable (social policies now also generate more happiness too).
In Vanilla, King was a decent challenge for me but after 2 massive wins in G&K I think I will up my next game to emperor. My view is that even civs going for a tall game need to get 3 cities set up quickly but they seem to focus too much on wonders - they're not even building adequate defences and this has to be a top priority.
With regard to the time settings perhaps the extended eras mod with it's 'historic' time setting would suit the OP better? Techs are more expensive but units and buildings arent, the intention being that each era is more fleshed out with battles and maybe the wonder builders will get round to decent defence forces this way too. I've been wanting to play this mod but unfortunately I can't get any mods to work via steam workshop
In Vanilla, King was a decent challenge for me but after 2 massive wins in G&K I think I will up my next game to emperor. My view is that even civs going for a tall game need to get 3 cities set up quickly but they seem to focus too much on wonders - they're not even building adequate defences and this has to be a top priority.
With regard to the time settings perhaps the extended eras mod with it's 'historic' time setting would suit the OP better? Techs are more expensive but units and buildings arent, the intention being that each era is more fleshed out with battles and maybe the wonder builders will get round to decent defence forces this way too. I've been wanting to play this mod but unfortunately I can't get any mods to work via steam workshop
Atwork
Immortal
My current game is on a large map; 22 civs. All the good land on the continent was filled well before the ADs.
I do think that CS culture expansion rate should by increased by at least 1/3. It would help buff CSs and create a bit more urgency re: expansion.
I do think that CS culture expansion rate should by increased by at least 1/3. It would help buff CSs and create a bit more urgency re: expansion.
It's occurred to me that maybe this game feels easier because I've been playing with no AI mods - maybe I got so used to playing with these mods before G&K that I took them for granted and now I'm back to the original AI plus G&K maybe that's why I'm noticing a big difference
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
This, and i hate it. Hope some mods come out soon. the ones already out just don't "do it" for me.
Surely its a testimony to the bravery of their Great Generals that they would go scout the battlefield without escorts?
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
Ive been getting into a lot of wars because of seeing a missionary or great prophet... unescorted, and my main peeve remains that when they have 5 pikes who could upgrade and the gold to do it, they either surrender, offering me the gold or rush in their pikes... to my helicopters.
I think the "elimination" of early units is intended to war, and they will replace casualties with modern troops - but if they don't get a few era wars, they sit around with 2/3 primitive units...
I think the "elimination" of early units is intended to war, and they will replace casualties with modern troops - but if they don't get a few era wars, they sit around with 2/3 primitive units...
It's not. Civ 5 is a much more complex game than StarCraft , I don't really feel I need to explain why.
Well it escapes me.
Both games have a "low torque, high torque" resource acquisition aspect. In civ you can spend whatever amount of time building cities/workers, in sc you spend whatever time building harvesters/gas collection/expanding.
Both games require resource spent to acquire better "units". In civ you "forego" extra unit production to build science buildings to get to better stuff sooner. In sc you "tech", increasing the abilities of your army.
Both games require "strengthening units out of the gate". In civ you build barracks, etc, or wonders (which can tie into the above 2). In sc you spend resource and time with shield/burrow/attack/defense upgrade or resource for unit abilities.
In both games you can "rush", spending less time "resource acquiring" and more time pushing out "units". In both games you can simply "zerg" (sc reference to cranking mass small weak things to win by shear attrition). In both games you can "build first" hoping you don't get "rushed" to mount a strong, sizable, technologically advanced army.
The difference to me is only fluidity, in the amount of time one has to make decisions, over which the AI in sc most certainly has advantage over all but the very best of players. Are you saying civ is more complex because of the number of factors? It's really not. "More math" is still just "math".
So there's a dimension of diplomacy, but really the AI never "like you", you and AI are just placating each other awhile, when in the end, only one's going to win. There's now a dimension of religion and espionage, which in the end is "just more math".
I don't see any significant differences from a problem-solving perspective. Only factors in varying "order" or "degree".
Andulias
A Stranger on a Train
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 508
I don't feel like writing a really long response, so just take my word on this, you are waaaay off, and I mean really way off. The comparison is out of place and completely inaccurate.
Maybe sometime you can explain, then, instead of saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, nyah".
I will tell you truly, both games ultimately come down to one thing : math.
Moderator Action:
we preferred if you could behave civil and not like kindergarden kids.-> if you want to write something, then please, let it have content and do it in a civil way.
fuzzatron717
Holy Warrior
Remember the ai only improves the tiles its working if have a lot of water and poor land they are probably working the water tiles or if they have low population that could be it or as you said they might not use workers or produce workers or there workers were taken in a earlier war. There are many different reasons the ai could not be improving their tiles.
Andulias
A Stranger on a Train
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 508
The AI and why it's so hard to code a really good AI for a Civ game has been discussed to death for years, including by people who do that for a living. If you want to know more, the CivFanatics archive is your best friend. Ultimately it all comes down to the gigantic complexity of a game like Civ, a complexity that was further raised in V thanks to 1UPT, terrain having an even bigger impact on combat, battle formations and a combat system where after a fight neither the attacker, nor the defender usually die (which makes it even harder for the AI to understand). Then comes navigating a long tech tree, managing numerous cities, tile improvements, infrastrucuture, dealing with other AI civs and so on.
Bottom line is, if you are incapable of seeing how much more complex a game like CiV is compared to StarCraft II, then there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind. And if you do, then why are you even asking? And yeah, it all comes down to math. Whether I can buy a Pretzel for 1 Euro with a 10 Euro bill also comes down to math. I fail to see your point.
Similar threads
