The AI is still horrible.

[Atwork]

The AI is greatly improved over vanilla & enormously better than it was on release. But, obviously it still has room for much improvement. And, I am confident that the devs will continue to tweek the AI for the foreseeable future.

As it stands, there are instances when the AI makes very "smart" moves and instances when it makes very "stupid" moves.

For example, I was attacked by Japan in the game I'm playing now. It's first thrust into my territory indicated that they would attack the center of my northern border at a weak and isolated city. I countered by moving my reserves toward that city.

Then, on the next turn, Japan's force made a sudden move to the west and simultaneously brought a large western force out of the fog, threatening my northwestern city and threatening to prevent my reserves from reaching the northwestern city. It was a "smart" move and created a real challenge. Ultimately, Japan lost horribly, but it was a fun war.

But, in another war that I started, I made a move to take Ethiopia's capital, the holy christian city. In this war, the AI made numerous tactical mistakes, which were compounded by bad strategy. First off, they had failed to build any ships other than triremes, which means they could not bring ranged navy to bear in defense of the coastal city. Also, they did not move their reserves into position for a counter-offensive. Instead, many units retreated to safe positions and simply hunkered down--content to sacrafice the capital in defense of their remaining 2 cities in the tundra.

I mean, this was one of the best cities in the world at the time--the heart and soul of their civilization--their holy capital. And yet, their defense of it was anything but determined. From my first move, it was as though the AI had already determined the city lost. In reality, I had real tacitcal difficulties moving on the city and probably would have had suffered heavy casualties if the AI had moved aggressively.

So, my conclusion: the AI is much improved, but still has a ways to go. I'm just glad that that we can have confidence that the work will go on.

 

[Andulias]

I agree with the post and its conclusion, but did you really need to call the AI "horrible" and then say it's improved over vanilla? Why not say AI still lacking? IMO CiV vanilla AI was horrible, the one in G+K is just, erm, behind the curve, shall we say.

 

[TPQ]

Yeah, Civ5 doesn't quite have the Hal9000 programming, that's for sure, but then most people don't own a supercomputer, so that's a good thing.

If you want a little more challenge, try dropping the speed to standard from marathon, otherwise try a mod that gives you a difficulty level beyond deity. Sure, a deity+ mod won't (necessarily) make the AI more intelligent, but it'll make the game harder & the AI will still open the pod bay doors.

 

[Light Cleric]

I agree with the post and its conclusion, but did you really need to call the AI "horrible" and then say it's improved over vanilla? Why not say AI still lacking? IMO CiV vanilla AI was horrible, the one in G+K is just, erm, behind the curve, shall we say.

I will definitely agree that the combat AI seems to have been significantly improved(I noticed this after the pre-G&K patch) in that it focuses attacks better, much better composition in its army, are actually capable of bringing a sizeable army across a large area to attack you etc.

My complaint is that the diplomatic front seems just as erratic as ever, if not worse. Many leaders are giant jerks and Hostile from the turn you meet them and never change,and I mean some like Askia, who is normally a great guy to me, not just Elizabeth I(-have-a-stick-up-my-butt). The AI also seems to go "Guarded" a LOT for no apparent reason. It's like, "Okay, you have 3 positive modifiers, no negatives ones, but you're guarded and won't give me crap for luxuries). It's like they removed the random "they suspect we might be a threat to them" text but left the actual modifier hidden.

I've also seen comments about the AI still significantly lacking in naval/island combat, but I had not experienced it first hand so I can't comment.

the AI doesnt play CiV anymore, he plays starcraft 2

I missed this before; this is so true . It's like "dude Persia, I just wiped like 10 of your immortals and now you have 8 more, this is like turn 80 and you only have 2 cities to make them from, WTH".

 

[BrokTheFanatic]

Marathon is easier than standard because units 'last longer' and people make better use of units than the AI. Like a player can usually maintain and upgrade units through time, which really builds up some units. Not sure I'd go 2 levels easier but in general it helps a bit.

G&K also seems more random. Some matches at high levels are much more difficult than others. I believe the city building code for the AI has changed a lot which in some cases is very helpful for the AI and in others is hurtful.

So try epic speed and watch the scores. If early on you start outpacing many of the civs just start over until you get a nice match. BTW, I think the city building code could use a hot fix. It is somewhat merger a little too often IMO. Get many civs with that setup and it makes for a weak game. Get a bunch of expansive&militaristic civs and it is much more difficult. At least I find that to be the case so far. Still early on. Things seem better but not sure by how much. Some odd quirks as well in diplomacy but kinda used to that.

 

[Louis8k8]

I never played marathon so I don't understand first hand this difficulty thing. Does 'Quick' make it harder then? o_O I always play quick because I'm impatient as heck. If I don't finish a game in a single go I get bored and never return to the saved game.

Would a 1v1 game be harder than a 4 civ FFA?

The diplomacy is indeed ******** and particularly trading being irrational. I was about to destroy 1 of 2 enemy civilizations when the AI pleaded peace treaty in exchange for their ridiculous gold (Emperor difficulty) and some limited remaining resources. I accepted and decided to use the civ as a pawn and bully them for resources. I asked for open borders so I can culture bomb their capital for a 4-uranium mine.

The trade was:
AI: Open Border
Me: Open Border, 1670 Gold, 6 iron, 4 horses, 4 coal

When they have 0 units and a burning capital. I decided to take off the coal because I needed those, So I offered no coal with 2400 gold and they resuggested:

AI: Open Border
Me: Open Border, 2400 gold, 6 iron, 4 horses, 4 coal, 8 oil, 12 aluminum, 2 uraniu

WTH? I give them more gold and they ask for even more.

 

[l4d2bob]

I agree with this to an extent.
The Bismarck AI in Germany built at least 20 cities.
No joke.

 

[Andulias]

I never played marathon so I don't understand first hand this difficulty thing. Does 'Quick' make it harder then? o_O I always play quick because I'm impatient as heck. If I don't finish a game in a single go I get bored and never return to the saved game.

Would a 1v1 game be harder than a 4 civ FFA?

The diplomacy is indeed ******** and particularly trading being irrational. I was about to destroy 1 of 2 enemy civilizations when the AI pleaded peace treaty in exchange for their ridiculous gold (Emperor difficulty) and some limited remaining resources. I accepted and decided to use the civ as a pawn and bully them for resources. I asked for open borders so I can culture bomb their capital for a 4-uranium mine.

The trade was:
AI: Open Border
Me: Open Border, 1670 Gold, 6 iron, 4 horses, 4 coal

When they have 0 units and a burning capital. I decided to take off the coal because I needed those, So I offered no coal with 2400 gold and they resuggested:

AI: Open Border
Me: Open Border, 2400 gold, 6 iron, 4 horses, 4 coal, 8 oil, 12 aluminum, 2 uraniu

WTH? I give them more gold and they ask for even more.

So you just beat a civilization to the ground and expect them to open borders with you at a reasonable price to culture bomb their resources? Is this for real? Did you honestly expected they would say yes? Would you under such circumstances?!


They probably need the coal badly and 800 gp on top of that isn't a compensation that's big enough. Just brainstorming here, can't say without actually taking a look at the game.

 

[dexters]

But, in another war that I started, I made a move to take Ethiopia's capital, the holy christian city. In this war, the AI made numerous tactical mistakes, which were compounded by bad strategy. First off, they had failed to build any ships other than triremes, which means they could not bring ranged navy to bear in defense of the coastal city. Also, they did not move their reserves into position for a counter-offensive. Instead, many units retreated to safe positions and simply hunkered down--content to sacrafice the capital in defense of their remaining 2 cities in the tundra.

I mean, this was one of the best cities in the world at the time--the heart and soul of their civilization--their holy capital. And yet, their defense of it was anything but determined. From my first move, it was as though the AI had already determined the city lost. In reality, I had real tacitcal difficulties moving on the city and probably would have had suffered heavy casualties if the AI had moved aggressively.

So, my conclusion: the AI is much improved, but still has a ways to go. I'm just glad that that we can have confidence that the work will go on.

I had the same experience in my First unfinished game. I attacked Mongolia’s capital and after initial resistance, the defense became half hearted when I had mass a large enough force.

A few turns later I moved one of my units into the fog and found he had substantial reserves (likely not enough to stop me) but enough to make the fight longer. It seems like the AI will give up on cities once it calculates it cannot defend it and save their forces.
This has its upside and downsides. On the upside, you don’t have 1 giant battle and stealroll them, on the downside, they will fight you peacemeal which could mean tactical issues where they don’t take advantage of an opening because they’re holding their forces back.

To be absolutely fair however, there are plenty of situations in real life where failure to apply reserves turns tide of a battle and this is human vs. human. I wouldn’t knock on the AI just for grand tactical issues as it’s probably not designed to think like a human, even if it makes very human mistakes.

 

[Louis8k8]

So you just beat a civilization to the ground and expect them to open borders with you at a reasonable price to culture bomb their resources? Is this for real? Did you honestly expected they would say yes? Would you under such circumstances?!


They probably need the coal badly and 800 gp on top of that isn't a compensation that's big enough. Just brainstorming here, can't say without actually taking a look at the game.

Did you even finish reading my post? You don't seem to understand the point of the comparison at all.

They asked for even more resources when I decided to offer them more gold. I know they're already angry and that's why I have to pay them to have them open their borders. But the haggling is entirely illogical.

 

[Andulias]

Did you even finish reading my post? You don't seem to understand the point of the comparison at all.

They asked for even more resources when I decided to offer them more gold. I know they're already angry and that's why I have to pay them to have them open their borders. But the haggling is entirely illogical.

I did and I gave you an answer. Read my second paragraph.

 

[thadian]

- The AI barely uses religion
Try a different setting than "Tiny, Quick". I always see religions in my king and emperor games as i try to adjust to some things. Little maps on "zoom zoom" speed probably will not see much religion. Some civ's don't seem to flavor religion much and ive had a few games where i got all the religion stuff i wanted because nobody else wanted it.

- has no clue of how to play during war
Nor has it ever, at least it doesn't invade you with great engineers, workers, settlers on the front line.

- Is horrible at using city states and it's even worse now
Play in an espionage era, and you will see the AI's own almost every city state, they burn their gold in donations and use spies for it.

- Don't make enough cities
They are afraid you will cry and /ragequit. More seriously, its like the AI has a spot it "wants" and if you or another AI takes it, then it just folds. but no change in my experience from vanilla.

- Has poor diplomacy skills
Yeah but having to have embassies and all that added to it... Creates "layers" of friendship pyramid. So, AI friendship is now more like a Ponzi Scheme.

- Suck at using its gold
You would /ragequit if it didn't! Iv'e seen AI with more than 8k gold while im invading, refuse to surrender, does not buy or upgrade its troops. If it did spend it's gold as a human player would, we wouldn't stand a chance.

- His empire management in general is very poor
This goes back to having a different set of rules it plays by. Since it doesn't care about happiness or gold, it just makes everything and donates gold (seemingly) to your city state allies first. If the AI had to play by our rules and limitations, it would have to "manage" itself based on that. However, considering it can "do what it wants" and has no real limitations on it's gameplay style - that it has no option that causes a choice... such as "Do i build a monument? If so, i will have more early policies and maintenance..." Instead it asks - Do i build monument now or soon? It's like playing against a kid who fire tuners 5,000 gold on turn 1. The kid might be rich but has no idea the value of that gold.

 

[GlobularFoody]

I think the AI has gotten a lot better in certain areas. Diplomacy has certainly gotten better. The AI defends their cities very well now, that might be due to changes in game mechanics, though. They will send ships to attack your coastal cities and capture them, that's a big improvement over them just building ships and leaving to sit idle even while attacking them. They still don't seem to be able to launch a naval invasion with embarked units, though.

OP: the reason has been pointed out many times by other posters...marathon speed is not what this game was designed for.

 

[Dactyl]

I've used citadels as in a fashion similar to culture bombs a couple of times so far, and the AI hasn't proven able to handle them effectively. I put a spearman in the citadel, backed up by three composite bowmen. The AI (Greece) kept throwing hoplites and archers into the zone of control of the citadel, taking the 30% hit, only to have my bowmen shred them.

 

[Ahatokia]

Diplomacy- I read all the time people complaining that this is broken etc. Well, its not broken. Have you ever attacked an AI without him realizing you were going to? Is your diplomacy broken?

If you can't figure out why they are mad/hostile, let me connect the dots. If you are doing well by score, territory or anything else they will be mad. This is a piece of info the developpers lovingly give you. The AI are trying to win, and they are mad that you are also trying to win. That is why when you play at deity they typically stay friendly for a long time- you are usually in last place in score/army/wonders/food/science for the first 200 turns.

Marathon is much easier- try an Immortal, huge, quick game. Record it and post it on youtube and I'll be impressed if you make it to the modern era.

I play at Deity, and damn is it hard. Which is why I love it (and why I love Matt Dijnn LPs). I also play chess at a very high level, and I can tell you that if the development team wanted a war AI that would crush everyone into submission, they could develop it with similar technology to chess engines. There would be some exploits to rub out over time, but it would happen.

The fact is, who would play that? About as many people as played Top Gun for Nintendo. So there is no incentive at all for it to be developed.

 

[Zaimejs]

Here is what I don't understand about the AI. I know it is a complicated game, but the least complicated part is how to advance with an army and to take cities. You roll in with infantry/melee units, supported with some archers and at least two siege pieces per city with more on the way.

I just fended off a powerful attack by the Swede. He was way stronger than me and attacking an outlying city. I was in a war with Carthage, so I had to book my units over to the front. He brought in three pikemen, two swords and an archer. Not a single catpult or trebuchet. If he had brought in a couple siege pieces, he'd have taken the city.

Why can't someone mod this. I've played many AI games where the AI is so much smarter.

 

[Ahatokia]

Did you even finish reading my post? You don't seem to understand the point of the comparison at all.

They asked for even more resources when I decided to offer them more gold. I know they're already angry and that's why I have to pay them to have them open their borders. But the haggling is entirely illogical.

I understood. They didn't want to make a deal with you. They aren't haggling they are being intentionally unreasonable because they hated you. The fact that you believed you were haggling as you considered a ludicrous trade offer is the illogical part of this equation. You also must remember, at that point a human player would typically just resign, whereas the AI is programmed to play on.

 

[smallfish]

I'd like to see them use submarine wolfpacks to attrit my fleet before moving in their heavier stuff and invasions.

Also, bringing "waves" for naval invasions too.

 

[Gilgamesch]

The ai is not horrible, its much better before G and K comes out. Ok its not perfect but its make you struggling on higher settings.

 

[Atwork]

....He brought in three pikemen...Not a single catpult or trebuchet....If he had brought in a couple siege pieces, he'd have taken the city....Why can't someone mod this....

I get the sense that the AI is programmed to be extremely cautious it its use of siege units. It seems that the siege units are generally not brought into harm's way so long as the front line is unsecured.

For example, in my battle with the Japan, the front lines were a raging mess for 6 or 7 turns---the line spread across 13 or 14 consecutive tiles. As we exchanged blows turn after turn, I noticed that the AI kept its siege units well away from the action. On the other hand, the AI was quite reckless with its use of archers.

So, where the AI used to over-expose its siege units, which annoyed people. Now, it seems that the AI plays too cautiously with its siege units, which annoys people.

I guess we're still looking for the right balance.