Thinking of trying civ 5 again.

[cman2010]

I have not played a game of civ 5 since the december patch I am thinking of giving it another shot but I have a few questions.

1. Has the broken diplo system been fixed

2. How is the combat ai, is it at least better im not looking for a huge change just siege behind the army and slightly better use of units

3. have there been any major changes I should be aware of

Thanks to all who answer my questions.

 

[aatami]

I have not played a game of civ 5 since the december patch I am thinking of giving it another shot but I have a few questions.

1. Has the broken diplo system been fixed

Depends on what you think of as broken. It is, however, considered to be much better after the few newest patches et cetera. It is more realistic and human-like.

2. How is the combat ai, is it at least better im not looking for a huge change just siege behind the army and slightly better use of units

The biggest improvement in this area is the naval AI. However, I recall the combat AI, in general, has gotten just a bit better.

My few cents.

 

[Revoran]

Depends on what you mean by broken. Leaders still act a bit weird and crazy but a little less so (slightly more reasonable), - main difference is the diplo is MUCH more transparent.

AI isn't fantastic. Improved a lot since december especially for city states and Ais using air power. Navies are still a little hard for the AI but it does happen more than it did. The upcoming patch is supposed to help a lot with the AIs embarkation and help it protect its units more etc.

The gameplay is basically the same overall. Many smaller details have been changed and rebalanced, no major features have changed.

I encourage you to at least try it - are you so pressed for time it's not even worth a few hours?

Be aware of something that AIs do though: If you declare war then make peace, then declare war again on the same civ it makes them not trust you, if you do it AGAIN then they will usually not offer you anything at all for peace (because you have proven you have no qualms about just attacking again in 10 turns).

 

[aatami]

Also, don't go around warmongering too much, because, of course, most of the AI's will think of you as a warmonger.

 

[cman2010]

Depends on what you think of as broken. It is, however, considered to be much better after the few newest patches et cetera. It is more realistic and human-like.

The biggest improvement in this area is the naval AI. However, I recall the combat AI, in general, has gotten just a bit better.

My few cents.

I like that the ai is more human like thats what I was looking for.

I like that the navy is being used more, I look forward to trying this out again.

On a side note your more pleasent that I remember.

Also, don't go around warmongering too much, because, of course, most of the AI's will think of you as a warmonger.

well that makes sense and how it should be as far as im concerned.

Depends on what you mean by broken. Leaders still act a bit weird and crazy but a little less so (slightly more reasonable), - main difference is the diplo is MUCH more transparent.

AI isn't fantastic. Improved a lot since december especially for city states and Ais using air power. Navies are still a little hard for the AI but it does happen more than it did. The upcoming patch is supposed to help a lot with the AIs embarkation and help it protect its units more etc.

The gameplay is basically the same overall. Many smaller details have been changed and rebalanced, no major features have changed.

I encourage you to at least try it - are you so pressed for time it's not even worth a few hours?
Be aware of something that AIs do though: If you declare war then make peace, then declare war again on the same civ it makes them not trust you, if you do it AGAIN then they will usually not offer you anything at all for peace (because you have proven you have no qualms about just attacking again in 10 turns).

This sounds alot better overall.

Its not that im so pressed for time but I dont have a ton of it, and I wanted to return to the game when it was in a much better state sounds like I waited long enugh.

 

[aatami]

Oh, and I just remembered the combat AI can handle battle-lines much better now (as in, it puts melee units ahead of ranged units et cetera).

 

[Kerosene31]

Every patch has made the game better.

The diplomacy is still not perfect yet, supposedly that is getting addressed in the next patch.

Overall the last two patches have made the game a ton better for me. Diplomacy is still weak, but it doesn't ruin the game for me.

 

[budweiser]

Do you still have the problem of super run away AIs on the other continent?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Has the broken diplo system been fixed

Negative, it's objectively broken. You can be a "warmongering menace to the world" without declaring war or capturing a single city, for example. "staggering" DoF is somehow superior to signing a bunch at once and can make a big impact on the game...to name a few issues.

2. How is the combat ai, is it at least better im not looking for a huge change just siege behind the army and slightly better use of units

It does get better each patch, but don't expect anything breathtaking. It's still easy to bait it into bad situations tactically and then roll it.

3. have there been any major changes I should be aware of

What people feel important varies. I'd just read the patch notes if I were you; you'll get answers in this regard faster/more completely that way.

 

[Jim Bro]

I have not played a game of civ 5 since the december patch I am thinking of giving it another shot but I have a few questions.

1. Has the broken diplo system been fixed

2. How is the combat ai, is it at least better im not looking for a huge change just siege behind the army and slightly better use of units

3. have there been any major changes I should be aware of

Thanks to all who answer my questions.

diplmacy is so-so, the AI is better than it was but still and there is no WWII scenario and Earth map with historical starting points so no the game is not so great. even though i've played hours and hours of civ5 (because it's beautiful) play civ4 instead (better strategy game)

 

[King Patrick]

Diplomacy's pretty good. Just expect the AIs to behave more like human players than a strict historical simulation, which Civ isn't anyway (America next to Ancient Rome on an archipelago?). And expect the AIs to look after their own best interests rather than your own. It's not nearly as opaque or confusing as some like to pretend, as long as you take time to think about the consequences of your actions. (And as long as you don't completely freak out when an AI deceives you by pretending to be friendly right up until their units cross your border!).

I'd like to see a few more things tweaked in the next patch, like giving you more options to positively effect a relationship and making the AIs a little better at not starting hopeless wars (unless they are just that desperate).

Trading's improved, too. The last patch fixed a bug where the AIs didn't take spare strategic resources into account when negotiating a luxury trade, for example.

Strategically, the AIs are much better now at identifying and targeting weakness. If you neglect your military or city defenses, you will be attacked, possibly even by purported friends - easy pickings have no friends.

Tactically, after the last patch the AIs are better at naval invasions and at keeping vulnerable units (archers, siege engines) behind melee units whenever possible. Also using zones of control to pin you down.

And watch out for barbarians - they seem a lot more aggressive and are a lot better at coordinating multiple units to pick off civilians or scouts, or even to attack undefended cities.

Give it a try - I think you'll enjoy it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Diplomacy's pretty good. Just expect the AIs to behave more like human players than a strict historical simulation

This isn't accurate:

- human players won't consider someone on strict defense a warmongering menace
- human players will continuously gun for the top opponent in an effort to win
- human players, for the most part, will not implode into 2 cities for 100's of turns and not try to win the game.
- human players don't struggle with DoF and needing to space those out.

The AI is a little bit more cut-throat than it might have been in the past (if you're not busy taking advantage of it instead), but there's nowhere near a semblance of competent human play there, or even an incompetent human's attempt to win.

It's not nearly as opaque or confusing as some like to pretend, as long as you take time to think about the consequences of your actions.

The XML suggests it's pretty opaque and confusing. I bet the vast majority of people who haven't read that xml material are mistaken about how the game's AI works. Pretty interesting for a game intended for casual gamers.

Trading's improved, too. The last patch fixed a bug where the AIs didn't take spare strategic resources into account when negotiating a luxury trade, for example.

However, it still gives lump sum gold for dubious per turn obligations, creating droves of "exploit" complaints across multiple subforums on what kinds of behavior is acceptable for the human here. The competitive scene is a mess. Whether the competitors themselves or the game is to blame in this instance is debate-able, but AI that allows itself to be badly fooled certainly isn't helping the equation - this kind of thing isn't seen in other "AAA" games to the same extent.

Barbarians have been a trash chance element for multiple iterations of civ - 5 is no exception (other than now they can be used to farm positive luck as well as negative). Getting tele-fragged by a barbarian unit that appears in view from thin air while trying to clear a camp is pretty chancy, but then again people seem to LOVE chancy stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the "s" in TBS, which is why firaxis screwed us with events in civ IV and chose not to balance those. Is skill-dorado any better ?

OP might nevertheless find the game enjoyable, but it is still far from being a finished, reasonably competitive tbs title as long as some of its core elements are questionable.

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed with TheMeInTeam here, especially concerning diplomacy. There remains no real way to make true friends in Civ V right now. I've run into situations where an AI will be "Friendly" with me, then declare war, then back off and become friendly again. The tooltip says that despite having gone to war in the past, they bear no ill will. Which trivializes the whole enterprise. And then there are "Friendly" AI who will denounce you for building one wonder they like, and a whole host of tooltips that were never there will appear....i.e. "They covet your lands" will appear, lol. They are just LOOKING for excuses to hate you.

Diplomacy still doesn't make much sense.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They sometimes hide their intentions. I had a time where the Aztecs said that, in spite of being at war previously, they bore no ill-will. Then I made friends with their enemy. Next time I looked, it said that they hated me both because I was friends with their enemy and because we had been to war previously.

BTW, I've never been called a warmonger if I didn't declare war and didn't take cities. I know people have been upset when, during a war they didn't choose, they get in trouble for going on the offensive, but not for only acting defensively. Maybe others have had a different experience, but this seems to be rare. I've also seen, last game, the AI hold no ill-will towards me after I conquered four or five Aztec cities. I had to wait until the Aztecs were denounced by others, but they were perfectly happy to see the Aztecs get destroyed after that point.

 

[Morningcalm]

I've defended myself in wars and taken enemy cities, and it seems that the longer the war goes on, the more other AI call me a warmongerer. I think defending one's civ fully by crushing the civ that struck me is fine, but the AI don't think so. DEFENSE IS WAR MONGERING they say. *rolls eyes*

 

[Louis XXIV]

You've taken cities. I was responding to a claim that you can be considered a warmonger without taking cities.

Like I said, I was at war for about 30 turns or so. During this time, the Aztecs were denounced by every other player. Then I went on the offensive and took five cities and no one called me a warmonger.

 

[Morningcalm]

Taking cities was defensive though...I razed them so the enemy couldn't make units from them again. It just seems the AI are a bunch of hypocrites, condemning you for warmongering when they themselves are warmongerers. If you take a city you are instantly a warmongerer, even if you only took it for defense. Sighhhh.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, you can condemn a civ for being a warmonger too.

Either way, the point was whether or not the AI declares you a warmonger for essentially doing nothing. The answer, unless TheMeInTeam has had a vastly different experience than me, is no.

BTW, it's not being defensive, it's opportunism. It might be justified opportunism, but still. It's possible to be strictly defensive, destroy their army, bombard their cities, and make a favorable peace without taking cities. Your intention was punitive, to weaken the other Civ, not defensive.

 

[Morningcalm]

You can't denounce that civ if you're at war with them.

I still don't see how taking enemy cities in defense counts as offensive....I mean, if you make peace with them after obliterating their cities, they'll have the science to fund huger armies. Schizo warmongerers like Civ 5's AI don't learn their lesson til you shove it down their throat with swords, unfortunately. Trying to be a peacemongerer is really tough, esp. as Infinite City Sprawl is still a valid strategy, though weakened. -_-

 

[Louis XXIV]

I meant others have denounced them. Still, I'd love to be able to denounce those you're at war with, simply because it'll help improve the chances of being friends with those who have denounced them.

BTW, my point isn't whether or not you should be able to go on the offensive. It would be nice (although, like I said, I was able to). My only point is whether it's possible to have consistency and predictability in diplomacy. Once again, were you branded a warmonger even if you didn't go on the offensive, it would be completely out of your control. But, if they only do this if you go on the offensive, then you at least know how to prevent this from happening.