To all the people who say Civ 5 is too easy compared to Civ 4...

[Psyringe]

You mean giving AI massive production bonuses in 4 wasn't a cheat?

OMG.

Please read my post again, I never said that. It would be a silly thing to claim, and I'm not totally daft, you know?

What I'm saying (and maintaing) is that no Civ game ever sank so low to give its AI a combat cheat. Of course the AI in all Civ games had other cheats to help it along - production cheats, maintenance cheats, in Civ1 the AI even got free wonders when it was falling behind (though I wouldn't call this a good way to implekment an AI crutch). But never have they given the AI a blunt combat cheat.

There are several reasons why the Civ franchise (and the other TBS games I know) never did that. The main one is that it's hammering the fact "we weren't capable of doing an AI that can handle our rules system" into the face of the human player with every single attack. Everytime the competent player attacks, he knows he should have a (say) 60% of winning but has only 50% due to a combat cheat. For every single attack. There's no other cheat that makes the AI's incapabilities as obvious and as salient for the player than giving it a combat bonus. Also, judging from the comments of people who suspected the Civ4 AI to have combat cheats (the topic came up repeatedly in the Civ4 forums), it's pretty safe to say that such a cheat would turn off a lot of players.

 

[Mac2411]

From what unhappiness? I just raze everything.

Well, that's the tactic I've taken to as well, but I wondered if there was a different way that I was somehow missing.

 

[dexters]

@Murky

Correct.

I'm not saying bonuses are bad, but production bonuses only may not be the answer.

Agreed on your final point. Diminishing returns on prod bonuses due to 1UPT rule.

 

[ds61514]

I'm not saying bonuses are bad, but production bonuses only may not be the answer.

Maybe something like reduced upgrade costs? I mean, if 95% upgrade reduction cost was good enough for Civ 4 Deity, it's probably good enough for Civ 5.

 

[YoHo]

Are there any 4x games where increasing difficulty doesn't equal AI bonii/Cheating?
Isn't that how you design a game?
You create the AI to be a strong challenge at normal difficulty and then adjust handicaps to get the different difficulties?
I'm not at this point arguing that the Civ5 AI is or is not sufficient at default. Just with the notion that bonuses and AI "Cheats" are somehow poor design. I don't think anybody writes AI to have subroutines shut off or on at different difficulty. And I'd argue that would be even worse since then the AI would in fact be essentially developmentally challenged at easy difficulty.

 

[Murky]

Are there any 4x games where increasing difficulty doesn't equal AI bonii/Cheating?
Isn't that how you design a game?
You create the AI to be a strong challenge at normal difficulty and then adjust handicaps to get the different difficulties?
I'm not at this point arguing that the Civ5 AI is or is not sufficient at default. Just with the notion that bonuses and AI "Cheats" are somehow poor design. I don't think anybody writes AI to have subroutines shut off or on at different difficulty. And I'd argue that would be even worse since then the AI would in fact be essentially developmentally challenged at easy difficulty.

Galactic Civ lets you adjust how "Smart" the AI plays in addition to setting bonus/handicaps.

 

[zonk]

Galactic Civ lets you adjust how "Smart" the AI plays in addition to setting bonus/handicaps.

That's really the AI model everyone should be looking to emulate in 4X games... In addition to the 'level' of the AI, you still had other options -- for example, personalities from evil to chaotic evil to neutral to chaotic good to good.

There are always AI limitations, but you're right -- the masochistic AI in galciv is a fairly tough nut to crack. Forget "I notice your troops are near my border" -- the evil AIs would let you know they "knew what you're doing" by launching their own preemptive attack.... then bringing other like-minded AIs into the fray.

 

[r_rolo1]

Maybe something like reduced upgrade costs? I mean, if 95% upgrade reduction cost was good enough for Civ 4 Deity, it's probably good enough for Civ 5.

Deity AI in here already is with 50% ... and it performs in the way we see. Maybe it actually needs the 95% to be chaleging enough :/

 

[ID_Fox]

I'll be convinced that the AI is fine when they:

Stop sending workers into my borders while we're at war.

Figure out how to launch a proper land invasion and don't spend multiple turns rearranging their embarked units while I take my time sinking them.

Can have some semblance of knowing what they're doing when it comes to defense.

Try something other than domination victories.

In Civ 4 I was just barely playing at Noble. Now in Civ V I think I'd have a pretty good shot at King or Immortal.

 

[Svest]

Deity AI in here already is with 50% ... and it performs in the way we see. Maybe it actually needs the 95% to be chaleging enough :/

Cheaper upgrades isn't going to do anything. Upgrades could be free and the AI would still be a pushover on Deity. Same goes for increased production. They can already fill every single tile on the map practically and its still not enough.

What the AI really needs is to use its units in an intelligent manor. It will take a while to get this right I think. In the meantime, what it needs is a direct buff to combat strength. This is far from ideal, but it really is the only thing I can think of that will make it challenging in combat without completely destroying the other parts of the game (at least until they can make it a bit less stupid - which like I said will take time).

Some people have mentioned GalCiv as a good model for AI. I would completely agree. They did a very nice job with the AI in that game. Using it as an example, they did give the AI combat bonuses to keep the challenge too, even though combat was not tactical (on Obscene one of its many bonuses was it got a huge increase to miniaturization which meant they could cram far more guns and shields onto a ship than you could).

 

[r_rolo1]

Actually increasing the upgrade bonus could lead to the AI to prefer less units , but more powerful than the spam of lesser units. OFC that with the tactical prowesses of the AI as they are now, it would still be going to the drain, but atleast it would probably lessen a bit the blob of death that we already seen in some late deity screens.

 

[ds61514]

Cheaper upgrades isn't going to do anything. Upgrades could be free and the AI would still be a pushover on Deity. Same goes for increased production. They can already fill every single tile on the map practically and its still not enough.

Have you done late game Deity? You're probably a better player than me, but once the AI gets artillery, and especially rocket artillery...ugh .

 

[Tutkarz]

I dont like cheats because it creates situation that im playing other rules than AI. Which sometimes create situation that i have feeling we are playing different games. So maybe we better think of ways how to improve AI instead of how to make so noone notice that AI is cheating.

As an example would be AI signing alliances against strongest player. Or helping weaker ones. And ofcourse changing some bonuses for units like adding horseman negative bonus and siege units huge bonus for fighting with city .

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I'm really amazed to see so many comments defending the AI in Civ 5 or finding fault with the AI in Civ 4 or BTS. Let's face it: the AI in Civ 5 is broken.

The analogy someone gave to playing chess is perfect. The AI in Civ 5 plays like a chess player that randomly moves their bishop or queen in front of a pawn. In several Civ 5 games at Nobel, the AI would attack with a ranged unit against a city with no protection from melees. I easily destroyed the AIs entire army in five turns and then they offered a peace settlement which included all of their cities but their capital - in Civ 4 you can almost never get even one city even after trouncing the AI and burning half a dozen cities. It's really not at all interesting to play against such a stupid AI and I've gone back to BTS which I haven't played in months. I really wish I could get a refund for this game and I’m amazed that I would ever have that thought as my Civ playing goes back to Civ 1.

The argument about higher levels is not compelling. Again, this would be like playing chess against a player that started out with bishops and knights in the front row instead of pawns - and then still winning because they move the pieces in idiotic ways.

My question is whether this AI problem is fixable or is the game fundamentally broken. Is this a fix that will take a few months or are we talking years to get a playable game?

 

[zonk]

Have you done late game Deity? You're probably a better player than me, but once the AI gets artillery, and especially rocket artillery...ugh .

The problem, though, is that it's fairly thoughtless in positioning them.... yes - they sting, but they leave them completely unscreened by any melee or response units, so it's simply a matter of having the pieces around to attack. What's worse - on the rare occasion I've seen the AI actually together a semblance of a true 'front' -- it falls apart on a whim.

Even if the initial engagement (and I think it's by random chance, judging from what I've seen) has a somewhat proper setup - melee in front of siege - when I kill the melee, and because of 1UpT, the only move for a siege is to move FORWARD (towards me), it does that!!! What's even worse -- it then wastes its turn because it cannot do the setup/fire sequence in a single turn.

 

[Svest]

Actually increasing the upgrade bonus could lead to the AI to prefer less units , but more powerful than the spam of lesser units. OFC that with the tactical prowesses of the AI as they are now, it would still be going to the drain, but atleast it would probably lessen a bit the blob of death that we already seen in some late deity screens.

Why would it prefer less units? They all cost the same to maintain. A tank costs the exact same gold per turn in maintenance as a warrior. All that would happen is all those obsolete units would be upgraded to more modern units.

 

[Svest]

Have you done late game Deity? You're probably a better player than me, but once the AI gets artillery, and especially rocket artillery...ugh .

Well, I've never let the AI get to rocket artillery in a Deity game so far. They did get to regular artillery in one. Though this might not be a very fair comparison. Since because of the previous AIs' stupidity my 4 artillery units, which started off as catapults, then became, trebs, then cannons, and then finally artillery were so upgraded that it was a slaughter. They were all range 4 firing 2 times a turn with 60% bonuses to both open and rough terrain (part of this is also because I'm a big fan of the Honor SPs). Any time AI artillery moved into range and tried to set up to fire it died before it got a shot off.

The really silly thing about this game was I wanted a cultural victory (going for Bollywood) but the AI just kept attacking me so I would kill their units, raze all their cities and then make peace. This happened again and again and they never got the message.

 

[ds61514]

Svest, you can win before the AI gets artillery? Man, I suck then . What map and size were you playing? My guess is just like that Civ 4, larger map sizes are harder. Maybe you should move up to huge?

Anyways Civ 4 was dumb too. The AI just died to mass air or 2-move units. There was even code that said made Rifles defensive only unit so they just sat in their cities while your cannons owned them. So....why don't people knock Civ 4 for this? .

 

[Dark_MadMax]

Are there any 4x games where increasing difficulty doesn't equal AI bonii/Cheating?
Isn't that how you design a game?
You create the AI to be a strong challenge at normal difficulty and then adjust handicaps to get the different difficulties?

Well for games yes. Because computer games do not have good AI. So the best AI they come up with is still not challenging without cheats. In games where AI is good (chess, bridge etc) no cheating is required.

I'm not at this point arguing that the Civ5 AI is or is not sufficient at default. Just with the notion that bonuses and AI "Cheats" are somehow poor design. I don't think anybody writes AI to have subroutines shut off or on at different difficulty. And I'd argue that would be even worse since then the AI would in fact be essentially developmentally challenged at easy difficulty.

Well the problem is that when you start ramping up the bonuses to ridiculous amounts it looks silly. -check all those deity screens with blankets of units. It does already feel kinda bad when you start with one city and AI gets 2, and then wonders right away. And it still loses!- because it gets the very basics of combat wrong

Though frankly there is not many good TBS AI- i havent seen any frankly , total war series ,gal civ etc -all have bad AI

 

[Venereus]

Svest, you can win before the AI gets artillery? Man, I suck then . What map and size were you playing? My guess is just like that Civ 4, larger map sizes are harder. Maybe you should move up to huge?

Anyways Civ 4 was dumb too. The AI just died to mass air or 2-move units. There was even code that said made Rifles defensive only unit so they just sat in their cities while your cannons owned them. So....why don't people knock Civ 4 for this? .

Well, for starters, you could have fun empire building, so you didn't notice the bad combat much. And more importantly, the AI put up a challenge. Dumb and all, it was rewarding to beat it.