WHAT CIV GAME HAD THE BEST AI?

[keldath]

hey all,

im interested in the question that raises many debates - the ai.

i wonder what civ showed the best ai for diplomacy, war waging and general.


what do you think?

p.s.
i hope this is in the current forum.
posted in the civ6 area since civ6 raised me this question.


thanks you all.

 

[cephalo]

Civ has never really had a challenging AI. People think its important, but it's not. Would Civ be more successful if the AI was really good? Totally unproven.

 

[Japper007]

Civ 4's AI, while it did it's share of stupid stuff, usually managed to come of as a basically competent but poor player. It's really sad that that's the best this series has to offer, but oh well.

 

[Iberian]

I would say the AI in Civ4 was the most effective at defeating the player but this was due to the simpler design more than the quality of the AI development.

 

[Returning Lurker]

Civilization: The Board Game.

 

[Baba Yetu VI]

AI is artificial, invented by us, the human. And because it is contained no matter how complicated the design could be, therefore, it will never be as naturally as we human beings make decisions. Unpredictable is all the fun one gets from multi-player games because players are all human beings and they don't follow rules to make moves. You may be up against someone who is weak while at the same time, another player being very strong so, AI can never be what you would expect and it never excels itself.

Lower your expectations and you will be happier

 

[Menzies]

Civ 4's AI, while it did it's share of stupid stuff, usually managed to come of as a basically competent but poor player. It's really sad that that's the best this series has to offer, but oh well.

Civ IV was simple enough for the AI to handle better overall though. Still did some utterly braindead things though, it wasn't "a bad player", it was a competent one that wet the bed on occasion. I would ultimately say though that what they did with the AI in V was more impressive, the problem is that the game was harder for it, there was more to go wrong.

 

[skyclad]

Yeah of course civ 4's AI is nothing amazing, the thing is that it managed to pose a more credible and less annoying threat. It had massive bonuses of course but the difference compared to civ 5/6 is that it could leverage those bonuses into actual power, and that diplomacy was more rigid (in my opinion, a good thing)

In combat the AI could actually use its production advantages by stacking units and attacking the player, taking and razing cities. Rather than a screen full of units it can't effectively use. So called "Stack of death/doom" vs "Carpet of death/doom". There was no range units or movement puzzles to allow the player to dominate the AI.
In diplomacy: religion and vassal states also allowed the AI to build power.

So right now, my vote goes to civ 4. But lets hope that after some patches I can change it to civ 6.

 

[isau]

Wasn't Civ 4's BNW AI actually written by a modder and then incorporated into the game by Firaxis? Prior to BNW I seem to recall it didn't pursue Culture victories at all.

Best AI I think any in the series has gotten is Civ V Community Balance Patch/Vox Populi. That mod wiped the floor with me a few times.

Big part of the problem tho is not the AI but the game rules. Civ 6 is a fundamentally unbalanced game. I had thought some of the things we saw in Civ 5 were simply mistakes, like Archers being the premier unit for taking cities. But that's back and at this point I have to conclude the developers made it that way on purpose, which leaves me kind of at a loss for words.

 

[Siptah]

I voted for Civ III. It's been a while since I really played 2/3/4 (let alone 1). But I remember that 3 was the toughest for me, and I never got to the hardest levels IIRC. I'm not sure if that was because I was not as good as I was when I played IV or because of the AI. When I tried III just for a few rounds a few months back, it was rally bad, but mainly because I was in CiV mode and the AI forward settled me everywhere...

 

[skyclad]

You are right isau. That in combination with stuff like, leaving the civ 5 bnw stock AI unable to move and shoot at the same time makes me have little faith in firaxis for this point... :/

 

[Uberfrog]

This poll is a little odd, but I suppose it was inevitable. After all, without complaints about AI, this forum would have significantly fewer posts even going right back to Civ III

The question should really be "Which Civ game had the AI that is the best at playing that Civ game?".

To which the answer is probably Civ IV BtS with Unofficial Patch. Civ V introduced a number of features, notably 1UPT, but also including more specialised leader abilities, that are a lot harder to deal with than stacks and simple +/- modifiers to certain attributes like expansiveness or whatever. It's not like the AI itself has actually regressed, just the tasks it has been given are notably more complicated.

So not only did BtS and this patch have a number of years to improve upon the similarly-derided state of the AI in Civ IV vanilla and Warlords, it's also playing a game more friendly to the computer player.

Civ V has had a number of years of modding, and with the Vox Populi/Community Balance Patch is an improved state, but the AI is never going to be as good at the basic mechanics as it was in Civ IV.

Civ VI has only just been released, and has similar mechanics and specialisations that are harder to program AI for. Subjectively, I feel it's in a better place than Civ V was at launch (which isn;t exactly high praise). It has serious issues, but the game is still fun. I have every confidence that the next years of patches, expansions and mods will improve the AI to a higher standard.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Civ II to me. Although I was much smaller then and I can't remember specifics. In fact I may just think it was better because I was inexperienced and somewhat lousy at the game

 

[Brackenspore]

Civ VII

 

[Arkenean]

Civ V with the latest Vox Populi patch will give you a run for your money. It's leagues ahead of where it was after BNW and is honestly the most challengeing Civ AI I've played on any version.

 

[Stilgar08]

Where 's Civ I??? Would have voted for that...
I think 2 and 3 were good as well, simply because the game was simply simplier...

 

[Baba Yetu VI]

Wasn't Civ 4's BNW AI actually written by a modder and then incorporated into the game by Firaxis? Prior to BNW I seem to recall it didn't pursue Culture victories at all..

Do you mean Civ 5's BNW? You mean BNW is actually a community MOD? So it was sold as an expansion?

Best AI I think any in the series has gotten is Civ V Community Balance Patch/Vox Populi. That mod wiped the floor with me a few times.

The MOD you mentioned, is that included in the DLC? If not, where do I get it? Also, does the MOD wipe you at RPINCE or KING?

Big part of the problem tho is not the AI but the game rules. Civ 6 is a fundamentally unbalanced game. I had thought some of the things we saw in Civ 5 were simply mistakes, like Archers being the premier unit for taking cities. But that's back and at this point I have to conclude the developers made it that way on purpose, which leaves me kind of at a loss for words.

Civ 6 is unbalanced, in what way?
Archers are powerful because it is a missile weapon, just like trebuchets, they should be more effective than swordman, pikeman or other melee units.

 

[Iberian]

AI is artificial, invented by us, the human. And because it is contained no matter how complicated the design could be, therefore, it will never be as naturally as we human beings make decisions. Unpredictable is all the fun one gets from multi-player games because players are all human beings and they don't follow rules to make moves. You may be up against someone who is weak while at the same time, another player being very strong so, AI can never be what you would expect and it never excels itself.

Lower your expectations and you will be happier

Depends on the situation. Chess AI will beat any human ever. Looks like Go AI is there too, which is impressive because of the massive permutations of the game and the way that they programmed it to learn. (Interesting to think about programming something that learns to become better than the experts humanity has fielded)

 

[PhilBowles]

It's no longer available to check, but I'd hazard a guess either Civ I or Civ II. The games were simpler mechanically and easier to code as a result than any of the later entries, and anyone who's gone back and played '90s games rather than relying on nostalgia is likely to be aware that games in general were designed to be much more challenging back then. Modern AIs are the product both of demand for more moving parts and for demand to appeal to a wider range of skill sets, and so are overall less challenging than those developed when computer games were a relatively niche interest targeted at dedicated gamers.

I certainly have memories of finding Civ I and Civ II AIs capable of competing for victories other than domination, something I never found to be the case in Civ III and CIv IV from recollection. Take away those games' AI crutch (the stack of doom) and you're left with what we've had since (in fairness Civ V's AI was pretty good at going for peaceful victories if left to their own devices, but I have the sense most players play more aggressively than I do and so would at some point wipe out potential threats for those victories).

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Civ has never really had a challenging AI. People think its important, but it's not. Would Civ be more successful if the AI was really good? Totally unproven.

Bingo.


Also:

Civ:bert

I don't understand the choices for this poll at all.