You can't do anything right in this game

[DaveGold]

"Your continued greed in collecting wonders of the world has become an issue. Consider our pact of co-operation closed."

Next turn pact of secrecy closed. Two turns later she declares war bringing a war ally in too. Ressource trades, research treaty, and open borders cancelled. Doesn't it just make you love the game?

 

[teks]

wow they hate you for building things too!!

 

[Duraska]

Ugh... yeah... honestly, I treat every AI as 100% hostile to me at all times, because essentially they are. Some people see this as the AI being "realistic" in that it tries to win the game, I personally see it as making the game not fun (shouldn't there be more to the Civ experience than racing towards a win-condition?)

 

[Stefanskantine]

There are other problems with the ai (obviously) but I like this particular aspect myself. I like how they are at least trying to make the ai a rival. I want to play against a rival, not some RPG-ish "foil" to my civilization.

 

[Duraska]

There are other problems with the ai (obviously) but I like this particular aspect myself. I like how they are at least trying to make the ai a rival. I want to play against a rival, not some RPG-ish "foil" to my civilization.

Isnt that what multiplayer is for? Playing against a rival?

 

[edmund22]

As soon as you get into 10% range to their "score", they turn hostile.
And with score, it's either gold, overall score, number of wonders, army size... You pick it. They always find a reason to hate your guts.

Ugh... yeah... honestly, I treat every AI as 100% hostile to me at all times, because essentially they are.

That's why I don't like Civ5 - it always ends up in a war.
Hopefully this will get fixed in the patch, because otherwise I like the game.

 

[pazmacats]

AI's are barb camps with names (e.g. boss monsters).

 

[.Wolff.]

It's weird, I didn't notice that until now.
But, like someone said up there, I like it because it is more of a challenge then playing against essentially a training dummy.

Plus, I don't like playing online in quite a few games because all it seems to be is people complaining about everything from, "You're a hacker!" to "You picked that race to handicap the game! Rigger!"

But, I do kinda think the AI could be slightly less aggressive towards everything. I always feel bad bringing my steel boot of Doom down on them. :/

 

[Conspirator]

Cic 5 diplomacy is not more challenging than Civ 4 diplomacy. The end.

 

[CornPlanter]

Cic 5 diplomacy is not more challenging than Civ 4 diplomacy. The end.

I'd argue it is challenging albeit in a very wrong sense. It's what tvtropes.org call fake difficulty:

Denial of information critical to progress. A reasonable game may require the player to use information, clues, or logic to proceed. Witholding relevant information such that the player cannot possibly win without a guide, walkthrough or trial and error is fake difficulty. Also includes hidden Unstable Equilibrium (e.g. a later level is much harder if you do badly at an early level, and you're not informed of this ahead of time).

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Civ4 diplo was challenging because it required actual thinking what you are doing. Civ5 diplo is challenging because it requires guessing. Luckily while failing diplo in Civ4 = end of the game, failing diplo in Civ5 = more cities for you

 

[Biz_]

lol that one's pretty funny

 

[Theon]

I've had that happen to me aswell, and it must be the most pathetic form of jealousy the AI has to offer. If you want wonders, why don't you try to build them yourself instead of covering every square inch of your empire with Landsknecht units?

 

[Esckey]

On one had I like the incresed hostility of the AI on ther hand I hate it. The AI should act like a player(play to win) so they don't get taken advantage of, but on the other hand having a friend(Permanent Alliance from Civ4) was great. Someone helps you rather then stabs you in the back ASAP.

 

[Cilpot]

There are other problems with the ai (obviously) but I like this particular aspect myself. I like how they are at least trying to make the ai a rival. I want to play against a rival, not some RPG-ish "foil" to my civilization.

Is this a widespread wish? I always assumed that most players want other civs to behave more like "real" civs, not civs playing a Civilization game. For example, in Civ IV when someone would like you because you built a wonder that the civ admires.

At least that's what I want. It's crucial for the immersion.

 

[dannythefool]

Is this a widespread wish? I always assumed that most players want other civs to behave more like "real" civs, not civs playing a Civilization game. For example, in Civ IV when someone would like you because you built a wonder that the civ admires.

At least that's what I want. It's crucial for the immersion.

There are two different approaches to the game wrt. how AIs should behave.

You (and I) belong to the group that wants to play a single player game in which the purpose of every little bit of code is contributing to the player's experience. We want to beat the game as a whole by working with its mechanics, not some robot that just plays the same game. If we want to beat it at all: Builders who play the game to build an empire and not necessarily to win belong in this group as well.

The other group wants to play a multiplayer game without actually playing against humans. They want the game to set the stage and the rules, and then play against opponents that are separate entities. People who play chess against a computer likely belong in this group when they play Civ.

Currently, neither side is getting what it wants.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Civ4 diplo was challenging because it required actual thinking what you are doing. Civ5 diplo is challenging because it requires guessing. Luckily while failing diplo in Civ4 = end of the game, failing diplo in Civ5 = more cities for you

Aren't you romanticizing CivIV AI just a tad? I don't remember it requiring much actual thinking, unless you count adding up a column of numbers on the right-hand side of the screen.

Not that I like the new diplomacy AI much ("I don't WANT to kick your tail, Ghandi, but you're leaving me no choice"), but people seem to have a huge blind spot for IV's shortcomings. It DID have issues, even five years after release.

No one pays any attention to them, or at least they don't dwell on them and decide that they make IV "unplayable." Know why? Well, first of all, it's what we all got used to and came to accept. We've become so used to the issues and so familiar with CivIV that we don't even see them any more.

Also of course is that it was still pretty fun. I'm hoping V gets to that point too.

 

[Sonereal]

Civ4 AI diplomacy was stupid that was extremely to manipulate through just religion alone. It was as complex as simply adding up green numbers and subtracting red numbers. Wait, that's all it was. But to say it wasn't fun in its own way would be a bit off because your bitter enemy would really feel like your bitter enemy while your friends felt like....friends.

That doesn't work in Civ5. Someone whose your friend one day will suddenly throw years of goodwill out the door and attack you but the biggest problem in this game is that the Defensive Pacts are pointless. You would think that weaker AIs would sign defensive pacts and turtle against larger civilizations and sign one with you if you're bordering said hated Civ but not, they don't.

I just wish that the Pacts of Cooperation actually meant something with the AI. There is no way to masterfully handle diplomacy because the AI will become hostile to you no matter what even when it isn't in their best intention to be hostile.

 

[Fistalis]

Aren't you romanticizing CivIV AI just a tad? I don't remember it requiring much actual thinking, unless you count adding up a column of numbers on the right-hand side of the screen.

.

Well before declaring war it was wise to check the alliances/relations of your target. As it is in Civ V everyones going to hate you for war so alliances and relations don't matter.

Also Civics played a part in diplomatic relations.. matching someones civics would give a boost. And religion added another dynamic. People keep saying its so easy to manipulate religion must be playing on small pangeas with just a few civs or something... because in my experience theocracy throws a huge wrench in any plan of global dominance via religion most of the time. Unless you were just spamming religion techs and had them all to yourself.. but even then sometimes they would adopt one of your secondary religions and throw a wrench into your "rule diplomacy through religion" plan. I think the whole issue is this.. people who liked quick victory type games saw it as an exploitable dynamic. While people who played on larger maps with more civs etc saw it more as an added dynamic which led to diplomatic difficulties.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Nah, I'm mainly a builder. But I knew that if I was "in" with my neighbor I wouldn't have much to worry about from that side. And if I did decide to conquest, I could just turn to other concerns and stab that neighbor in the back whenver it was convenient. He had a green #9 next to his name and therefore didn't have the same option.

 

[Sonereal]

Also Civics played a part in diplomatic relations..

I actually did kinda miss that.