You can't do anything right in this game

[r_rolo1]

But they don't from my experience. They pretty much All hate you for the same silly reasons. Defensive war = your a warmonger etc. Cause they are no longer attempting to represent leaders.. but other players who are out to win. You really can't have both. You either program the AI to play the game to win or you program it to rule as a leader. They chose the former for V and is one of many issues I personally have with the game. IF you read more of the interviews they go more into detail .. basically stating the goal was to make the AI play like other players instead of playing like leaders.. and dislike you for the same reasons a player would. Which destroys any sense of immersion for me personally.

No , the thing is that they were not trying to make the Ai like a human player, they were trying to make a AI like a gamer in blazing speed simultaneous turns games. You just have to try a Pitboss game ( in a game that actually have it, unlike civ V at the moment ) to see that humans when not time constricted ( as the Ai isn't ) actually try to make aliances and playing with some cunning behind ( a thing that requires to keep a persona, even if only to drop it at the right moment ) because cooperation pays up more than going Conan on the world ( and even the original Conan was not that stupid ). Just try to pull out one of those " playing to win" attitudes on a Pitboss game and either you luck out and you can actually get enough of critical mass to hold against the world or the rest of will perceive you as a threath to the balance power and they will put you in place ( at best ) by cooperating against you.

Too bad that the devs don't play Pitboss In the the end it is ( besides PBEM and Hotseat , that is ) the closest MP experience of the AI in SP and the one from where they should had being taking lessons for making the AI. Blazing speed simultaneous turns games are pretty much shoot-em-ups in a civ board ...

Or did they wanted to transform civ V in a shoot-em-up in a civ board ? If they did, congrats, the thing got out as planned

 

[Clement]

"If you're playing against Gandhi and he doesn't declare war randomly on you at some point, then we haven't done our job."


I think i've finally found the one design decision that has made Civ 5 such a massive disappointment for me, pity for me i did'nt read that interview before i bought the game, i guess my only question left regarding civ 5 is, does the game allow for that design decision to be modded away?

 

[Roxlimn]

Fistalis:

I dunno. It seems rather dull to play Civ against AI who aren't even trying to win. This was always a problem with Civ. BTS less than most, but it was still a pretty huge problem there. Time Victory was unacceptably common.

I think it's good that the other Civs are vying for world domination through whatever means are best suited to their characters. They do still have discernible personalities. They all hate you for reasons that are consistent, but was Civ IV any different? No, it wasn't. The only difference is that you could see the modifier, whereas you can't in Civ V.

 

[Fistalis]

Fistalis:

I dunno. It seems rather dull to play Civ against AI who aren't even trying to win. This was always a problem with Civ. BTS less than most, but it was still a pretty huge problem there. Time Victory was unacceptably common.

And i guess this is the biggest disconnect between our styles.. I was never one to Play to win.. i played to.. play. Victory conditions were the most useless option in civ games for me.

 

[Roxlimn]

Fistalis:

Don't get me wrong. I didn't play to win, but at some point, I need a direction to aim for to conclude a game satisfactorily. Having the other AIs go for these conditions provides a sense of pace and excitement.

And if you didn't play to win? Who cares? The AI can go win, and you'll still be happy, right?

 

[Fistalis]

Fistalis:

Don't get me wrong. I didn't play to win, but at some point, I need a direction to aim for to conclude a game satisfactorily. Having the other AIs go for these conditions provides a sense of pace and excitement.

And if you didn't play to win? Who cares? The AI can go win, and you'll still be happy, right?

If it didn't change the whole dynamic of interaction with other civs i would agree no big deal.. but it did.. which was one of the components that made it enjoyable to me. The decision to make the AI "play to win" is probably my biggest hang up. Because they made diplomacy and the AIs relation to you more dependent on what a Player would find objectionable in a neighbor rather than what X leader would. Not to mention they used city states as the new "allies" diplomacy option which is just bleh

 

[Roxlimn]

Hm. I actually rather like the change. It feels more real. In Civ IV, you could sleep with Isabella's husband, steal her children, and whip her behind and she doesn't mind as long as you checked all the boxes. Here, they actually mind when you grab land, steal Wonders, and generally try to negatively impact their Civ's power.

 

[QuixotesGhost]

It is possible, in Civ4, to predict with 100% accuracy when an AI was about to attack you, regardless of whether or not you knew anything about his troops dispositions.

LOL thats pretty much bushwah. Although some leaders were honorable and wouldn't attack a friend others were not. There were much more personality differences when comparing CIV IVs AI actions and Civ V. For Civ V They pretty much stated that there was going to be a randomness to the AI.. and they felt that if the AI didn't randomly attack you for no reason through the course of the game they didn't do their job right. THIS WAS A Design decision. Some people don't like it some do.

No, Roxlimn is right. It was very easy to tell when Civs were gearing up for war in Civ IV. There's even an acronym for it in the forums: WHEOOHRN, meaning "We have enough on our hands right now". If you asked a civ to declare on a third party but the option was redded out, you could mouse over the choice, and if it said "We have enough on our hands right now," - that meant he was gearing up for war against someone. There was even a very popular UI mod (the BUG mod) for Civ IV that would alert you with little icons next to the civ names to when they went into WHEOOHRN. Just like the little red pins someone mentioned earlier.

 

[Fistalis]

Hm. I actually rather like the change. It feels more real. In Civ IV, you could sleep with Isabella's husband, steal her children, and whip her behind and she doesn't mind as long as you checked all the boxes. Here, they actually mind when you grab land, steal Wonders, and generally try to negatively impact their Civ's power.

Lol its not stealing a wonder if you built it. Thats the exact player mentality im talking about.

Civ A builds wonder X
Civ B: as a player would be mad because they wanted to build that wonder
Civ B: As a leader wouldn't care because they have no interest in building a copy of some wonder thats already been built.


Civ A builds a new settlement in the wilderness.
Civ B as a player is mad cause they see you getting stronger
Civ B as a leader doesn't care because its empty land unclaimed by anyone.
etc etc

 

[Roxlimn]

There's a healthy amount of desert wilderness surrounding Vegas right now. Do you think the US would mind if the Chinese just built a city there? It is unclaimed wilderness, after all.

How about the howling reaches of Siberia? That's pretty uninhabited. Free territory for anyone, right?

 

[Fistalis]

No, Roxlimn is right. It was very easy to tell when Civs were gearing up for war in Civ IV. There's even an acronym for it in the forums: WHEOOHRN, meaning "We have enough on our hands right now". If you asked a civ to declare on a third party but the option was redded out, you could mouse over the choice, and if it said "We have enough on our hands right now," - that meant he was gearing up for war against someone. There was even a very popular UI mod (the BUG mod) for Civ IV that would alert you with little icons next to the civ names to when they went into WHEOOHRN. Just like the little red pins someone mentioned earlier.

Ya i guess i never gamed the system enough to notice they would do that prior to declaring war on me That should have been fixed but like alot of stuff in civ V we have to live with what we got when they say final patch

 

[Fistalis]

There's a healthy amount of desert wilderness surrounding Vegas right now. Do you think the US would mind if the Chinese just built a city there? It is unclaimed wilderness, after all.

How about the howling reaches of Siberia? That's pretty uninhabited. Free territory for anyone, right?

Neither of those are UNCLAIMED. They are inside cultural borders.

 

[Roxlimn]

They are inside political borders, but what makes you so sure that Vegas has had enough time to claim all the land in it with its cultural influence?

Certainly, I don't see any cultural power centers in Siberia.

 

[Fistalis]

They are inside political borders, but what makes you so sure that Vegas has had enough time to claim all the land in it with its cultural influence?

Certainly, I don't see any cultural power centers in Siberia.

Cause they bought the land ..
But ya if you seriously think that there is any unclaimed land in the modern world i can see how you think civ V is realistic.

My guess is you feel that playing against an opponent who is playing the game = more realistic to you?
Where as in my mind playing against an opponent who is leading an empire = more realistic.
The AI trying for victory conditions pretty much kills all immersion for me because the AI is saying. I know this is a game and I need to do X Y and Z to win this game.
Rather than continue this neverending disagreement well just agree to disagree what we want from a civ game.

 

[r_rolo1]

Let me correct you a little:

Civ A builds wonder X
Civ B: as a gamer would be mad because they wanted to build that wonder
Civ B: As a leader wouldn't care because they have no interest in building a copy of some wonder thats already been built.
Civ B: As a player, it thinks if they wanted that wonder and if the possesion of that wonder by civ A is a threat, a bonus ( it might be more useful for him civ A doing the wonder than him doing the wonder ) or neutral regarding their own plans to win and if neither is a direct issue that hurts him proceeds af if nothing had happened.


Civ A builds a new settlement in the wilderness.
Civ B as a gamer is mad cause they see you getting stronger
Civ B as a leader doesn't care because its empty land unclaimed by anyone.
Civ B: as a player it considers if it wanted that spot and if Civ A settling that spot hurts it's long term plans to win. If neither applies , proceed as usual.

etc etc

 

[Roxlimn]

Fistalis:

There wasn't any unclaimed land in the 1300s! Genghis Khan claimed it all as his own! Of course, no one today actually respects the validity of that claim, but that's the point. All of these claims are just claims. They are political statements backed by nothing more than guns.

Actual cultural influence prevents you from making cities in the location claimed by another Civ. This is not a claim or something that is contestable - it simply can't be done. For instance, China can't found a new city on Manhattan or New Jersey. They can try, but it would be impossible.

There are many areas of the world that don't actually have people that live in them on a day-to-day basis, and it is possible to settle those areas if it were not for the political claims made on those lands. Those claims are simply assertions backed by guns - it's not actually physically impossible to make the settlements.

If China had the interest, it could settle a city in some of the emptier portions of the US that it's not actively using, but the US won't allow it. This is not cultural coverage, but a request backed by military might.

 

[Serdoa]

Well, especially as someone said already that diplomacy might be like a player being emotional in a simultaneous turn civ-game. But in Pitboss or PBEM that would be different. Taking r_rolo1s example: If I want a wonder in a PBEM game I find out who else might be able to build it and then see if I can talk them out of it. Sure, not for every wonder, but for the ones I really care. The same goes for settling: I think in every PBEM and Pitboss game with diplomacy there will be sooner then later talks about settling rights.

The AI in Civ5 has no options for those things. It gets mad at you for doing stuff but does not try to talk to you before you actually are doing that stuff. I wouldn't have an issue with the Civ5 AI going to war because I built a wonder it wanted if it would have told me that and I ignored it. Well, even then it should only go to war if it has a chance (what right now would mean never...).

 

[Roxlimn]

Serdoa:

When you settle near an AI, it actually does ask you not to settle near it again. Also goes for claiming tiles. As long as you abide by your agreements and don't push the borders too hard, it generally remains friendly. As long as you don't piss him off with other aggressive moves.

In my experience, the diplomacy screen also warns you when the AI is feeling like you're constructing too many Wonders.

I have never had an AI declare war on me for having too many Wonders, despite sometimes having a 10 Wonder lead.

 

[jjkrause84]

Like others I don't want to sit at the kitchen table and play Civilization: the Board Game against my friends Ghandi and Napoleon while drinking beer and listening to music....I want to enter an immersive world and act as a world leader.

The decision to have the AI play (more or less) the same game as the human makes the experience substantially more 'gamey' and less immersive for me.

 

[Roxlimn]

Doesn't it feel more immersive when other world leader plot war against you out of envy for your rich cities, or because your armies are grown too strong? I dunno. It feels better this way to me. I never liked being about to manipulate the AIs like silly putty.