Didn’t the same phenomenon happen with Civ 4? Soren Johnson was the Lead Designer, but it was Blake who was responsible for the AI in BTS.

The AI in Vanilla Civ 4 was also really bad. An early rush against your neighbor was the go-to strategy for victory, and it wasn’t uncommon for people to chain conquests one after another. The AI never even aimed for victory until BTS, and even then it was only cultural attempts.

The diplomacy & trading systems also seemed fresh and new, but once people dived into the code and figured out AI attitudes & tech lightbulb preferences they could do all sorts of gamey things.

How is that a bad thing? Civ IV diplomacy was great because it was another game mechanic to work with and not just some unpredictable AI doing things at a whim.

Eh, only partially. You could see his ambition in the Final Frontier mod, but also the limitations of his ambition when facing the ultrarefined Civ 4, and also his relative indifference to the culture/religion part of the game.

I think taking the Panzer General model of 1 unit per tile was basically misguided. The Civ format, with slow building units, doesn’t fit well with the kind of plodding pinpoint perfection of such a model. The game board is simply too abstracted, and lacks the fine detail, to make that work.

Given that the AI in a PC game isn’t exactly going to pass the Turing test, diplomacy should be a gamey thing. It’s a game system, like tech trees. Being predictable isn’t a bad thing, so long as you’re careful about prohibiting exploits like making a trade for an up-front benefit (gold, technology) for a per-turn cost (luxuries, gold per turn) which can be immediately broken by war.

Bingo. People don’t realize it nowadays, but when Civ 1 first shipped it wasn’t considered to be a AAA game in modern terms. It was an AA game,* a game that was expected to do well with hardcore gamers because of the publisher and designer, but not one that was expected to pay off retailers’ mortgages because of its mass-market appeal.

Of course Civ 1 did much better than expected and Civ became a AAA franchise. And for a few years back in the early part of this decade that was probably necessary for the franchise’s survival, as publishers had basically no interest in anything other than AAA titles.

But times have changed, and now with XBox Live/PSN/Steam the market for non-AAA titles is once again healthy. I wouldn’t mind if Civ “slipped” down to a AA title again. To me, getting a game more tailored to my tastes would be well worth giving up some unit models and a whole bunch of animations for.

*A more accurate statement would be that it was considered a AAA PC title, but the PC market was small relative to the console market so in terms of the overall game industry it was an AA title.

New hotfix/patch on steam today.

[STABILITY]

  • Fix for various rare crash bugs

[MODDING]

  • Re-enabled LUA library unused in the core game. It was removed because we didn’t think modders were using it, and apparently many, many are using it.

[GAMEPLAY]

  • Fixed bug where as Siam, food from Maritime City States didn’t provide the expected result.
  • Make a few more negative promotions not pass through on upgrades
  • Made the Mandekalu mounted unit have the same negative vs city as the other mounted units
  • Increased the chance that the AI will improve sea plots

Just finished a game post-patch. It’s worse than pre-patch ( not today’s)

AI clusters cities, loses out on early expansion game, sucks at offense now that cities are so hard to take (loses out on becoming a continetal power). Taking cities takes forever, siege weapons now needed. Diplomatic game, now I can see the AI is pissed off when they realize I’m a threat. This is on emperor, I easily won a dominiation victory on a small map at turn 240.

I’d almost suggest they revert.

In Globaldefines.xml change MIN_CITY_RANGE to 3. Go for standard or larger map. And: Mods. I won’t play vanilla civ.

It’s funny, while the TACTICAL AI is woeful, I’ve actually been SCHOOLED of late STRATEGICALLY by the AI (post patch, no less).

I was playing MP with my brother. We don’t team against the AI, but we do slide the skill meter up to one notch below impossible and try to limit our wars against the AI to the limit (we allow ourselves DEFENSIVE wars only). This usually generates a satisfying game.

It was still in the early stages of the game, and after bumping into the Oda AI player, I quickly hemmed him into the corner of the island we shared with a couple of cities. KNOWING that this would tick him off (it would, me), I also heavily militarized our border - he reciprocated.

So there Oda and I were, with our military all massed up next to our two border cities that were within 4 squares of one another. Knowing the AI, I KNEW that Oda would eventually declare war, but I was still surprised when he filtered a few chariots and warriors into my backfield. “Heh”, I thought, “he’s gonna miss those units when the REAL fireworks begin on the border!!”

Right on schedule, a few turns later Oda declared war and moved his main army out to grab my border city. With the lame tactical AI (and my awesome military prowess, of course), they were quickly repulsed.

“Trireme disbanded due to lack of funds”. ===> WHAT?

My money was 0 with (-13). My happiness was at a whopping -8.

WTF? Just a couple of turns ago I was running with a healthy economy (+20 or so) and the last time I CHECKED my happiness was in the POSITIVE double digits.

It took me a bit of looking around, but I finally figured out what happened. Remember those “handful” of chariots and warriors" that Oda had slipped behind my lines earlier?

  • They had cut the roads between my largest cities, eliminating the trade bonus.
  • They had burned my key luxuries, removing the +5 happiness per

In 3 short turns he had shattered my economy.

My brother was laughing his butt off. Right before I repaired the damage to my infrastructure, Oda sued for peace, which according to our “house rules” I had to accept.

Luck? Good AI? Who knows…but it was quite interesting to experience…and even more difficult NOT TO WIPE ODA’S $@*& BUTT OFF THE FACE OF THE CONTINENT IN RETALIATION!!!

Even more interesting…Oda’s relationship with me was EXCELLENT the rest of the game! It was like once he proved his point he was cool with me. Smug little SOB.

I’m still enjoying Civ V a ton.

SamF7

I think Civ 5 went TOO far overboard in making the AIs “play to win.” Except if you’re Wu, in which case you spam wonders and get owned…

Civ 4 is definitely more memorable because of the AI personalities. It’s very hard to tell the difference between Civ 5 AIs when they will declare on you no matter what. On the other hand, in Civ 4 you can prevent 50% of the AIs from declaring war on you by gifting a single city, giving them 50 gold when you first meet them, reducing gold earned from tech trading by 50%, etc…

The AI really is spamming the cities now, isn’t it? Does the xml edit that Midnight Son mentioned disable achievements?

I also just played a post-patch game, I like huge maps and lots of opponents, previously, 1 or 2 of the AIs would start on a steamroll of the others and then I would have an OK fight with them before the game crashed. Now it plays through, but the AIs are finding much harder to steamroll - leading to lots of little AIs that offer no challenge.

I disagree the AI is better, especially a strategic level. Still the harder cities make it tough for the AI to conquer them.

I had a very good start as Egypt (Empire) and being a builder didn’t have much of a military. The hemmed in Inca declared war on me. I clicked on the wrong square and ended up losing both war chariots.

As an experiment I decide not to build any military to see what happened. The Inca would occasionally move a spearman into range get attacked and leave (XP harvesting?). Finally the Inca built up the military and force of 3 slingers, 2 warrior, and 2 spearman invaded my second city,a very prime location I might add. A couple of turns after the attack started I bought a wall. So my city defense was about 15 and the AI easily took the city after 4 turns and than started moving in on my capital.

That said when I reloaded I found that 2 war chariot plus a wall was easily able to hold off both the Incas and the Aztec. By the time the second war came (I had no iron) so I beelined to Chivalry, my army of 3 knights, a horseman and a warchariot. Crushed the Inca, Aztez, and then latter Siam who arrived late to the party.

For good measure I found that the same army was able to take out a size 6 city in one turn, without any siege weapons.

To me, the AI seems a lot nicer. I’ve since given up on my last game, being a standard size map, late game it killed my laptop with the dual-core 2.66GHz processor unable to keep up. A few things stood out for me in this game.

Firstly, I played the game as a single significant civ alone on a landmass. Playing at king level in Civ IV would make this a very hard game to recover from, essentially need to beeline astronomy in order to get the caravels out and get some tech trading happening. In Civ II, it was easy to recover - either Marco Polo’s Embassy would immediately initiate diplomatic contact, or sending a trieme across the ocean (with only a 50% chance of being sunk - thank goodness for save and load). In Civ V, having people responsible for research meant I wasn’t nearly as boned as I would have traditionally been. I’ve said it before, and I will say again, that has to be my favourite implemented feature of Civ V because it truly allows for both small and big empires (in theory). From a more practical sense, it is open to gaming the system from a player perspective, as has been documented frequently in this thread with the ICS strategy. But all things fair and equal, I love the feature, and when I made contact with other civs, I wasn’t exactly too far behind. I wasn’t going to be bringing sticks to a gun fight.

The unfortunate thing about my last game however was that it was a real sleeper for me, and contributing also to me giving up this game. I just took a backseat in the world political stage, and that meant path of least resistance by going into builder mode. My military was pitiful, a whole 4 ground units. I knew the AI wouldn’t mount a good invasion force, and I knew that having a few boats sitting in my borders would be enough. I could have made the game interesting by involving myself with the various conflicts going on, but I was under no pressure to do so.

That said, I was incredibly suprised to see that the Japanese managed to eliminate the Roman empire completely, and had the Siam empire on its knees, down to one final city tucked away in the mountains. Besides the odd invitation to join a war, no one made any demands of me, everyone was friendly towards me, and, well, as I said, no pressure to get involved. Diplomacy royally needs a kick up the bum.

Comments regarding the empty space on the map. With my game, basically everywhere was settled. Even though it was a continent map script, it looked much more like a archipelago - quite a number of small landmasses arranged on the map, with one large landmass housing three civs. The Japanese and the Russians had a tonne of cities to their name - very big empires, and looked like they were the dominant force in this game.

Finally, builder style meant I didn’t really care about my cities and how they were managed, just build another building that roughly suited the plan I had for that city, and that pretty much meant build anything, prioritising those buildings which increase production. I find it hard to see city sites on the map that stand out and say “this is a production juggernaut, or a commerce styled city.” If I tried, I could have made my empire run a lot more efficient with tile and building improvements, and scrounge together as much coin as I could, but I’ll let this be a win to the AI on this map.

Some sites have sales around 500,000 and some claim over a million.

Game news reporting seems to be bugged more than ever…

Begging the question, it did it with an entirely new engine/game system, and did pretty well commercially so I’d be stunned if Firaxis decided to wrap it up.

I don’t think they will completely wrap it up suddenly, but I think we can either expect to be DLC’d from here to oblivion or at most patched until the end of their fiscal year.

My guess is after the investment in the system, we’re going to see a return to variants such as an Alpha Centauri/Dinosaur/whatever setting coming out within a year or two.

I very seriously doubt this. I think they know modders will take care of those wishes.

Provided they actually release the full SDK…

Though, the chances of this happening give me only the coldest of comfort seeing as Firaxis honestly believed that no one was using LUA in modding and patched it out and then hotfixed it back in.

In the meantime, I suspect there will be some expansions to Civ V - it’s still a cash cow, and I don’t see why they’d shift away from it.

I hope you are right, but the only way I can see 2K approving this is, well, I guess since Firaxis is not making anything else for the PC must-have-disc-in-hand crowd.

Casual gamig is a growing market (as much as I hate to admit it) and it makes sense to work on that as well, but it’s not like they have to do one to the exclusion of the other.

They don’t have to, but I hope Civilization Network is a hit and then Firaxis is rapidly acquired by Zynga thus reuniting Sid Meier with Brian Reynolds who with Zynga cash will buy back Alpha Centauri from EA and then make a new version for Facebook.

Still,

We’re committed to Civilization V - you don’t have to worry or speculate about that.

I think we are all seriously being trolled…

More than a 100 hours in and I’m still loving Civ V, as much as Civ IV, despite the bugs and other fallacies.

In fact, I just got this really stupid bug where I founded a city next to a Civ (Spain) and, fully expecting Spain to tell me not to build anymore cities by them on the next turn, I got nothing. So, a few turns pass and China, way, way north of me, contacts me and tells me not to settle cities by them anymore. Uh, what?

Having finished my first game since the latest patch, I noticed one major thing that was mentioned earlier in this thread but really stands out as needing a fix: the AI spamming cities three tiles out from other cities. In past games pre-patch, it seemed the AI would only do that at four tiles but the distance has been shaved by a tile now. I suppose it’s great for defense since attacking the cities often means you’re in firing range of more than one city. It just looks all wrong when there are a dozen cities packed together like that.

Ah well, still fun.

That should be fixable by editing an XML file, though, as Midnight Son suggested.

Righto, thanks for that.

Was it mentioned why the change was made to reduce the min distance? Was it supposed to correct a behaviour that was a problem?

No idea, and I don’t recall seeing it mentioned as an intentional change. Possibly it’s one of the things that allows the AI to expand more aggressively, though.