Civilization V

Alstein · 2011-02-17T17:12:12.000Z

What about those people who thought the Civ IV AI was substandard?

tomchick · 2011-02-17T17:19:27.000Z

There’s no room in our boat for them. They can get their own boat. The difference between the Civ IV and the Civ V AI is that one of them was capable of actually playing the game that had been designed.

 -Tom

Anaxagoras · 2011-02-17T17:25:22.000Z

Alstein:

What about those people who thought the Civ IV AI was substandard?

You thought it was that bad? I’ve found that the AI can give me a run for my money on Emperor, and the game doesn’t feel absurdly “gamey” at that level like it does on Deity.

Alstein · 2011-02-17T17:28:47.000Z

even Prince felt gamey to me with AI cheating. Stardock AI may not be super-strong, but I felt like with GC2 I could play the same game as the AI and the AI could do a respectable job, provided I didn’t exploit.

That said, space strategy games are easier to do AI then Civ-style games which are easier then fantasy strategy games.

tomchick · 2011-02-17T17:53:23.000Z

Alstein:

even Prince felt gamey to me with AI cheating. Stardock AI may not be super-strong, but I felt like with GC2 I could play the same game as the AI and the AI could do a respectable job, provided I didn’t exploit.

So given your problems with the quite good AI in Civ IV, you must be rolling in your grave over the AI in Civ V, huh? Because not only does it cheat, but it’s incompetent.

I swear, one of the weakest apologies for Civ V’s AI is, “Yeah, but the AI was weak in Civ IV…”. You’re actually making the game you’re defending look even worse.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the AI in Civ IV was designed to handle the game systems well enough to brute force its way through whatever weaknesses it had. When it sent a unit of unfairly built stacks at you, it didn’t just throw them away because the combat model wasn’t based on positional tactics. Combat could be challenging. Wars were dangerous. For whatever faults you might perceive in the Civ IV AI, it provided exactly what a single player strategy game needs.

 -Tom

jpinard · 2011-02-17T17:54:08.000Z

This will seem funny coming from me but lets look at it from the developer side…

Maybe now that they have game turn time down to a reasonable level and the rules nailed down to what they/everyone is comfortable with - from this point they can improve the AI in a way not really possible before? Running many simulations of the game at Prince difficulty level and fine-tuning it after each one. Right now one change creates a domino effect that cripples the rest of a game’s performance. I hope they have the base they need to start adding features or working in earnest on an expansion that adds espionage, local health, pollution and global warming, and corporations.

That being said there are a few things I wish they’d do now:

End-game replays.
End-game replays.
End-game replays.
End-game replays.
End-game replays.
End-game replays.
Graphs.
End-game replays.

Equisilus · 2011-02-17T17:56:55.000Z

By the time I get back to Civ5, everything will be fixed and everyone will be happy (I’m fine with it, though, because I’m a builder and just like making my civ grow). It’s great that the grumpies have something else to do in the meantime.

Alstein · 2011-02-17T18:14:01.000Z

Tom Chick:

So given your problems with the quite good AI in Civ IV, you must be rolling in your grave over the AI in Civ V, huh? Because not only does it cheat, but it’s incompetent.

I swear, one of the weakest apologies for Civ V’s AI is, “Yeah, but the AI was weak in Civ IV…”. You’re actually making the game you’re defending look even worse.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the AI in Civ IV was designed to handle the game systems well enough to brute force its way through whatever weaknesses it had. When it sent a unit of unfairly built stacks at you, it didn’t just throw them away because the combat model wasn’t based on positional tactics. Combat could be challenging. Wars were dangerous. For whatever faults you might perceive in the Civ IV AI, it provided exactly what a single player strategy game needs.
 -Tom

I won’t defend the Civ V AI. It’s massively worse. I’m not defending Civ V at all. You’re absoutely right on all those things.

Maybe I just expect too much out of my strategy games. Making a good AI is hard work. I expect the AI in Civ-style games to mostly play by the same rules I do, and I expect it to do things competently vs reasonable tactics (aka not exploits).

I guess what I’m saying is that the Civ IV AI wasn’t that bad by the standards of the genre, but the standards of the genre aren’t high enough in regards to AI. What it comes down to is that I’m probably an unfairly harsh critic of AI.

Gus_Smedstad1 · 2011-02-17T18:15:20.000Z

Tom Chick:

Don’t you people know you’re just playing an elaborate but dippy puzzle/RPG game? Firaxis is clearly taking the Civ: Revolution approach: a cool system without a functional computer opponent.

I’m OK with that. I like RPGs. Yes, the game would be better if the computer used its resources better, but so long as it throws up enough resistance that I have to make good decisions and position my units well, it’s good enough. Not as good as it should be, but good enough to have fun.

Civ Rev was fun. Not perfect by any means, but fun for what it was. If I have any complaints about Civ Rev, they’re primarily about how useless the diplomacy was due to the decision to model the AI opponents as playing a game, rather than the “Sim” approach taking to diplomacy in Civ IV.

There have always been strategy games like this. Anyone remember the original Railroad Tycoon? The opponents didn’t play by rules that were remotely like those used by the player. That didn’t matter because it wasn’t about “fairness”, it was about giving the player some obstacles to overcome.

Again, I’m not apologizing for the AI. I’m just saying it is possible to enjoy the game in its present state if you don’t fixate on it to the exclusion of the whole experience.

tomchick · 2011-02-17T18:17:42.000Z

Alstein:

I guess what I’m saying is that the Civ IV AI wasn’t that bad by the standards of the genre, but the standards of the genre aren’t high enough in regards to AI.

My bad, Alstein. I thought you were defending Civ V. When I reviewed the game, I recall a lot of people disagreeing with me by saying, “Yeah, but the Civ IV AI was weak!”

So, yeah, I agree with you about the state of strategy game AI, but it does absolutely nothing to excuse the state of Civ V. By any standard*, it’s a pathetic failure on Firaxis’ part.

 -Tom

I suppose people who play Civ V as a city builder don’t mind. But that’s a pretty crappy bait-and-switch this late in the Civ series. Besides, there are far better city builders out there.

tomchick · 2011-02-17T18:21:24.000Z

Gus_Smedstad:

Civ Rev was fun. Not perfect by any means, but fun for what it was.

Civ apologist FAIL!!!1! Fail x3, in fact: 1) the F word, 2) the “it’s not perfect” platitude, and 3) the “for what it was” platitude. :)

But, yep, I’m with you on Civ Rev, Gus. The boardgamey design made it work okay as a puzzle game, and set it apart nicely from the previous Civs. And I actually had a few great multiplayer matches. In fact, I’d love to get a three- or four-player game of Civ Rev going again.

-Tom

tomchick · 2011-02-17T18:22:45.000Z

…good lord, here I am getting worked up over Civ V again. It’s the strategy nerd equivalent of grousing about the Star Wars prequels.

 -Tom

PeterK · 2011-02-17T18:31:57.000Z

Tom Chick:

I suppose people who play Civ V as a city builder don’t mind. But that’s a pretty crappy bait-and-switch this late in the Civ series. Besides, there are far better city builders out there.

Serious question and not meant as snark - are there any good turn-based city builders? I know about the real-time ones and there are several good choices there. Your comment just made wonder if there were any turn-based ones.

My usual Civ experience is that I play one game at a low difficulty level to learn the game and then end up not playing again until the next expansion/sequel. So having a competent AI hasn’t been a high priority for me, but I sympathize with those of you on the boat.

Even aside from the fact that the AI doesn’t handle 1 unit per hex very well, I don’t even like it as feature. I like the idea of having some sort of stacking limit, but I think they went too far. What if they did something like Kohan? Have armies with a fixed number of slots to fill and that move as one unit. You could have a 1 army per hex limit. Then make all the non-combat/auxiliary units unlimited per hex (engineers, great people, etc.) so they aren’t such a pain to maneuver. Anyway, it’s just a thought.

tomchick · 2011-02-17T18:43:59.000Z

PeterK:

Serious question and not meant as snark - are there any good turn-based city builders? I know about the real-time ones and there are several good choices there. Your comment just made wonder if there were any turn-based ones.

Absolutely! One of my favorite games of the last ten years fits the description. It’s gotten some fantastic post-release support from the developer and the community, and you can find all kinds of amazing mods and total conversions for it. However, depending on how you play it, it can also feature a strong military component, so it’s not strictly a city builder.

It’s called Civilization IV.

Seriously, though, you ask a great question, Peter. What games are there for people who just want to expand a turn-based civilization without having to scooch around little military units? There’s plenty of great boardgamey stuff. But when it comes to finicky detailed games, I’d still argue that Civ IV is a better designed game than Civ V, and it has a far better interface. It just doesn’t have all that shiny Civ V chrome.

But don’t be scared of real time city builders! Dawn of Discovery can be as laid back or challenging as you want. Same with Settlers 7, Sim City Societies, Children of the Nile, and the last Caesar game. It’s a very different real-time than army-based RTSs.

 -Tom

Jasper_Phillips · 2011-02-17T19:06:16.000Z

Did they finally add hotseat? I might be able to stomach the weak AI if it meant I could play with my wife.

PeterK · 2011-02-17T19:12:02.000Z

Tom Chick:

Absolutely! One of my favorite games of the last ten years fits the description. It’s gotten some fantastic post-release support from the developer and the community, and you can find all kinds of amazing mods and total conversions for it. However, depending on how you play it, it can also feature a strong military component, so it’s not strictly a city builder.

It’s called Civilization IV.

Awww! You had me going there.

Tom Chick:

Seriously, though, you ask a great question, Peter. What games are there for people who just want to expand a turn-based civilization without having to scooch around little military units? There’s plenty of great boardgamey stuff. But when it comes to finicky detailed games, I’d still argue that Civ IV is a better designed game than Civ V, and it has a far better interface. It just doesn’t have all that shiny Civ V chrome.

But don’t be scared of real time city builders! Dawn of Discovery can be as laid back or challenging as you want. Same with Settlers 7, Sim City Societies, Children of the Nile, and the last Caesar game. It’s a very different real-time than army-based RTSs.
 -Tom

Oh, I’ve played those games and enjoy most of them, especially Settlers 7. I asked the question more out of curiosity. It seems like a game type that doesn’t really exist. For me personally, the Civ series would hold little interest if there was no combat, so I wouldn’t play them strictly as a city builder. But could one make an interesting turn-based city-builder? It’s hard for me to imagine how that would work, hence the question.

thrasymedes · 2011-02-17T19:15:36.000Z

Depending on how you squint at it, Race for the Galaxy could be called a turn-based city-builder.

Miramon · 2011-02-17T19:29:17.000Z

Tom Chick:

Miramon, I don’t think you understand our boat. Your seat is right here, next to Ben. By the way, we’re playing Civ IV on this boat and having a grand time.
 -Tom

See, my seat is vacant, because I’ve gotten tired of Civ IV, too.

tomchick · 2011-02-17T19:40:51.000Z

Don’t give me any more of your lip, Miramon. Get in the damn boat already.

 -Tom

SuperAdventurer · 2011-02-17T19:49:41.000Z

Total noob question here. I’ve never played Civ V and don’t intend to but I’m curious about whether the modding system offers any possibility of improving the AI that way. I’m guessing the answer is “not a chance in hell” but will ask anyway. Along with reasons why AI development can’t be farmed off to the mod community, if applicable.