How Important is a Strong AI to You?

[yin26]

Many gamers, like Markos and others, don't put a premium on the AI being able to thrash on them. They simply enjoy the game for the game's sake and don't make it a goal to figure out how to beat the AI on the hardest levels, etc.

Other gamers, myself included, want an AI that --with as few cheats / bonuses as possible -- absolutely keeps the human player on edge. Of course, this AI ability shouldn't be arrived at simply by making diplomacy impossible so there are 7 AIs on 1 human, either. Wars of attrition are quite dull, after all.

In general, though, how important will it be for you that Civ 4 offer the toughest (yet fairest) AI challenge you've ever had?

[TheDarkside]

Yeah it is quite important for me since I plan to play primarily in epic single player games. But like you mentioned, I do not want an AI that is just stubborn to work with you even if you act kind to them so that it always ends up in a 7 AI vs 1 human pile-on.

[Nikolai]

I always play SP, so naturally AI is important, but I'm not that good, so what others might call a mediocre AI will probably do it for me. Also, I play for fun, not to beat the AI in every single possible way. I won't play the higher setttings, and I expect a game that I can survive in without having such a hard time that it looses the fun element. It's more important with a fun game than a overly challenging game.

[Freddz]

Option 1 is the winner for me. I'm not a superexpert player, nor will I ever be, because of my lack of interest of achieving perfection of play in a computer game.
But a game like civ should have incredible replay value, so AI becomes terribly important.
I would say that a great A.I. comes behind varied gameplay in priority for replay value, but not very far behind.

[alva]

In all honesty, one of the reasons people (still) love Civ2 is because the AI sucks. In the end, people want to win, they want the illusion that the AI is good and that they had a serious fight on their hands but winning is imperative to enjoy any game.

[Boris Godunov]

Option 2 is for me. I like a challenging AI, as I mostly play SP, but I'm no uberciver, so playing it shouldn't be an exercise in frustration (which continually losing would be).

[Sava]

option 4 here

[Harrier UK]

Option 1 for me.

I also only play SP. So I want the AI to be challenging but fun also.

I don't want to win every game - where is the challenge in that. Also I do not want to lose every game - where is the fun in that.

I usely play around the middle of the difficulty levels with Civ3. Regent If I want to guarantee a win. Monarch if I want a challenge. So as you see I am not a good player, just average. So maybe I should have chosen 2.

[Freddz]

To clarify:
Well... option 2 is probably enough for me personally as I won't be playing the highest difficulty level, but I feel players better than me should have the chance for tough opposition a long time.
In a way, this poll may be a bit flawed. We are actually on a site where many people are fanatic about civilization and where some like to think they're much better at it than the average guy who never visits sites like these, so our opinion about this matter may not be as important as that of the average buyer, which I suspect will choose option 2 or lower on average (if they are truthful).
So, if I would have voted to satisfy my own need option 2 would be okay. But, Firaxis is a quality company and I expect the best from them, and I expect they can deliver option 1 for the best players...
I think....hmm

[Harovan]

I play 2 types of games

- fun games, mostly with slight modding, where I roleplay and hence NOT do what would be the best in terms of game mechanics, but what would be historically most accurate. For instance, I wage liberation wars and give the conquered cities back to their rightful owner. Or I put subs with tactical nukes in the oceans, even though they're a joke compared with ICBMs and can easily be lost (at least in Civ3). Since I don't play "full steam" I expect an option 3 AI (punishing only big blunders) to grant me leverage for roleplay while remaining the top dog. Mostly I achieve this by lowering the difficulty level a dent.

- challenging games with an AI of type 2

I may play 2-3 games over the whole lifetime of the game of type 1, i.e. very difficult to play and even more to win. I am not the typical deity player. I like micromanagement up to a point and hate it beyond that.

By the way, games against the AI are only a small part of the fun. The best games will be PBEMs without AI civs.

[Darsnan]

Re: How Important is a Strong AI to You?

Originally posted by yin26
Many gamers, like Markos and others, don't put a premium on the AI being able to thrash on them. They simply enjoy the game for the game's sake and don't make it a goal to figure out how to beat the AI on the hardest levels, etc.

In general, though, how important will it be for you that Civ 4 offer the toughest (yet fairest) AI challenge you've ever had?

Voted #1: as per my sig, why I am always trying to find new ways to beef up the AI in SMAC(X). Having originally started off just giving the AI's SP's (Wonders) or perma-pacting AI's with "tech engine" factions, we have progressed to creating "Ghost Secret Projects", prototyping crucial units for the AI's, and giving them satelites to mimic crawler usage. However no matter what we do the game still falls apart after the discovery of air power as the AI's just don't use aircraft or choppers to their fullest, nor does the AI have a clue as to what to do with aircraft carriers.....
Heres to hoping that these two items will be fixed in cIV, as well as having a more well rounded AI to give humans fits!


D

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alva
In all honesty, one of the reasons people (still) love Civ2 is because the AI sucks. In the end, people want to win, they want the illusion that the AI is good and that they had a serious fight on their hands but winning is imperative to enjoy any game.

Very good point. I think the same is true for SMAC.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I may play 2-3 games over the whole lifetime of the game of type 1, i.e. very difficult to play and even more to win. I am not the typical deity player. I like micromanagement up to a point and hate it beyond that.

Same here. That's about it.

[lockstep]

Option 1. If I want a guaranteed victory, there's always a lower difficulty level.

[Mao_Tse_Tongue]

I voted option 1 although I don't ever play on the way highest difficulty settings.

What I long for most is a non-cheesy AI that scales well across the difficulty settings. I want the AI to be hard because they "play" well, not because they start out with 15 swordsmen and free granaries.