Cheatery of the highest order!

[Dubhghlas]

You know, no offense, but if it keeps you from winning the game easily, it's doing what it is supposed to do. Don't like it? Don't play the game.

Whingers...

[Zinegata]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A computer game A.I. is first and foremost designed to give the player a challenge. It's primary goal is not to become smarter. Therefore, cheating is a perfectly acceptable way of increasing the challenge for a player =).

That being said, I honestly think Firaxis shouldn't be using "improved A.I." as a marketing copy point (it reminds me again of Battlecruiser, Derek Smart, and his "Neural Net A.I." -_-). In general, the term "improving A.I." has been associated with the computer opponent's greater ability to make sound decisions. The Civ IV A.I., frankly, is still saddled with the same decision-making algorithms it has been using since the original Civilization. There is thus little to no improvement in the computer's decision-making ability. Its military A.I. still can't even execute a simple feint.

"More challenging computer opponent" would be the term I would use as a marketing copy point. It accurately reflects that the computer can provide a better challenge (and a challenge is what many Civ players want), but doesn't promise that the system has gotten significantly smarter. That way, when players realize that the computer gets ten times the production of a human player in Deity level, the Firaxis people can can simply answer "Well, isn't being outnumbered ten to one a challenge?"

Also, I wouldn't reveal what bonuses the A.I. receives. Part of the fun of the game is figuring out just exactly what sort of bonuses the computer A.I. gets. That being said, such cheats shouldn't be immediately noticeable - I really like bumping production as it's easy to hide from the player. I recall with narrowed eyes how I had discovered one of Civ III's cheats on the fifth turn of my first Deity game, when I retired prematurely and saw in the replay (to my surprise) that the A.I.s have setup a second city on their third or fourth turns. In that instant, I immediately knew that the Civ III A.I. got two settlers at Deity level, which I felt was acceptable A.I. behaviour, but one that they could've masked a lot better so as to preserve the "belief of game fairness".

One thing I must say however, is that I hate Firaxis' continued use of "A.I. improvements" to justify the intolerable slowdowns now becoming common in Civ games. The A.I. is not that much better. It does not justify the slow downs in machines with over eight times the computer power needed to run Civ III, and the over sixty-four times the computing power needed to run Civ II! Part of A.I. design is making sure it is done optimally so that the game does not suffer any slowdowns. Civilization has been failing miserably in this department, and this negates any debateable improvements done on the Civ IV A.I.

[Azuarc]

One thing I must say however, is that I hate Firaxis' continued use of "A.I. improvements" to justify the intolerable slowdowns now becoming common in Civ games. The A.I. is not that much better. It does not justify the slow downs in machines with over eight times the computer power needed to run Civ III, and the over sixty-four times the computing power needed to run Civ II! Part of A.I. design is making sure it is done optimally so that the game does not suffer any slowdowns. Civilization has been failing miserably in this department, and this negates any debateable improvements done on the Civ IV A.I.

Um, CIV runs slower than previous civs strictly when it's my turn. I don't think it has anything to do with the A.I. The game just runs slow as hell due to overall overhead.