Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Siege Units: I'm not sure about the AI building more of these, as I'm not aware of how many it actually builds; it's a matter of testing to balance it out. I absolutely agree that the AI should heavily prioritize your siege units, specially when it's under siege.
Warmonger penalties: the AI reaction against warmongers vary greatly. It depends on the leader's personality, how that Civ perceives warmongers, the difference in power between the two, the alliances it has with other Civs.
Team games: again, not sure if this needs tweaking as I haven't played in a team with AI.
Settling: I don't think this needs any adjustment. The AI is quite liberal with their city locations, more so than most players. Also, the number of City-States settled into canals are astounding.
Civ playstyle: I believe that the leader's personality, the starting bias, and the unique unit(s) it has are more than enough to determine how a particular Civ will play out. Many of the AI strategy is defined by the terrain, the technology it possesses, and other aspects not defined by which Civ it is.