Does Civ 6 have the potential to surpass Civ 4?

[TruthfulCake]

I do think the primary flaw of the AI - building way too many units and sending them in odd directions - can be address with better programing. But it will require a decent effort.

And there are other elements it does well (rotates damaged units with full health ones, etc).

I think they are a little too rotation-happy. Sometimes it is best to let a low-health unit tank/deal damage, as they would have been deadweight anyway even if retreated. I found that the AI didn't attack my cities when they could because they were too busy switching out the 75% health units that my archer attacked.

But as you said, having a good AI and 1UPT is not mutually exclusive. I enjoyed the Community Balance Patch a lot, and I imagine if they can implement it right, beating the AI will feel much more rewarding than in Civ IV.

 

[Grotius]

But as you said, having a good AI and 1UPT is not mutually exclusive. I enjoyed the Community Balance Patch a lot, and I imagine if they can implement it right, beating the AI will feel much more rewarding than in Civ IV.

Well said. As I said earlier, most serious historical wargames have 1-3 UPT, and they often have decent (though never brilliant) AI. In fact, no serious grognard wargame features stacks of doom, because frontage limitations prevent stacks of doom in real warfare. Civ is supposed to model the historical development of civilization and conflict, so I think it should lean toward a more historical model for military conflict. Coding a decent AI will just require some serious effort, and while Firaxis does have an AI guy, it may take a more massive undertaking, like the Community Balance Patch.

Also, Rezaf and I will have to agree to disagree about this, but I think Corps/Armies are paving the way to a compromise mini-stack which has the potential to help the AI, too.

 

[Biz_]

Well said. As I said earlier, most serious historical wargames have 1-3 UPT, and they often have decent (though never brilliant) AI. In fact, no serious grognard wargame features stacks of doom, because frontage limitations prevent stacks of doom in real warfare. Civ is supposed to model the historical development of civilization and conflict, so I think it should lean toward a more historical model for military conflict.

one tile in a civ game represents the area of the entire tactical map of most wargames

the number of units in a tile stops modeling conflict if it exceeds the number of units that can fit in a city
i think more than 1-3 units can fit in a city

 

[TruthfulCake]

one tile in a civ game represents the area of the entire tactical map of most wargames

the number of units in a tile stops modeling conflict if it exceeds the number of units that can fit in a city
i think more than 1-3 units can fit in a city

Isn't that why corps and armies exist, though? Besides, much like one tile in Civ represents an entire area, one unit represents a whole legion of the same units. Faced with the conflict in realism that exists in both 1UPT and InfiniteUPT, I would choose the former.

I wonder if it would be a better system, however, if they made it so that stacking units doesn't take a whole turn in VI. Tactical stacking and unstacking during war can make for a very interesting mechanic, and it shouldn't be hard to make the AI do that.

 

[Staal]

Well said. As I said earlier, most serious historical wargames have 1-3 UPT, and they often have decent (though never brilliant) AI. In fact, no serious grognard wargame features stacks of doom, because frontage limitations prevent stacks of doom in real warfare. Civ is supposed to model the historical development of civilization and conflict, so I think it should lean toward a more historical model for military conflict. Coding a decent AI will just require some serious effort, and while Firaxis does have an AI guy, it may take a more massive undertaking, like the Community Balance Patch.

Also, Rezaf and I will have to agree to disagree about this, but I think Corps/Armies are paving the way to a compromise mini-stack which has the potential to help the AI, too.

This is it. Firaxis must just commit to doing a major AI project once some of the balancing/UI has been sorted out. It can be done, it will just require resources. Civ 6 is on the cusp of being brilliant. I cannot see how it will not be worth their investment to get it right and once and for all slay the 1UPT criticism. This is the best time to do it because of how feature complete Civ 6 already is. Expansions do not have to focus on implementing whole sections of the game.

 

[LDiCesare]

Question: I've never played Civ IV, but how was the combat AI in that game? If it was better how did it get "worse" in CiV and Civ VI?

This has nothing to do with 1UPT.
Civ IV AI could take cities. Civ VI cannot, even at 8 strong units vs a city with a pitiful defender inside.

 

[Trias]

This is it. Firaxis must just commit to doing a major AI project once some of the balancing/UI has been sorted out. It can be done, it will just require resources. Civ 6 is on the cusp of being brilliant. I cannot see how it will not be worth their investment to get it right and once and for all slay the 1UPT criticism. This is the best time to do it because of how feature complete Civ 6 already is. Expansions do not have to focus on implementing whole sections of the game.

Historically, I don't think you should get your hopes up on Firaxis making the necessary investment to make that step. This is probably, because in terms of sales figures the portion of the player base bothered by the poor AI is negligibly small. (This forum is not really representative of the total user base.) Hence even though the devs may care about writing a better AI, their bosses probably won't approve a million dollar project for "just" improving the AI. (Cause that is the order of magnitude investment you should be thinking about to get this done.)

 

[rezaf]

Also, Rezaf and I will have to agree to disagree about this, but I think Corps/Armies are paving the way to a compromise mini-stack which has the potential to help the AI, too.

I actually agree that it might "pave the way" somehow, but as of now, corps and armies still are no stacks. Also, I don't see how allowing mini-stacks would solve anything.
Anyway, if I were to make the calls on the Civ6 team and obligated to stick with 1UPT, I'd actually just drop the corps name and just use armies, functionally working exactly as it is implemented right now. When the game starts, your armies can only have one unit, later on three units are max. For the player.
For every level of difficulty above prince, I'd allow AI armies to have one extra unit (and strongly encourage the AI to make use of this).
In other words, on deity, ancient player armies would be 1 unit strong, ancient AI armies 5 units. Combining that many units would reduce clutter, make maneuvering easier for the AI and also give weight to the production bonus of those higher difficulties when it now just fizzles out.

As for 1UPT in general - I LIKE it, but in games like Panzer General etc. - it's just that I feel it has no place in a global strategy game.
UNLESS the scale of tile vs. city was changed dramatically so movement ranges of 10 even in ancient times would be commonplace amongst units on foot. See Warlock.
Even then, moving around all those units individually is just a lot of annoying busywork and traffic jams are bound to be a regular occurance.
1UPT is much more tactical and involved, no doubt about it, but in a game like Civ, it's as bad a fit as whenever two units clashed, you'd zoom in all the way and duke it out 1 vs 1 in the style of a first person shooter.

 

[Victoria]

One preferred Civ3 as the Civ4 stacks were just not cricket, bully boy stuff.
One learnt and played Civ5 for half a year before placing a verdict of yeah that grew louder than a whisper with BNW.
Ones Jury is out for the said half year but the comment that currently sticks in my mind is "three steps forward one step back". Not sure on the maths there but the sentiment is liked.

Regardless one plays so something must be keeping one here, at least for another turn.

 

[dexters]

I think they are a little too rotation-happy. Sometimes it is best to let a low-health unit tank/deal damage, as they would have been deadweight anyway even if retreated. I found that the AI didn't attack my cities when they could because they were too busy switching out the 75% health units that my archer attacked.

But as you said, having a good AI and 1UPT is not mutually exclusive. I enjoyed the Community Balance Patch a lot, and I imagine if they can implement it right, beating the AI will feel much more rewarding than in Civ IV.

I agree on the AI retreating damaged units too readily. This is something they can tweak and fix but is already a step up over 5 where the AI didn't seem to understand the concept of retreating damaged units to fight another day. I think this is more of an AI preference that they can probably tweak and fix in the patches

 

[jjkrause84]

When discussion 1UPT don't forget scale. It ruins he scale of Civ. Archers firing arrows hundreds of miles, and 'massive' armies of 6-8 units.

Scale and scope are some of the best things about stacking. You can feel like you're leading a genuine army, not just a tiny handful of squads.

 

[Trias]

Anyway, if I were to make the calls on the Civ6 team and obligated to stick with 1UPT, I'd actually just drop the corps name and just use armies, functionally working exactly as it is implemented right now. When the game starts, your armies can only have one unit, later on three units are max. For the player.
For every level of difficulty above prince, I'd allow AI armies to have one extra unit (and strongly encourage the AI to make use of this).
In other words, on deity, ancient player armies would be 1 unit strong, ancient AI armies 5 units. Combining that many units would reduce clutter, make maneuvering easier for the AI and also give weight to the production bonus of those higher difficulties when it now just fizzles out.

Moreorless the same thing can be accomplished by giving the AI a combat bonus (as is already happening).

I agree on the AI retreating damaged units too readily. This is something they can tweak and fix but is already a step up over 5 where the AI didn't seem to understand the concept of retreating damaged units to fight another day. I think this is more of an AI preference that they can probably tweak and fix in the patches

This probably involves tweaking one or two numbers. (Please devs let these be accessible without having to change the dll.) Finding the sweet spot may be hard though.

 

[Willburn]

I was a very active MP in civ4 (eysteinthewise) and got a great spy named after me in the game. For me CIV VI has the potential to be even better than civ4 albeit for me that game will always have a special place in my heart for the great MP community. What I like about CIV 6 is the meaningful choices at pretty much every turn. What I don't like so far is the AI doing some stupid things but the systems are all there and its looking very good for the vanilla release. (and yes there are some more powerfull nations etc as always but these things tend to balance out over time as feedback is given to firaxis.)

 

[dexters]

This probably involves tweaking one or two numbers. (Please devs let these be accessible without having to change the dll.) Finding the sweet spot may be hard though.

If you are correct, it can be done so veteran units will be more valued. Retreating may also be contingent on how the local AI general feels the war is going.

The key here is retreating high value units and sacrificing others, using the pillage and heal function to keep them alive as long as possible. that's the biggest part I don't see enough in seiges. Too much shuffing of all units.

 

[Victoria]

When discussion 1UPT don't forget scale. It ruins he scale of Civ. Archers firing arrows hundreds of miles, and 'massive' armies of 6-8 units.

Scale and scope are some of the best things about stacking. You can feel like you're leading a genuine army, not just a tiny handful of squads.

Once one starts quoting scale one is on a slippery slope as there is much visual disparity.

Leading a genuine army, to a degree. but the huge stacks lessened tactics and had nothing to do with combined arms, morale, supply etc so they in fact felt less like an army to me than visualizing giant archers and spearmen tactically taking out some horsemen. One way is not right but a preference and this many years of luvvin it means entrenchment I am not going to change. I just try to be open and get used to it first. Anything new is not liked until it is worn a bit.

 

[dexters]

Yeah scale arguments are a slippery slope
people have been trying to figure out the troop sizes of individual units long before 1upt and no one has agreed on anything.

Besides I can turn that on its head and note that seeing a battle line of infantry March towards the border is much more satisfying than quick moving a stack of 30 infantry.

 

[Staal]

Historically, I don't think you should get your hopes up on Firaxis making the necessary investment to make that step. This is probably, because in terms of sales figures the portion of the player base bothered by the poor AI is negligibly small. (This forum is not really representative of the total user base.) Hence even though the devs may care about writing a better AI, their bosses probably won't approve a million dollar project for "just" improving the AI. (Cause that is the order of magnitude investment you should be thinking about to get this done.)

Sure, the commercial side of things matter and I agree many people would not care about the AI. I still think it would be beneficial to their "brand". There would not be zero upside to it. Not easy for us to quantify that of course, but I will keep on hoping.

 

[rezaf]

It'd be funny if they'd just go full circle and allow unlimited stacking in the way Civ1 did it - pile unit upon unit to your hearts content, but lose a single one when the tile is attacked and you can bid the entire stack goodbye.
Perfect discouragement to build too big a stack, but removes all traffic jam annoyances and, depending on implementation, could also remove the carpet of doom micromanagement hell.
Sid had it right all the way back in 1991.

 

[dexters]

Sure, the commercial side of things matter and I agree many people would not care about the AI. I still think it would be beneficial to their "brand". There would not be zero upside to it. Not easy for us to quantify that of course, but I will keep on hoping.

The only blemish in all the glowing reviews has been the AI. Time magazines review is fairly reflective of casual consensus.

We know some things are certain.. There will be patches. There will be expansions and patches to those.

I think Firaxis will spend the resources to get the AI to a point where it is satisfactory for that Time magazine reviewer. Modders will then take it to the next level.

 

[ahcos]

It'd be funny if they'd just go full circle and allow unlimited stacking in the way Civ1 did it - pile unit upon unit to your hearts content, but lose a single one when the tile is attacked and you can bid the entire stack goodbye.
Perfect discouragement to build too big a stack, but removes all traffic jam annoyances and, depending on implementation, could also remove the carpet of doom micromanagement hell.
Sid had it right all the way back in 1991.

Yes please. Or at least the choice to stack at least A FEW units on the same tile. Micromanaging units in 5+6 is just too annoying the way it is right now.

---

Regarding stupid AI, it'd be possible to have a better AI, no doubt. But the question is: will a vastly improved AI make the game more fun for a lot of players...? Over here on civfanatics, most would say so, but is it true for the majority of the playerbase? I'm not too sure about it. If you're looking for a strategically challenging game, there are other options out there.

No doubt that i'm embittered by the fact that Firaxis chose this route for one of my favourite franchises: making the game appeal to a more casual audience. The fact that so many people enjoy it still shows it was a good choice to do so. Otoh, that's the main reason there won't be a substancial improvement of the AI, ever. Even though i hate the path they chose, i have to applaud the way how they do it. 5+6 are great games, after all. They're just not Civ-games, or at least not the way you'd imagine them. You all should consider that when fantasizing about what WOULD be possible with a better AI.