Recent content by Todd Hawks

On the lowest? If your only criteria is that you want to declare war all the time and dominate everyone, why would you play on a higher difficulty level?

I wouldn't be happy at all paying for it considering the game itself is already so expensive and it should be included. But I probably would. But as others said it will never happen. Not shiny enough to sell.

If you had taken even 5 minutes to glance through this thread you would have seen that we aren't complaining about that at all.

No, they didn't talk about how the AI was built but it's safe to assume it's more or less exactly the same as Civ 5. I even bet when modders get theirs hands on it they will find routines and bugs they already found in Civ 5.

Stream's over. Well, that was interesting, I was going from "hey, this doesn't look as bad as I thought" in the beginning to "they cannot be serious" halfway through. In the end it started to actually get funny in that certain desperate way.

How does diplomacy look amazing? Serious question, not trying to bait you or being sarcastic.

What's weird about it? Civ IV still had decent AI (and by now has extremely good AI due to mods). Civ V by now also has decent AI due to mods, even though I don't like it that much. And if Civ VI will allow AI modding, we will see decent AI for Civ VI as well, no doubt. Unfortunately it will...

I think you pretty much nailed it there. We "oldschool" Civ gamers are a small minority by now and it's probably not worth it to cater to us anymore. Give it nice graphics, impressive sounding features and the masses will buy it. Thankfully other companies still try to get good strategy games...

Higher difficulty doesn't help when the AI does nothing all game long and/or is unable to upgrade their units due to lack of strategic resources.

Yeah, I also didn't think it would be *that* bad. Thankfully I didn't preorder yet and will now probably spend the weekend playing the new Stellaris patch/DLC. Shame really, the game mechanics look solid and I was really looking forward to a new Civ game. :(

Not in general, but here it does. Why? Because the AI is not just poor, it is also extremely passive and basically doing nothing at all but building up and waiting for a culture or science victory. And that does indeed mean a less fun game.

That was my first post in this thread so I think you are confusing me with someone else. But no matter, apparently we agree anyways. :) (Doesn't this forum have nested quotes anymore?)

Stop being an apologist. We've seen dozens of AI games by now (this Battle Royale and all the Youtubers and Streamers that had the game for weeks now). We have had AI for Civ, Civ2, Civ3, Civ4, Civ5 (mods), and plenty other 4x games and all of them managed to be good enough to provide...

The point is that NO city has changed hands all game long. Not a single one. That doesn't make for a fun game. A good game leads to a handful of civs (maybe only two) slowly getting the upper hand over the others and then battle it out (either victory condition) to the end. Like in Civ4. This is...

I don't think we will see much. You only get to see how bad the AI truly is when you let it play against a human player. If you pit weak AI against weak AI it will all look on par. Especially if the weakness is on the strategic side (slow teching, unit upgrading, diplomacy,...)