3 years of civ and im huge desappointed

[Victoria]

I'm disappointed that trade is still a overly simple, boring mechanic, and that the new UN is just a mess where you can't be sure if you end up supporting your enemy's proposal...

I was thinking the other night that if trade routes lasted as long as a traverse to and from target city then at least they could free up a bit faster. At the moment they are too long to really be strategic. Naturally you do not want to keep refreshing a short route so perhaps a notification the have finished and then the carry on by default but can be re-assigned, perhaps being displayed as such in the trade screen.
I know it’s probably not what you want with faraway spice routes and the like but that would be quite a radical change?
Anyways, their elapsed trade route algorithm is weird anyway with some shorter routes lasting longer that longer routes.
UN is just an area I do not want to go to. Favour is way too traceable to be worth hogging for silly votes.

 

[MrRadar]

I was thinking the other night that if trade routes lasted as long as a traverse to and from target city then at least they could free up a bit faster. At the moment they are too long to really be strategic.
<...>
I know it’s probably not what you want with faraway spice routes and the like but that would be quite a radical change?
Anyways, their elapsed trade route algorithm is weird anyway with some shorter routes lasting longer that longer routes.<...>

The unchanging mechanics of trade routes regardless of era and technology have been bugging me forever. On this point I'll quote my own post from the Winter Patch wishes thread in Ideas&Suggestions section:

I'd like to see a revision of the trader unit movement. Now it moves 1 tile per turn regardless of the terrain, improvement or technology, which makes establishing trading posts in distant civilizations a very time consuming thing even in modern eras.

Now Celestial Navigation allows Traders to embark, then Cartography should let them travel 2 tiles per turn, increased to 3 tiles per turn after Square Rigging, 4 tiles per turn after Steam Power and 5 tiles per turn after Combustion.
That would be a little boost for coastal cities or at least harbours.

Trader movement on land should also be increased up to 2 tiles per turn on modern roads and to 3 tiles per turn on railroads.

At the same time it would be nice to see trade deals with the AI (in luxuries and strategic resources) allowed only in case you have an established trading post with that AI or vice versa. That would provide an incentive to send international trade routes earlier.

 

[Ferocitus]

No, he's playing Civ VI. Maybe it's you playing a different game.

Why do I and several others see civs building armies and being aggressive and you don't?
I have played at least 20 games recently where at least 1, sometimes up to 6 different civs attack in force sometime during the game. I don't use any mods that change aggressiveness.

 

[steveg700]

Why do I and several others see civs building armies and being aggressive and you don't?
I have played at least 20 games recently where at least 1, sometimes up to 6 different civs attack in force sometime during the game. I don't use any mods that change aggressiveness.

That really is a fair question. I'm playing a game on Emperor difficulty right now, and Cyrus is right below me, with a city about eight tiles from my capital. I'm merrily just doing my China thing and trying to bang out early wonders. I'm an attractive target by all accounts, with no army to speak of. And there he is glowering and expressing his contempt but never doing anything about it. I haven't even gone so far as to send a delegation.

And I also notice this guy, despite having a massive army, is just allowing barbarians to stroll about. I have to inch my scout around his cities one tile at a time. If one of his units winds up within attacking distance, they attack, but units don't seem to move to intercept or try to wipe out the camp. There are a bunch of yellow-health barbs walking around that haven't been finished off.

I don't do much of anything to amass grievances. I don't early-rush civ's or city-states. Maybe that's a difference.

 

[Fippy]

Seadoba you did buy IV, righto?
We have a very active community here in the IV S&T forum, and it's very very veeeery challenging on deity,
you would be welcome to visit us too

 

[Mahi]

Can only agree with OP. Civ 6 seems like an abounded project in many perspectives.

 

[S1AL]

Regarding the side note on multiplayer: the removal of card overflow exploits made chops far less relevant. But I still would never even dream of playing it unmodded, just for balance reasons.

As regards the AI: I've definitely had city states go for broke on attacking. They're not, however, consistent about it. I assume there's an underlying mechanical issue - probably something to do with vision and force assessment. Even though I play exclusively MP, I would love to see a better AI so that CS exist for a reason beyond obscene bonus stacking and free early cities*.

*I'm exaggerating a bit - some of them have nice Suze bonuses as well.

 

[Seadoba]

Seadoba you did buy IV, righto?
We have a very active community here in the IV S&T forum, and it's very very veeeery challenging on deity,
you would be welcome to visit us too

I'll definitely go there. See ya!

 

[Icicle]

Okay trip report - Real Strategy is a HUGE improvement. Mansa Musa is rotating Crossbowmen on me and using five of them to target the same unit down in one turn. Never seen an AI do that before. I'm really struggling and having to call in allies. I haven't had to do that in a long time!

 

[darko82]

Why bother with placements and maximizing efficiency if the AI isnt even a threat.

As said earlier, this breaks the game entirely for me. No threat in the game makes a lot of implemented things pointless. And if I don't feel a point, I quit the game.

 

[Sven]

I do enjoy it most of the time if I don't play too often and the UI has improved with the expansions. However, it bothers me that the AI is so stupid tactically and when it comes to diplomacy.

Also, I don't understand why they haven't got a Hall of Fame. It's a minor detail, but for me it's hugely missed.

 

[Victoria]

And if I don't feel a point, I quit the game.

For me the point is not always at the end of a spear nor even in winning but yes, if it's pointless, stop.

Also, I don't understand why they haven't got a Hall of Fame. It's a minor detail, but for me it's hugely missed.

It is there now on your main menu unless you are talking about a global HOF which is just a joke if you look at Civ V's.

 

[Bitterman]

In my actual game I've been surprised attacked by Georgia and she managed to take one of my outer encampment walls down. She used swordsmen (I didn't have any since no iron), archers, horses, catapults and battering ram. It was quite a nice attack to be CIV VI AI.

I got DoW'd again by Phoenicia in the next 20 turns, and she had a +1500 army vs. my 600. Her boats were a pain in the ass. Thanks god I had those super level 1 walls, which are really effective even against caravels.

I mean they are now at least very capable of building a nice army, even if they are not clever using it to attack. Then again, I've been absolutely destroyed in some MP matches against rivals with much more smaller armies, as defending is usually way easier than commiting to an attack.

 

[oSiyeza]

Extremely disappointed with the game.

We are arriving in the 3 year launch, 2 expansions, and to this day we do not have an AI capable of making an army.

I think that there have been important developments in the mechanics of the game, diplomacy is fine, innovations in constructions, but for any player of civilization the 1st point is to make WAR.

It is totally disappointing to play at any level and face nations that simply can not make an army.

I am in a Deity run with 10 civilizations and it seems that I am the unique one in the map with army. How annoying.

I was 2 years without playing, I waited for patches, expansions, and it just does not happen.

Firaxis, is it serious that you're expecting players to patch? Are you expecting a VOX POPULI?

What an aberration. A shame because I simply do not see any kind of challenge in civ, border the easy ridiculous. At least code the AI to massive spam army, idc, but GIVE TO THE PLAYERS SOME CHALLENGE.

I play with real strategy and smoother difficulty mods. They should affect the AI only on the rate they are granted bonus, and the focus they put to victory conditions. Though granted, these mods objectively improve AI.

I play on king, probably would play on emperor if i was not using those mods. And while the AI is usually not challenging, I think is not because they act stupidly, but more because they dont play in an aggressive way, i think is a deliberate decision not to cause frustration on the player.

Attacking by surprise with a big number of advanced units would be the end for me if the AI ever decides to do that when im focused on other fronts. When i attack them however, i rarely have an easy time.

A consistent behavior I have seen is the AI defending the borders from Forts with melee and range units, while bringing units from other cities from inside their territory and using ranged ships (including a quatrirreme army) to stop the units i dare to put in coast lands and puting me in a bottleneck of sorts. Is a smart behavior that makes me lose units, and stops my advance for a serious amount of time. That is, I dare to say, a smart consistent and competent defense.

However, im unsure if it is by design, despite they holding positions quite well, they do not counterattack or take real advantage of all my efforts being in one front. They just never take the killing blow that would make the attack to fail.

I ultimately could overwhelm them cause i kept sending new units to the battle, while they did not at the same rate. However, most consistent flaw from the AI, is them not changing the first line units to allow them to heal. Also they totally could have prevented me, by using their large navy, from bringing more samurai into the battle. Another weird flaw i have seen, is that they dont use their catapults for defense; I think this is an actual bug.

All in all, I was playing Japan, they were Maori. So my samurai were objectively better than their toa and pikemen. But still i had a very hard time succeeding in my attack. While I think there is a lot of room for improvement, and definitely the AI should be more aggressive, regarding counter attack (and attacking in general), and they should bring more units to the field, and cut supply lines. I would not call the current state of the AI bad. It is bit of a shame, that they probably designed the AI to be that way to not frustrate casual players. But is not a walk in the park at all either.

 

[CivLuvah]

for any player of civilization the 1st point is to make WAR

As someone who has played Civ for more than 10 years war has always been the last thing on my mind. Does that make me a bad civ player?

The mental gymnastics some people make to justify bad AI. Common arguments are:
- Game is still fun - then how much more fun would it be if you got constant doses of adrenaline from combat and had to care about diplomacy and war!
- Better AI cannot be done for mechanics of this game - then the game mechanics should be designed differently, goddamn even redesigned if necessary (Paradox did some very radical chances in patches of Stellaris). If current version of 1UPT is that impossible to design AI for then maybe it is not worth it in the end. In theory I greatly prefer it over stacks but if I need to have stacks to have any challenge in the game then damn it, give me stacks.
- This is "builder" or "sandbox" game, not "wargame" - it is neither, it is empire building game and 4X game. Both of these descriptions include great importance of warfare and many civs are mostly designed around war.
- AI has improved since release - yes it has improved from "braindead absurdity" to "very bad" after three years. Three years and there is no sense of urgency or any risk beyond early game rush.
- I don't want the game to be too difficult - we have 8 difficulty levels to have from (though half of them are pointless anyway)
- Turn times would be too long - if many other turn and real time strategii games with a metric ton of units and factions can function, civ could have decent performance too. I mean, maybe it'd require removal od 1UPT but look at point 2.

My argument would be that in my experience of Civ6 so far the AI problems have been relatively minor. In all honestly from Civ 4 to Civ 5 up to Civ 6 I really didn't bother with the state of the AI. Of course, there will be people out there who would angrily say otherwise. I just keep on playing the game because I love it.

Criticisms about the AI never stopped me to like the game, nor should people who say they love the game be seen as an attack to those who don't.

 

[Council 13]

I am certainly discouraged. AI is making more units now.. but doesn't always use them. Never uses siege engines when outside of a city to attack units. I mean honestly.... what the hell. Some improved coordination in their attacks... but still no where things should be at this point.

 

[Sven]

It is there now on your main menu unless you are talking about a global HOF which is just a joke if you look at Civ V's.

How about that. Thanks, I didn't notice.

 

[Beaver79]

I am certainly discouraged. AI is making more units now.. but doesn't always use them. Never uses siege engines when outside of a city to attack units. I mean honestly.... what the hell. Some improved coordination in their attacks... but still no where things should be at this point.

Yeah siege units not attacking anything but a city is the worst AI programming I've ever seen. Sometimes civs make nothing but siege units as well so they basically can't do anything.

Units will also just go one at a time up to your walls or units and suicide themselves into them with hope of accomplishing anything. In Civ V they would send enough units to take a city or not bother sending any at all. If they were losing they would retreat. If attacking a unit meant the attacking unit died they wouldn't suicide. Civ Vs AI wasn't good but it was leaps and bounds ahead of VI.

 

[Council 13]

Yeah siege units not attacking anything but a city is the worst AI programming I've ever seen. Sometimes civs make nothing but siege units as well so they basically can't do anything.

Units will also just go one at a time up to your walls or units and suicide themselves into them with hope of accomplishing anything. In Civ V they would send enough units to take a city or not bother sending any at all. If they were losing they would retreat. If attacking a unit meant the attacking unit died they wouldn't suicide. Civ Vs AI wasn't good but it was leaps and bounds ahead of VI.

Yes to all this.... I mean, how are the simplest of things still not working? If you purchased the game new and all the expansions... you're in well over $100... and the AI doesn't even know how to use some units???

 

[cvb]

I mean, how are the simplest of things still not working?

Perhaps by a final AI layer / final balancing just still missing? I mean, I don't think, that the full map editor / world builder is all they talked about when they mentioned "surprises" and that they are "still not done". Maybe I'm a dreamer, but ...

There’s a thread on Reddit where the FXS Devs discuss the AI and other issues. Link here. You can find some other quotes searching the Dev’s profile. Some quotes below:
“Both of these changes would fall into a camp of feature that I've tried to avoid with all of my work on Civ 6: they would be features that do absolutely nothing when used on a human player.
[...]
we're very aware of the feedback that we're constantly receiving about the level of play of the AI. A lot of people look fondly back on the difficulty of the AI in games prior to Civ 5, but with 5 and 6, we made a change to have the AI actually play the same game as the human player. Previously, the game would just magically grant units and techs and such to the AI players in order to keep them competitive. Now, we may sneak the AIs extra yields or have them start on better footing, but they're not then cheating with those resources.
This does however mean that the AI is having a harder time playing the game, because it's really difficult to make an AI that plays well enough (and poorly enough) for the range of people who want to play against it. This gets worse when systems are added to the game that exist solely for the player to exploit.“

Good approach, but in the end the effective "competitiveness" of the AIplayers is, what counts.

.