1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice

AI discussion thread for casual/poor players

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Stringer1313, Nov 23, 2016.

  1. CBE Player

    CBE Player Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the sun.
    I agree here except for the feel bad part.:crazyeye:

    In actuality it does not really matter what level of play a person wins/loses at. It's all about having fun. So if the OP and others want to be a completionist then so be it, but just having fun is all the rage here. Everyone should just play at what ever level they have fun at, if they are frustrated or rage quit then they're not having fun and should back up a bit to correct the situation.:D
     
    chriskj likes this.
  2. manu-fan

    manu-fan Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,005
    I don't consider myself 'bad', but I certainly am casual.

    I only play on Prince, and do so because I enjoy it. I'm having a blast and feel no need to inflate my ego by trying harder difficulties. I'm playing each Leader, and having a blast using their different bonuses to the best effect. I like the Domination game best, but have a Domination, Culture, and Science victories under my belt. My 4th game, I'm going for a Religion victory, but by wiping out those others on my Continent, and then just spamming the other continent (or maybe taking out 1 or 2 of them to establish a beach head).

    I'm having so much fun with Civ 6. In Civ 5, I was punished for having more than about 4 cities. In Civ 6 I can have tons and tons of cities. It's great.
     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam If A implies B...

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    27,062
    Wanting something and not attaining it generally feels bad. If you truly seek to attain it and aren't paying lip service, it *will* feel bad.

    If someone really wants to win on deity or even better against other people vs just wants to play the game and do whatever while still enjoying the experience, their actions should look different. The amount in-game choices are measured, how much that player reads on strategy, how much that player analyzes mistakes in games won/lost (especially lost), all look different depending on goals.

    It's vexing to see advice like "just practice" or "you need to try really hard to beat x". That advice has negative value. In order to improve, you have to take measures to improve, gain comprehension of why a given choice is better to the point where you can anticipate its outcome in the future.

    If I tell someone Rome is better than America in this game, they might remember it, but what matters is why its better. What are your anticipated differences between these two civs by turn 10? 50? What choices do you make differently, what does the game look like? You can do the same thing for whether you build builder, fast settler, military units, or something else early game, or which technologies to research.

    There is a reasoning behind every choice, but only some of them are sound in a given situation. If a player can't determine what led to failure when encountering it, that player is going to stay mediocre forever. It feels bad, and if you want to get better, it should feel bad. It should feel bad because something is going wrongly, differently from expected, but you don't know what it is. If the player *did* know, that player can adjust and win instead, and then it doesn't feel bad.
     
    greygamer and MyOtherName like this.
  4. CBE Player

    CBE Player Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the sun.
    Not sure I think people should care about that in a "game" is all I'm sayin'. Gaming is for Fun firstly, obtaining anything else is secondary. IMHO. They should not let their loses get to them deeply because they then will not be having fun. Granted some peopel have fun in challenging ways where others do not. At least as far as gaming is concerned.
     
  5. lordhaw

    lordhaw Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm exactly the same way. I am playing on Prince simply because I'm having a blast at it. Could I play higher? Yes I could, but I just feel like being a casual player these days and I'm enjoying myself at Prince so why go higher right now? When I feel like I should go higher to keep the fun level up then I'll do so.
     
    manu-fan likes this.
  6. Mr. Shadows

    Mr. Shadows Nomad of the time streams

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    650
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Incheon, R.O.K.
    It's a game, if you're having fun you're winning. I do like turning the difficulty up (Immortal currently, hope to notch Deity over the holiday) but sometimes I just turn it down so I can build a ton of wonders, or to see how big I can grow a city, or how many cities I can make or whatever. It's fun building your empire for its own sake, even if you aren't being at all competitive.

    It's no different from a golfer or pool player getting PO'd because they made a bad shot. I remember when I played Civ Rev on-line I was in a close game that went back and forth late into the game. Just as I finally got the leverage I needed to win (by upgrading a whole lot of knights into tanks via Leo's Workshop) my console burned out on me. Wow did that ever burn my rear-end. At the time I was angrier about having the victory taken from me than I was about losing my console even though I knew it would be while before I could afford a new one. Sure, being competitive is frustrating when you lose, but if it weren't it wouldn't be rewarding when you win. You have to keep it in perspective but it's a normal part of being a sportsman or gamer.
     
    Tiger Genocide and CBE Player like this.
  7. Stringer1313

    Stringer1313 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,164
    Thanks for all the replies from both those giving advice (I will try the 3 slinger commercial hub beeline one) and other casual players. I didn't mean to imply that I was ashamed of myself lol but more just curious as to why my experience seems so different from those of many players on this forum and exploring that. I do enjoy the role playing aslpect. I also wonder if playing on a bigger map can make King more challenging so that it's right at the difficulty that suits me (harder than king but easier than emperor)?
     
  8. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    It sounds like the AI isn't even challenging enough for you if you're not playing it seriously and still have to crank the difficulty up to hard mode to get a challenge!

    When you say "challenging", do you mean "I struggle, but still manage to win all the time?" or "I only win one out of six games?" If the former, the even emperor is below your level
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam If A implies B...

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    27,062
    *IF* you want to improve, then losses need to linger long enough for you to figure out why you lost and come up with a means to correct for it. You don't have to lose sleep at night, but if a player doesn't analyze failures and adjust play against them said player will enter a state of being *perpetually* mediocre.

    If the player is fine with being at that level forever, it's not an issue. If the player actually wants to play better, changing behavior is the way to go.

    This contrast only really bothers me when a player who has chosen the path of staying intermediate or worse forever starts talking down on the players who have made the proper adjustments, or expects special treatment in games where they interact. I'll give an example. A long time ago in civ 4, a player got killed by an AI in a mostly co-op online game. He switched to the AI who had killed him, who everyone had previously agreed was my target for two cities. I requested the two cities nearest me, he refused, so I espionage culture pressured the nearest one. He declared, probably because most rookies in civ 4 think that bigger stack = win, and he had about 40% more power in demographics. He was off the map inside 20 turns, but opinions were split on whether it was okay for me to do that. It was kind of fun (but not for him), but the context was sad. I think he stopped playing after that...as if I was in the wrong for pressing for agreed-upon cities, or killing the guy who attacked me with full intent of wiping me out ^_^.

    "I don't like to min/max" used in the context of keeping difficulty down, "I don't like to abuse the AI", "I don't like using exploits to win", these are the words of a player who has chosen to stay average but refuses to comes to grips with that choice, who makes excuses for suboptimal play rather than truly not caring. I got one of those lines on that day. These players can't even come up with a self-consistent line to draw when it comes to determining what constitutes "exploits", frequently defining it in such a way where they break their own rule, then coming up with excuses for that too. That's about where my patience wears out in such discussions.

    Everyone plays the game for fun, whether you're at settler or deity. If it isn't fun most people aren't going to play it for long. But when it comes to your perception of "what is easy or hard", everything is relative. You're making a choice. Perpetual intermediacy is a real thing for people, and all of us are perpetually intermediate in aspects we don't focus. Pushing into higher levels of ability at something is costly, to different extents for different people. Even if you're gifted, you're not going to attain top 1% ability in every basic task you do in daily life, every game you ever touch, every task you do professionally, etc without exception...even if you could somehow measure that.

    It's not a big deal what you choose in civ, but whatever you choose make sure you realize it :p.
     
  10. youngsteve

    youngsteve Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    448
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    If you look at the Steam achievements for Civilization 6 they have no reality to these boards as someone already mentioned. Just looking at the achievement for winning a regular game on king or higher was achieved by an amazing 11.4%. So do the developers adjust the game for the really small amounts on these boards, or the vast majority who don't visit them.
     
    Heklios likes this.
  11. weregamer

    weregamer Gandhi of the Mongols

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Not exactly on-topic but very well worth taking a moment to remember. The AI is pretty damned broken this time around, but "so challenging I have to micromanage every detail and still lose a lot" is only a few people's definition of fun.
     
  12. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to imply. But for more context, the other percentages are 34% settler, 31% chieftain, 25% prince, 11% king, 7% emperor, 5% immortal, and 4% deity.

    It is interesting, I suppose, to note that, just a month after release, of all the players who have won a game of Civ 6, more than 10% of them have won on the highest difficulty level.
     
    HF22 likes this.
  13. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    Big thank you to BarshyJ for this thread. A lot to be learned about how things work in this game, that ultimately makes a better player.

    Personally I went from Prince to Emperor in Civ V over a long period. Emperor was the level where I could be flexible in approach and still often win, Immortal/Deity seemed to require playing to a template and for me was not fun. I found moving up each difficulty level required changing my approach and if you read those Deity threads for Civ V you will find a number of people who prefered Emperor/Immortal anyways.

    I'm playing Civ VI on Prince as I try each of the leaders and aim to get wins with them all before I move up to King/Emperor. By that time the AI might have been fixed, but if not maybe Immortal will be my sweet spot.

    tldr: High difficulty often seems to resolve around exploiting the AI's advantages (e.g. stealing settlers/cities)
     
    Stilgar08 and Victoria like this.
  14. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,963
    Location:
    Nehwon
    There are players who have difficulty beating the game on the easiest setting. People suggesting that the easier levels of play should be removed are talking out their asses; they're saying "easy levels of play should be removed because I don't personally use them, and anything I don't personally use is worthless."

    Not everyone has the same desire, skill level, or patience as you. That's why there are difficulty levels in the first place.
     
    King William I and chriskj like this.
  15. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,380
    Location:
    City of one angel
    I think those low percentages stem from the fact that very few people actually do finish their games as the game becomes really boring after 100 turns
     
    Ron West likes this.
  16. Grotius

    Grotius Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    409
    I don't consider myself "poor", but I might be "casual" in that I almost never declare war, which is obviously a suboptimal strategy. I'll fight if attacked, and possibly take one or two cities in a defensive war, but that's about it: I've never declared war in Civ 6, and rarely did so in Civ 5. I don't care that the AI sends out unescorted settlers, because even they parade them right in front of me, I don't declare war. It's not that I'm a pacifist; I routinely declare war in WW2 strategy games, say. I just prefer to build peacefully in Civ. I like to compete for science, score or culture wins. (The religion game doesn't appeal to me as much in its current bland form.)

    This way of doing things is somewhat more challenging, at least for me. I can win at Prince or King, but Emperor is a struggle. I like it that way.
     
    Oleary likes this.
  17. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    I wouldn't get too hung up on labels such as "poor", "casual", etc. I got around 2k hours on Civ V and could be labelled as either because I never beat the game above emperor.
    I'm more of a "warmongering menace to the world" type, but usually because the AI gives me such a hard time diplomatically and I found the other victory conditions mainly to be hit next turn a few hundred times. that said at the moment warmonger in Civ VI isn't very satisfying because the AI really falls off after 80-100 turns whatever you do. Also the AI can hate you simply for trying to win.

    Current game (as Peter) Gandhi hates me because I refused to promise to not convert his cities (should I have lied to him?) Tomyris hates me because I surprised attacked a city state she was attacking. Montezuma hates me because of luxuries and a different government. Pericles denounces me because he hates my government (Theocracy) as well as other unknown reasons, and Victoria doesn't like me because I'm on a continent she has no cities on (it's another unknown but I'm guessing). I've only been in one war against an AI (Tomyris) and will not attack her cities while destroying her horsemen/Saka Horse Archers with muskets and crossbows.

    I'm going for a religious victory because that is a slightly more level playing field, although having 2k faith in the ban probably makes that a foregone conclusion as well.

    Absolutely... I'm only going for the wins to pick up the achievements.
     
  18. idjit

    idjit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States of Whatever This Is Now
    This was my experience with civ 5...king was too easy and emperor was too hard. I just kept plugging away at what worked, what didn't and then emperor became too easy and immortal was too hard. The games can be long yes, but the only thing I've run into that tests my patience were wonders and (now) districts. There's usually enough going on each turn so that I don't really get bored.

    Just keep plugging away until you find immortal too easy lol. I'm an idiot and after an embarassing amount of hours on civ 5 I finally started to play deity (sort of) comfortably. I just started civ 6 right into deity for the lulz...if I can do it, you can do it.

    What I do (because I have the patience of a dead person) is to the play the same maps over again. First try zerg settlers. Then, try super tall. Then try all science, then all culture, then all commerce/IZs, then spam military, then don't spam military. You get a feel real quick where certain thresholds lie. 50 military units and one city by turn 100 is prolly not that great, just like 50 cities and 1 military unit by turn 100 is also not so great. Just feel around until it clicks or feels right-ish.

    Sometimes the eurekas can be like little hints, like that one boost you get early on for having 8 military units. 3 archers, 3 warriors, 2 heavy chariots. There's your eight. Secure iron, boost the necessary techs, then use Professional Army to upgrade them into xbows, swordsmen and knights. Well, you don't need P.A. for swordsmen, because they are cheap.
     
    Victoria likes this.
  19. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,879
    yes, warmongering and diplomacy are a bad mix, but trying for all the other victory types and struggling with unhappiness is not easy.

    Diplomacy gets harder as you get higher. And some things are important to remember

    1. The AI will be fussier about bargains and likes to get the better, even if just a few gold. Remember it is an AI and not a person so do not take the approach of "I never loose during a negotiation" as you will be loosing because you did not get what you want... peace.

    2. Having spare luxuries is a HUGE help... the modifiers for things seem to normally be about 1-5 in value with the larger targets being higher like 6 - 12. It seems they start thinking and measuring for war around -6 and on deity a first impressions modifier of -6 does not help (not all get this but it does seem predominant). I find that they always want a spare luxury and this is that special extra +1-2 that can help all the time. When you only have a few extras, use them well. people seem to complain these extras are not useful, I feel the opposite. I think they are the tipping point at Deity between giving up and eventually surviving.

    3. In diplomacy everything decays... in the fix they have made the decay rates more helpful supposedly but I have been too tied up with culture to get into it You may see on the screen you are +5 with a civ but they are still unfriendly. That is because you are seeing current state of modifiers and their mood is working off a historical decaying state toward those current modifiers. This makes diplomacy not a simple read screen and push buttons. But takes some consideration which I like extremely. Yes not everything is right but what they are attempting is good in my view.

    4. Those key Civ requirements can be nasty, especially something like GP. You cannot help getting them with districts. Something like China's wonder build is easy but it takes a while for them to assess you and build that. So if next to China they will want to war you at the start with -6 but you got a delegation with them +2 and you had some nice talks +1 and your troops moved next to their border -2 so you are on -5 and close to war. On Deity that's OK..that hate and distrust will decay as long as you do not annoy them more and they will end up in the positives eventually.

    5. Like Civ 5 , if you see a nasty neighbor denounce someone... denounce that player if further away also. Those types of things all count and you are supposed to take the time to check and look and be aware of alerts, especially on deity. I am as guilty as everyone of click next in a game once established because it feels same old... but there is difference and flavor in there if you are willing to accept your game may take 20 hours not 15 to play... and I feel that it is that feeling of rushing through once established because of game length that incorrectly drives me and others.

    6. Of course if we are about to win they should try to stop us... Its an AI and therefore attempting to some poor level to act like a human player and so gets a little annoyed when we are about to beat it. It annoys me to some degree but thats because they upset my plans and I cannot just click next and have played this game long enough.

    7. Befriending someone will make others dislike you more. There are no negatives to saying sorry I like you but not that much apart from Gilgamesh starting to spam you every 3 turns to be his friend and freaking on screen every time you say no. On this point it is also true that the AI easily declares war and so does this against other AI's so make use of that also. It does not hurt to ask china if they want to go to war together against Rome. If they were thinking about it anyway they can say yes and suddenly they are only -1 with you which will decay further.

    8 You cannot please everyone all the time. You will be hated by some and that is also something us lovely humans are good at... hating someone regardless. The AI has to use excuses for this and thats what we do to some degree

    Sorry, I am ranting but I think its because everyone just wants to avoid diplomacy and blame diplomacy. the fact that it is hard is because the AI is too easy in other ways and this mechanic is a lot simpler to tune so use it as a key difficulty modifier in my view.... and we often just ignore it until bang they declare on us.Like everything in this life we can hate it or try to embrace it... I find that even though it frustrates me I still try my best to embrace it and by mid game normally most are happy with me.

    Maybe I should write a diplomacy guide :(
     
    Namæless likes this.
  20. dturtle1

    dturtle1 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2016
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Mackay, QLD, Australia
    You should Victoria... :) I agree BTW, though some Agenda's just dont work well as implemented, in some cases they just need a bit more nuance. What do you think of the new patch, in regards to Diplomacy specifically ? It seems to be improved from my small experience with it. Less random Surprise wars, quicker rating bounce back.

    As an example Mvemba was pissed about the religion thing, i mean he was 100 odd tiles away lol(map had a huge mount range in the center that also extended North/South almost completely cutting the continent in half/quarters,. Mvemba got stuck with Monty whilst i got the city-states----Sux to be you :lol:) but when i finally spread a religion(whilst neatly burying Monty's religion by converting his only City with a Holy Site :)) to him we became fast friends and even Allied(he had the Faith Agenda as well)...Also Papal Primacy is pretty amazing when you have 5 or 6 City States all following your religion :))
     

Share This Page