For more realism I think the AI should have some sort of hidden and preferably a bit randomized opinion, belief and/or ideology era to era and actually believe in it, or the entire game. It would spark up fights, AI forming alliances with people of similar opinions etc. When the AI have a feel they have an advantage there should be more aggression. How the game is so passive in the more modern eras is boring too. Yeah war turns into diplomacy but is there really any diplomacy in the game? I don't like this diplomacy currency thing.
AI not conquering each other kills this game for me
- Thread starter Krajzen
- Start date
Abaxial
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2017
- Messages
- 1,216
It seems to me that barbarians are more effective than AI civs. In a recent game, Babylon was besieged by a barbarian army that included two siege units, which took down the walls. The city was reduced to zero health and every turn the barbarians kept attacking to no effect because there seems to be an arbitrary rule that barbarians may not take a capital (I think it was different in Civ 5). Every turn. Bam! Bam! It looked really stupid. This continued a while until I put the Babylonians out of their misery by routing the barbarians and taking the city myself.
SirNovelty
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2021
- Messages
- 29
The barbarians, as far as I'm aware, have no considerations beyond attacking stuff. Units spawn in for them at set numbers and tech levels when they are given a target, and once gathered they launch units in that direction with no self preservation. This is not particularly effective strategy, but against an AI that is hard-focusing science at the detriment of all other yields, and thus has difficulty building anything beyond a classical era military (I suspect this is worse for Babylon if they're launched to Medieval military techs quickly, although maybe the free district buildings compensate), it is sufficient.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 672
This is the one area (apart from more realistic graphics) where I feel that civ 5 is far superior to civ 6.
Civ 5 late game is as exciting as ever, because there is an attempt at diplomacy andthe AI is still a threat.
Meanwhile in civ 6, I start to snowball way out of control around the renaissance (world era) at the latest, and don't look back because I can do whatever I want at that point.
One aspect of this situation that is not contemplated enough is a supposedly historically inspired design idea expressed by civ devs many, many years ago that (roughly speaking) "later ages in civ6 are going to be more peaceful than earlier ones, because this is how it worked in history".
Yeah because it's not how over the course of last 200 years we had Napoleonic wars, Latin American wars, American Civil War, Prussian unification wars, Italian wars, Spanish civil wars, anti Russian uprisings, colonial conquest of the entire world by European powers, scramble for Africa, anti colonial uprisings, Crimean war, Balkan wars, Caucasian wars, Taiping rebellion, 40 years of constant civil wars in 20th century China, Japanese - Russian war, Japanese - Chinese wars, First World War, Russian Civil War, Winter War, Spanish Civil War, Italo Ethiopian War, more wars in Latin America, Second World War, nuclear threat of barely contained Cold War, Korean War, Israeli - Arab wars, Vietnam War, Indo - Pakistani wars, Indochina war, Iraq - Iran War, Yugoslavian wars, 40 years of Afghan wars, Azeri - Armenian wars, Chechen Wars, terrorism, Iraqi war, Syrian civil war, Kurdish conflict, two Algerian wars, Yemeni wars, Bangladesh liberation war, Ethiopian wars, Sudanese civil wars, Sahel wars, Congo wars, Angolan civil war, Mozambican civil war, Myanmar 70 - year long ethnic conflict, oh and Russian invasion of Ukraine in the year 2022.
As you can see, maybe the idea of pacifist later eras is horrible for endgame gameplay, as it makes it even more boring than it already is for fifty other reasons (pointlessly prolonged by fantasy future era etc), but it simply had to be done - historical accuracy is of paramount importance in Civilization games, at all cost, as exemplified by every other historically accurate mechsnic of civ6.
The complete nonexistence of world wars, ideological conflicts/cold wars (like in cvi5: Liberty/liberalism vs Equality/communism vs Fraternity/nationalism) is one of the most bizarre failures of civ6 design - I'd think this is obviously very interesting, spectacular endgame content for everybody, both very casual reddit meme players and civ fanatics, but here we are. Civ5 did ideological clash both for military and pacifist mechanics and largely for this reason I found this game's endgame to be WAY more interesting than civ6.
Yeah because it's not how over the course of last 200 years we had Napoleonic wars, Latin American wars, American Civil War, Prussian unification wars, Italian wars, Spanish civil wars, anti Russian uprisings, colonial conquest of the entire world by European powers, scramble for Africa, anti colonial uprisings, Crimean war, Balkan wars, Caucasian wars, Taiping rebellion, 40 years of constant civil wars in 20th century China, Japanese - Russian war, Japanese - Chinese wars, First World War, Russian Civil War, Winter War, Spanish Civil War, Italo Ethiopian War, more wars in Latin America, Second World War, nuclear threat of barely contained Cold War, Korean War, Israeli - Arab wars, Vietnam War, Indo - Pakistani wars, Indochina war, Iraq - Iran War, Yugoslavian wars, 40 years of Afghan wars, Azeri - Armenian wars, Chechen Wars, terrorism, Iraqi war, Syrian civil war, Kurdish conflict, two Algerian wars, Yemeni wars, Bangladesh liberation war, Ethiopian wars, Sudanese civil wars, Sahel wars, Congo wars, Angolan civil war, Mozambican civil war, Myanmar 70 - year long ethnic conflict, oh and Russian invasion of Ukraine in the year 2022.
As you can see, maybe the idea of pacifist later eras is horrible for endgame gameplay, as it makes it even more boring than it already is for fifty other reasons (pointlessly prolonged by fantasy future era etc), but it simply had to be done - historical accuracy is of paramount importance in Civilization games, at all cost, as exemplified by every other historically accurate mechsnic of civ6.
The complete nonexistence of world wars, ideological conflicts/cold wars (like in cvi5: Liberty/liberalism vs Equality/communism vs Fraternity/nationalism) is one of the most bizarre failures of civ6 design - I'd think this is obviously very interesting, spectacular endgame content for everybody, both very casual reddit meme players and civ fanatics, but here we are. Civ5 did ideological clash both for military and pacifist mechanics and largely for this reason I found this game's endgame to be WAY more interesting than civ6.
Last edited:
Did you play the previous civs ? All the fun of the late game is when you prepare yourself for an inevitable war that you are not sure to win ( when you are a bad player like me ).
The game is boring when you know that the best the AI can do is crush there units into your walls again and again.
These two posts express exactly what I think about the boring late game and and the inevitable snowball. I really hope the devs are reading this.
One thing I'd like to point out: does late game really need four eras? Take away the atomic and future eras, then we'll have the modern and information eras, that's enough for me. So that way we can explore each era in a more immersive way.
Another thing, make game rules easier in a way that AI can handle. IMO, the biggest problem that the game is not challenging enough is because it has so many rules and micromanagements that the AI is not able to handle it, and so it is always at a complete disadvantage.
Similar threads
