AI not conquering each other kills this game for me

[oSiyeza]

That's true about ideology, can't deny that. But other than that I'd say 5 was much more static. But that was more because of the way happiness and diplomacy more heavily punished aggressive expansion.

Ideologies, yes, WC was also better in civ V, you also had vassals in Civ V, also spionage i think is more satisfactory in V, and alliances were not as easy to get and as predictable as in VI. Also the AI was able to build empires and conquer them. Also not having diplomatic favour makes diplomacy better and more immersive. Also loyalty, agendas and casus belli may be a good idea, but are so badly implemented in VI that they barely make any difference for the AI.

So the options of the player, and the choices were more significant in V. The game was also less repetitive. And the AI was more capable. Granted the game had problems too. But The point is that regarding war and diplomacy, VI is way worse than V in many ways for no reason, and has not improved it in any significant way.

Now maybe im missing something, why do you say the diplomacy was 5 times more static in V?, cause all reasons I have seen so far point to the opposite conclusion.

 

[Tiger Genocide]

Ideologies, yes, WC was also better in civ V, you also hade vassals in Civ V, also spionage itink is more satisfactory in V, and alliances were not as easy and predictable as in VI. Also the AI was able to build empires.

So the options of the player, and the choices were more significant. The game was also less repetitive. And the AI was more capable. Granted the game had problems too.

The poiny is VI is way worse than V in many ways, and has not improved it in any significant way.

Now maybe im missing something, why do you say the diplomacy was 5 times more static in V?, cause all reasons I have seen so far point to the opposite conclusion.

I thought vassalage was in Civ4 and Civ5 Vox Populi, not the base Civ5 game. I could be wrong because I almost never play the base game. Other than that, your post is spot on. The World Congress could have you holding your breath in Civ5, it was so impactful and important. I sometimes save scummed like a cheater

I love that vassalage feature in Vox. Making the first two idiots that attack you be your puppets for the rest of the game was sooooo gratifying! Whenever they trade embargoed me in the end game, I just traded with my 2 vassals instead. Problem solved

 

[oSiyeza]

I thought vassalage was in Civ4 and Civ5 Vox Populi, not the base Civ5 game. I could be wrong because I almost never play the base game. Other than that, your post is spot on. The World Congress could have you holding your breath in Civ5, it was so impactful and important. I sometimes save scummed like a cheater

I love that vassalage feature in Vox. Making the first two idiots that attack you be your puppets for the rest of the game was sooooo gratifying! Whenever they trade embargoed me in the end game, I just traded with my 2 vassals instead. Problem solved

You may be right, vassals i think were in IV and removed in V. The fact that Fxs also ignored vassals in V, is just an example of they removing good systems from previous games for no reason. Replacing good systems for worse ones for no reason, such as the WC may be even worse.

I wonder if they just think that they should not make the best game they can, cause otherwise there will be no way to improve it in the next, or if they just think we will not notice that they are doing cheaper versions of previous game systems...

Whatever the reason Civ VI feels to me like a civ game that innovated in significant ways, and in many others was unexplicably dragged down, to the point all changes for the better are negated by all the places where the game was made intentionally worse.

 

[The Civs 6]

Ideologies, yes, WC was also better in civ V, you also had vassals in Civ V, also spionage i think is more satisfactory in V, and alliances were not as easy to get and as predictable as in VI. Also the AI was able to build empires and conquer them. Also not having diplomatic favour makes diplomacy better and more immersive. Also loyalty, agendas and casus belli may be a good idea, but are so badly implemented in VI that they barely make any difference for the AI.

So the options of the player, and the choices were more significant in V. The game was also less repetitive. And the AI was more capable. Granted the game had problems too. But The point is that regarding war and diplomacy, VI is way worse than V in many ways for no reason, and has not improved it in any significant way.

Now maybe im missing something, why do you say the diplomacy was 5 times more static in V?, cause all reasons I have seen so far point to the opposite conclusion.

I dont disagree that diplomacy was less static in 5, and i entirely agree that the system is better in 5 than in 6. but Civ 6 has a lot more conquering and rewards conquering way more, which is really all im talking about. strictly from Ais eating other Ais there is more of that in 6 than there was in 5 from my experience.

 

[oSiyeza]

I dont disagree that diplomacy was less static in 5, and i entirely agree that the system is better in 5 than in 6. but Civ 6 has a lot more conquering and rewards conquering way more, which is really all im talking about. strictly from Ais eating other Ais there is more of that in 6 than there was in 5 from my experience.

Civ V had that weird overpunishing wide approach. However, it is also clear to me that civ VI is designed so the game turns peaceful from middle ages till end game.

VI has now that weird plain DF penalty, that means that if the player takes more than a civ in the game, the whole WC, competitions, emergencies, and favor mechanics become pointless.

VI is designed so domination victory is the hardest to get, and the least satisfactory one, due to the fact that forces the domination player to micromanage hell exponentially with the ammount of cities, and offers no domination alternative to take cities.

VI is designed to not even consider late wars a thing. As so, AI domination victory is imposible making domination the only victory type that the AI is uncapable of achieving. Furthermore, the AI even lacks the knowledge and will to try to achieve it. This is then the first Civ game in 30 years where the AI does not challenge the player to domination, and where big scale wars are imposible. So basically is the first civ game ever where conquering the world is not supposed to be a goal.

It is true that civ VI rewards having more cities, and therefore makes the game easier the more you war, but is also true that the game is also designed to make the game more pointless and boring the more you war. Which is the worst way posible to discourage the player. It is true that is not the first game of the series that is guilty of this, but it may be the first that is intentionally designed to be this way. With repetition and shallowness being not a side effect in late game, but a core design element.

So I think, quite the opposite is true, Civ VI not only discourages war, but is designed to remove domimation and war from the late game entirely.

I would also argue that religious victory, culture victory and diplomatic victory are so pointless and badly implemented and designed that should not even be in the game. While i will also admit that science victory is the best it has ever been.

The game is as a result a game of civilization where global conflict does not exist, domination is non-fuctional, war is broken and diplomacy is pointless. As such, civ VI may be a fun game in many ways, and certainly is one of the most enjoyable games of the series in city building, multiplayer, scenarios and variety. But as a civ game, I think is time to be honest and say it... Civilization VI is probably the worst civilization game of the series to the point it does not work as a civilization game at all. Personally it is the first civilization game (and I played them all) that seriously dissapointed me, and as is also by far the most expensive game of the series. So I think it may be the last civilization game I ever buy it they decide to keep this philosophy.

 

[TreVor_ish]

When it comes to Diplo Penalty from owning Capitol of other Civ You can mod that with:

UPDATE GlobalParameters
SET Value = 0
WHERE Name = "FAVOR_PER_OWNED_ORIGINAL_CAPITAL";

When it comes to more aggressive Civs there is a mod to reduce walls defense which makes wars more dynamic when it comes to conquering cities. (mentioned on previous page)

 

[oSiyeza]

When it comes to Diplo Penalty from owning Capitol of other Civ You can mod that with:

UPDATE GlobalParameters
SET Value = 0
WHERE Name = "FAVOR_PER_OWNED_ORIGINAL_CAPITAL";

When it comes to more aggressive Civs there is a mod to reduce walls defense which makes wars more dynamic when it comes to conquering cities. (mentioned on previous page)

U are right, and there is also a mod in steam that reduces the favor penalty, and another that fully removes it.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2134743907

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2111968488

All my complains are only applicable to the game as designed, though it is also fair to say that with them not releasing the source of the game for modders, which they did in V. They intentionally removed the posibility for the players to fix the issues they introduced. Despite they advertising the game as designed to be more mod friendly than all previous games in the series.

 

[TreVor_ish]

When it comes to design of mechanics there will always be people disliking some of it's aspects. As long as I can tweak things that annoy me, I'm fine with it.

 

[oSiyeza]

When it comes to design of mechanics there will always be people disliking some of it's aspects. As long as I can tweak things that annoy me, I'm fine with it.

While you are obviously right. The fact that domination is broken, so the deepest and most distinctive mechanic of the series and this game simply does not work in the product as released. Is not a matter of taste, and cannot be dismissed as people disliking some aspect of the game for subjective reasons.

Fxs should be dragged down in critycism for releasing a product which basically is broken in one of its core values, even if they released the DLL that allows modders to fix it, which they haven't.

 

[TreVor_ish]

I agree, but AI's indolence in offensive play was already discussed so many times...be patient. After all having Beowulf or Mulan or King Arthur can only help AI achieve military supremacy.

 

[c4c6]

I love that vassalage feature in Vox. Making the first two idiots that attack you be your puppets for the rest of the game was sooooo gratifying! Whenever they trade embargoed me in the end game, I just traded with my 2 vassals instead. Problem solved

For me the vassalage feature in civ4 is one of the best civinnovations ever: in the beginning every single (conquered) city counts and should be optimized individually. But later in the end game, when micromanagement of many cities becomes strenuous (and the return of invested effort diminishes anyway), vassalage is of great help: it takes away the burden to completely conquer weak civs and afterwards babysit/control their cities in detail AND it nevertheless grants half the effect towards population & land area requirements of domination victory. That was an ingenious shift from city management to empire management.

Whatever the reason Civ VI feels to me like a civ game that innovated in significant ways, and in many others was unexplicably dragged down, to the point all changes for the better are negated by all the places where the game was made intentionally worse.

But that is a proven method to assure a consistent level of quality in your production process! You can ask any hamburger manufacturer if in doubt - and No, those are not doomed, selling hamburgers is big business if done right.

I wonder if they just think that they should not make the best game they can, cause otherwise there will be no way to improve it in the next

Yeah, you also have to make sure, that the customers don't improve the current version themselves - you know, DLL's cpp sources ...

So I think, quite the opposite is true, Civ VI not only discourages war, but is designed to remove domimation and war from the late game entirely.
I would also argue that religious victory, culture victory and diplomatic victory are so pointless and badly implemented and designed that should not even be in the game. While i will also admit that science victory is the best it has ever been.

So we are back to the roots: in Francis Tresham's original Civilization board game (published in 1980 by Hartland Trefoil) units and cities were not important, but the civilizing achievements ("techs&civics") ...

having Beowulf or Mulan or King Arthur can only help AI achieve military supremacy.

More asymmetrical rules and hope it will somehow help the handicapped players, because we are not allowed to help them directly via core DLL ... "don't you steal the new toys Beowulf, Mulan or King Arthur from the AI players! bad boy."

 

[kaspergm]

I've often ranted against the strength of walls in Civ6 myself, but I'd like to throw a slightly different perspective on that topic.

Maybe the problem is not so much that medieval and - particularly - renaissance walls are too strong (although I will say the attack damage of the city itself is way too high). Maybe the problem is that a city under siege suffers no major drawbacks. No famine. No civil unrest. No loss of production or other yields. No disease. No collateral damage to citizens and units in the city when it suffers bombardment.

I'm not an expert on medieval and renaissance warfare history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that it was fairly rare to see fully fortified cities conquered by brute force? Wouldn't it rather be a question of cities yielding because of the negative consequences of being besieged?

Imagine if the following changes were done in Civ6:

• City looses access to all yields and benefits from resources from tiles outside city when city is besieged.
• City looses yields and benefits from districts when city is besieged.
• The longer a city is besieged, the more unhappy the citizens grow, causing loss of loyalty.

This would completely turn the game on its head. Then you could not just turtle up behind your walls and slowly pluck away attackers with your ranged attacks. If you don't break the siege in reasonable time - or make peace with the attacking force - you will either lose the city to loyalty, or its population will be decimated from hunger and disease.

That being said, we really need to have the Trebuchet which is in the Steal and Thunder mod added to the main game as a counter to Medieval walls. And the attack strength of walled cities needs to be toned down so that Catapults, Trebuchets and Bombards aren't insta-killed from a city attack + a ranged unit stationed in it.

PS: If mechanism of how walls work is changed, it would be cool to be able to extent walls to cover more districts, so that you can have walls around a cluster of district (increasing production cost, obviously) instead of just city centre.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I've often ranted against the strength of walls in Civ6 myself, but I'd like to throw a slightly different perspective on that topic.

Maybe the problem is not so much that medieval and - particularly - renaissance walls are too strong (although I will say the attack damage of the city itself is way too high). Maybe the problem is that a city under siege suffers no major drawbacks. No famine. No civil unrest. No loss of production or other yields. No disease. No collateral damage to citizens and units in the city when it suffers bombardment.

I'm not an expert on medieval and renaissance warfare history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that it was fairly rare to see fully fortified cities conquered by brute force? Wouldn't it rather be a question of cities yielding because of the negative consequences of being besieged?

Imagine if the following changes were done in Civ6:

• City looses access to all yields and benefits from resources from tiles outside city when city is besieged.
• City looses yields and benefits from districts when city is besieged.
• The longer a city is besieged, the more unhappy the citizens grow, causing loss of loyalty.

This would completely turn the game on its head. Then you could not just turtle up behind your walls and slowly pluck away attackers with your ranged attacks. If you don't break the siege in reasonable time - or make peace with the attacking force - you will either lose the city to loyalty, or its population will be decimated from hunger and disease.

I very much agree that this would be both an accurate and fun mechanic in the game.
Though to be fair, much of the rants against walls are not only about the player facing the walls, but by the issues that the AI has when facing walls, and I'm not positive that the AI would be able to leverage this advantage if it was implemented.
More likely, the AI would continue with its suicidal pushes against a high CS walled city, and promptly lose half their army for minor wall damage, so there's that.

Either way though, it should be implemented, if nothing else but for the fun/immersion that this would provide.

 

[Casworon]

An easier addition could be that damage to a city also causes loyalty damage. If any city swaps to a free city upon taking 50% of its life damage it would give much more incentive to try to break a siege or stop an attacking army right away

 

[kaspergm]

I very much agree that this would be both an accurate and fun mechanic in the game.
Though to be fair, much of the rants against walls are not only about the player facing the walls, but by the issues that the AI has when facing walls, and I'm not positive that the AI would be able to leverage this advantage if it was implemented.
More likely, the AI would continue with its suicidal pushes against a high CS walled city, and promptly lose half their army for minor wall damage, so there's that.

Either way though, it should be implemented, if nothing else but for the fun/immersion that this would provide.

Mmm yeah, I partially agree. I believe (guess) it should be easier to teach the AI not to suicide its units against a walled city than it is to teach it to move an employ siege weapons (something it's now actually capable of, if not well). Since the last patches, I have actually seen the AI make prolonged sieges on city states several times, where it fortified and healed its units instead of just blindly suiciding them when they were in low health. It's far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. In one game, I had Mongolia put La Venta under a 30+ turn siege without ever conquering it - you may argue he should have conquered it given the overwhelming superiority of his forces (see screenshot below), and he would have done so easily if he did not keep moving his battering ram back and forth instead of keeping it next to the city (cue AI fix please), but my point is: AI actually seems much better at putting cities under siege these days, so a mechanism like suggested would also help the AI capture more cities.

Spoiler :

 

[civac]

I'm not an expert on medieval and renaissance warfare history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that it was fairly rare to see fully fortified cities conquered by brute force? Wouldn't it rather be a question of cities yielding because of the negative consequences of being besieged?

Imagine if the following changes were done in Civ6:

• City looses access to all yields and benefits from resources from tiles outside city when city is besieged.
• City looses yields and benefits from districts when city is besieged.
• The longer a city is besieged, the more unhappy the citizens grow, causing loss of loyalty.

This would completely turn the game on its head. Then you could not just turtle up behind your walls and slowly pluck away attackers with your ranged attacks. If you don't break the siege in reasonable time - or make peace with the attacking force - you will either lose the city to loyalty, or its population will be decimated from hunger and disease.

Sounds miserable for both sides. This in one area where gameplay should trump realism.

Adding Trebuchets and nerfing/removing city attacks is much better.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Adding Trebuchets and nerfing/removing city attacks is much better.

The city attacks aren't the main source of AI getting wrecked by trying to take walled cities though.
In civ 5 cities had a city strike by default, similar to walled cities in civ 6, both being at comparable strength vs units.
The main problem for AI is the insane amount of (effective) hit points that a city with walls gets however, and in this department civ 6 is vastly different to civ 5.
The AI simply either throws their units away on those walls or completely gives up on it alltogether, both of which prevent runaway domination AIs to appear.

 

[TreVor_ish]

The thing is, AI can conquer City States - happens a lot in my games - but is rather wary of conquering other AI's. Anyhow, I was in receiving end of surprise war when aggressive AI happen to spawn near me and on Diety is able to zerk me, when very early - but this is mainly because of starting units and combat bonuses.
However, with Dramatic Ages on - great mode btw - after getting a Dark Age, AI is unable to reclaim it's cities...I play mainly on Continents & Islands maps and upon discovery of foreign continent, I'm presented with a patches of Free Cities all around....
I also did a little experiment - Genghis Khan after getting into Dark Age lost a city and then was conquered by Dido, she was the closest. Note - he had his Capitol on coast so Bireme FTW! Got into fight with her and necroed him. After that I decided to trade my whole treasury for 30 turns and also one of the cities that was close to him to maybe swing some favor. Thought as a rather militaristic approach Genghis will start to pop some cavalry (he was in medieval as everyone else - maybe one tech behind) and start to conquer the world. Next Era Dido got into Dark Age and lost her city - the nearest one to Genghis....and no one conquered that one....2 Eras after it was still a Free City. Call me crazy but that's just weird behavior.

 

[Mahi]

Had a game yesterday where I declared war against the Romans, who was leading in science. I managed to get all three of Romes' neighbours to join my crusade against him since he was too far away from me. Funny thing. Romes' military force were reduced to 0 but none of his enemies neighbours were able to conquer one single city in his empire. That is ridiculous and it gives you an idea on how powerful walls are.

 

[kaspergm]

Sounds miserable for both sides. This in one area where gameplay should trump realism.

Just out of curiosity: Why do you feel that? I mean, yeah it sounds miserable, but I reckon sieges were a quite miserable business, but I don't see it being such a bad game mechanism. Of course, such a big change cannot be considered in vacuum, it would certainly encourage you to build many more units in general (not a bad thing imo., I'm tired of going an entire game with a total of a handful of units from beginning to end), and I would certainly also add some drafting mechanism similar to what was in ... I don't recall what iteration of the game that was, to allow some emergency creation of units. Refugees (i.e. transfer of population from one city to another in war time) and units spawning when cities are captured is another thing the game could need that would play into such a feature.