All Quiet on the Civ Front

[DWilson]

I really liked Civ V's personality table- it seemed to confirm the personalities I experienced in game (e.g., Dido was a backstabber). I don't really experience personalities in VI, unfortunately.

 

[Eva-kun]

-Victoria expands to every continent

I can confirm this behavior. Her settling patterns are terrible due to this, too. She'll settle in locations she can't maintain loyalty, because it's on another continent. You'll definitely see her do it if two different continents are on the same landmass. This was never an ideal strategy, even with her UA, in the past. It's worse with the loyalty system.

 

[Disgustipated]

ot a reliable gauge because Korea has a passive bonus that grants them extra science

Korea can and does build lots of campus districts. Are they only one? No. But they do bui!d them. Other civilizations that like to build them (in greater frequency compared to other civs) are kongo and sumeria.

 

[acluewithout]

There are some the AI that clearly display very specific behaviour. Gorgo not ceding anything is one (God she can be a pain if she spawns next to you) and Gilgabro always wanting to hang is another.

I really like the idea of the agenda system. I like also how some Civs are given a permanent or favoured secret agenda. It's a good way to give some Civs a really definite personality but let the rest retain flexibility.

...I mean, okay, maybe the system doesn't actually work. But it's a good idea...

I think two things which hamper the current diplomacy system is that it's hard to see what's going on. It's buried away in the various screens, and even then doesn't make a huge amount of sense. And you can't really see how each civ views the other Civs - or why - which makes it even harder.

I'm also not really sure what people want the AI to do. I mean, if the issue is the AI are always angry with you or always want to war with you, then you can fix that by playing the diplomatic game more aggressively. Victoria has some great posts about that - but really, send a delegation turn you meet, sell a luxe and do a joint war is basically all that's required to make friends.

The AI has generally got better at developing it cities. I guess there's not huge variety in what they build, but I'm not sure I'd notice if there was more variety. I don't actually spend much time looking at the other side's cities.

I dunno. I'm not sure there's anything really wrong with AI personalities etc. so much as I think it's just that the game isn't really set up to do much with diplomacy - the only real vectors for diplomacy or personality are (1) war or not war (2) be friends or not be friends (3) build this not that. You'd need to look at something more like EU4 or Crusader King (or whatever it's called) to really get somewhere with diplomacy.

 

[PhilBowles]

Korea can and does build lots of campus districts. Are they only one? No. But they do bui!d them. Other civilizations that like to build them (in greater frequency compared to other civs) are kongo and sumeria.

You have the same issue if a general preference for campuses is set too high as you do if a civ-specific one is set too low: if the behaviour falls within the typical level of campus-building across the board it's hard to call it a meaningful personality trait, or to distinguish it from an anecdote like "Kongo also builds lots of campuses" which is your experience but not evident to others.

I haven't denied there are some intended differences - indeed I've specifically highlighted Gandhi. The issue is that a civ's personality needs to be something detectable in general play over a limited number of playthroughs, not something you need to prove through dummy runs with X replicates or that you can only detect by counting out the number of districts of a certain type a civ produces. Otherwise any differences may as well not exist.

On top of that, even if every one of the claimed personality traits existed - and we're evidently very far from demonstrating that - the civs would still vary from one another on far fewer axes than in Civs IV or V, and it's already been pointed out that as many as 14 civs may lack personality coding altogether sincer they have no specific behaviour encouraged by their agenda.

I definitely have seen him declare war before, granted it was a joint war early in the game. From the wiki I can only see that he will declare a war only when he won't be branded a warmonger.

No one gets branded a warmonger early in the game, so it's surprising he doesn't join the turn 20 pile-ins with everyone else.

I really liked Civ V's personality table- it seemed to confirm the personalities I experienced in game (e.g., Dido was a backstabber). I don't really experience personalities in VI, unfortunately.

Exactly - and what's more, the Civ V personality table allowed for variability (as I understand it for each civ, there was a probability value assigned to each variable regarding how likely the civ was to roll a different value for a given session, and I think bounds set on how much that variable could change). So civs had consistent personalities but didn't always act in exactly the same way in every game, which would just be repetitive. I believe Civ IV used a less detailed version of the same thing. I've no idea why they didn't just implement the same system in Civ VI.

I dunno. I'm not sure there's anything really wrong with AI personalities etc. so much as I think it's just that the game isn't really set up to do much with diplomacy - the only real vectors for diplomacy or personality are (1) war or not war (2) be friends or not be friends (3) build this not that. You'd need to look at something more like EU4 or Crusader King (or whatever it's called) to really get somewhere with diplomacy.

Personality isn't simply or primarily about diplomacy. To use Civ V as an example (but much the same was true in Civ IV) the axes on which civs could vary included:

- aggressiveness

- expansion behaviour: some civs played 'tall' and others 'wide' in general.

- loyalty to declared friends. For instance Nebuchadnezzar was a reliable ally but Dido was not.

- Willingness to make certain deals

- Army size and favoured unit mixes.

- Favoured resource outputs.

- Favoured victory conditions

- Tendency to build Wonders.

- Tolerance of religious difference (this was more variable in Civ IV than in Civ V)

- General diplomacy modifiers. Some civs would be intrinsically more hostile or harder to befriend than the average, and others would be easier to ally with. This was the major way civs differed detectably in Civ IV, as well as being present but not dominant in Civ V.

Something which wasn't civ-specific but developed during games that could also be considered a personality trait is rivalries: because of the way modifiers worked in Civ V relations could be consistent and game-long. If Songhai went to war with Germany in one era, say, they'd have an elevated chance of warring with them for the rest of the game. Conversely, alliances frequently lasted for much of the game - the late game usually came down to two opposed blocs of allies warring against each other.

This tended to result in repeated wars between the same powers which produced interesting stories and reinforced the sense that the AI civs were individual characters with specific grudges and personal histories. In Civ VI I can't be bothered to track who's at war with whom at any given moment, because there are no lasting repercussions once peace is declared and no consistency to relations across the game as a whole.

 

[Hammurabbit]

Talking about diplomacy and alliances: As far as my experience goes, the early game is when diplomacy would be most useful. You are comparably weak, need protection or need help from an ally to beat up a bigger enemy (classic EU4 trick). However, that's when alliances are not available - you need diplomatic service civic. I believe that's both historically incorrect (alliances not being invented before the renaissance) and also takes a dimension out of gameplay. I wouldn't mind a few more casus bellis being available earlier as well. Later in the game you've typically snowballed and alliances are useful only for the trading bonuses.

As an example, becoming friends with other civs can be very important in the early game, to avoid getting attacked when your army is elsewhere.

 

[Scaramanga]

Talking about diplomacy and alliances: As far as my experience goes, the early game is when diplomacy would be most useful. You are comparably weak, need protection or need help from an ally to beat up a bigger enemy (classic EU4 trick). However, that's when alliances are not available - you need diplomatic service civic. I believe that's both historically incorrect (alliances not being invented before the renaissance) and also takes a dimension out of gameplay. I wouldn't mind a few more casus bellis being available earlier as well. Later in the game you've typically snowballed and alliances are useful only for the trading bonuses.

As an example, becoming friends with other civs can be very important in the early game, to avoid getting attacked when your army is elsewhere.

Why would you want an early alliance? It would take special circumstances to make me want to declare friendship so I can't attack them. There is no real world order in the early game so it doesn't make sense to be locked into an alliance until Diplomatic Service; by that time everyone has got a feel for each other. That's probably why warmongering is so low early. If I can easily foresee an alliance, they are far from me, or I want to "conquer" them with my religion, then I might consider friendship. Otherwise it's just an invitation for them to settle right beside you or attack your city-state. It's especially weird in multiplayer when your close neighbour sends a friend request the same turn they meet you.

 

[Hammurabbit]

Why would you want an early alliance?

Because usually in the beginning you're behind and more vulnurable - behind in terms of tech and in terms of production. That's why I believe that friends can play an important role in the beginning ("at least this guy won't attack me") and potentially alliances ("they won't dare attacking me").

 

[Scaramanga]

Because usually in the beginning you're behind and more vulnurable - behind in terms of tech and in terms of production. That's why I believe that friends can play an important role in the beginning ("at least this guy won't attack me") and potentially alliances ("they won't dare attacking me").

The AI is usually so bad they can outnumber you and you can still bounce back and take a city or two. I agree with having friends in principle if they don't go against a civ's strengths. I think alliances are delayed because they could make two people too powerful and someone will be shut out.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

story time:

I was on a fan forum for Soulcalibur 6 when I ran into a person who plays DOTA and is familiar with its workings on SteamDB. He told me that Valve uses a separate "unknown Steam app" to test patches and whatnot for DOTA (but players have figured out what it is, so it's not exactly a secret anymore). So I went and checked it out. That unknown test app has undocumented change numbers much like we've been seeing a lot of on the Civ page on SteamDB. Also, the undocumented change numbers on the DOTA test app align with updates to the public build on the regular DOTA page on SteamDB in a way that makes it seem like they are testing patches there before going public.

So it seems possible that these suspicious undocumented change numbers we see are some kind of hidden test build updates that Firaxis is doing in an attempt to increase their operational security and evade predictability.

 

[Karmah]

So it seems possible that these suspicious undocumented change numbers we see are some kind of hidden test build updates that Firaxis is doing in an attempt to increase their operational security and evade predictability.

obviously ,this attempt is unsuccesfull

 

[Hammurabbit]

The AI is usually so bad they can outnumber you and you can still bounce back and take a city or two. I agree with having friends in principle if they don't go against a civ's strengths. I think alliances are delayed because they could make two people too powerful and someone will be shut out.

Agree, you can usually beat a strong AI without an alliance. Also, from what I've seen having an AI on your side is rarely a huge help. They have a tendency to sit back and relax.

 

[acluewithout]

Personality isn't simply or primarily about diplomacy. To use Civ V as an example (but much the same was true in Civ IV) the axes on which civs could vary included:

- aggressiveness

- expansion behaviour: some civs played 'tall' and others 'wide' in general.

- loyalty to declared friends. For instance Nebuchadnezzar was a reliable ally but Dido was not.

- Willingness to make certain deals

- Army size and favoured unit mixes.

- Favoured resource outputs.

- Favoured victory conditions

- Tendency to build Wonders.

- Tolerance of religious difference (this was more variable in Civ IV than in Civ V)

- General diplomacy modifiers. Some civs would be intrinsically more hostile or harder to befriend than the average, and others would be easier to ally with. This was the major way civs differed detectably in Civ IV, as well as being present but not dominant in Civ V.

Something which wasn't civ-specific but developed during games that could also be considered a personality trait is rivalries: because of the way modifiers worked in Civ V relations could be consistent and game-long. If Songhai went to war with Germany in one era, say, they'd have an elevated chance of warring with them for the rest of the game. Conversely, alliances frequently lasted for much of the game - the late game usually came down to two opposed blocs of allies warring against each other.

This tended to result in repeated wars between the same powers which produced interesting stories and reinforced the sense that the AI civs were individual characters with specific grudges and personal histories. In Civ VI I can't be bothered to track who's at war with whom at any given moment, because there are no lasting repercussions once peace is declared and no consistency to relations across the game as a whole.

Well, I think I observe the first three on and off (aggressiveness (or not), expansive (or not), and willingness to make friends (or not)). I'm not sure I'd really notice the others, even if the AI did favour one over the other. I'm also not sure how I'd even notice rivalries.

I'm not really trying to defend the current agenda system. But I think it's not necessarily a problem (or solely) a problem with how the AI is programmed. Instead, I think the issue is that diplomacy is poorly visualised, and there are limited vectors for interacting with the AI. The game just doesn't have enough granularity. Honestly, I think you could have each leader run by a Google-Facebook-ElonMusk AI SuperComputer, with personality to spare, and you'd really never notice, because your interaction with that AI is basically limited to "Are they going to attack?", "Do they want an Alliance?", "Would you like to buy this salt?".

Perhaps a problem for me is that I'm just not that interested in leader personalities. When I play, I play a Civ, and I play against other Civs. I see the leaders more as representations of that Civ, or particular aspects of that Civ, rather than actual real leaders, leading the Civ across time. Maybe that's just the way I see the game, and other people may see it differently. But to me, the game feels so much smaller if you really focus on the leaders and their personalities. It's sort of why I dislike Governors - they're so, ugh, specific. Not much room for your own imagination.

Thing is. If I'm playing against a Civ, not a Leader, then tightly defined personalities seem a bit daft to me. I don't really want to play against a Civ that does the same thing every game. "Oh, there's Georgia, guess they'll go for Religion". I mean, a bit of that's okay. Like, if Georgia usually goes for Religion, then that's cute. But always. Nah. And I'm okay with maybe a few outliers that have strong specific personalities. I still find the whole Ghandi Nuke thing somewhat amusing, even if the reason for the preference has long fallen away. And it's good India has an alternate leader, so if you actually want to play India without it being lead by an ahistorical caricature, then you have that option. And I'd like each Civ to maybe field some of its key units and buildings a bit more reliably - I'm still waiting for Harald to turn up with a Horde of Vikings and Longboats, but he never does.

One thing Civ VI misses from Civ V is maybe the whole Civ V social policies, and how that sort of forced your Civ to develop along specific cultural lines. Overall, I prefer Civ VI's approach to Governments, Policies and Civics - the flexibility makes the game much more strategically interesting. But all that flexibility does limit how much Civs can really evolve in tangible ways. Really, there's just your Pantheon. You have a bit more customisation if you have a Religion, but that's it. Governors, Government Plaza and Legacy Cards look like they were intended to bring back a bit more of that "evolving culture" idea (i.e. permanent choices which define what your Civ is and how it plays), but they sort of don't quite work.

 

[Disgustipated]

So it seems possible that these suspicious undocumented change numbers we see are some kind of hidden test build updates that Firaxis is doing in an attempt to increase their operational security and evade predictability

I'm a little unclear, I take it you mean there are hidden test build updates so they are testing something correct?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a fall patch. I think we all knew a summer one was unlikely based on their words on the last patch.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm a little unclear, I take it you mean there are hidden test build updates so they are testing something correct?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a fall patch. I think we all knew a summer one was unlikely based on their words on the last patch.

This is where this method would be superior to the old one. If this proves true, we can tell they are testing something. We just can't tell what.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, I think I observe the first three on and off (aggressiveness (or not), expansive (or not), and willingness to make friends (or not)). I'm not sure I'd really notice the others, even if the AI did favour one over the other. I'm also not sure how I'd even notice rivalries.

Gandhi aside I've noticed no difference at all in aggression, and none in expansion behaviour, between civs in Civ VI. Differences in willingness to make friends seem to be based simply on agenda modifiers - you can see from the modifier screen that every civ will have the same base modifier for first impressions, which wasn't the case in Civ V.

Perhaps a problem for me is that I'm just not that interested in leader personalities.

'Personality' is a term used to describe consistent behaviour by individual civs - not literally considering the civ as a person. It's completely immaterial if you focus on Mongolia or on a badly-drawn caricature of Genghis Khan. It seems to have become a regrettable convention to refer even to civs with a single leader by the leader name rather than the civ name, but I too am only interested in the civs I'm facing. I do however want to get the sense that these are entities working in their own interests and with specific traits that can tell me 'This is Korea' or 'this is England' rather than 'I know these are the Zulu because they're green, but they play exactly like Persia or Australia'.

Thing is. If I'm playing against a Civ, not a Leader, then tightly defined personalities seem a bit daft to me. I don't really want to play against a Civ that does the same thing every game.

This is the strength of Civ V's system - the civs act within individually defined limits but are not completely predictable. Civ VI gets the worst of both worlds - not only do civs lack personality, but since the only axis on which they vary at all is their agendas (which are fixed), where they do have individual idiosyncracies these are always the same in every game, without variability. Gandhi's no-war thing or the claimed refusal of Gorgo to accept certain peace deals, for instance, will never change between sessions. While of course the general AI behaviour that isn't specific to any civ is always the same every game.

Civs in Civ VI play utterly identically across any number of playthroughs as a result. It's been too long to recall offhand, but I'm not sure if this was even completely true in Civs I and II - it certainly wasn't in V.

One thing Civ VI misses from Civ V is maybe the whole Civ V social policies, and how that sort of forced your Civ to develop along specific cultural lines. Overall, I prefer Civ VI's approach to Governments, Policies and Civics - the flexibility makes the game much more strategically interesting.

I'd like it to be more strategically interesting - and it might be if it didn't have the usual Civ VI 'random walk to victory' issue that you can make basically any 'strategic' choice you like and still win, which means you aren't meaningfully following a strategy. They're choices that simply reflect preference - there's about as much strategy involved as there is in choosing vanilla ice cream over another flavour.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

So it seems possible that these suspicious undocumented change numbers we see are some kind of hidden test build updates that Firaxis is doing in an attempt to increase their operational security and evade predictability.

If they really wanted to do that, they'd hire you as a playtester and subject you to an NDA.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If they really wanted to do that, they'd hire you as a playtester and subject you to an NDA.

Somehow I feel like I am a persona non grata at Firaxis for all of this snooping, despite the friendly front from marketing.

But, yeah. I am a lawful person. I would abide a NDA in exchange for knowing what's in development.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Somehow I feel like I am a persona non grata at Firaxis for all of this snooping, despite the friendly front from marketing..

Hopefully not true. The bits of information you've been able to dig up shouldn't have had any negative impact on Civ 6 sales. And the audience for that information is a tiny slice of the overall market, a group of fanatics who obsess over little details and like to eagerly anticipate "what comes next?" Per this thread, we'll do that even in the absence of any tangible evidence.

I do think Firaxis got some unnecessarily negative comments on this board for being "late" with a patch they hadn't even announced. That's not on you, as you've always been very objective in presenting the information you've found. It may have mostly been a result of a video going up and coming down, anyway, as opposed to being associated with the information you've dug up. And most of the negative comments were associated with communication, or lack there of, from Firaxis.

I get why marketing will want to control the flow of information about their game, and not allow any information to get out into the public domain that they haven't authorized and put out. The group at Firaxis in particular don't seem well equipped, or inclined, to deal with negative online comments, as the Red Shell situation illustrated. Their preference is for silence and to communicate only their message on their time table. Which may well be the best policy they could adopt, from the perspective of their business objectives. With that type of culture, there will always be a strained relationship with journalists (a role you play, in this narrow field), but hopefully not a personal antagonism.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Hopefully not true. The bits of information you've been able to dig up shouldn't have had any negative impact on Civ 6 sales. And the audience for that information is a tiny slice of the overall market, a group of fanatics who obsess over little details and like to eagerly anticipate "what comes next?" Per this thread, we'll do that even in the absence of any tangible evidence.

I do think Firaxis got some unnecessarily negative comments on this board for being "late" with a patch they hadn't even announced. That's not on you, as you've always been very objective in presenting the information you've found. It may have mostly been a result of a video going up and coming down, anyway, as opposed to being associated with the information you've dug up. And most of the negative comments were associated with communication, or lack there of, from Firaxis.

I get why marketing will want to control the flow of information about their game, and not allow any information to get out into the public domain that they haven't authorized and put out. The group at Firaxis in particular don't seem well equipped, or inclined, to deal with negative online comments, as the Red Shell situation illustrated. Their preference is for silence and to communicate only their message on their time table. Which may well be the best policy they could adopt, from the perspective of their business objectives. With that type of culture, there will always be a strained relationship with journalists (a role you play, in this narrow field), but hopefully not a personal antagonism.

I would definitely not feel obligated to snoop if they were more open about future product developments. That is my only significant beef with Firaxis/2K.

I understand that they try to avoid overpromising on things still in development and the inevitable backlash. But total communications silence is about the worst way to achieve it.