Battle Royale exposes the weakness of AI.

[itkovian1128]

Why the civ 4 Firaxis can not do a good AI.

AI cv 6 does not know how to do meaningful army, nay could not take even one city.

In summary CIV6 is civ without war, I wanted to historical SimCity would buy another title.

I thought that after civ 5 developers Firaxis they took to heart that the game as Civilization is the most important is AI.

After today's simulation I am disgusted and apprehensive about the new civ.

 

[rastak]

I thought there was already a battle royale thread.

 

[Hajee]

blah blah blah.

really tho I see a better AI.

Why does the AI have to take city after city to be "Great" in your eyes

 

[Ashbery76]

blah blah blah.

really tho I see a better AI.

Why does the AI have to take city after city to be "Great" in your eyes

Because its supposed to be a STRATEGY game.

 

[itkovian1128]

I thought there was already a battle royale thread.

I do not write on the topics Battle Royale but therefore what conclusions can be drawn from it a matter of AI.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

This was to be expected... City States running around with Warriors in 1860 AD is pretty bad though, gotta say!

You better hope the multiplayer is up to scratch... They haven't shown anything about it since their early promises, so, I'd cross your toes along with your fingers.

EDIT: Ofc the minute I state that (almost literally), they promise to show off multiplayer tomorrow: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/58axgf/civilization_vi_livestream_tomorrow_multiplayer/
It's still a bad sign that they're doing it at the last minute, but hey, at least they're doing it.

 

[MistyRonin]

After today's simulation I am disgusted and apprehensive about the new civ.

Those are quite strong words, specially because it's not yet a final version. I mean, we're more then probably going to see important AI improvements for the next months, up to the first expansion.

In any case, the AI main dev said that they take up to three capitals, so I think it's quite fine for most games.

 

[Morningcalm]

Many of the staff that did Civ IV have moved on, and the lack of stacks of units means that the AI is terrible at combat, even with escort formations and increased stacking limits.

It would appear many of the Civ V staff and/or mentality stayed on. In some cases that's a good thing (Geoff Knorr for music), but in other cases it appears to be not-so-great (Civ V AI intellect imported into Civ VI).

 

[Cobalt_Blue]

"could not take" is a bit inaccurate, it had the ability in several wars but decided to peace out. Whether that is what should happen is a different matter.

A few things that are concerning me a lot so far:

• Two civs starting the space race in ~1800 on King. That is really early. What's Diety scaling going to look like?
• Very little trying to upgrade wayyyyyyy outdated units (SPACE WARRIORS, COSMIC CATAPULTS)
• Many of them making settlers, then just sitting them in their capitol for the whole game instead of expanding
• Russias expansion strategy of: bottom tip continent A, top tip continent A, south tip continent B, east tip continent B. 4 cites in and none touch or are close to each other.
• AI lead dev has NEVER seen an AI win a domination victory. Is that an okay thing??

 

[itkovian1128]

blah blah blah.

really tho I see a better AI.

Why does the AI have to take city after city to be "Great" in your eyes

Because the history of civilization is the history of war.

I have not seen massive unexpected attack. I saw an army of catapults or armies of warrior in the era of industrial.

As if the neighbor Brazil led least brainy man would soon be crushed.

About game with AI can forget and not everyone has the time to pick up at fixed times with people.

 

[Hajee]

Because its supposed to be a STRATEGY game.

If wanna play a war take city and battle all the time game go play Rome Total War.

Civ is not solely about war. war is a equal part to the game as research, explore and expand

 

[Ashbery76]

If wanna play a war take city and battle all the time game go play Rome Total War.

Civ is not solely about war. war is a equal part to the game as research, explore and expand

Yeah but not just for the player.Good A.I effects all these aspects.

 

[skyclad]

If wanna play a war take city and battle all the time game go play Rome Total War.

Civ is not solely about war. war is a equal part to the game as research, explore and expand

so why does the AI seem to mostly research, little expand, and almost no expand or war?

 

[pietro1990]

it didn't only expose the Ai olso major balance issues problems for multiplayer as well.

no niter or iron you can't upgrade youre highly promoted warriors ...
there is no option like civ 4where you could upgrade warriors to riflemen withouth first upgrading them to swordsman.

imagine if you conquered a civ with swordsman had masive promoted swordsman but you don't have niter you are bassicly screwed in multiplayer you can't upgrade to higher units.

and as we know promotions are brutal at one unit per tile

 

[MistyRonin]

Because its supposed to be a STRATEGY game.

Civ is a game about strategy in general (cultural, religious, technological, military), not only military strategy.

Merriam-Webster definition of strategy

1) a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time
2) the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy

 

[Hajee]

Yeah but not just for the player.Good A.I effects all these aspects.

The play the game with only a Dom VC.

The AI will pick a VC and go after that.

Cities should be hard to take, and if the AI sees that is it not so easy then the AI shows it can be smart by knowing it cant win a war so why start one.

 

[itkovian1128]

The play the game with only a Dom VC.

The AI will pick a VC and go after that.

Cities should be hard to take, and if the AI sees that is it not so easy then the AI shows it can be smart by knowing it cant win a war so why start one.

It is a pity that Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Macedonian had no computers.
They played by the Civ6 and to see how hard it is to take over the city and not led by any wars: D.

 

[Hajee]

It is a pity that Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Macedonian had no computers.
They played by the Civ6 and to see how hard it is to take over the city and not led by any wars: D.

Its a pity that we take real war with real lose of life and compare that to a video game

 

[Sansa_Stark]

it didn't only expose the Ai olso major balance issues problems for multiplayer as well.

no niter or iron you can't upgrade youre highly promoted warriors ...
there is no option like civ 4where you could upgrade warriors to riflemen withouth first upgrading them to swordsman.

imagine if you conquered a civ with swordsman had masive promoted swordsman but you don't have niter you are bassicly screwed in multiplayer you can't upgrade to higher units.

and as we know promotions are brutal at one unit per tile

You keep repeating this but was this confirmed somewhere? I wasn't fully concentrated on the stream but I think lead AI designer just said that you have a problem w/o iron and niter, not that you can't upgrade warriors at all. And I also think that in previous stream Ed specifically said that you can skip some steps in upgrade paths.

 

[Olleus]

AI cv 6 does not know how to do meaningful army, nay could not take even one city.

In summary CIV6 is civ without war, I wanted to historical SimCity would buy another title.

Why does the AI have to take city after city to be "Great" in your eyes

If wanna play a war take city and battle all the time game go play Rome Total War.

Civ is not solely about war. war is a equal part to the game as research, explore and expand

Civ is a game about strategy in general (cultural, religious, technological, military), not only military strategy.

Jesus Christ, you people are good at missing the point. You should get a medal for it.

Obviously civilization isn't just about war. I don't want an AI that can *only* do war. But nobody is arguing that the only way to play is on the always war setting.

The blatant point that you've managed to miss by a country mile is that war is a part of Civ6, and for an AI to be interesting to play against it has to be at least vaguely competent at each of the major themes. War is one of those themes and the AI is self-evidently useless at it. That is not ok. Pretending that it's fine is lunacy.

Imagine that the AI never researched anything. You would rightly complain that the AI is terrible as it is not competing in one of the major aspects of the game. Then I would try and defend it by saying "But civilization isn't just about research, look at how good it is at great people and culture." That may or may not be true, but I would be 100% missing the point. If the AI is crap at one core aspect of the game, it is crap at the game. Your defence of it is exactly this.