Battle Royale exposes the weakness of AI.

[Ashbery76]

How many big "civs" took each of them (not counting city-states that represent minor nations)? 2-4?

Remember that the AI lead said that he has seen civs that took up to 3 capitals.

Hitler: France and Norway

Napoleon: Germany, France and Spain

Alexander: Egypt and Persia

To be fair these places were not 6 towns a Civ,lol.

 

[pietro1990]

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.

if you can upgrade to infantry why doens't the Ai do it.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Apparently the AIs' reluctance to upgrade their units is due to there being no resources on this map (Iron, Niter). Makes you wonder why they'd turn them off, though. It will only confuse the watchers and spread rumors about bad AI (well, even worse than it actually is ).

EDIT: Ninja'd I see, but point #2 still stands.

 

[Hajee]

Seems to me the AI knows the agenda system very well, and plays with and around the other AIs agenda. If the AI has no need for war then it is good the AI just does not go to war for baseless reason

This shows a smart AI, as it does not wish to get warmonger, and unhappy civs. a CIV game is not determined by WAR alone.

Again if u wish for all out war play Rome Total war or play civ 6 with only a DOM VC on

But I for one hated in civ 5 the AI taking over half of the other civs of the middle ages, and when u get to the late game there is only 3 AI civs left, and those AIs are so backwords in techs.

 

[Manifold]

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

Why there are so many military units, the hex fields, diplomacy... in game?
I said it months ago Genghis Khan indispensable for a strategy game.

Going to War was always the main element of the Civ games. It is the only way to stop another player from a snowball alternative victory by science.

But I guess programming an aggressive AI is most easy. Just give the AI every round 10 new units for 1 production point like cheating.

 

[Ashbery76]

Seems to me the AI knows the agenda system very well, and plays with and around the other AIs agenda. If the AI has no need for war then it is good the AI just does not go to war for baseless reason

This shows a smart AI, as it does not wish to get warmonger, and unhappy civs. a CIV game is not determined by WAR alone.

Again if u wish for all out war play Rome Total war or play civ 6 with only a DOM VC on

But I for one hated in civ 5 the AI taking over half of the other civs of the middle ages, and when u get to the late game there is only 3 AI civs left, and those AIs are so backwords in techs.

You don't seem to get it.Nobody is asking for warmonger A.I's but A.I can can understand how to war when needed.

 

[pietro1990]

I see you completely ignored my previous rebuttal of your strawman argument.

I want to play a civ game where I cannot utterly neglect my military (which is roughly ~1/3 of what can be built in cities). I want to play a civ game where an offensive war by me is not 100% guaranteed to be a success. I want a civ game where my opponents do not ignore one of the major aspects of the game.

What then? The AI can be great at one aspect of the diplomacy of the game, but that isn't enough for the AI to be good or fun to play against.

Note that I am not asking for an AI that always wages war and only builds units. I am not asking for that. No one is asking for that. Civilization is a strategy game. At the moment its blatantly clear that the best strategy is "Build 3 archers and a warrior -> take over the world." Do you understand that this is a bad thing? I cannot think of any simpler way to spell it out to you.

A game have to punish you for making bad decissions having no military is a big mistake .. can cause leaders to declare war becaue you are weak. that happened a lot in civ 5

 

[Tatran]

After all those 'Battle Royale' games the AI never managed to get (close to) a Domination victory. No surprise. I haven't seen the AI in civ 5 capturing all capitals.
So, it's crystal clear this victory type needs to be changed. A new type of a vassal system, like in civ 4, is required to make this victory type work.

In all the 'let's play civ 6' I missed the action on the board. The whole 1 upt battle system was not fun in civ 5 and still isn't fun.
All the conversation between the human players tries to cover up the in game boredom. I enjoyed the talk between Marbozir and Quill18 in their Deity twins civ 5 games, but after
re-installing civ 5 I got fooled again.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Yeah, it's looking like it's going to be really easy to conquer the map with a handful of ranged units again. Oh well. I hope my initial impression turns out to be wrong.

I think I'll still enjoy going for culture victories and playing peacefully. But there's just no fun to be had in gradually picking off completely helpless AI units. It's a shame since Domination victories used to be by far my favorite (they were pretty much all I ever went for in Civ IV).

And of course, even culture or science games lose a lot of tension and fun if the AI poses no credible invasion threat. Ever since they implemented 1UPT, it never has. Cities are just too tough for the AI to crack. Back when stacks were a thing, though, a larger and more advanced AI would crush you if it declared war on you. In my opinion, that was a good thing.

 

[Hajee]

I see you completely ignored my previous rebuttal of your strawman argument.

I want to play a civ game where I cannot utterly neglect my military (which is roughly ~1/3 of what can be built in cities). I want to play a civ game where an offensive war by me is not 100% guaranteed to be a success. I want a civ game where my opponents do not ignore one of the major aspects of the game.

What then? The AI can be great at one aspect of the diplomacy of the game, but that isn't enough for the AI to be good or fun to play against.

Note that I am not asking for an AI that always wages war and only builds units. I am not asking for that. No one is asking for that. Civilization is a strategy game. At the moment its blatantly clear that the best strategy is "Build 3 archers and a warrior -> take over the world." Do you understand that this is a bad thing? I cannot think of any simpler way to spell it out to you.

smh

again if u wish to play a grand ARMY always fighting go play Total war games.

in the stream the AI has a large army is well defended.

The AI is choosing to win by SCI and CUL, thus does not need war.

 

[Acken]

After all those 'Battle Royale' games the AI never managed to get (close to) a Domination victory. No surprise. I haven't seen the AI in civ 5 capturing all capitals.
So, it's crystal clear this victory type needs to be changed.

Not at all. I've seen my own AI manage some T300ish dom victories on pangeas.

It's only a matter of agressivity, map layout and decreasing defender advantage.

 

[pietro1990]

After all those 'Battle Royale' games the AI never managed to get (close to) a Domination victory. No surprise. I haven't seen the AI in civ 5 capturing all capitals.
So, it's crystal clear this victory type needs to be changed. A new type of a vassal system, like in civ 4, is required to make this victory type work.

In all the 'let's play civ 6' I missed the action on the board. The whole 1 upt battle system was not fun in civ 5 and still isn't fun.
All the conversion between the human players tries to cover up the in game boredom. I enjoyed the talk between Marbozir and Quill18 in their Deity twins civ 5 games, but after
re-installing civ 5 I got fooled again.

i've seen alexander or other agressive AI runaway with the game wich means spamming cities and conquering a AI. i

 

[Hajee]

Also would like to point out the some civs which are more aggressive and have agendas that are likey to casue more war are not in this stream ie Norway, Egypt, German etc

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Also would like to point out the some civs which are more aggressive and have agendas that are likey to casue more war are not in this stream ie Norway, Egypt, German etc

Kind of crazy not to put those in there. This is a battle royale!

 

[pietro1990]

Also would like to point out the some civs which are more aggressive and have agendas that are likey to casue more war are not in this stream ie Norway, Egypt, German etc

montezuma?

 

[criZp]

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

Go ahead and tell us of the better AI we others missed.

And drop your straw men, you're going nowhere with them, nobody said total war 24/7.

AI needs to be capable of combat to not be a pushover and to add more variety to games

 

[Hajee]

montezuma?

key word some, in my statement

and montezuma did take cites btw

 

[criZp]

Also would like to point out the some civs which are more aggressive and have agendas that are likey to casue more war are not in this stream ie Norway, Egypt, German etc

Plenty of aggressive civs in there

 

[Acken]

I find it surprising it surprises people that much that a civ game in vanilla will have issues. At least for once the gameplay looks interesting.

It's sad but I expected this since the announcement.

 

[Hajee]

I'm so sorry. I should have realised that you can't read earlier. I wrote in big bold letters, and then repeated it, that I don't want to always be fighting. Just that having an opponent that can sometimes fight is a keystone in civilization games.

But you clearly couldn't read that. My condolences, I can only imagine how hard it must be to have a meaningful life when illiterate in this day and age. I hope you'll find the help you need.

No reason to be rude nor make condensing remarks.

The Mods should remove your post, the whole post as it is filled with hate, and foul words not based in reality, nor should be in the forums.

I ask the mods to censor your whole post for violations of the rules, not just the rules on this forums, but the rules based on a CIVIL society

" Just that having an opponent that can sometimes fight is a keystone in civilization games. "
The AI has through out this game fought many times.

So I ask you how often should the AI fight for you to feel comfortable?

Moderator Action: Addressing other users in this manner is trolling, and also violates this site's rules about appropriate language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889