phryxolydian
Warlord
So, just like in CiV, eh? Damn, I expected this to be a very poor marketing choice by Firaxis but I'm glad they did it. I guess I really have to watch it now, maybe I'll be able to watch more than 20 mins.
Battle Royale exposes the weakness of AI.
- Thread starter itkovian1128
- Start date
I watched just a couple of Let's Play, and even then I didn't watch them to the end. But from what I saw (the devs botching an attack on Rome), the devs may not be the most adpet of players. Ironic, I know. Maybe they don't recognize the weakness of the current AI since the current AI is a challenge to them.
Oh Gods I hope that is not true.
As much as I do not want to see outdated Civ IV mechanics stuck into Civ VI, I do completely agree with you. This is one addition that would greatly improve the current norm.
Maybe they don't recognize the weakness of the current AI since the current AI is a challenge to them.
Oh Gods I hope that is not true.
I think they just pretend and make their own excuses. After all they can't just publicly criticize themselves
I don't know, but I lost the urge to play. Months of waiting to be put off by the AI.
I think I will play CP instead.
Plus Ultra
Conquistador
Just breath in, breath out. Everything is going to be ok.
Let's play a couple of games tomorrow on different difficulty levels before we panic, shall we?
Let's play a couple of games tomorrow on different difficulty levels before we panic, shall we?
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,756
Yes, at this point the shiny new mechanics will be more interesting to me than a challenging AI anyhow
ImperialGuard
Prince
I was pleased to see that they had at least one guy dedicated to the AI (and not the designers coding the AI), and from listening to him during the "Battle Royale", he appeared competent.
There were a couple times, I got a sense that there may "internal differences" between the "design team" and the "AI team". At one point I interpreted that he was actually complaining about a design constraint that was causing his AI to do stupid things. Glad to see the guy seemed invested in the AI and actually wants to make it good.
Also, interesting how he said that on "King and above", the AI will actively pursue eureka's bonuses, but below King, it does not.
There were some really dumb things the AI was doing (Russia settling strategy, Rome not attacking with big army) but I think over time some of these things will be polished a bit ... Of course, it will never be enough though
There were a couple times, I got a sense that there may "internal differences" between the "design team" and the "AI team". At one point I interpreted that he was actually complaining about a design constraint that was causing his AI to do stupid things. Glad to see the guy seemed invested in the AI and actually wants to make it good.
Also, interesting how he said that on "King and above", the AI will actively pursue eureka's bonuses, but below King, it does not.
There were some really dumb things the AI was doing (Russia settling strategy, Rome not attacking with big army) but I think over time some of these things will be polished a bit ... Of course, it will never be enough though
Last edited:
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,756
I didn't get to watch the stream, but can't say I like that at all.
MisterBoomBoom
King
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 700
Sorry if this has already been addressed but a note regarding the AI.
IF the AI checks the victory types available to it and then picks a path based on its agendas, would it not make sense perhaps to have the AI reevaluate and reset a few times during the game?
IF the AI checks the victory types available to it and then picks a path based on its agendas, would it not make sense perhaps to have the AI reevaluate and reset a few times during the game?
I found it interesting when he mentioned that the AI uses a window of about 100 turns lookahead for planning some of its actions. This is certainly one for a few things, but nice anyway.
MisterBoomBoom
King
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 700
Five things stuck out to me with last nights Battle royal.
1) The latter eras war mongering penalties seem to make the AI shy away from any major conflicts or opportunity to turn the tide toward a better path to victory. To its credit the Aztecs DID keep building a strong military seemingly to defend against any CIv wanting to slow it down. I also LOVED that they had two different types of victories in hand (Culture and Science).
2) Forward settling. Ugh. But improved...Greece/Japan each had somewhat organized & compact empires. Likewise, those Civs like England and Spain with agendas and bonuses based on overseas/different continental settlement chose not to.
3) AI still building settlers with virtually no use. Japan did forward settle, very late, a snow tile next to a river. Perhaps more Razing of cities would open up property. Likewise it took a real long time for that tiny island to be settled. That could have been solely a resource based decision...but those were turned off.
4) Navies and sea trade routes seemed to be window dressing and non existent.
5) A comment from one of the developers stating he had never seen a domination victory during the AI battle games he setup for testing purposes. IMHO every once in a while the world/game "needs" a global threat to peace and all its consequences.
1) The latter eras war mongering penalties seem to make the AI shy away from any major conflicts or opportunity to turn the tide toward a better path to victory. To its credit the Aztecs DID keep building a strong military seemingly to defend against any CIv wanting to slow it down. I also LOVED that they had two different types of victories in hand (Culture and Science).
2) Forward settling. Ugh. But improved...Greece/Japan each had somewhat organized & compact empires. Likewise, those Civs like England and Spain with agendas and bonuses based on overseas/different continental settlement chose not to.
3) AI still building settlers with virtually no use. Japan did forward settle, very late, a snow tile next to a river. Perhaps more Razing of cities would open up property. Likewise it took a real long time for that tiny island to be settled. That could have been solely a resource based decision...but those were turned off.
4) Navies and sea trade routes seemed to be window dressing and non existent.
5) A comment from one of the developers stating he had never seen a domination victory during the AI battle games he setup for testing purposes. IMHO every once in a while the world/game "needs" a global threat to peace and all its consequences.
Last edited:
MisterBoomBoom
King
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 700
It would seem that some better out of the box thinking regarding city states is also needed. By this I mean-
1) At some point allowing a City state to become part of an empire without conquest. We ARE inching back toward this mechanic it would seem with the levying of armies. But what good are archers against modern units which is what we saw last night?
2) The ******** growth exhibited by city states would be suited to #1 above or EXPANSION or even merger between fellow city states.
3) Some city/states simply fail. Which leads me to wonder are Barbs able to conquer and raze a city? Has this been observed?
1) At some point allowing a City state to become part of an empire without conquest. We ARE inching back toward this mechanic it would seem with the levying of armies. But what good are archers against modern units which is what we saw last night?
2) The ******** growth exhibited by city states would be suited to #1 above or EXPANSION or even merger between fellow city states.
3) Some city/states simply fail. Which leads me to wonder are Barbs able to conquer and raze a city? Has this been observed?
nerovipusqc
Chieftain
They did mentioned that the battle royal game was modified and not the released game.
I know and he knew the issues with his AI, but never told us how he intended to fix things. He blamed the lack of resources for the AI not upgrading units. Seriously though is every single AI civ on a standard map missing the required resources to upgrade units? If so this is a severe development issue.
pietro1990
King
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 612
warmonger penalty is broken. if you declare one time everyone denounces you. Even if you use the formal war.
deouncing someone and then wait 5 or more turns and declare a formal war still cause everyone to denounces you.
deouncing someone and then wait 5 or more turns and declare a formal war still cause everyone to denounces you.
People saying Civ is not solely about war are correct, it is also about exploration, expansion, commercial development, culture, science, religion etc... and the AI seems to have done an okay job in those departments (apart from some obvious bugs like Russia expanding only in the poles, which I guess is a result of its preference for tundras but that can be easily balanced I supposed)
Now, war is also an important part of the civ game, because it represents a constant threat. Your cultural empire might be destroyed by the Scythians, the Brazilians stole your city spot, you need that Iron the Romans have, Fredrick controls all of the city states of Europe and you´re playing as Pericles, all of these are causes for war.
If the AI doesn´t represent a challenge (it doesn´t have to be perfect), then you can build your culture up and not be afraid of any outside threat, no need to build military that slows you down. Brazil stole your city spot who cares? In a hundred years you´ll take the city without opposition, need that Iron? Just attack Rome, you know you´ll take it from them... starting next to Mongolia with Genghis programmed to go on a rampage?... no need to be afraid he can´t even scratch your city walls
The point of war is that it creates a balance, a constant threat or weapon depending on the human player´s style. But it can only be a challenge if the AI is able to play with this dimention of the game.
The fact that the AI has never been able to win a domination victory against other AIs, that it does not upgrade its units and that it does not attack with the units it produces and just lets them hang around is a catastrophe, because it means the AI can´t play the military game which, besides representing a possible victory path, is an important element to the balance of the game. That´s why it baffles me that Firaxis openly shows the defects of its AI just 1 day prior to release. This Should not happen. The AI we all know will never be perfect and it doesn´t matter, it only has to be a challenge for the human player. But it has to at least be a challenge
Now, war is also an important part of the civ game, because it represents a constant threat. Your cultural empire might be destroyed by the Scythians, the Brazilians stole your city spot, you need that Iron the Romans have, Fredrick controls all of the city states of Europe and you´re playing as Pericles, all of these are causes for war.
If the AI doesn´t represent a challenge (it doesn´t have to be perfect), then you can build your culture up and not be afraid of any outside threat, no need to build military that slows you down. Brazil stole your city spot who cares? In a hundred years you´ll take the city without opposition, need that Iron? Just attack Rome, you know you´ll take it from them... starting next to Mongolia with Genghis programmed to go on a rampage?... no need to be afraid he can´t even scratch your city walls
The point of war is that it creates a balance, a constant threat or weapon depending on the human player´s style. But it can only be a challenge if the AI is able to play with this dimention of the game.
The fact that the AI has never been able to win a domination victory against other AIs, that it does not upgrade its units and that it does not attack with the units it produces and just lets them hang around is a catastrophe, because it means the AI can´t play the military game which, besides representing a possible victory path, is an important element to the balance of the game. That´s why it baffles me that Firaxis openly shows the defects of its AI just 1 day prior to release. This Should not happen. The AI we all know will never be perfect and it doesn´t matter, it only has to be a challenge for the human player. But it has to at least be a challenge
Similar threads
