Bye for now, Civ 6 - It was nice getting to know you
- Thread starter SCBrain
- Start date
- Status
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Here, fixed that for you bro.
It's quite frustrating to make posts on game AI only to have them completely ignored in favour of more recommendations to just "put in the CiV / Vox Populii AI code".
That will not work.
It is a bad suggestion.
Maybe putting it in clear terms will get people disagreeing with me, I don't care. I'm just tired of people suggesting something that won't get anywhere near improving the AI in Civilisation 6.
That will not work.
It is a bad suggestion.
Maybe putting it in clear terms will get people disagreeing with me, I don't care. I'm just tired of people suggesting something that won't get anywhere near improving the AI in Civilisation 6.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
While my response was more of ironic amusement concerning Civ V's AI, I will endeavor to share my opinion towards your comment, Gorbles.
Your quite right in that VP will not work for Civ 6, and that it was a bad suggestion ( however ironically amusing that may have been). The main reason is that VP will not work for 6, as it was specifically created for Civ V AI. My best guess is that the talented modders of VP may be working on a similar mod for 6, providing they get all the tools necessary for them to create the mod.
However, with that said, I am curious as to your rather single minded viewpoint concerning Civ 6 ( and I mean no disrespect here), especially considering there have been well articulated counter-arguments concerning this topic by some of the vets on these boards. You will occasionally agree with some points made, but overall, you seem unwilling to entertain the idea that other posters conjectures may have validity concerning the OP's opening thesis. Why?
The AI is trash, despite the occasional posts stating that the AI managed to surprise a player ( on Diety diff, IIRC).
The UI is horrible, even after the patch.
TT's, even on a high end rig, are ridiculously long.
Units are still OP'd, and UP'd depending on type.
Information that a player needs is still hidden, incomplete, or takes forever to view when hovering.
This is just a few issues from a rather lengthy list, that should have been found before launch from a triple AAA company.
Look, I do my best to try to understand the viewpoints of posters on these boards. But your rather narrow focus ( again, no offense intended) on this particular topic is puzzling.
Your quite right in that VP will not work for Civ 6, and that it was a bad suggestion ( however ironically amusing that may have been). The main reason is that VP will not work for 6, as it was specifically created for Civ V AI. My best guess is that the talented modders of VP may be working on a similar mod for 6, providing they get all the tools necessary for them to create the mod.
However, with that said, I am curious as to your rather single minded viewpoint concerning Civ 6 ( and I mean no disrespect here), especially considering there have been well articulated counter-arguments concerning this topic by some of the vets on these boards. You will occasionally agree with some points made, but overall, you seem unwilling to entertain the idea that other posters conjectures may have validity concerning the OP's opening thesis. Why?
The AI is trash, despite the occasional posts stating that the AI managed to surprise a player ( on Diety diff, IIRC).
The UI is horrible, even after the patch.
TT's, even on a high end rig, are ridiculously long.
Units are still OP'd, and UP'd depending on type.
Information that a player needs is still hidden, incomplete, or takes forever to view when hovering.
This is just a few issues from a rather lengthy list, that should have been found before launch from a triple AAA company.
Look, I do my best to try to understand the viewpoints of posters on these boards. But your rather narrow focus ( again, no offense intended) on this particular topic is puzzling.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
In my personal opinion? Oh hell yeah.
ProMeTheus112
Warlord
That's what it looks like to me, a release date was set way before the game was ready to have a release date. As a consequence I'm skipping it entirely :/ I really wanted to play it, but not anymore.
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,706
I think there's much truth to this. The growing popularity of looking up tips and tricks online has put a much higher demand on games. I'm sure a lot of the games that were released back in the 80s-90s contained game breaking bugs and exploits, only most people would never know about them.
Civfanatics might have been around long before 05, but it's also true that it wasn't as useful as it is now. I wasn't around myself yet, but it's my understanding that when Civ IV was released, deity was considered unbeatable in a normal game. Not much help from the forum if that is the case. I also know that Civ IV is such a complex game that it took years to develop the best strategies, and superior strategies to what we've known before are being developed still today. If you look at any Civ IV strategy article written in the first 6-7 years after the game's release, it's pretty much guaranteed to contain mostly really bad advice when measured at today's standards. I see this here in the Civ VI forums a lot also when people talk about IV. People say IV was all about cottages. No, cottages suck. People say there was only two options, you had to choose between CE and SE. No, both options suck. Basically, by the time Civ V was released, the community hadn't yet figured out how to play Civ IV efficiently.
Players getting better is certainly true, particularly noticeable here on CFC with veterans around who have been learning here for years. If it wasn't for CFC, I'm sure I would also find Civ VI a decently challenging game. I've played Civ since Civ I, played the first three games in the series a lot and played Civ IV since the day it was released. I never looked for advice online, just played on my own, and when I eventually joined CFC in 2012 I was so proud that I had just won my first Prince game in Civ IV. (A game with Cyrus where I used lots of Great Generals and heavily promoted units, a strategy I thought was so super cool that it led me to pick this screen name, which I have hated ever since.) After joining CFC I quickly learned that I didn't know anything at all about how to play the game. Hanging around in the Civ IV forums, and in particular playing SGOTM with much better players, like Fippy, completely reshaped the way I'm thinking about the game. Beating Civ IV on deity or competing today with the top players in HoF or SGOTM requires a very analytical approach with the outcome and benefits of all decisions carefully weighed. When this kind of thinking is applied to Civ VI, it becomes a walk in the park. Someone was saying peaceful deity is hard, it's not. The deity economic bonuses don't stand a chance against a human with a well thought out strategy.
So far I've completed a couple of science victories, one domination victory and one 100% peaceful culture victory on deity. The longest game I've ever played, also the first game I ever played, lasted until turn 225 (emperor/science). So far I haven't even played the OP civs, like Sumeria, Scythia and Germany. What scares me is that I know I'm still totally clueless when it comes to best strategy. If I keep playing this game, then in a couple of years I will be looking back at these early games thinking "omg, I was such a noob back then". I also know that a lot of the things people now in the first few weeks after the release describe as "optimal strategy" will be considered horribly bad once people figure out the game. So the question is, how easy will this game become once we figure out how to really play it? Hopefully we will see a lot of AI fixes and balance patches until then to make it more challenging.
Last edited:
Dicemechanic
Chieftain
I think this is true, we pick up the optimal strategies much more quickly now. But to my mind, the issue with the AI isn't about subtle nuances, it's really the basics. Playing on Emperor, I went for a Domination victory. My usual play style is quite slow and measured, so this doesn't come naturally to me and I've certainly made lots of mistakes along the way. But having finally made up some ground, virtually conquered my continent, I sent all of my non-garrison forces to battle America, the 2nd largest nation and a clear leader on science (I'd gimped my science to try to keep district costs as low as possible for my sprawling empire). My cavalry, artillery and field cannons (ably supported by 8 battleships thanks to Venetian Armory) sailed over and captured New York with virtually no resistance. I moved on to Washington and prepared to take the capital. America responded, with 1 modern armour appearing on the edge of the fog of war. Meanwhile, back home, a single helicopter unit that had been scouting my home continent, flew into my territories. Squeaky bum time...
Back home, that helicopter made short work of a two cavalry and one field cannon. It was going through my meagre forces like a hot knife through butter. With city bombardment, I managed to dent it enough to cause it to retreat.
I saw off that single unit. A turn later, another modern armour and an AT unit appeared. That was it. The sum total of America's response. Washington fell, and America immediately sued for peace, not only ceding NY and Washington, but throwing 3 other cities into the mix without even being asked.
In old Civs, American would have had armies rolling in to defend their territory, piles and piles of units. Any victory would have been hard won and at great cost. As it happened, I captured 5 cities for the loss of no units.
In addition, there was no response from America's 4 neighbouring Civs. They should have either taken advantage of the distraction to capture a border city of two for themselves, or joined forces with the US to support the lesser of two evils.
These things don't require complex algorithms to program into the AI.
Minimum army size = 1.5 x Cities + Cities/Cities^1.2 (or something like that)
(can tweak the variables based on Civ and some assessment of global/local threat - anyone on my borders should have it increased by at least 50%! Embassies and Spies become more important to improve Civ's knowledge of military strength)
If (Disposition (Invader) + Estimated Threat)/(Disposition (Defender) + Estimated Defence) ...
>1.2, Declare War (Defender)
<0.8, Declare War (Invader)
Rule 1 means they will have enough troops to back up whatever decision they take. Rule 2 gives a very rule to make that decision. Something simple like this would revolutionise the strategic AI.
Back home, that helicopter made short work of a two cavalry and one field cannon. It was going through my meagre forces like a hot knife through butter. With city bombardment, I managed to dent it enough to cause it to retreat.
I saw off that single unit. A turn later, another modern armour and an AT unit appeared. That was it. The sum total of America's response. Washington fell, and America immediately sued for peace, not only ceding NY and Washington, but throwing 3 other cities into the mix without even being asked.
In old Civs, American would have had armies rolling in to defend their territory, piles and piles of units. Any victory would have been hard won and at great cost. As it happened, I captured 5 cities for the loss of no units.
In addition, there was no response from America's 4 neighbouring Civs. They should have either taken advantage of the distraction to capture a border city of two for themselves, or joined forces with the US to support the lesser of two evils.
These things don't require complex algorithms to program into the AI.
Minimum army size = 1.5 x Cities + Cities/Cities^1.2 (or something like that)
(can tweak the variables based on Civ and some assessment of global/local threat - anyone on my borders should have it increased by at least 50%! Embassies and Spies become more important to improve Civ's knowledge of military strength)
If (Disposition (Invader) + Estimated Threat)/(Disposition (Defender) + Estimated Defence) ...
>1.2, Declare War (Defender)
<0.8, Declare War (Invader)
Rule 1 means they will have enough troops to back up whatever decision they take. Rule 2 gives a very rule to make that decision. Something simple like this would revolutionise the strategic AI.
While I'm not going to say the AI doesn't need work, again, I think you're vastly simplifying the AI routines required for unit preservation (and stockpiling).
For example, City-States are excellent (perhaps too keen) at maintaining giant armies. But they only ever have a single City to focus on. Barbarians are decent enough too (if reluctant to siege Cities) but have no City to care about.
Enforcing a minimum army size would impact AI build orders, economic priorities and their ability to gun for both Districts and Wonders. Like a player, they're meant to be able to adapt, and not be forced to some baseline of military spending.
You also don't know the existing routines because your multi-aggressor logic could already be implemented. After all, AIs can declare war at the same time, and can declare war independently of any player agency or action. However, it could be being superceded by Agenda weighting which leads to heavy-handed denouncements leading straight into war, and so on.
You don't consider any of the related AI routines when suggesting the logic that you say isn't complicated. Well, if you exclude them all, then of course it won't be.
If I don't argue with a point it's because either I have no information on it, or I don't disagree with it. Again, generally how all posters work. You'll notice a weight towards criticism over praise, and that just isn't because of the state of the product; it's how all discourse generally evolves over time (especially on a particular topic). People don't argue over things they agree on, by definition. People argue over things they disagree on, which includes the validity of the other person's disagreement.
I've responded to plenty of other well-articulated posts, several in this thread alone. That said, the status of someone as a "veteran" means very little here, as even peoples' pedigrees as software developers are seen as "making an argument from authority" (which is a misapplication of the fallacy because it only applies in a discussion with equal grounding).
To your list specifically, in order:
1. The AI is arguable. It suffers against higher-skilled players more than it does against less-skilled players, and CFC has a specific weighting towards a higher-skilled playerbase (on average) compared to the average Steam player. Further to this, simply saying "the AI is bad" doesn't help anyone or anything. Which is why I've been trying to point out what is constructive r.e. AI improvements and what isn't ("lol CiV AI works better").
2. The UI definitely needs a lot of work, even from the perspective of giving each area equal polish. Some widgets are noticeably more placeholder and out-of-theme from the Age of Exploration than others.
3. Performance is always arguable. I see comparable times to Beyond Earth (though I haven't exactly labbed it), which vastly improved on CiV (and said improvements were backported at least in part to CiV I think, resulting in improved turn performance there, later in BNW's lifecycle).
4. Unit balance is a delicate thing and I think we need more playtime before going "stuff is OP". I think unit / upgrade pacing needs work before we can say ranged is better than melee, or anti-cavalry is better than dedicated melee, etc. I've seen complaints that ranged is too useful counterargued by pointing out their frailty in melee combat. Mounted melee units definitely have an advantage, and I honestly think people just need to get used to the new movement rules. You can call them worse, but the sooner people accept they're here to stay, the sooner their own playstyles will evolve to suit.
5. UI and UX. The information is there, just buried. See point 2.
For example, City-States are excellent (perhaps too keen) at maintaining giant armies. But they only ever have a single City to focus on. Barbarians are decent enough too (if reluctant to siege Cities) but have no City to care about.
Enforcing a minimum army size would impact AI build orders, economic priorities and their ability to gun for both Districts and Wonders. Like a player, they're meant to be able to adapt, and not be forced to some baseline of military spending.
You also don't know the existing routines because your multi-aggressor logic could already be implemented. After all, AIs can declare war at the same time, and can declare war independently of any player agency or action. However, it could be being superceded by Agenda weighting which leads to heavy-handed denouncements leading straight into war, and so on.
You don't consider any of the related AI routines when suggesting the logic that you say isn't complicated. Well, if you exclude them all, then of course it won't be.
Because people keep talking about it? Generally how threads go, really.
If I don't argue with a point it's because either I have no information on it, or I don't disagree with it. Again, generally how all posters work. You'll notice a weight towards criticism over praise, and that just isn't because of the state of the product; it's how all discourse generally evolves over time (especially on a particular topic). People don't argue over things they agree on, by definition. People argue over things they disagree on, which includes the validity of the other person's disagreement.
I've responded to plenty of other well-articulated posts, several in this thread alone. That said, the status of someone as a "veteran" means very little here, as even peoples' pedigrees as software developers are seen as "making an argument from authority" (which is a misapplication of the fallacy because it only applies in a discussion with equal grounding).
To your list specifically, in order:
1. The AI is arguable. It suffers against higher-skilled players more than it does against less-skilled players, and CFC has a specific weighting towards a higher-skilled playerbase (on average) compared to the average Steam player. Further to this, simply saying "the AI is bad" doesn't help anyone or anything. Which is why I've been trying to point out what is constructive r.e. AI improvements and what isn't ("lol CiV AI works better").
2. The UI definitely needs a lot of work, even from the perspective of giving each area equal polish. Some widgets are noticeably more placeholder and out-of-theme from the Age of Exploration than others.
3. Performance is always arguable. I see comparable times to Beyond Earth (though I haven't exactly labbed it), which vastly improved on CiV (and said improvements were backported at least in part to CiV I think, resulting in improved turn performance there, later in BNW's lifecycle).
4. Unit balance is a delicate thing and I think we need more playtime before going "stuff is OP". I think unit / upgrade pacing needs work before we can say ranged is better than melee, or anti-cavalry is better than dedicated melee, etc. I've seen complaints that ranged is too useful counterargued by pointing out their frailty in melee combat. Mounted melee units definitely have an advantage, and I honestly think people just need to get used to the new movement rules. You can call them worse, but the sooner people accept they're here to stay, the sooner their own playstyles will evolve to suit.
5. UI and UX. The information is there, just buried. See point 2.
Last edited:
SupremacyKing2
Deity
You do realize that civ6 and civ5 have different features? The civ5 AI would not work with civ6 because the civ5 AI would not know how to use any of the civ6 features like armies, corps, districts, placing wonders on the map, etc...
bladex
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,358
easily added.
bladex
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,358
Part of the problem is that you're all basically cheating by being here and now being privvy to all the best knowledge of tactics in the game and then turn around complaining about how its too easy. With maybe the exception of a few of you who trail blazed on getting the information in the first place. As you've went through the iterations you've learned either by picking other people's noggins or on your own how to maximize your playing efficiency.
Gee, I wonder why all the wonder is gone for you. Almost like complaining about a game being too easy after following a walk thru. I see some people here has been picking this game apart for decades.. sorry they don't cater to you're particular level of expertise on this series.
Gee, I wonder why all the wonder is gone for you. Almost like complaining about a game being too easy after following a walk thru. I see some people here has been picking this game apart for decades.. sorry they don't cater to you're particular level of expertise on this series.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
The potential for complexity is there in civ style games, in fact civ 6 has enough baseline mechanics that they could make it plenty (better tech tree with less obvious tradeoffs to pursue Eurekas, expand on support unit model + balance ranged/mounted, mess with city vs district scaling a bit). EU 4 has tons of relatively shallow concepts that interact. It's a different style, and even that tosses realism aside constantly.
What both games need to do is have a consistent line where realism/gameplay is drawn and make the decisions offered interesting.
AI is something where I'm usually a bit more lax on developers in evaluating a game. The reason is evidence; we've seen good or at least leagues better UIs in many games in many genres (old warlords games, starcraft 2 or even new bliz stuff like overwatch, HOMM HD, mods of civilization, numerous Nintendo games, etc). AI is substantially harder and seeing a good one is rare.
That said, it's not a 100% pass. The reason is the somewhat lost art of compensating AI with design to a degree. I thought of this when reading one of Sulla's summaries on GalCiv and he mentioned that the MOO 2 setup versus the hex board in GalCiv made the game a lot easier on the MOO AI programming. To a degree, the AI inadequacy can be masked by design of the game's systems. That's a balancing act too, because it can cut into the depth of systems too much if overdone.
Civ 6 tactical AI is a good example there. The way the game is tuned (ranged/mounted combinations being straight OP'd, focus fire, difficult terrain variation) makes an already not-so-easy task of programming the AI to be decent harder. They didn't do themselves any favors with the controversial terrain movement change, while leaving melee at 2 moves but having the AI build melee. Putting in dedicated siege units instead of making all of them support akin to rams/towers also puts a burden on the AI; now it will sometimes build catapults x3 or x4 and limit its own ability to deal ranged damage in field combat. These design decisions are little things but they can add up pretty quickly as burdens to making the AI perform decently.
Stringer1313
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,174
I think the complaint is that there shouldn't be a "walk thru" to begin with --- at least not this early upon release, and not a "walk thru" that is so easy to counter with competent AI. I am a casual player who has never beat Emperor in any Civ game --- I posted another thread about this and someone suggested just building 3 archers to defend and then immediately spamming 6-8 cities with Commercial Hubs. I'm still in the middle of the game so we'll see, but so far this "strategy" seems to be working b/c the only Civ that has declared war on me so far has sent like 2 units which were easily destroyed by my archers. But I'm not finished yet so we'll see --- but I'm at the mid-game and my score is already comparable to the other civs' scores (again which NEVER happens to me in Emperor esp when I haven't captured a single city).
Anyways, I'm still not on the "AI totally sucks" train yet but I'm trying to capture what I understand people to be saying.
Magil
Monarch
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,618
I don't think this is particularly fair. I can still go back to IV or, frankly, even V, and have a more difficult time winning on the harder difficulties than in VI, even with the wealth of information available to me on those older games. Seems like a false assumption you're making to me.
What I find interesting is people posting their suggestions here on how Firaxis should 'proceed', knowing full well that they will not take on board any of your suggestions for Civ6. They might add new stuff and make some 'tweaks' but there's no chance that they will revisit fundamental gameplay mechanics.
The horse has bolted and we've all been ripped off.
This is why they should have put much more thought into it before rushing it out.
You can polish a turd ...
The horse has bolted and we've all been ripped off.
This is why they should have put much more thought into it before rushing it out.
You can polish a turd ...
- Status
Similar threads
